Is elliptical the best stylus profile

Like I said, if i have a perfect record, made perfectly, the micro ridge sounds wonderful.  That is not reality.

Chakster's remarks are spot on — it should be published separately somewhere. I don't disagree with you that a good elliptical can equal a more advanced profile. Much depends on the minor radius. An 0.2 "reads" as much of the groove as the fancier stones, though record and stylus wear are not as good. The thicker that radius, the less resolution, and at a certain point it's just a variant of conical. Years ago van den Hul introduced two styli, VDH 1 and VDH 2. One would think the 2 was an advance on the 1, but it was the opposite. The VDH 1 was so detailed because its edges were razor sharp — consumers were so afraid (unjustly) that it would carve up their records, he had to make a "fatter" diamond to stay competitive. But alignment is more critical with the sharper profiles. Chakster is right about the Hyperelliptical — I have one on a Shure IV (I don't like the cartridge, but that's how it goes — I may transplant it onto a cart I like better). The Hyper is almost a line-contact, tons of detail and nuance, while also easier (and safer) if you're not confident the alignment is exact. 

Dear tzh21y, I think most of us would agree that cartridges bearing elliptical styli are less fussy to set up and enjoy, but that is not what the hobby is about, for most of us. Most audiophiles want "better".  If X is good, then what is better?  So, there will always be a place for elliptical styli on midrange and budget brand cartridges, but likewise there will always be a market for the more sophisticated stylus shapes, on upscale cartridges.  There really is no conflict.  If you like elliptical styli, you are free to enjoy cartridges that use them.  High end cartridges bearing complex-shaped styli will also continue to be marketed just because audiophiles can be or are convinced that the sound reproduction thereby achieved is at least a little bit better.  That's capitalism.

Dear tzh21y, I think most of us would agree that cartridges bearing elliptical styli are less fussy to set up and enjoy, but that is not what the hobby is about, for most of us. Most audiophiles want "better". If X is good, then what is better? So, there will always be a place for elliptical styli on midrange and budget brand cartridges, but likewise there will always be a market for the more sophisticated stylus shapes, on upscale cartridges. There really is no conflict. If you like elliptical styli, you are free to enjoy cartridges that use them. High end cartridges bearing complex-shaped styli will also continue to be marketed just because audiophiles can be or are convinced that the sound reproduction thereby achieved is at least a little bit better. That’s capitalism.

I agree Lewn.
We all want X , being a good sounding product(system) for the dollars we output.
Difference is many of us will go to our own personal Z to look for the best while it seems more these days seem stuck on the "Y" than in the past when it comes to vinyl playback. I think its the lack of knowledge in general for vinyl playback/setup
compared to digital and the level of quality vs. cost that differs the two.
Vinyl is expensive to get the best and to get it right and to maintain let alone
own a good stock of media. The fact more are getting back, or entering into
vinyl is likely the biggest reason for all the questioning of, and on, all things related
to it, but , it really is the simplicity of capitalism that offers choice.
Choice is good , .............................. knowledge and ability is king