I've been curious about the sonic differences between a Shibata and micro-line stylus since buying my first "advanced stylus" (AT-VM95ML) last year. I've put a few hundred (300'ish) hours on my ML and recently decided to get a replacement stylus for good measure, and then decided to get the Shibata stylus for the fun of comparison. I've had the Shibata on my tonearm for about 2 weeks now, which is used for a minimum of 1-2 hours everyday. Below is my unsolicited opinion of differences between the two. I tried my best to keep the comparison on an even playing field. The SH is mounted to my stock Technics headshell and the ML is mounted to an Audio Technica HS6 headshell. Overhang was set with the Technics gauge. I had to adjust the tracking force between each headshell swap as the HS6 is heavier. There is a minor discrepancy in VTA using the two different headshells so I split the difference and left it that way for the test. The VTA wound up being very close to "ideal" for both. It took me ~ 1-2 minutes to swap between headshells and resume listening, setting VTF @ 2 grams each swap. I rarely use the tone controls on my amp and they were bypassed for this shootout, running my Yamaha A-S801 in "Pure Direct" mode. The high frequency attenuators on my JBL L82's were set to 0 and I listened with the grills off. I matched listening volume by ear to the best of my abilities. I chose 4 LP's that I'm familiar with, that are clean, and in excellent condition, with one exception being that the first LP has a single skip, which I wanted to use to compare how each stylus tracked through. I'd listen to a couple of tracks, swap headshells, and listen to the same tracks again. Understand I'm only an amateur soundwave connoisseur so take my thoughts with plenty of salt and accept the imperfections for what they are. These are just my subjective impressions about the 2 cartridges on my stereo, in my house, to my ears. Nor do I blame the cartridges for the noted "weaknesses" as it could perfectly well be me or my system providing said weaknesses. The stereo- Technics SL1500C turntable w/ KAB damper, Graham Slee Era Gold V preamp, Yamaha A-S801 amp, JBL L82 speakers, Rythmik L12 sub. The albums- PJ Harvey- Dry, George Benson- the Shape of Things to Come, Sonic Youth- Dirty, Nina Simone- Sings the Blues. I'll try to describe my takeaway w/o waxing poetic or getting too long-winded for anyone to care to read. VM95ML Strengths- Incredible detail retrieval, very clear distinction between instruments, excellent cymbal "chic" and decay, deft enunciation, extremely quiet background, brilliant staging, George Benson sounded like he was sitting on my hearth between the speakers. Weaknesses- Transparent to the point of seeming thin, dry character, some higher frequencies are brilliant to the point of glaring, analytically sterile presence. VM95SH Strength- Wholesome delivery, tons of heart, presents mid-bass (toms, bass guitar, male vocals) with authoritative swagger and punch, excellent harmonics, lush emotion, rich tonal beauty. Weaknesses- Less high frequency sustain (noted in cymbal decay), less focused detail than ML, not as precise of staging as ML. I have lived with the ML for more than the past year and have enjoyed it immensely. I've only had the SH for a couple of weeks and I am LOVING it. They are both excellent cartridges but the Shibata is more fun, provocative, silky smooth, and addicting. The SH instills the urge to turn it up and the desire to keep listening. While the sound from the SH may not be as detailed, or crisp like crystal as the ML, it is extremely pleasing to my ears in this house. I could happily live with either cartridge but am really appreciating the robust body of sound, and the drive in the delivery, of the SH. Both cartridges sailed through my skip-track test w/o a blink. Backgrounds are quieter with the ML but the SH is by no means a noisy stylus. I'll be using the SH as my daily driver for the forseeable future. Thanks for reading and happy listening!
Nice review! I've got two tables, both with the ML coming from the 2M Red. Maybe when it comes time to replace one of them I'll pick up the SH stylus and give it a whirl. The clarity and lack of IGD after coming from the 2M has been a revelation.
Since the bodies are different (though should be close) and the headshells and wires are different, along with the other minor differences you mentioned, you should try swapping the two stylus assemblies and see if the results stay the same. But nice writeup!
Right, probably would've been a better stylus test to just swap that part and not change the headshell so that all stays the same except for the stylus, but it's your test
I considered that approach but didn't like the idea of the wear and tear on the stylus', or the opportunity for me to mishandle them. Even though they are a consumer replaceable item I don't think they're meant to be treated like quick-release bicycle wheels that can be removed time and time again.
ML = shrill. No thanks SH = whole sound. Well rounded. More like how I'd like to hear sound. No brainer. SH for sure. And yes, I have an AT Shibata stylus on my AT cart. So I am biased. Upstairs on my other system, I have a Dynavector MC . I prefer the sound of the "cheaper" AT.
I had the same thoughts I posted sometime last year. Didn’t do a write up, but I totally agree with your description. I love the sound on AT shibatas on the VM95 and VM540 more Thant the ML’s. Just personal preference. Any compare the VM95sh or the VM540sh/750sh to the Ortofon 2M Black? I have the Bronze, keep wanting to pull the trigger on the black
I was seriously considering the AT 95ML as my next cartridge but after reading this I think the AT95SH may suit my tastes better!
I'm glad you started this thread, thank you. My SH arrived earlier this week and I'll hopefully get some time to listen to it properly this weekend. My subjective sense of the ML matches yours, and I'm very much hoping to find the same changes with the SH. I'll be changing only the stylus so it should be "fair" in that sense, although I can't promise level-matching to the nth degree. I'll report back.
Thanks a lot for this comparison, was interesting to read through it! I am also loving the SH and my experience with it ( had it about 4 months now ) pretty much matches yours. Planning to get an ML stylus at some point as its a bit cheaper and it might be nice for extracting a bit more drive out of records that are somewhat constricted in dynamic range and sound compressed by default. One such example is my copy of New Order's Get Ready, 50 mins is doable on a single LP but you have to be a mastering virtuoso to pull it off with good sound! I really have to crank up my volume on that LP to get any sort of decent headroom, maybe the ML will open things up for stuff like that. On the contrast Jessie Ware's - What's Your Pleasure runs 53 mins in total and is also on a single LP. Expected it to sound pretty congested but no, huge difference to the sound versus New Order's album. There's pretty much no loss of dynamics I can sense and everything sounds great, loads of depth and air. Joe LaPorta at Sterling Sound that mastered that one for vinyl should do a remaster of Get Ready! Otherwise I also don't see any other reason to move to a different cartridge for the foreseeable future. Might upgrade to VM750SH one day but considering how cost effective the stylus replacements are for the VM95 series I'd say that's unlikely! From what I've seen from people's comparisons between the ML and the SH its pretty much down to personal preference and system sound. If your system already tends to sound a bit bright then using the SH would be better than the ML, to even things out a bit. That's what happens in my case at least and I also prefer richer than brighter sound in general. Of course I like to have a good balance which I have more or less managed to achieve but with just a slight tip away from bright. On the other hand if you have a warm sound overall and want a bit more sparkle up top then kicking things up a notch with the ML should be a good option. Audio Technica really gave us something special with VM95 series!
That was nice to read! Did you notice any high-midrange emphasis on Shibata? Like a bit more forward presentation of vocals and cymbal hits (sans the decay). Seems to me it is part of the tonal balance that this profile gives to the sound (of course based on the samples, YouTube comparisons and frequency graphs I found). On a side note, Shibata is an older shape (and actually fatter than Microline by specs), so no doubt to me that you noticed extended treble on ML.
Sorry for a bit of a derailing but did you consider trying out Stylus 40 on your 2M body? I recently had a chance to try it out and was very impressed after 2m Blue. The Bronze stylus is on its way to me since I wanted to upgrade anyway.
Asking for trouble with a traditional lacquer cut. Studios may do it because of financial pressures but they don't like that and it will degrade the sound. The way to do it is DMM, if you can't just put it on 2xLP. However, if it's an assembly line job like a lot of DMM these days, it's a coin toss as to whether it will sound good or not. I'd also guess that the digital files they source from on that LP already have compression and limiting baked in.
Nice write-up! Interestingly, the VM95ML sounds quite the opposite of what you describe as it weaknesses on my KAB SL-1200MkII through a Darlington MM-6.
I have a similar turntable and phono pre as OP. However, everything else about my system (amp, speakers, etc.) is very different. I don't have OP's ears, room acoustics, or their record collection. No "thin" or "sterile" here either. Nothing wrong with Shibata styli, if that is what you prefer. However, the stylus will change shape more as it wears down compared to the ML/MR, which is bad for tracking, and especially tight inner groove tracing. There is a reason advanced styli moved beyond the Shibata during the 70s and 80s. Look at the patent documents for insight - it's all on Google Patents. With either stylus I'd recommend replacing it after 500-700 hours of play time if you care a lot about your record collection.
Thanks OP for the write up! I’ve used the 740ml for a few years and a few months ago got a 750sh and found the differences similar to you. Both very close. More detail with the ML, a touch warmer with the SH. one thing I found was the Shibata was less forgiving of surface noise than the microline. Did you see anything like that in your comparison? Because of that, I tend to swap out my stylus and use the microline for older records and save the Shibata for late night MFSL/MMJ/Tone Poet type stuff.
I feel the Shibata brings the entire midrange forward (or very slightly rolls off the higher freq?). The midband is more tangible, meaty, engaging with the SH. Cymbal chic isn't as penetrating as it is with the ML, and I miss the easily discerned cymbal prevalence with the SH. It's much easier to pick out and follow high frequency sounds with the ML. While they aren't "missing" from the SH, they aren't as defined or present as they are with the ML. Yes, the ML is quieter and displays less noise. The SH is very much a quiet stylus too, just not as quiet as the ML. Splitting hairs in that regard, I think. Maybe once there are a few hundred hours on the SH it'll show it's tracking weakness and noise pickup in comparison to the ML. For now it's a very satisfying listen.
I used to run mine to 1,000 or a little longer. I don't do that anymore based on microscope photos and current info. Likely 1,000 hours is based on old outdated info from the days of high compliance cartridges that tracked at 1g or 1g and some change. See the article I linked for more information.
Not my experience with the ML stylus. I've listened to a few comparos and demos of SH styli on YT (via one of my systems) and don't hear enough of a difference to spend more money for something that doesn't sound better IMO or last as long. Most outsider reviews of these two styli seem to call it a draw at best. But the ML "shrill"? Not on my system.
Yeah, great to know. That's what I also got from the samples on the net. It's very a pleasing bump in midrange. Thanks for the confirmation
I agree that "shrill" doesn't fit the description for the ML. I did use "thin" and "sterile" to try to describe shortcomings of the ML but that was in direct comparison to the SH. I wouldn't have used those descriptors w/r/t the ML before yesterday's very non-scientific shootout. There is a voluptuousness about the SH that really differentiated it from the ML in my house. I found the SH sounded robust, alluring, and hearty compared to the very clear, concise, and crisp ML. I was particularly impressed by differences in their imaging. The ML being in very sharp focus and clarity and the SH providing an overall larger, or broader image. There is very much a tangible difference between the two respective sound profiles (how much of that can be due to the different headshealls?), which I didn't find very discernible in YT clips, and both are very enjoyable and I highly recommend either. Finer detail and a sharper focus= ML. Rich character and dynamic gusto= SH.
