Advanced Stylus Shap.. - Free

Turntable Forum • View topic - Advanced Stylus Shapes... http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopi... 

the home of the turntable 

http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/ 

http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=22894 

Advanced Stylus Shapes: Pics, discussion, patents. 

by flavio81 

Hi, 

Page 1 of 14 

I'm opening this thread to contribute showing and discussing the different stylus shapes and 

profiles that exist. I will be using images stolen/copied/borrowed from this forum and from the 

internet, so i apologize in advance if someone feels he wasn't given the due credit. 

The idea is to contribute as many pictures and information in the different stylus profiles. 

First, many profiles at the same time, as a starting point. Not all profiles are in those pics! 

From Audio Technica: 

From JICO: 

1. Spherical 

2. Elliptical 

3. Shibata 

4. Hyper elliptical 

5. SAS (Special micro ridge type) 

Posted: 09 Nov 2009 22:00 

Let's start with the elliptical shape, the most basic of the non-spherical shapes. Patent is by 

sur 22 06/02/2012 15:03


Grado. 

http://www.vinylengine.com/ve_downloads ... patent.pdf 

Images: 

Unnamed elliptical stylus (bushed) 

Example: Shure M92E 

sur 22 06/02/2012 15:03


More examples of elliptical later. 

by flavio81 

Now on the line contact shapes. The idea of the line contacts is... to have a bigger contact on 

the groove wall side while having a small front-to-back contact. That is, a "line". Maybe i am 

not good at explaining it but the pictures will speak for themselves. 

One of the first line contact shapes was the Shibata, invented by Norio Shibata of JVC. The 

goal was to track the high frequency (35KHz+) content of the CD-4 quadraphonic records 

without wearing the groove. 

Patent: 


This is how the shibata is cut: 

Posted: 09 Nov 2009 22:08 

sur 22 06/02/2012 15:03


The result is more contact on the side walls, evident here: 

The "R" radius is bigger than on a spherical (Shibata=75uM), which means the groove will be 

contacted more parallel to the diamond surface. Actually the right way to express it will be 

"less round" instead of "more parallel"!! 

This is a Pfanstiehl Shibata (bonded): 

sur 22 06/02/2012 15:03


The two back cuts are evident. They are also evident on the JICO picture i posted before. 

Something that is not evident in this pics is that the Shibata, unlike all the other styli designs, 

does not contact the side groove walls vertically (perpendicullarly to the record surface when 

seen from the side of the stylus), but in a curve. Here: 

sur 22 06/02/2012 15:03


by flavio81 

Now another of the first line contact shapes. This one is labeled by this website (vinylengine) 

to be the Pickering Stereohedron (or Quadrahedron?) shape. 

Patent: 

http://www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=15516 

Posted: 09 Nov 2009 22:14 

Inventor: Huges, Diamagnetics Inc. Diamagnetics seems to be affiliated with Stanton/Pickering. 

Basically is similar to shibata, but with 2 more front cuts. I guess it's a variation to create a 

stylus that performs like the shibata but without having to pay for the patent... 

sur 22 06/02/2012 15:03


by flavio81 

A later (1978 shape), the Ogura, also sold as "Vital Polyhedron". 

Patent: 


This one is more similar to what has been labeled as "line contact" by Audio Technica (see pic 

above) or "fine line" as Ortofon. 

Shot of the Ortofon OM30 stylus -- how beautiful! 

Posted: 09 Nov 2009 22:19 

sur 22 06/02/2012 15:03


Side shot of the same: 

Note: Ortofon specs this stylus has 8x40uM radii, thus not as "line contact" as other line 

contacts (>70uM) 

Now, the question that i can't really answer. What patent matches the Hyperelliptical and 

Stanton Stereohedrons?? They look similar and they can be a variation on the Ogura, or the 

Hughes... or another shape? I can't find another patent that might match them. 

Ogura was sold as "Polyhedron", which sounds like... "Stereohedron"! 

Pictures of them (SH and HE) to follow on next post! 

by flavio81 

Stereohedron, image by Stanton/Pickering 

Posted: 09 Nov 2009 22:26 

sur 22 06/02/2012 15:03


Stylus shots: 

Stanton 881-S 

Stanton 81S Stereohedron, 100X 

Now the Shure Hyperelliptical looks pretty similar!! 

sur 22 06/02/2012 15:03


The JICO Hyperelliptical (also sold by LP Gear) is practically the same (but bonded instead of 

nude) 

by flavio81 

Let's move on to later shapes. Here is the VDH, invented by the dutch A.J van den Hul, around 

1978. 

Patent 

http://www.vinylengine.com/ve_downloads ... hul_82.pdf 

Here is a VDH on a London Decca cart: 

Posted: 09 Nov 2009 22:30 

0 sur 22 06/02/2012 15:03


On his webpage, VDH claims Namiki manufactured his design without paying royalties. Here is 

the Expert Stylus Paratrace, which clearly is almost a VDH, on a AT CN5625. Beautiful: 

1 sur 22 06/02/2012 15:03


A.J. van den Hul discusses his stylus here: 

http://www.vinylengine.com/ve_downloads ... l_1980.pdf 

by flavio81 

Now on more advanced shapes. Here is the highly regarded MicroRidge/MicroLine shape, patent 

by Namiki, 1983. 


The idea came from the stylus used for reading the capacitance electronic video discs such as 

RCA's SelectaVision. 

There are variations on this design. The idea is to really contact the groove wall on a line. The 

other interesting thing is that these styli are laser-cut. 

Variations on this design are the Audio Technica MicroLine, Shure MicroRidge, Dynavector, and 

JICO SAS. 

Again, for MicroLine: 

Posted: 09 Nov 2009 22:38 

2 sur 22 06/02/2012 15:03


Jico SAS is at the right: 

Dynavector: 

Dynavector specs: 

3 sur 22 06/02/2012 15:03


JICO SAS specs. Very interesting. 

http://www.vinylengine.com/library/jico ... ylus.shtml 

by flavio81 

Now the last of the patented shapes, as far as i can find: The Fritz Gyger (1987), used on some 

Ortofon cartridges like the OM40. 

This is a weird kind of stylus... Like a cubist micro line. 

The purpose of the FG stylus is to more closely match the cutting stylus. 

Patent: 


Paperweight models of styli. 

1. van den Hul 

2. Shibata-like (looks too smooth to be a realistic representation of a shibata!) 

3. Fritz Gyger 

Posted: 09 Nov 2009 22:47 

4 sur 22 06/02/2012 15:03


by flavio81 

Posted: 09 Nov 2009 22:56 

Now, on to the comparisons! One of the benefits of the advanced shapes is to increase the 

contact radius. In theory the worst shape (the spherical) contacts the vinyl wall at an 

infinitesimal dot. So the contact area is (in theory), ZERO. But, of course, vinyl deformates, so 

a practical contact area will be established, and it will have to be estimated for the spherical. 

Seems Namiki did an estimation of the contact areas. It is on his patent, though. JICO 

reproduces them on its SAS literature: 

5 sur 22 06/02/2012 15:03


Note that "Line contact" here is actually the Shibata. Note the "r" radius (the side radius. The 

smaller the better will the higher frequencies read. 

Another comparison of contact surfaces plus dimension data, this time from Audio Technica. 

The numbers are different: 

6 sur 22 06/02/2012 15:03


Here for example you can see why a line contact shape is beneficial: The best high frequency 

readout will be obtained with a 0.2mil side radius (or smaller!). The .2x.7mil elliptical delivers 

it, but the contact surface is smaller than the standard elliptical or conical. The advanced 

shapes can give you the same (or smaller) side radius (better ability to read high frequencies) 

with a bigger contact surface (less wear). And that's why they are good. 

Note that the last row (L1/L2 or "F") tells you how "tall" is the side contact, the taller the 

better since it means big contact area but with small side radius. Also note that the van den 

Hul is included on the comparison, and according to Audio Technica, the MicroLine is better. 

Also note something more interesting. The minor/major radius dimensions, and footprint for 

the AT's MicroLine, is exactly the same as Jico's (Namiki's) SAS stylus. I bet they are exactly 

the same stylus 

Moreover, if you go to JICO online store, you won't find the SAS stylus being sold for the 

current Audio Technica cartridges!! I bet Namiki is making both AT ML and JICO SAS styli. 

Another thing to point out: AT's estimate more contact area for all shapes. That means they 

are using a different estimation of vinyl deformation. 

Now, a footprint comparison from the JICO SAS flyer. Note that the line contact is the Shibata, 

it can be inmediately identified by the "heart" shaped footprint: 

7 sur 22 06/02/2012 15:03


by flavio81 

Now another interesting question maybe answered here: 

LP gear sells the Shibata tips at a higher price than the Hyper Elliptical tips, and place them as 

a "superior" option compared to the Hyperelliptical. The question is "why should it be, since the 

HE seems to be invented later?"... Maybe the answer is here: 

Leaflet from Canadian Astatic: 

Posted: 09 Nov 2009 23:01 

8 sur 22 06/02/2012 15:03


9 sur 22 06/02/2012 15:03


Look at the major radius ("R"). 23uM for the Hyperelliptical versus 75uM for the Shibata. Or, 

0.7mil versus 3.0mil!! 

So it seems the manufacturers who sell the HE, are using a smaller major radius ("R"), thus the 

Shibata has more contact surface than the HE they sell. 

"Stereohedron 2x" seems to have 70uM of "R" radius according to PickeringUK. Stanton 681EEE 

quotes the same. 

Also note the Ortofon 2M's Shibata has 50uM R radius, so it's the smaller version of the Shibata 

(patent specifies two versions). 

Mystery solved? 

Sombrero 

by pirca 

HAY QUE SACARSE EL SOMBRERO. 

ES REALMENTE CATEDRA SOBRE LOS TIPOS DE AGUJAS. 

Un saludo desde Chile. 

Muy agradecido por la clarísima explicación. 

by flavio81 

So, to summarize what i've posted: 

1. Chronology of patented stylus contact shapes is: 

Spherical, Elliptical, Shibata & "Hughes", Ogura, van den Hul, Micro Ridge, Fritz Gyger. 

2. "Hughes" patent is simply a variation on the Shibata: Two more cuts at the front, and voila. 

3. Expert Stylus' Paratrace is practically a VDH. 

4. Jico SAS, MicroLine, and Dynavector seem to be exactly the same shape. 

Posted: 09 Nov 2009 23:21 

Posted: 09 Nov 2009 23:40 

5. There are reasons to believe Namiki manufactures the ML shape for Jico and for Audio 

Technica. 

0 sur 22 06/02/2012 15:03


6. Vinyl deformation is taken into account when calculating contact surfaces. 

7. Is the HE the same as the Stereohedron? I don't know. Dimensions seem to be different. 

8. What patent matches the HE? What patent matches the Stereohedron? Ogura? Maybe. 

9. Is the Ortofon Fine Line an Ogura? Maybe. 

10. Ortofon Fine Line shape is identical to Audio Technica's "Line contact". 

11. Major radius "R" is... 

23uM for HE according to Canadian Astatic, 

38uM for HE in Shure V15V-P 

40uM for the Ortofon OM30 Fine Line according to Ortofon, 

50uM for the Shibata on the Ortofon 2M Black, also for the Shibata on the Jubilee (*) 

70uM for Stereohedron 

70uM for the VDH according to Audio Technica 

70uM for the Fritz Gyger 70 [FG70] according to Ortofon. FG90 also exists. 

75uM for the Shibata for all other manufacturers (*) 

75uM for SAS and MicroLine. 

100uM for Ortofon Replicant (more on it later) 

* The shibata patent specifies two versions of the tip:


that comes with the biggest "R" radius, compared to the HE or the AT Line Contact/Ortofon 

Fine Line. The Stereohedron has a similar R radius, we don't know its stylus profile patent. It 

might be the "Hughes" one, which is almost the same as the Shibata. I need more pics of it. 

Also you can see that the Shibata seems to be very easy to manufacture!! 

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group 

http://www.phpbb.com/ 

All times are UTC + 1 hour 

Page 1 of 14 

2 sur 22 06/02/2012 15:03


News Articles Library Forum Gallery Data Reviews Tools FAQ HFE 

Skip to content 

Post a reply 

201 posts • Page 2 of 14 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 14 

Report this post (./report.php?f=19&p=160870) 

Reply with quote (./posting.php?mode=quote&f=19&p=160870) 

(#p160870) 

by Dennis B » 10 Nov 2009 00:37 

Amazing, thanks! 

Top 



(#p160874) 

by 1200y3 » 10 Nov 2009 00:57 

The square shanks look nice! 

The fine line must be more immune to cantilever flexing and twisting because of a better fit. 

Top 



(#p160901) 

by Alec124c41 » 10 Nov 2009 04:24 

Not for me! 

It's OK, I'll just buy them. 

Cheers, 

Alec 

flavio81 wrote: 

Also you can see that the Shibata seems to be very easy to manufacture!! 

Top 



(#p160907) 

by Axon » 10 Nov 2009 05:47 

Thanks, this is a really nice summary. 

Top 



sur 7 06/02/2012 15:04


(#p160911) 

by lini » 10 Nov 2009 06:06 

Flavio: Hmmm - are you sure that Denon close-up actually shows a standard 103? Doesn't really 

look conical to me... 

And in my view AT's LinearContact is more like a further developed Shibata/Hughes than like a 

Vital/FineLine... 

Greetings from Munich! 

Manfred / lini 

Top 



(#p160916) 

by fantasia » 10 Nov 2009 06:31 

Thank you flavio 

the info is well presented and easy to understand especially the assumption re actual contact 

area. 

my experience with Shibatas only bonded ones is that they also seem to 

play older worn Lps which makes sense given the contact area. They would be in contact with 

less worn or even fresh vinyl. 

I suspect fresh vinyl as very few second hand Lps seem to have been played with exotic stylus 

shapes, usually nothing better than a conical /spherical. 

fantasia 

Top 



(#p160922) 

by Thomas_A » 10 Nov 2009 07:35 

Thanks flavio, good review. 

A note on the Shibata. I think that the contact area is curved, which has some effects not 

observed with later fine-lines. 

Top 



Advanced Stylus Shapes: Pics, discussion, patents. (#p160923) 

by Terry Robinson » 10 Nov 2009 08:06 

Evening all. 

Thank you so very much Mr. Flavio for your detailed discussion on various gramophone needles. 

I never knew so many different types existed -- anyone know about the Ortofon Replicant 

sur 7 06/02/2012 15:04


needle, or the many others that exist. I guess these are still coming in another article. 

I consider this article the best I have ever read on this topic: and I have read many over 

several decades. 

Cheers, 

Terry. 

Top 



(#p160925) 

by flavio81 » 10 Nov 2009 08:44 

Thomas_A wrote: 


A note on the Shibata. I think that the contact area is curved, which has some 

effects not observed with later fine-lines. 

Yes, i mention it, here is a diagram: 

sur 7 06/02/2012 15:04


But what effects can it have? Has this been studied? 

Top 



(#p160926) 

by flavio81 » 10 Nov 2009 08:46 

lini wrote: 

Flavio: Hmmm - are you sure that Denon close-up actually shows a standard 103? 

Doesn't really look conical to me... 

And in my view AT's LinearContact is more like a further developed Shibata/Hughes 

than like a Vital/FineLine... 


sur 7 06/02/2012 15:04



Hi Dear Lini, 

Check out again the diagrams for the Shibata. The Shibata is characterised by two back "cuts" 

on the diamond, and a teardrop-shaped footprint. Plus a curved vertical profile (see previous 

post.) 

The AT's Linear Contact has none of those characteristics. 

Top 



Re: Advanced Stylus Shapes: Pics, discussion, patents. (#p160927) 

by flavio81 » 10 Nov 2009 08:48 

Terry Robinson wrote: 

I consider this article the best I have ever read on this topic: and I have read many 

over several decades. 

Thanks for the compliments, Terry!! 

Top 



(#p160956) 

by lini » 10 Nov 2009 13:39 

Flavio: Hence the "further developed": Imagine two more cuts, so the curved part of the true 

Shibata also looks more like a triangle, but flatter and steeper than on the other side - the 

result is pretty much what an AT LinearContact looks like. I.e., it's also asymmetrical front to 

back (which unfortunately isn't well visible in AT's drawing) and actually looks very similar to 

the tip shape shown in your DL103 pic - which is why I'd rather suspect this not to be a 

standard DL103, but one of the variants with more sophisticated tip shape. 



Top 



(#p160961) 

by Thomas_A » 10 Nov 2009 14:26 




sur 7 06/02/2012 15:04



I've read that the curved align causes a force that pushes the stylus upwards during play, which 

in turn, may cause a not-so-smooth pattern of groove riding, and in the end, increased wear. 

The straight line-types do not have the same upward force. 

Top 



(#p160967) 

by lini » 10 Nov 2009 14:49 

Thomas: I'm not quite sure though, whether this actually comes from the slight curve in the 

contact area or rather from the not very steeply ascending triangle part... 



A note on the Shibata. I think that the contact area is curved, which 

has some effects not observed with later fine-lines. 

Top 



(#p160971) 

by flavio81 » 10 Nov 2009 15:13 





A note on the Shibata. I think that the contact area 

is curved, which has some effects not observed with 

later fine-lines. 


I've read that the curved align causes a force that pushes the stylus upwards during 

play, which in turn, may cause a not-so-smooth pattern of groove riding, and in the 

end, increased wear. The straight line-types do not have the same upward force. 

sur 7 06/02/2012 15:04


Hi Thomas!! 

This sounds like the "pinch effect" typical of the Sphericals, but this is caused only because the 

side radius ("r") is too big. 

I don't think this would happen with all the other types (elliptical, HE, shibata, etc) which have 

a narrow "r" radius. 

Source? 

Top 

PreviousNext Display posts from previous: Sort by 

Post a reply 

201 posts • Page 2 of 14 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 14 

Return to Cartridges and Preamps 

Jump to: 

Design and Content © Vinyl Engine 2002-2012 

faq | site policy | advertising | disclaimer 

sur 7 06/02/2012 15:04




Post a reply 

201 posts • Page 3 of 14 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 14 



(#p160975) 

by flavio81 » 10 Nov 2009 15:24 

lini wrote: 

Flavio: Hence the "further developed": Imagine two more cuts, so the curved part of 

the true Shibata also looks more like a triangle, but flatter and steeper than on the 

other side - the result is pretty much what an AT LinearContact looks like. I.e., it's 

also asymmetrical front to back (which unfortunately isn't well visible in AT's 

drawing) and actually looks very similar to the tip shape shown in your DL103 pic - 

which is why I'd rather suspect this not to be a standard DL103, but one of the 

variants with more sophisticated tip shape. 

Very interesting observation on the AT, Manfred. Do you have pics? From the AT's diagram it 

looked like an Ogura. 

And I will remove the Denon pic to avoid creating confusion. 

Top 



On the SPHERICAL/CONICAL stylus (#p160984) 

by flavio81 » 10 Nov 2009 16:33 

Now, a few words on the Spherical Stylus: 

The spherical stylus (also called "conical") is the oldest stylus design for LP play. It is used 

extensively and it was the only shape available until the elliptical was invented and 

manufactured. 

The spherical stylus is simply ball-pointed shaped at the tip end. Thus it is a sphere of typical 

radius= 18 micron (uM) or 0.7mil. 

Example of a real spherical - Stanton DJ stylus 

sur 17 06/02/2012 15:05


Spherical sometimes come in different radii, typically less than 18uM. In this way the stylus can 

trace the unworn parts of the vinyl groove. A good idea. 

The 25uM stylus is made for mono records play. 65uM for 78RPM records. 

So, what is the problem with the spherical? It is perfectly explained in this excellent web page 

by Jim Lesurf: 

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/LP3/aroundthebend.html (http://www.audiomisc.co.uk 

/HFN/LP3/aroundthebend.html) 

But i will hijack some of the pictures to summarize what is explained on that page. 

The problem with the spherical is this: 

Left blue spot - 12uM spherical 

Right one - 8x18uM elliptical 

The diagram shows a 20KHz 0dB groove at the start of the LP side. A very high frequency at a 

very loud level. The modulation is horizontal (mono). 

sur 17 06/02/2012 15:05


So, as you can see, the spherical stylus is too big to trace the 20KHz tone correctly. What will 

happen? The spherical will "jump" or ride the wave "vertically" and thus give "tracing 

distortion". Specifically we are showing what is called "the pinch effect". 

Also note that the stylus on this diagram is of 12uM radius; usually they are bigger - 18uM being 

a typical value. But also note that 0dB is a very high (loud) recording level for a 20KHz tone! 

The stylus at the right, 8x18uM (.3x.7mil) elliptical, fits much better and is not showing that 

problem. Thus you can see how the elliptical traces better. 

In practice this problem does not appear (or it is not significant) at the beginning of the 

groove. It becomes a problem [mainly for sphericals] at the end of the groove, since the groove 

angular speed is much smaller and thus things are tighter!! 

Here is a 20KHz 0dB at the end of the groove. Again, this is an extreme case; no sane cutting 

engineer would cut, at the end of the groove, such high levels at such high frequencies, 

though!! 

sur 17 06/02/2012 15:05


As you can see, the pinch effect would be extreme with a spherical and would even show with 

the elliptical, unless we use a narrower (smaller "r" radius) elliptical. Or a smaller spherical 

[not a good idea], or a more advanced stylus shape... 

So what can be done to diminish this problem?? Alternatives for the cutting engineer: 

(a) Tracing predistortion/ tracing compensation - while cutting the disk, a "tracing simulator" 

predicts the tracing distortion that will appear when the record is played, and adds, to the 

audio signal, the same distortion but in an inverse way so, when playing it with a spherical 

stylus of a specific radius , it will "cancel out". 

Google "dynagroove". Tracing predistortion has been used in many records. If you have a clean, 

unworn record that sounds notoriously distorted with an elliptical, but sounds very well 

(undistorted) with a spherical stylus, you can bet it was cut with predistortion/tracing 

compensation. It will only sound good with a 0.7mil conical. Thus the importance of always 

having a spherical/conical stylus at hand. 

(b) Introduce a strong cut-off (attenuation) of the high frequencies when approaching the end 

of the record and/or lower the cutting level significantly. 

(c) Assume the listener will have a great tracking cartridge with an advanced stylus shape and 

be happy. 

(d) I don't know. I'm not a mastering engineer. 

sur 17 06/02/2012 15:05


However, again, this distortion will be much more evident: 

- At the end of the record (inner grooves) 

and 

- At loud cutting levels 

Returning to Jim Lesurf's article; he uses an estimate of the typical/max groove accelerations 

found on records (read his articles!) and makes the following graph: 

The curves shows what the maximum tip radius can be to safely "read" groove accelerations of 

a certain "g" (gravities), at the end of the record (red curve) and at the beginning of the record 

(blue curve). 

As you can see, the problem -as i said before- is at the end of the record. But what about 

gravities? Jim Lesurf writes: 

Looking back at the results in last month’s article we found that the largest peak 

accelerations observed were around 1000g. By using these results we can now 

assess what the demands may be on a replay stylus. 

sur 17 06/02/2012 15:05


So he marks around 1200g with a green dotted line. That would be loudest level on a typical 

record. For 1200g at the end of the record you need 5uM (0.2mil) of side radius (r). And, 

coincidentally, the smallest profiled ellipticals sold are 0.2x0.7 mil!! But those narrow 

ellipticals also are the styli with the smallest contact areas (not a good thing); narrow profile 

and great contact area belong to... advanced stylus shapes. 

Remember, a typical conical/spherical stylus is 18uM/0.7mil... Check out the graph and you 

will see that the typical conical will usually have a problem tracing the loudest parts at the end 

of the record, while performing fine at the beginning of the record. 

That's why stylus comparisons should better be done using loud cuts at the end of the 

record!! 

Again, this problem will be more or less noticeable depending on the cutting engineer choices 

at cutting the record. I have some records (usually from the start of the 60s) that perfectly OK 

at the inner grooves -- obviously because the cutting engineer knew everybody used spherical 

stylus (was there other choice before Grado's patent? ), and thus took care to significantly 

reduce cutting levels and high frequencies at the inner grooves. 

Now, all this analysis has been with horizontal modulation (mono only). In stereo reproduction 

we have vertical and horizontal components, and things get more complex! 

Top 



(#p161014) 

by flavio81 » 10 Nov 2009 18:37 

Now, on that ca. 1000g typical max acceleration value. On the very same web page (Jim's 

page): 

Their [Shure's] chief engineer of the time also wrote an article that appeared in Hi Fi 

News. This said that they had surveyed a number of LPs and that the highest 

accelerations they could find were around 1500g, so they designed the V15 series 

to track these discs. From the values in the above table we can see that the 

requirements include a tip mass of less than or equal to 0·6 milligrams and a minor 

radius of less than or equal to 3·5 microns 

Note that: 

- The "Hi-fi" news article cited is from 1966. We can assume records were cut louder on the 70s 

and beyond, when the elliptical stylus was commonplace!! Telarc 1812 overture anyone? 

- 0.60mg of tip mass has been bettered. For example Ortofon quotes X5-MC having 0.40mg tip 

mass, although the X1-MCP has 0.75mg tip mass. But the X1 is supposed to be a good tracker. 

Still, that's a truckload of ballast compared to (imho) the king of all cartridges, the Technics 

EPC-100CMK3 (moving magnet): 

http://audio-heritage.jp/TECHNICS/etc/epc-100cmk3.html (http://audio-heritage.jp/TECHNICS 

/etc/epc-100cmk3.html) 

sur 17 06/02/2012 15:05


Using high tech to achieve 0.098mg tip mass. Frequency response 5Hz-100KHz!! Take that, 

Ortofon... 

Top 



horizontal (#p161023) 

by 1200y3 » 10 Nov 2009 19:20 

I believe the spherical is best used with mono (lateral/horizontal) and is the only one to use on 

mono. (Any modern stylus should work, but imagine a sharp edge hitting the sidewall of the 

groove.) Lateral records provide us with an opportunity to experience sound as if it was played 

back on the best tonearm in existence, provided it is a linear tracking arm. 

Ancient monos were vertiacally cut, laterally cut is the accepted, and stereo (and I would think 

modern monos) were cut at 45 degrees in a V-groove that allows even centering and immunity 

to pinch effect under normal circumstances. 45 degree groove won't pinch, it is mistracking. 

Parabolic ellipticals are somewhat spherical. 

Top 



Re: horizontal (#p161033) 

by flavio81 » 10 Nov 2009 20:18 

1200y3 wrote: 

I believe the spherical is best used with mono (lateral/horizontal) and is the only 

one to use on mono. (Any modern stylus should work, but imagine a sharp edge 

hitting the sidewall of the groove.) 

But styli do not have sharp edges. There is no sharp edge on the sides of the groove. 

Stereo records also have lateral/horizontal modulation too, just like mono records. But they 

also have vertical modulation. 

1200y3 wrote: 

Ancient monos were vertiacally cut, laterally cut is the accepted, and stereo (and I 

would think modern monos) were cut at 45 degrees in a V-groove 

All mono LP records also have a V-groove, same as stereo. The 45-45 degree (stereo) system is 

also a vertical-horizontal system. The horizontal component is L+R (the sum of both channels) 

and the vertical component is L-R (the difference.) Any instrument that is placed on the center 

will be L+R and thus will mainly be modulated horizontally. 

1200y3 wrote: 

that allows even centering and immunity to pinch effect under normal 

circumstances. 45 degree groove won't pinch, it is mistracking. 

sur 17 06/02/2012 15:05


"Pinch effect" is also a kind of mistracking. Please read the above post, it explains the pinch 

effect and explains it happening in a MONO groove. It happens on mono and stereo grooves. 

When the stylus is too big for the waveform, then it bounces up, since it cannot follow the 

horizontal waveform. That bouncing is the "pinch". 

Top 



(#p161036) 

by flavio81 » 10 Nov 2009 20:39 

More on the problems of the spherical. From this very excellent page: 

http://www7a.biglobe.ne.jp/~yosh/recspecs.htm (http://www7a.biglobe.ne.jp/~yosh 

/recspecs.htm) 

Distortion ratio in %, calculated using the vertical velocity that appears from bad tracking of 

the horizontal velocity: 

Left: 18uM radius spherical 

Right: 5uM radius spherical 

But note that the "distortion" quoted there is mainly 2nd harmonic distortion, which does not 

sound terrible to the ears. 

As you can see, a smaller side tracing radius is better. 

Top 



sur 17 06/02/2012 15:05


(#p161038) 

by bauzace50 » 10 Nov 2009 20:45 

Oh, my goodness, 

we didn't deserve all this information trove 

b50 

Top 



Arms and pinch effect (#p161040) 

by 1200y3 » 10 Nov 2009 20:52 

Does tonearm quality have anything to do with the pinch effect and can an arm add to the 

effect? 

Any pinch effect information I have read is in the Radiotron Designers Handbook, and is readily 

noticeable with a saphire stylus at too high of a VTA and too little weight. It is easy to 

demonstrate. 

Top 



(#p161041) 

by flavio81 » 10 Nov 2009 21:01 

bauzace50 wrote: 

Oh, my goodness, 

we didn't deserve all this information trove 

b50 

Yes you do deserve it! 

Now... GREAT NEWS!! (borrowed from other VE members...) 

Now the differences will be more evident!! 

From user "Ernie L", paperweight models of the VDH, Shibata, and FG! Yes, a FG! 

sur 17 06/02/2012 15:05


Although that Shibata looks too stylished to be realistic. 

From "Ernie L", another Fritz Gyger stylus: 

0 sur 17 06/02/2012 15:05


From "Ernie L": A line contact from Audio Technica 

Again let's compare with Ortofon OM30 "Fine Line": 

1 sur 17 06/02/2012 15:05


From user "shrice51": "JICO Stylus for Shure V15 III". Seems to be the SAS stylus... 

From user "juud": A denon DL103 stylus. Supposedly conical. Beautiful! 

2 sur 17 06/02/2012 15:05


An unidentified elliptical "Diamond_Needle_4760_Styli" from user "irwan_su". Typical elliptical: 

Top 



3 sur 17 06/02/2012 15:05


(#p161046) 

by flavio81 » 10 Nov 2009 21:50 

Another stylus: 

Looks almost exactly as a FG design. There are no stylus patents assigned to Ortofon. Major 

radius ("R") is 100uM, minor radius ("r") 5uM. 

Used on Ortofon's best cartridges. 

Looks like a Fritz Gyger. Ortofon also uses the FG stylus, so this one ought to be a slight 

variation on the FG. 

So, to recollect all major/minor radii data again: 


38uM for HE in Shure V15V-P according to Shure 


50uM for the Shibata on the Ortofon 2M Red, also for the Shibata on the Jubilee (*) 



70uM for the Fritz Gyger 70 [FG70] according to Ortofon. 

75uM for the Shibata according to many other sources (*) 

75uM for SAS and MicroLine according to Namiki and Audio Technica. 

80uM for Fritz Gyger 80 [FG80], according to Ortofon. 

100uM for Ortofon Replicant according to Ortofon. 

(*) Patent for Shibata shows two versions with different R radii. 

4 sur 17 06/02/2012 15:05


Top 



(#p161071) 

by lini » 10 Nov 2009 23:07 


Very interesting observation on the AT, Manfred. Do you have pics? (...) 

Don't think so - but I could try to make some, maybe also of a couple more shapes like Philips' 

SST and Nagaoka's Ultra-EX. Might take a while, though - 'cause, frankly, I'm a rather lousy 

photographer and have next to zero experience with macro shots yet... 



Top 



(#p161085) 

by Thomas_A » 10 Nov 2009 23:54 


I've read that the curved align causes a force that pushes the stylus upwards during 

play, which in turn, may cause a not-so-smooth pattern of groove riding, and in the 

end, increased wear. The straight line-types do not have the same upward force. 

Hi Thomas!! 



[quote="Thomas_A"]Thanks flavio, good review. 

A note on the Shibata. I think that the contact area 

is curved, which has some effects not observed with 

later fine-lines. 


This sounds like the "pinch effect" typical of the Sphericals, but this is caused only because the 

side radius ("r") is too big. 

I don't think this would happen with all the other types (elliptical, HE, shibata, etc) which have 

5 sur 17 06/02/2012 15:05


a narrow "r" radius. 

Source?[/quote] 

Don't have a scientific source, only from another forum. So I do not know whether this has 

been published or if it is true. I can only imagine that a straight (or symmetrical) contact line is 

forced to go sideways in vertical* modulation, while a contact area that is shaped like an 

inverted plough tend to ride a bit up on the groove flanks (the force is on an arc, and 

depending on the angle it will either dig (a resultant small downforce, like ploughs) or move 

upwards.) 

*Edit: should be lateral (and/or vertical ?). I usually mix up the diff movements... 

Top 



(#p161090) 

by 1200y3 » 11 Nov 2009 00:15 

Would that not be similar to another offset angle (the need for antiskating), only vertically? 

Top 



(#p161158) 

by flavio81 » 11 Nov 2009 04:25 

1200y3 wrote: 

Would that not be similar to another offset angle (the need for antiskating), only 

vertically? 

Mmm i'm not sure if i understand your question. There is already a vertical "compensating" 

force: The vertical tracking force itself. 

If Ortofon uses the Shibata on his most high priced models (when not using the FG/Replicant), 

then it should be very good... Ortofon people know what they're doing. 

Top 



(#p161189) 

by Thomas_A » 11 Nov 2009 08:16 


If Ortofon uses the Shibata on his most high priced models (when not using the 

FG/Replicant), then it should be very good... Ortofon people know what they're 

doing. 

I asked Ortofon why they changed from the more modern FG to the older Shibata in their top 

6 sur 17 06/02/2012 15:05


model when they switched from OM to 2M. 

They agreed that the Shibata was an older design but that it is not a poorer one, and pointed 

to their highly praised Jubilee model. I am not 100% convinced though, since I did not get any 

technical argument as to why the Shibata was chosen over FG or microridge models. The 

Shibata is simpler so it may be cheaper in production than other more advanced designs. 

Top 


Post a reply 

201 posts • Page 3 of 14 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 14 


Jump to: 



7 sur 17 06/02/2012 15:05




Post a reply 

201 posts • Page 4 of 14 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 14 



Ortofon FG (#p161240) 

by 1200y3 » 11 Nov 2009 14:20 

I believe the FG has the ability to "sense" the better part of the groove. (It works best with 

records in excellent shape.) The problem may have something to do with inconsistent record 

sound on worn records (comparing first and last tracks). 

Any pics of the Shure MR? 

Re:Ortofon -Stylus companies still have to deal with manufacturing compromises. 

Top 



Re: Ortofon FG (#p161254) 

by flavio81 » 11 Nov 2009 15:38 

1200y3 wrote: 

Any pics of the Shure MR? 

Now... update on -- the smaller, the better. 

0.970mg Shure "bi-radial" (0.4x0.7mil) 

sur 7 06/02/2012 15:06


0.750mg Ortofon X1-MCP (p-mount, high output MC) 

0.500mg Ortofon OM10 stylus (bushed elliptical) 

0.400mg Ortofon OM20 stylus (nude elliptical) 

0.400mg Ortofon X5-MC (HOMC, nude FG) 

0.370mg Shure Elliptical (0.2x0.7mil) 

0.300mg Ortofon OM30 stylus (nude Fine Line), OM40 (nude FG) 

0.290mg Technics EPC-P202C (p-mount) 

0.230mg Technics EPC-P310MC (p-mount, MC) 

0.170mg Shure Micro-Ridge (0.15x3.00mil) 

0.098mg Technics EPC-100CMK3 

0.055mg Technics EPC-P100CMK4 (p-mount) 

Technics specs from Technics. 

Shure specs from http://www.audioselectief.nl/vraaghethe ... dvorm.html 

(http://www.audioselectief.nl/vraaghethenk/nl_naaldvorm.html) . 

Ortofon specs from Ortofon website. 

Also note the small difference in mass between the nude OM20 and the bushed OM10 

ellipticals... but the OM30 is ligher. 

Top 



(#p161269) 

by Axon » 11 Nov 2009 16:50 

IIRC, and I can't really back this up with a link because I don't remember where I heard it: Fritz 

Gyger stopped making stylii a few years ago. 

Top 



(#p161281) 

by bauzace50 » 11 Nov 2009 17:42 

Hello flavio81, 

the meaning of stylus mass usually needs to be expressed as "effective mass". In non-technical 

terms: the mass, as "seen" by the groove, which includes the mass contributed by the 

cantilever and its attachments (be they coils, magnets, or whatever). 

The "effective mass" is the sum of all those components, according to the way they are 

attached to each other. 

So, one needs to read the specification carefully to determine if it refers to the tip's mass, or, 

the total sum of the [Diamond+Cantilever+Other Attachments]. 

It is the compound sum which usually conveys meaning to the consumer. 

Regards, 

bauzace50 

Top 



sur 7 06/02/2012 15:06


(#p161365) 

by Thomas_A » 12 Nov 2009 00:48 

I've always wondered about the Trigon stylus shape. What is it? 

Top 



(#p161368) 


hi guys, 

well 1200y and thomas_A 

did raise a quite interesting question re the use of the Shibata stylii in the Ortofon 2M BLACK. I 

think 1200y is right mainly from my own experience, 

re wear, it does still amaze me how good the sound can be from an old, but not excessively 

srcatched; Lp they sound extremely good i have some Lps that are 40-50 years old and they 

sound really good. A very low wear Lp can sound stunning. 

Iam not sure, what the more exotic stylus types are like re wear, or rather 

listening to something worn played back by them the most, revealing extractive, stylus 

profiles. But there would not be much point having such a 

stylus if you can't listen to a lot of program material. 

My own thoughts are that, a Shibata can or rather seems to play below the typical wear point 

of most LPs that are most often been played by conicals (second hand LPs that is). 

Love to hear some discission on this 

Fantasia 

Top 



(#p161635) 

by abelb » 13 Nov 2009 11:49 

sur 7 06/02/2012 15:06


From a Google Books scan (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=9OEDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA66& 

dq=phono%20cartridges&pg=PA66#v=onepage&q=phono%20cartridges&f=false) of a Popular Mechanics 

mag from 1975. 

Top 



(#p161665) 

by flavio81 » 13 Nov 2009 15:29 

abelb wrote: 

From a Google Books scan (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=9OEDAAAAMBAJ& 

lpg=PA66&dq=phono%20cartridges&pg=PA66#v=onepage&q=phono%20cartridges&f=false) of a 

sur 7 06/02/2012 15:06


Excellent pic!! THANKS!! 

Left= Elliptical 

Right= Labeled as B&O "Pramanik"... Looks EXACTLY like a Shibata type (or "Hughes" type) 

Top 



(#p161708) 

by Thomas_A » 13 Nov 2009 19:11 

This later pic also suggest what would happen if the stylus azimuth is off... 

An effect that should be different from skewed coil alignment. 

Very good picture, thanks. 

T 

Popular Mechanics mag from 1975. 

Top 



(#p162016) 

by discopatrick » 15 Nov 2009 01:05 

Very interesting pics. I'd love to get my stylii under a microscope and have a look at what sort 

of condition they are in. Can anyone recommend a microscope? What sort of defects should I 

be looking for? Perhaps there is a thread about this already? 

EDITED TO ADD: 

found it 

http://www.vinylengine.com/examining-your-stylus.shtml (http://www.vinylengine.com 

/examining-your-stylus.shtml) 

Top 



(#p162094) 


great pics 

of elliptical and a "shibata" type shows the difference in contact 

between the two can see why an old LP can sound good on a shibata 

obvious really 

much greater contact area 

great pics 

sur 7 06/02/2012 15:06


Fantasia 

Top 



Costs of styli (#p162116) 

by 1200y3 » 15 Nov 2009 15:39 

I guess if I was a musician I could not expect to sell my music on vinyl because each record sold 

would have to go to a customer that can afford a $500 cartridge, and accept that it may 

break. Music producers have to know what their records really sound like to the normal LP 

user. 

Top 



(#p162330) 

by robbe_15 » 16 Nov 2009 10:08 

Very interesting information concirning stylus types. 

I feel here are the members that can give a adequate answer on my question about a conical 

stylus, the DL 103 in particular. 

TRUE or FALSE:Does this sort of stylus damages the vinyl ? 

Greetings 

robbe_15 

Top 



Conical (#p162364) 

by 1200y3 » 16 Nov 2009 14:19 

I have played record hundreds of times with modern cartridges with no wear. (Shures and 

A/Ts). I would think cartridge companies would be hit with claims if they were damaging 

records. Denon is a mature comapany. I thought conicals were safest, but the compliance and 

weight must work correctly. Compliance can be a mysterious issue. VTA has to work correctly 

on a spherical and the stylus tip must not rock or teeter. Watch the tip closely. You may see 

what appears to be a piston action vs teetering. You should see the teetering, if it has an 

incorrect VTA. Actually, just make sure it is vertically adjusted correctly. 

The only skepticism I have is that I never recorded the original sound and I am not sure if some 

of my experiments have left a "bruise" that takes storage time to materialize. 

Top 



(#p162365) 

by Dadimo » 16 Nov 2009 14:23 

This is an interesting thread here. the fact that the OM40 stylus is an FG design explains the 

almost 300 USD price One dealer is selling a shibata design replacement for that cartridge I 

noticed, and they even mentioned " less noisiness" in reference to the sensitivity to surface 

noise 

sur 7 06/02/2012 15:06


Top 


Post a reply 

201 posts • Page 4 of 14 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 14 


Jump to: 



sur 7 06/02/2012 15:06




Post a reply 

201 posts • Page 5 of 14 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 14 



FG, Shibata (#p162371) 

by 1200y3 » 16 Nov 2009 14:40 

Shibatas and FG's are just naturally good at picking up groove noise because it is their accuracy 

characteristic. If noise is their, it will pick it up. Some styli won't. 

I would assume Grado's stylus is an advanced elliptical. It "true ellipsoid" will ensure an equal 

amount of pressure from the diamond's surface to the centre. The sound is exactly like that. 

The stereo images are equal in amplitude within an full "playing field" type lateral area. Even 

some vertical imaging is noticeable on line arrays. 

Top 



(#p162387) 

by flavio81 » 16 Nov 2009 15:51 

No, it does not "damage" the vinyl. Enjoy your DL103 and don't worry. 

Top 



Re: FG, Shibata (#p162389) 

by flavio81 » 16 Nov 2009 15:52 

Exactly. 

robbe_15 wrote: 

I feel here are the members that can give a adequate answer on my question about 

a conical stylus, the DL 103 in particular. 

TRUE or FALSE:Does this sort of stylus damages the vinyl? 

1200y3 wrote: 

Shibatas and FG's are just naturally good at picking up groove noise because it is 

their accuracy characteristic. If noise is their, it will pick it up. Some styli won't. 

sur 6 06/02/2012 15:07


Well for the Prestige line you have 3 "tiers": Black/Red, Blue/Green, and Silver/Gold. They all 

say "elliptical" but i would bet the more expensive ones have different shaped styli. 

Top 



(#p163996) 

by flavio81 » 23 Nov 2009 15:56 

Article on the evolution of the stylus shapes!! Just uploaded to the library by JaS!! 

http://www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/viewt ... p?p=163995 (http://www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2 

/viewtopic.php?p=163995) 

Top 



(#p166733) 

by Nitrofunk » 03 Dec 2009 21:13 

What about the Harmonic Shape? Is it one of the "Tracking friendly"-Shapes? 

Peter 

Top 



(#p166744) 

by flavio81 » 03 Dec 2009 21:54 

Harmonic? Who sells that? Source please. 

Top 



(#p166759) 


It's the Shape of the Goldring Elite Reference and the Transrotor Merlo - two systems that are 

basically the same. 

Peter 

Top 

1200y3 wrote: 

I would assume Grado's stylus is an advanced elliptical. 

Nitrofunk wrote: 

What about the Harmonic Shape? Is it one of the "Tracking friendly"-Shapes? 

Peter 

sur 6 06/02/2012 15:07




(#p166927) 

by rito25 » 04 Dec 2009 18:53 

I assume that a Hyperelliptical is better than any elliptical because it has higher contact area? 

This might be slightly offtopic but how much does a tonearm come into in finding the right 

stylus type? 

Top 



How the arm affects it (#p166932) 

by 1200y3 » 04 Dec 2009 19:26 

A finer stylus will/should have a finer cantilever, a smaller compliance, and a lighter tracking 

force. This will require an arm with ultra low bearing friction and inertia from arm mass. The 

arm mass (matter) will also send it's noises, that it picks up from its base, into the cartridge. 

The mass will also damp the high frequency. The finer stylus will also pick up a lower level, 

meaning that arm resonances (spurious resonances/coloration) will have to be lower as well. 

Top 



(#p167731) 


Here's a Pic of the Transrotor Merlo "Harmonic" Stylus: 

http://www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/album_showpage.php?pic_id=11600&user_id=31254 

(http://www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/album_showpage.php?pic_id=11600&user_id=31254) 

Peter 

Top 



(#p167733) 

by bauzace50 » 07 Dec 2009 23:27 

Nitrofunk, 

that stylus looks beautiful! 

Regards, 

bauzace50 

Top 




by tobes » 09 Dec 2009 05:09 


sur 6 06/02/2012 15:07


Exactly. 

I don't think this is necessarily so. 

My Ortofon A90 has an aggressive shaped Ortofon 'replicant' stylus - yet it is, by a big, big 

margin, the quietest cartridge in the groove that I've owned. 

The Ortofon Jubilee, which has a Shibata stylus, is also very quiet (though not to the extent of 

the A90). 

In my experience record 'noise' has much to do with accurate alignment and the turntable and 

tonearm with which the cartridge is used. 

For the record, I also own the Denon 103R. While the Denon's conical stylus does not emphasise 

pops and ticks, it most definitely displays higher levels of 'groove noise' in comparison to the 

more advanced stylus shapes (in the cartridges above). You can clearly notice (in a quiet 

system) the sound of the stylus coursing through the grooves - a curious effect projected 

forward of the soundstage. By comparison the A90 is practically silent. 

All these cartridges were meticulously setup using the MintLp tractor. 

Top 



(#p168166) 

by fantasia » 09 Dec 2009 07:22 

I do tend to agree with you, about groove noise. 

My Frankenstein Grace F-8 which sports a generic Shure V15-3HE stylus is very quiet as are my 

two bonded Shibatas the Excel Es70x4 and the At311E/12S. They are low in groove noise and 

they do different degrees 

are able to expose fresh vinyl and play un worn sections of the groove. this is very useful given 

that i like iam sure most of us actually, now collect second hand LPs given that "NEW" releases 

on vinyl are not like they were. 

Fantasia 

1200y3 wrote: 

Shibatas and FG's are just naturally good at picking up groove noise 

because it is their accuracy characteristic. If noise is their, it will pick 

it up. Some styli won't. 

Top 




by flavio81 » 09 Dec 2009 15:26 

tobes wrote: 


sur 6 06/02/2012 15:07


1200y3 wrote: 

Shibatas and FG's are just naturally good at picking 

up groove noise because it is their accuracy 

characteristic. If noise is their, it will pick it up. 

Some styli won't. 

Exactly. 

I don't think this is necessarily so. 

My Ortofon A90 has an aggressive shaped Ortofon 'replicant' stylus - yet it is, by a 

big, big margin, the quietest cartridge in the groove that I've owned. 

The Ortofon Jubilee, which has a Shibata stylus, is also very quiet (though not to the 

extent of the A90). 

In my experience record 'noise' has much to do with accurate alignment and the 

turntable and tonearm with which the cartridge is used. 

Nice to hear that!! But what about ticks&pops? I would expect them to be more "intense" with 

the Replicant shape (than with a conical 103R). 

Top 




by tobes » 10 Dec 2009 00:08 


Nice to hear that!! But what about ticks&pops? I would expect them to be more 

"intense" with the Replicant shape (than with a conical 103R). 

Not at all. 

In all respects relating to noise and vinyl artefacts, the A90 is uncannily quiet - ticks and pops 

are much less noticeable than with the 103R. 

Of course it can't eradicate noise completely but, as I said above, it easily has the most silent 

background of any cartridge I've owned. 

The quality of the stylus and how it sits in the groove no doubt has something to do with this. 

However ticks and pops seem to be more obtrusive as the quality of the cartridge carrier 

(turntable/arm) is reduced. 

What I suspect is happening is that the 'ticks' excite micro-phonics in cartridge/arm/table. The 

better the cartridge body/tonearm/turntable are able to control/suppress this excitation, the 

less noticeable they'll be. 

My TNT/Phantom is a pretty quiet platform, it probably also helps that the A90's body is 

designed from the outset to be highly damped and suppress resonance. The A90 was also 

designed with a flat response - a rising frequency response is not going to assist the noise 

sur 6 06/02/2012 15:07


equation. 

The subject of vinyl noise artefacts is much more complex than merely looking at stylus shapes. 

To some extent the preference of stylus shape may be dependent on the quality of the 

turntable/arm. Ultimately though, IME, line contact type styli will offer the lowest noise (when 

setup properly in a quality table/arm). 

Top 


Post a reply 

201 posts • Page 5 of 14 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 14 


Jump to: 



sur 6 06/02/2012 15:07




Post a reply 

201 posts • Page 6 of 14 • 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 14 




by flavio81 » 10 Dec 2009 00:36 

tobes wrote: 

What I suspect is happening is that the 'ticks' excite micro-phonics in cartridge/arm 

/table. The better the cartridge body/tonearm/turntable are able to 

control/suppress this excitation, the less noticeable they'll be. 

Hmm... Interesting theory!! 

Top 




by missan » 10 Dec 2009 01:34 

tobes wrote: 

The quality of the stylus and how it sits in the groove no doubt has something to do 

with this. However ticks and pops seem to be more obtrusive as the quality of the 

cartridge carrier (turntable/arm) is reduced. 

What I suspect is happening is that the 'ticks' excite micro-phonics in cartridge/arm 

/table. The better the cartridge body/tonearm/turntable are able to 

control/suppress this excitation, the less noticeable they'll be. 

My TNT/Phantom is a pretty quiet platform, it probably also helps that the A90's 

body is designed from the outset to be highly damped and suppress resonance. The 

A90 was also designed with a flat response - a rising frequency response is not going 

to assist the noise equation. 

The subject of vinyl noise artefacts is much more complex than merely looking at 

stylus shapes. To some extent the preference of stylus shape may be dependent on 

the quality of the turntable/arm. Ultimately though, IME, line contact type styli will 

offer the lowest noise (when setup properly in a quality table/arm). 

Bruel&Kjaer did some transient testing, published in their paper from -77, where they came to 

the conclusion that the audibility of clicks is very much a result of this total combination as You 

are saying. 

sur 7 06/02/2012 15:07


The key is to achieve the right dampening of the needle after a click. 

So it´s the amplitude and the total time that we hear the click that should be as small as 

possible. The right dampening of the needle incorporates a total view of the TT in this respect. 

missan 

Edit:spelling 

Top 



B&K experiment (#p168652) 

by 1200y3 » 10 Dec 2009 19:57 

Yes, that is correct. Cartridge damping material such as hemp fabric or hemp burlap reduces 

the irritation of clicks and noise. In fact, when there is perfect cartridge resonance neutrality 

(cartridge isn't amplifying its own excitement) and the stylus itself is responsive enough, the 

clicks are not only quieter, but they separate from the music in the stereo image. They will be 

off in the sideline. 

B&K was the leader in the test and measurement field when it came to audio. 

Top 



(#p168887) 

by fscl » 11 Dec 2009 16:42 

flavio, 

This is a GREAT sticky.... thanks for digging up all of this fabulous information and sticking it 

here.... "Styli 101" 

I'm learning lots. 

Are there any members here that have both the AT ML and the JICO SAS, on the same / similar 

cartridges? that can testify to sound quality? 

Fred 

Top 



(#p168897) 

by flavio81 » 11 Dec 2009 17:26 

fscl wrote: 

Are there any members here that have both the AT ML and the JICO SAS, on the 

same / similar cartridges? that can testify to sound quality? 

Remember that the stylus tip is exactly the same in both the ML and the SAS. Manufactured by 

Namiki. The cantilever will be different, of course. The SAS cantilever is claimed to be boron 

by the manufacturer. 

sur 7 06/02/2012 15:07


I am undecided between buying an AT92ECD with an ML fitted, a shure M92E with the SAS, or 

an aftermarket Shibata on the AT92ECD. 

Top 



(#p168898) 

by 1200y3 » 11 Dec 2009 17:35 

The M92E may be too long. I did some overhang checks on my SL and the AT fits closer. I do not 

have a genuine Shure N92 so I don't know for certain. The Technics was sold with V15 Vs, so I 

would think the M92E would fit. 

Top 



(#p168900) 

by fscl » 11 Dec 2009 17:44 

f81 dilemmaizes: 

I am undecided between buying an AT92ECD with an ML fitted, a shure M92E with 

the SAS, or an aftermarket Shibata on the AT92ECD. 

EXACTLY....... 

This excellent sticky opens up a WHOLE new set of doors for upgrade paths.... and so I remain 

undecided too......however, it is / will be interesting to experiment w/ the current cartridge 

collection, target one with SAS / Shibata needle availability and then drop the hammer 

(actually click the mouse, we need some drama.... ) 

Perhaps the New Year will free me of my large$$...... 

1200y3 cautions: 

The M92E may be too long. I did some overhang checks on my SL and the AT fits 

closer. I do not have a genuine Shure N92 so I don't know for certain. The Technics 

was sold with V15 Vs, so I would think the M92E would fit. 

Paladin aka Will posted pictures of a modified Realistic (Shure): 

http://www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/viewt ... &start=540 (http://www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2 

/viewtopic.php?t=10177&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=540) 

Page 37 on a Technics linear..... 

So wondering if Realistic body dims + stylus body / cantilever needle relationship is the same as 

the M92 w/ SAS combo 

sur 7 06/02/2012 15:07


Thanks again Flavio.... 

Fred and head spinning w/ almost an infinite options upgrade combinations 

Top 



(#p169078) 

by fantasia » 12 Dec 2009 08:43 

Good point about upgrading!!! 

I have found that, if you like the general sound of the cartridge in your particular setup a 

better more exotic stylus shape; will be they way to go cost being a factor. a good example is 

the AT120 body which will fit a nice range of stylii like at140LC, AT155LC as just just two non 

440Mla stylii which to me sounds too CDish!!!!! 

These are just an example, Pickering/Stanton bodies will offer many possibilities too. An 

excellent thread, which becomes a good source of info!! 

Fantasia 

Top 



(#p169211) 

by flavio81 » 12 Dec 2009 22:01 

1200y3 wrote: 

The M92E may be too long. I did some overhang checks on my SL and the AT fits 

closer. I do not have a genuine Shure N92 so I don't know for certain. The Technics 

was sold with V15 Vs, so I would think the M92E would fit. 

The cartridge weight, and stylus-tip-to-cartridge-socket distance, are standarized. It is the 

p-mount standard. Weight of cartridge plus stylus must be 6g otherwise the VTF won't be set at 

what the turntable VTF gauge indicates. 

Stylus-tip-to-cartridge-socket distance i can't remember but i think it was 20mm. 

As long as you are using the Shure p-mount type stylus, everything should be OK on the M92E. 

But i don't know if the distance or the weight will be the same if you fit the SAS stylus made 

for the M97xE... 

Top 




by applewoi » 19 Dec 2009 20:44 

1200y3 wrote: 

sur 7 06/02/2012 15:07


Please note that my retipped Shibatas have lot less surface noise than a fine line and the 

former elliptical in the same Ortofon MC25 cart. 

I believe this is due to better polishing of Shibata. 

Sonics are superior too. With a well defined, holografic soundstage solid bass and smooth highs, 

it was well worth the upgrade. 

Top 



(#p172183) 

by Eoin » 24 Dec 2009 03:45 

Hey! Jim Lesurf was (one) of my lecturers at University and my tutor for a while. 

Cool.. 

Shibatas and FG's are just naturally good at picking up groove noise because it is 

their accuracy characteristic. If noise is their, it will pick it up. Some styli won't. 

So, what is the problem with the spherical? It is perfectly explained in this excellent 

web page by Jim Lesurf: 

Top 



(#p172214) 

by flavio81 » 24 Dec 2009 06:31 

Eoin wrote: 

Hey! Jim Lesurf was (one) of my lecturers at University and my tutor for a while. 

Cool.. 

So, what is the problem with the spherical? It is perfectly explained in 

this excellent web page by Jim Lesurf: 

What courses did he teach? His articles on vinyl are excellent. 

Top 



(#p172369) 

by Eoin » 24 Dec 2009 21:33 

sur 7 06/02/2012 15:07


Jim taught 'Information and Measurement' which included a lot of detail on how CDs worked for 

instance. Also I think an Electromagnetics course with a lot of stuff on transmission lines and 

wave guides. His field of research was millimeter band RF stuff which was such a short 

wavelength that it was called 'quasi optical' and while it was RF generally you could use optical 

techniques to manipulate it such as 'lenses' made from polythene or PTFE which were about 4 

inches across. Applications included passive detection for military stuff and radar (a type of 

which is now used on active cruise control on cars where it maintains a constant spacing to the 

vehicle in front dependent on speed). 

He worked in the Department of Physics in St. Andrews University, Scotland. I see some of his 

lecture notes are available on his website. The information and Measurement is particularly 

interesting and fairly straight forward to follow. I'm sure he could email out a complete set to 

interested people. 

A very likeable man. 

Top 



(#p174064) 

by Vulcan Viewer » 02 Jan 2010 05:22 

I'm having a little trouble understanding how cartridges, arms. and all the other components 

manage ticks and pops. 

Many musical instruments have a sharp "attack" element - snare drums for instance. Initially, 

this could be mistaken for a pop or tick. So if it is supressed wouldn't that also affect the 

musical content? 

After all, we're talking about purely mechanical means of reproduction here. There's no 

"memory" in the system to replace missing bits. Once it's gone, it's gone. 

Top 



Mecahanical vs Digital (#p174394) 

by 1200y3 » 03 Jan 2010 19:27 

The vibrations and resonances color the sound as long as there is weight or matter and create 

a shadowing effect, and level overloads. In a post above there was some speaking of Bruel and 

Kjuer information, which basically reflects on the need for arm or cartridge damping materials, 

which will or should stop any extra vibrations that are caused by the stylus's incredibly high 

speeds. 

Relative to the mechanical problems with LP, digital is superior. But relative to electrical 

playback, LP will remain superior until the sampling frequency is increased, because presently 

it only samples the highest frequency twice. 

The sharp attack elements are lost with mass and matter, such as speaker cone weight and 

weghts on the pickup system. Electronic feedback and servo systems can correct what 

"memories" and inacuracies exist, but it becomes too specific to the systems and environment. 

The cartridge design that least covers over the sharp attck is the variable reluctance cartridge 

(similar to elecric guitar pickups) becase the sound is not traveling through a cantilever to get 

to the pickup. (Most cartridges are essentally VR except for ceramics and piezos which are 

elecrostatic, but the VR as we know it has a magnetic path being directly cut.) 

sur 7 06/02/2012 15:07


The stylus delays alot of the sound. 

Top 


Post a reply 

201 posts • Page 6 of 14 • 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 14 


Jump to: 



sur 7 06/02/2012 15:07




Post a reply 

201 posts • Page 7 of 14 • 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 14 



Stylus delay (#p175228) 

by 1200y3 » 07 Jan 2010 04:38 

I am probably incorrect to say it delays the sound, as opposed to an "echo" or decay. The stylus 

can be "lossy", which is a term used to describe an antenna when its feedline is not feeding the 

reciever a pure signal. 

We are aware of the sound of a thick stylus vs a thin one. 

Top 



Re: Stylus delay (#p175344) 

by flavio81 » 07 Jan 2010 16:02 

1200y3 wrote: 

I am probably incorrect to say it delays the sound, as opposed to an "echo" or decay. 

The stylus can be "lossy", which is a term used to describe an antenna when its 

feedline is not feeding the reciever a pure signal. 

We are aware of the sound of a thick stylus vs a thin one. 

Thick in what sense? You mean thick side profile or you mean "stylus with more mass"? 

You are correct in saying that a stylus with more mass will reveal less high-frequency details 

such as transients. 

Top 



(#p175362) 

by 1200y3 » 07 Jan 2010 16:52 

I really meean cheap styli like the ones on the ceramic cartridges. 

Conical tapered styli are visually big but very thin walled, and some fat styli sound great and 

some thin styli sound poor. But in general stylus bulk will get in the way of the sound. Then the 

cartridge resonances and arm resonances do to. 

Top 



sur 7 06/02/2012 15:08


(#p177241) 

by joseaugusto » 13 Jan 2010 23:25 

This topic is very interesting. 

Thanks flavio81 

PD: Si realmente estas en Lima, no creo que todo esto te lo hayan enseñado en Paruro. 

Top 



(#p177275) 

by flavio81 » 14 Jan 2010 01:08 

No saben nada en Paruro! Solo hay pastillas mediocres y esas agujitas Normarh cónicas que son 

una porquería. 

(Sorry for not using english) 

Top 



(#p177328) 

by joseaugusto » 14 Jan 2010 05:26 

flavio81 

joseaugusto wrote: 

PD: Si realmente estas en Lima, no creo que todo esto te lo hayan enseñado en 

Paruro. 

I sent you a PM. 

Top 



(#p177992) 

by MonkeyBoy » 16 Jan 2010 03:56 

FeiJi Fancier wrote: 

I'm having a little trouble understanding how cartridges, arms. and all the other 

components manage ticks and pops. 

Many musical instruments have a sharp "attack" element - snare drums for instance. 

Initially, this could be mistaken for a pop or tick. So if it is supressed wouldn't that 

also affect the musical content? 

sur 7 06/02/2012 15:08


After all, we're talking about purely mechanical means of reproduction here. There's 

no "memory" in the system to replace missing bits. Once it's gone, it's gone. 

That was one thing that was emphasised in the SAE 5000A transient noise reduction machine 

literature (pop and click eliminator). The attack time of most music, even snare drums,etc. 

was approximmately 1000 times slower than the attack time of transient noise. This is the 

formula that was used to eliminate or reduce the transient noise in these units. The sensitivity 

could be set by means of a sliding switch with the optimum position for most recording at just 

left of center, at least with the two TT's and cartridges I had at the time. It worked fairly well 

for many recordings, but the most dificult to use it for were recordings with a lot of "forward" 

vocals, such as The Beatles, Joni Mitchell, etc. It would cause distortion in those instances 

which essentially necessitated keeping one's hand on the slide for certain recordings. I just 

wish I had gone ahead and bought an RCM instead. 

Top 



Who do I talk too????? (#p179521) 

by Phil Leger » 21 Jan 2010 20:05 

I am new to this stuff. I own Technics EPC-100CMk3 cartridge complete and original 

packaging. I would like to find out some information about it : it's value and resale possibilities. 

Thanks for your help and thoughts. 

Top 



Re: Who do I talk too????? (#p179533) 

by flavio81 » 21 Jan 2010 21:06 

Phil Leger wrote: 

I am new to this stuff. I own Technics EPC-100CMk3 cartridge complete and 

original packaging. I would like to find out some information about it : it's value and 

resale possibilities. Thanks for your help and thoughts. 

The EPC-100CMK3? 

sur 7 06/02/2012 15:08


You have one of the best performing cartridges of all times!! 

Don't you want to sell it? The EPC-P100CMK4 (version 4, p-mount) is on sale at $771 at 

turntableneedles.com (http://www.turntableneedles.com/TECHNICS_c_49745.html) 

Specs... 

Frequency response 5Hz~100kHz (yes, one hundred kilohertz!) 

20Hz~15kHz ±0.3dB 

Output level 1.2mV 

Effective tip mass 0.098mg (the lowest i have ever seen, compare with 0.500g for the typical 

Ortofon) 

Weight 18.3g (it has an integrated headshell) 

Stylus: Ellptical 0.2x0.7mil [i don't believe it, i bet it has a more sophisticated shape] 

Cantilever: Pure boron pipe. 

Source: http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=EPC-100CMK3 (http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=EPC-100CMK3) 

I would advise you to open a new thread announcing the sale of your cartridge. 

Top 



Thank You! (#p179570) 

by Phil Leger » 21 Jan 2010 22:50 

I will take a few pics and do what you suggest. I appreciate your reply and suggests. Have a 

great day. 

Top 



(#p183147) 

by discopatrick » 02 Feb 2010 20:57 

sur 7 06/02/2012 15:08


(http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/gallery/image_page.php?image_id=12316) 

(click for full size) 

Here's my Ortofon DJ E stylus. Nothing special compared to some of the stuff in this thread I 

imagine... 

The "E" is supposed to be for eliptical, though it's hard to see it at this angle. I shall bring it 

round for a side profile next time. 

I bought a USB microscope specifically for taking this photo. This is the largest magnification I 

can get, and about the best focus. Is it going to be possible to detect wear on the stylus at this 

magnification? 

I've ordered some Isopropyl Alcohol as suggested in the "Examining Your Stylus" article 

(http://www.vinylengine.com/examining-your-stylus.shtml) and I shall give it a good clean before 

inspecting again. 

Top 



(#p184868) 

by rkay5 » 09 Feb 2010 11:08 

Hi. 

Very cool posting. The stylus I'd like to know about are what Denon calls Special Eliptical 0.07 x 

0.14 like on the DL160 HOMC is it a Hyperelliptical or something else? 

Top 


sur 7 06/02/2012 15:08



(#p184894) 

by flavio81 » 09 Feb 2010 15:32 

It's a mystery. 0.07x0.14 is are the dimensions of the diamond shank, not of the stylus tip. 

"Special elliptical" can mean anything, from "narrow elliptical" to "line contact". 

Top 



(#p184917) 

by flavio81 » 09 Feb 2010 16:17 

But the Shibata is a Line Contact. 

There are no diagrams or pictures available for Grado's "twin-tip", so we cannot say it's a new 

design. Grado has no patents for line contact designs. "Twin-tip" is a marketing term that can 

mean anything, same as Grado's "Optimized Transmission Line" or "Flux-bridger"... 

A micro-ridge is completely different from all the other stylus designs, you cannot do an hybrid 

between a LC and a MR. 

The cross section viewed from above is markedly different between an elliptical (ellipse), 

Shibata (heart-shaped), Hughes (double-heart shaped) and MR (sharp-edges lozenge-shaped). 

Top 



(#p197384) 

by krenzler » 29 Mar 2010 19:46 

Great work flavio81! 

Thank you for taking the time and effort to compile all this interesting information. 

Top 

rkay5 wrote: 

Hi. 

Very cool posting. The stylus I'd like to know about are what Denon calls Special 

Eliptical 0.07 x 0.14 like on the DL160 HOMC is it a Hyperelliptical or something 

else? 

And it could also mean (special eliptical) a hy-bred between shibata and line 

contact....a twip tip.....could be a hy-bred between line contact and a micro ridge 

etc etc etc ........you have two basic choices of a cross section viewed from 

above....round or eliptical 

sur 7 06/02/2012 15:08



Post a reply 

201 posts • Page 7 of 14 • 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 14 


Jump to: 



sur 7 06/02/2012 15:08




Post a reply 

201 posts • Page 8 of 14 • 1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 14 



(#p197632) 

by pirca » 30 Mar 2010 14:29 






50uM for the Shibata on the Ortofon 2M Red, also for the Shibata on the Jubilee (*) 









Please, explain me why you say that the Ortofon 2M Red has a "Shibata" stylus. 

I have read the Ortofon specifications and they say "Elliptical". 

Top 



(#p197649) 

by flavio81 » 30 Mar 2010 15:18 

pirca wrote: 






50uM for the Shibata on the Ortofon 2M Red, also for the Shibata on 

the Jubilee (*) 


sur 6 06/02/2012 15:08


Please, explain me why you say that the Ortofon 2M Red has a "Shibata" stylus. 

I have read the Ortofon specifications and they say "Elliptical". 

My mistake, i'll correct that post. 

Top 



(#p198174) 

by bronilover » 31 Mar 2010 23:49 

flavio81, thank you for an excellent explanation of stylus designs! 

Top 



(#p198389) 

by bronilover » 02 Apr 2010 00:57 

Dynavector's website says they use the following stylus: 

1.Micro-Ridge 

2.PF Line contact shape 

Anyone know what are the differences, if any? 

Top 



(#p198646) 

by krenzler » 03 Apr 2010 02:01 

From the XX-2 upwards. PF ("PathFinder") Line contact shape, stylus radius: 7 x 30 micron. 

http://www.dynavector.com/products/cart/e_xx2mk2.html (http://www.dynavector.com 

/products/cart/e_xx2mk2.html) 

Top 



(#p198653) 








sur 6 06/02/2012 15:08



Ogura Pathfinder: 

http://www.ogura-indus.co.jp/products/f_01.html (http://www.ogura-indus.co.jp/products 

/f_01.html) 

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?for ... i+jcarr&r= (http://db.audioasylum.com 

/cgi/m.mpl?forum=vinyl&n=265884&highlight=ogura+namiki+jcarr&r=) 

Top 



(#p198657) 


Jonathan Carr: 

"I prefer line-contact styli that combine a vertically long contact patch with the LP groove with 

a horizontally short contact patch. A vertically long contact patch gives greater groove contact 

for better tracking and better immunity to localized groove damage, and a horizontally short 

contact patch give better high-frequency performance and less time-smear. This leads to 

line-contact styli with a fairly large major radius and a small minor radius, but in practice 

neither radius can be too extreme. Too large of a major radius makes azimuth adjustment 

more critical than most users (and many tonearms) want to deal with, and too small of a minor 

radius tends to create edges on the stylus that are sharp enough to chew up the groove. Based 

on my own experiences and observations, I like the maximum major radius to be in the 

70~80um range, and the minor radius to be in the 2.5~3um range. 

For all Lyra cartridges other than the Dorian and Delos, I use a Lyra-designed variable-radius 

custom stylus which measures 3um (minor) x 70um (maximum major).* This is an excellent 

stylus, but has one major flaw. As a custom Lyra shape, no other manufacturer uses it, 

therefore it is made in small quantities and becomes relatively expensive. A more affordable 

cartridge like the Dorian or Delos doesn't permit the manufacturing budget that would allow a 

custom stylus assembly to be specified, unless I were to reduce the manufacturing quality in 

other ways (which I refused to do). To keep what I deemed to be sufficient build quality (of 

body structure as well as stylus and craftsmanship) at this price level, I needed an off-the-shelf 

stylus. The closest stylus shape to the custom Lyra 3um x 70um profile was the Namiki 

Microridge, which I could get as 2.5um x 75um. And that's what the Delos uses." 

*Ogura. 

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl ... om&12&4#12 (http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin 

/fr.pl?eanlg&1258844370&openfrom&12&4#12) 

Top 



(#p198661) 


So PA (or Pathfinder) is the more "common off-the-shelf" Ogura diamond while their 2.5um x 

75um tip is only custom-made for Lyra. 

sur 6 06/02/2012 15:08


Top 



(#p199687) 

by flavio81 » 07 Apr 2010 16:22 

Updated with VDH and Shure info 

-- the smaller, the better. 

0.970mg Shure "bi-radial" (0.4x0.7mil, MM) 


0.500mg Ortofon OM10 stylus (bushed elliptical, MI) 

0.400mg Ortofon OM20 stylus (nude elliptical, MI) 


0.370mg Shure Elliptical (0.2x0.7mil, MM) 

0.330mg Shure bi-radial on V15-III (MM) (berillium control rod) 

0.300mg Ortofon OM30 stylus (nude Fine Line), OM40 (nude FG), MI 

0.290mg Technics EPC-P202C (p-mount, MM) 

0.290mg Shure HE on V15-IV (MM) ("telescopic shank") 

0.240mg Van den Hul Colibri (MC) 


0.220mg Ortofon Jubilee (MC) 

0.170mg Shure Micro-Ridge (0.15x3.00mil, MM) 

0.098mg Technics EPC-100CMK3 (MM) 

0.077mg Denon DL1000 (MC) 

0.055mg Technics EPC-P100CMK4 (p-mount, MM) 




Shure V15 specs from a shure paper 


Ortofon Jubilee, VDH's Colibri, and Denon DL1000's specs come from forum member Klaus R. 

Top 



(#p217295) 

by kcc123 » 29 Jun 2010 22:54 

The effective moving mass of the Technics EPC-P205 mk 4 is 0.109 mg(0.2x0.7mil), according 

to specs. 

Top 



(#p217300) 

by flavio81 » 29 Jun 2010 23:27 

Thanks! 

Updated with Technics EPC-P205CMK4 


sur 6 06/02/2012 15:08
















0.109mg Technics EPC-P205CMK4 (p-mount, 0.2x0.7mil, MM) 










Top 



(#p217402) 

by kcc123 » 30 Jun 2010 17:01 

The moving mass of the Ortofon MC10 Super, MC20, SL20E and SL20Q is 0.5 mg. 

Top 



(#p217409) 

by flavio81 » 30 Jun 2010 17:52 

kcc123 wrote: 

The moving mass of the Ortofon MC10 Super, MC20, SL20E and SL20Q is 0.5 mg. 

Yes, but that's not really accurate since on some leaflets, for example, ortofon lists the moving 

mass of the OM10 and OM20 both at 0.5mg when this is clearly not the case. It seems they use 

"0.5mg" as a generic figure when they don't want to publish the actual figure. 

Top 



(#p217416) 

sur 6 06/02/2012 15:08


by kcc123 » 30 Jun 2010 19:00 

Haha! 

I had always assumed that the manufacturers’ figures were accurate, but obviously I might be 

wrong. 

Top 



Stanton 980LZS (#p217661) 

by bronilover » 02 Jul 2010 01:37 

Does anyone know the effective moving mass of the stanton 980LZS? 

Top 


Post a reply 

201 posts • Page 8 of 14 • 1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 14 


Jump to: 



sur 6 06/02/2012 15:08




Post a reply 

201 posts • Page 9 of 14 • 1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 14 



(#p242231) 

by flavio81 » 14 Oct 2010 16:34 

Advantages of the Shibata tip, from a research paper by inventor Norio Shibata. Great read! 

Click the picture to zoom in. 

sur 11 06/02/2012 15:09



Top 



(#p251129) 

by HotHondr98 » 24 Nov 2010 23:14 

Thanks for your excellent post on stylus shapes and advantages. I have (on another forum) 

often tried to describe the various shapes to people when discussing the advantages of line 

contact styli – now I can just refer them here to see the photos and drawings. 

Other effective stylus moving mass figures I’ve found to add to your table are: 

sur 11 06/02/2012 15:09


0.168 mg Denon DL-305 (MC) 




Source: Denon MC cartridge brochure, page 2 – it’s in the library here. 

Denon emphasised that the light weight of many of their better cartridges (eg DL-103D, 

DL-303, DL-304, DL-305 and DL-1000A) was one of the reasons for their excellent tracking and 

performance. I own a Denon DL-103D and a DL-304, and I’d like to know what their effective 

moving mass is, but Denon doesn’t release it for all their cartridges, and apart from mentioning 

that their effective mass is very light, doesn’t give it for those two. They also seem to give 

very little information on their stylus shapes, just describing many as “special elliptical”. Given 

that they specified some to have excellent high frequency response (70kHz +) I’d be surprised if 

they weren’t similar to extended line contact styli such as the Shibata in their shape. “Special” 

in Denon language probably means “hyper” in other manufacturers’ language! 

I have seen a review of a Denon DL-303 (from the late 1970’s) which measured the frequency 

response, and it was certainly very flat out to 50kHz, where the calibrated test record’s upper 

frequency limit was! Denon specified that to have a 70kHz frequency response. It also gave an 

almost perfect reproduction of a square wave on an oscilloscope, which proved it had a good 

high frequency response. 

-Don 

Top 



(#p251140) 

by flavio81 » 24 Nov 2010 23:55 

Updated thanks to Don 


NOTE that so far what i have learned is that the cantilever is the main responsible for the total 

moving mass, more than the tip itself. 

1.000mg Ortofon SPU (all classic and 'mono' models) 











0.270mg Denon DL-301 (MC) 







sur 11 06/02/2012 15:09


0.168mg Denon DL-305 

0.109mg Technics EPC-P205CMK4 (p-mount, 0.2x0.7mil, MM) 








Ortofon specs from Ortofon website 


Other Denon specs from the Denon MC cartridge brochure. 

Top 



(#p251164) 

by HotHondr98 » 25 Nov 2010 01:09 


NOTE that so far what i have learned is that the cantilever is the main responsible 

for the total moving mass, more than the tip itself. 

Yes, that's probably right - Shure used beryllium to get the weight of their cantilevers very low. 

According to one of Shure's designers, who is a member on the other forum I regularly 

contribute at, they started out using beryllium with the V15 Type IV, and then made the whole 

cantilever from that with the V15 Type V. He designed the ML140HE, which also used a 

beryllium cantilever. Apparently he had to design it to be as good as possible, but about half 

the price of the V15 Type V MR. 

He said he used techniques such as a very thin beryllium cantilever and a very small magnet to 

reduce mass as much as possible, because apparently the HE stylus he had to use was too 

heavy, compared to others they'd used (probably MR). The thin cantilevers were too fragile, so 

they had to go back to the thicker material they used on the V15 for production models, but 

they made everything else attached to the cantilever as small as possible to minimise weight. 

One of the disadvantages was that it had lower output due to the smaller magnet. 

Denon also use(d) boron cantilevers on some of their models, including the DL-305 and 

DL-1000, which have the lowest moving mass, to lower the weight. According to the Shure 

designer it's not so easy to do that, because it's hard to make them hollow, as they did with 

beryllium ones, which were made using beryllium foil, rolled up into a tube. 

Top 



No SAS effective Mass data? (#p253813) 

by dlaloum » 07 Dec 2010 08:49 

In terms of current styli manufacturers - Jico and their SAS stylus seem to be an obvious 

informational gap... 

Anyone heard/seen any information on the SAS cantilever/stylus effective mass? 

sur 11 06/02/2012 15:09


This may in fact vary by stylus model, as the magnets (in a MM design) will impact the mass.... 

presumably MI designs like the ADC and Ortofon styli from Jico would be lighter... 

Top 



Re: No SAS effective Mass data? (#p253857) 

by flavio81 » 07 Dec 2010 17:07 

dlaloum wrote: 

In terms of current styli manufacturers - Jico and their SAS stylus seem to be an 

obvious informational gap... 

Anyone heard/seen any information on the SAS cantilever/stylus effective mass? 

This may in fact vary by stylus model, as the magnets (in a MM design) will impact 

the mass.... presumably MI designs like the ADC and Ortofon styli from Jico would 

be lighter... 

Seems the MI designs are not necessarily lighter. There's an article on this forum's library where 

a Shure engineer deconstructs the contribution of each part of the moving assembly in a MM or 

MI cart. The biggest contributor was the cantilever itself, then the magnet. But this depended 

on the lever arrangement. For example in the Audio-Technica dual magnet system, the inertia 

contributed by the magnet was negligible. 

An example i always cite: Stanton went from a MM design (Stanton 500) to a MI design (681) 

claiming reduced moving mass, but when the Samarium Cobalt magnets were available, their 

top cartridge was again a MM (Stanton 881). All the ultra low moving mass MM designs 

appeared in the late 70s/early 80s. 

The JICO SAS uses a boron cantilever and a nude tip plus a SmCo magnet, i wouldn't be 

surprised if the effective moving mass is less than 0.3mg. 

Top 



Re: No SAS effective Mass data? (#p254413) 

by bronilover » 09 Dec 2010 23:47 



The JICO SAS uses a boron cantilever and a nude tip plus a SmCo 

magnet, i wouldn't be surprised if the effective moving mass is less 

than 0.3mg. 

Are you sure the JICO 881Shibata replacement stylus uses samarium cobalt magnets? 

sur 11 06/02/2012 15:09


In March of this year I emailed JICO about the 881Shibata and the list price was US$87. 

Yesterday I noticed it's US$136! 

Is it the same exact stylus? or have they since added the samarium cobalt magnets? or is it just 

plain old price gouging? 

Top 



(#p254415) 

by dlaloum » 09 Dec 2010 23:59 

Last I heard the chinese were playing merry hell with world rare earth pricing.... 

If they are using Samarium Cobalt magnets (rare earths) - the market price of those rare 

earths might be the reason why there has been a substantial rise in price across some of their 

top styli... 

Just a thought... 

David 

Top 



(#p254472) 

by flavio81 » 10 Dec 2010 07:45 


Last I heard the chinese were playing merry hell with world rare earth pricing.... 

If they are using Samarium Cobalt magnets (rare earths) - the market price of those 

rare earths might be the reason why there has been a substantial rise in price across 

some of their top styli... 

Just a thought... 

David 

I don't think this has any effect at all. Dime-size magnets aren't expensive, even Sm-Co. The 

magnet used is in the stylus is microscopic. 

Top 



(#p254510) 

by dlaloum » 10 Dec 2010 13:49 

Well then Jico are starting to take advantage of the reputation that people like this community 

have helped them build up.... 

sur 11 06/02/2012 15:09


I hope they don't take it too far - if they do then they will lose their market. 

The thing that makes some of the great vintage cartridges interesting, is that one can take a 

risk on the cartridge with a known quality new stylus from Jico.... at perhaps 50% of the price 

of some similar new cartridges.... 

Once they start getting up around 75% of the price of the new alternatives, one has to 

seriously ask whether it is worth the risk - or whether one is better off buying an AT440ML 

etc.... 

Bye for now 

David 

Top 



HyperEliptical and Shibata (#p254835) 

by dlaloum » 12 Dec 2010 14:57 

Hi Folks 

I asked this question in another thread.... I am aware that there are differences between HE 

and Shibata styli... 

My notes (mostly collected from this thread!) Have the small shibata as being 6/50um radii 

(sometimes 6/45?) 

I Have fineline / ogura? / vital - noted as 8/40um 

Shure HE I have noted as 5/38um 

Canadian Astatic HE is noted as 8/23um 

The missing bits of info are I think contact patch length, for which all I have is the small 

Shibata (2.8um) 

Seems to me that the Shure HE styli look very very close to the small shibata proportions - 

would I be wrong to expect well nigh identical performance? 

Also seems that the larger minor radius of the fineline family would put them a notch below 

the small shibata... (in pure stylus shape quality terms) 

The large shibata is quite a different beast with 6/75um radii and contact patch of 3.6um... 

which puts it in a category just below the exotics (SAS / Microridge) along with vdh... 

Anyway - I decided to focus on Shibata - so I was looking for that type of Stylus for my Shure 

1000E - none to be found! 

Seems to me the reason there are none to be found is HE is so close to shibata that there is no 

point in having both (other than marketing) - and seing as HE was the original Shure term and 

stylus.... 

Anyone care to comment on HE vs Shibata (small) 

sur 11 06/02/2012 15:09


bye for now 

David 

Top 



(#p256209) 

by Luckydog » 20 Dec 2010 14:13 

One of the properties of larger major radius stylii is claimed to be longer vertical contact 

length, said to be associated with reduced groove indentation depth. 

But there is a geometric problem that I can't make sense of. 

The major radius profile is curved, as illustrated below, and if the groove and stylus were rigid, 

they would touch at just two points. To have a significant contact vertical length (or area) 

requires indentation of the groove wall to some extent. 

Then it's a matter of geometry what the indentation must be, given published figures for 

contact line length and major radius. I've marked up this example with indentation depth in 

red, example taken from a post Flavio81 made earlier on this thread. 


This generally contradicts the notion that longer line contact results in lower indentation !!! 

FWIW, those geometrically obtained indentation numbers are generally much smaller than 

published by Barlow, and much larger than my own reckoning, each obtained by other means. I 

declare I am an indentation skeptic ! 

I wonder if, rather than indent, the 'point' of contact is more variable in a longer vertical 

contact profile stylus ? Larger major radius naturally results in less precise vertical location of 

sur 11 06/02/2012 15:09


contact points versus general dimensional tolerance. One can determine the contact area by 

inspecting wear patterns. But that does not mean the whole contact area makes contact all of 

the time, dependant on modulation etc. Wear patterns might suggest a much larger contact 

area than is in play at any instant, perhaps. 

I wonder then if the main advantage of large major radius stylii is reduced friction, stylus 

surfing/planing variations in groove wall surface, by variation in vertical stylus contact 

location. Rather than reducing indentation ? 

Top 



(#p256229) 

by missan » 20 Dec 2010 16:37 

LD 

It seems to me if these red marked figures are true, these would possibly indicate higher wear, 

distortion and maybe also higher noice with bigger indentation. 

If these are true are depending on the hardness of the vinyl, and the expanding area from 

point zero. 

As I believe vinyl is very hard at these exposed µs, I don´t know, variating small contact points 

sound not unlikely. 

missan 

Top 



(#p256232) 

by flavio81 » 20 Dec 2010 17:29 

Luckydog wrote: 

One of the properties of larger major radius stylii is claimed to be longer vertical 

contact length, said to be associated with reduced groove indentation depth. 

But there is a geometric problem that I can't make sense of. 

The major radius profile is curved, as illustrated below, and if the groove and stylus 

were rigid, they would touch at just two points. To have a significant contact 

vertical length (or area) requires indentation of the groove wall to some extent. 

Then it's a matter of geometry what the indentation must be, given published 

figures for contact line length and major radius. I've marked up this example with 

indentation depth in red, example taken from a post Flavio81 made earlier on this 

thread. 

sur 11 06/02/2012 15:09



Please explain with more detail how did you calculate those indentation numbers in red. On 

the other side, what we want is maximum contact sirface. It's intuitive to think More contact 

surface = less pressure = less deformation and thus theorically less indentation. 

I would take the contact surface numbers published in that image with a grain of salt since this 

would really depend strongly on the VTF used, for starters!!! 

On the other side, i can't understand how the microLine stylus would have the biggest (733nm) 

indentation depth, since the contact surface is way way bigger (and you can see this by just 

looking at a pic of the stylus). Indentation depth should almost be zero. Again, please explain 

how do you calculate indentation depth. 

As far as i can see your numbers correlate indentation depth with minor radius, disregarding 

the major radius. The model should be 3D not 2D. Or, in other words, the whole contact 

surface shape should be taken into account to consider how much will the record be deformed. 

Top 



(#p256248) 



Please explain with more detail how did you calculate those indentation numbers in 

red. 

0 sur 11 06/02/2012 15:09


Hi Flavio81. Sure thing. Here's sketch of a vertical section through a groove wall/stylus in 

contact. You can see, indentation D can entirely be defined by contact length (green) and 

major radius. 


I think it's easy to see the enigma. It's impossible for the whole contact length to be in contact 

in those examples without indentation that generally increases with major radius, which it 

doesn't. My explanation is that indentation doesn't happen to any significant extent. However, 

stylus profile offered to 'surf' the groove surface is wider with a large major radius stylus. 

Perhaps lower friction then, and better tolerance of ruts/divets/hillocks etc. 

Top 


Post a reply 

201 posts • Page 9 of 14 • 1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 14 


Jump to: 



1 sur 11 06/02/2012 15:09




Post a reply 

201 posts • Page 10 of 14 • 1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 



(#p256286) 


Luckydog wrote: 

My explanation is that indentation doesn't happen to any significant extent. 

I should add : "....and the stylus is not in contact with the groove at all points along the 

vertical contact length simultaneously." 

Top 



(#p261442) 

by Yosh » 11 Jan 2011 04:08 

Hi Luckydog 

You wrote: "But there is a geometric problem that I can't make sense of". 

Once I got same impression when I read specification by JICO (VTF 1.25g) and JVC report 

(VTF1.8g) etc. 

But simple "geometrical calculation" is not applicable in these elastic contact between stylus 

and groove wall. The elastic contact theory was presented by Hertz (that great man: Heinrich 

Rudolph Hertz 1857-1894) - his theory was neglected at the first publication but now widely 

accpeted and acertained through mechnical tests (bearing contact etc). 

The area outside indent circle is also sinking the same depth. Deformation depth δ [µm] Wmax 

is total sinking depth of stylus under pressure while tip depth buried into groove should be 1/2 

since the contact circle plane level sinks also under pressure. Bastiaans (JAES1967) showed 

data of indent circles (1/2 depth of total depth Wmax) by tip depth buried into groove. I think 

that the diameter of contact scars is matching the contact circle at the surface of Wmax/2 

level where actually the stretching tension force becomes highest while maximum compression 

pressure Pmax is located at the bottom of contact. 

About spherical tips using Hertz equation, I checked and found JICO(at 1.25g)/JVC(at 1.8g) 

specifications each under static load are OK provided vinyl material has constant 

specifications:value of Poison rate 0.35, Young modulus 3.3 10^9N/m2 [these vinyl figures were 

found at paperes by Stevenson/Bastiaans/JVC(Shibata)/Toshiba(Murai)]. 

I believe JICO's specifications are also calculated based on flat contact without any modulation 

(plain groove V walls). 

I can not confirm total contact depth about other shapes because I cannot understand Hertz 

sur 23 06/02/2012 15:10


equation perfectly in order to calculate the elliptic circles. 

Regards 

Yosh 

Top 



(#p261466) 

by Yosh » 11 Jan 2011 06:33 

P.S . 

When stylii are simply simulated as rod bent or warped dipping into water, 

the specs of v/l curvature ratio of JICO about their non-spherical stylii are questionable. Their 

drawing about contact area is unreasonable. Maybe radius specified by manufacturers has 

"special" meaning. In many cases the actual radii of special stylus tips are made asymmetric 

between front and rear or between upper and lower (much different from rod bent or 

warped). 

I agree with Luckydog generally about the depth dipping into groove wall. 

If LINE CONTACT is truly line, then depth should be infinite. 

About wearing the record, I suppose that the static load and contact area (that is deciding 

average pressure P/S [N/m2]) are not only definitive factors, but also the stylus shape wading 

in groove wall and contact angle or inserting angle into groove wall (like surfboard action on 

wave) must be considered. In my experience I never found my round edge of spherical nude 

stylus worn after more than 500 hours while sharp edges of special stylii are often damaged 

within the same hours [despite of some pictures about spherical tips which are often taken 

from second-hand without showing how it has been handled personally]. Excuse me: I am 

defender of spherical tip radius[25micron for old MONO LP, 17micron for STEREO] which is 

designed generally as half of minimum top width of each groove. 

Regards 

Yosh 

Top 



(#p262039) 

by Luckydog » 13 Jan 2011 13:56 

Yosh wrote: 

......I can not confirm total contact depth about other shapes because I cannot 

understand Hertz equation perfectly in order to calculate the elliptic circles....... 

Hi Yosh. Thanks for those interesting posts. 

The Hertz equations are only reducable for spherical indentation, you are right. So for large 

major radius stylii, where the minor radius is much smaller than the major radius, I agree they 

are not usable without a very deep understanding of the derivation, and that is also beyond me 

I'm afraid. 

sur 23 06/02/2012 15:10


I already posted the spherical case, it is here : 


sur 23 06/02/2012 15:10



click to open full images 

You can see, for a spherical stylus, for a given VTF, static indentation depth is proportional to 

the cube root of the reciprocal of spherical radius. Actually, that implies indentation depth 

does not change very much with major radius at all (cube root is slow change). That is another 

enigma.........! 

I see what you mean about depression of the vinyl surface with a Hertz like shape. But I think 

because the diamond is so hard and cannot deform, the contact shape along the major radius 

must be a true arc, and the diagram I posted is OK because of this, no matter what the shape 

of any depressed adjacent vinyl. 

But I have become a 'dynamic indentation skeptic', and am still working on a proof ! Quite a 

few things suggest to me that dynamic indentation is very small, and much smaller than static 

indentation. I hope, one day, to post on this topic. I know, there are decades of established 

opinion to overturn on this issue ! 

I also realise some virtues of spherical stylii, so I wish you every encouragement in that pursuit. 

sur 23 06/02/2012 15:10


Thanks again, Yosh. 

Top 



(#p268498) 

by desktop » 10 Feb 2011 00:04 

I decided to read all of this thread to get some data about JICO SAS styli that I couldn't find in 

the JICO website. This is one of the best primers about styli I have ever seen. My hat's off to 

Flavio81 with some applause for Yosh too. 

I also agree with Yosh about stylus wear of greater than 500 hours with many high quality 

spherical styli (IMO because there is a more substantial piece of diamond in the groove, with 

less contact surface, equals lower wear "generally". Denon 103 styli are a great example of this 

because their 0.7 mil stylus is reputed to last 1000 hours in broadcast use.). 

The fact that Yosh is on the side of JICO that many of the higher end stylus designs DO show 

real wear after 500 hours of use, puts JICO's claim about their SAS stylus even more in the light 

of being honest. 

So perhaps we are looking in the wrong direction for the cause of stylus wear. Perhaps the 

worst case scenario is this. With a stylus like a spherical with limited contact with the grooves, 

the fact that the pressure on the relatively small contact area make be less significant than 

thought. Perhaps a stylus profile with greater surface contact in the groove (reaching 

measurable proportions in the styli that track the high frequencies best), the imperfections in 

the vinyl itself, small bits of cinder pressed into the vinyl when "hard" dust floats onto the 

record, etc. may be a more significant factor in wear due to abrasion. 

Then the greater surface area of the groove contact may give an increased probability of 

various imperfections in the groove impacting the stylus tip as it is playing (crushed old vinyl 

being perhaps the worst, after the new vinyl has shrunk to the point where it becomes visible 

in the groove as sort of a "scale" or "lizard skin" surface texture). Thus the larger the surface 

contact area, the MORE likely it would be for perpendicular impacts with these imperfections 

to increase, thus causing MORE wear in the stylus tips that play the high frequencies the best. 

There are microscopic dust particles, electrostatically attracted to the grooves, which if 

analyzed would have a particle size less than 1/50th the size of the stylus tip. These particles 

are often swept away by the stylus. But sometimes they can be pressed into the vinyl instead. 

This now the equivalent of playing 100KHz sandpaper. We wouldn't hear it. But it would be 

abrading our stylus tip anyway. Worst of all, like crushed old vinyl, it would be more or less 

permanently embedded into the vinyl. I have actually played discs with so much crushed old 

vinyl in the original formula that bits of this old crushed vinyl can come out of the disc leaving 

a tiny place that "ticks" when played. I've had major stylus cleaning when that old vinyl "melts" 

on to my stylus tip. 

So a spherical tip with its large size, numerous interconnected crystal bonds and low contact 

area, would be less susceptible to this chipping and impact abrasion, than a complex profile 

stylus tip that by playing as much of the groove surface as possible, was putting itself "right out 

there" into the path of the tiny deformities in the groove due to using old crushed vinyl in the 

original formula, or damage due to impacting hard (but tiny) cinders that have been pressed 

into the the groove vinyl during previous plays of the disc. 

This being the case, the ellipticals could easily deform in the shortest period of time because of 

sur 23 06/02/2012 15:10


limited contact surface with less diamond behind the contact area, the more complex line 

contact shapes could alternatively show wear from Damage because of the increased 

probability of impacting abrading materials (old crushed vinyl, cinders embedded in the vinyl, 

etc), and well made sphericals might last the longest with smooth unworn surfaces (giving up 

much of the high frequency tracing ability). 

Denon broadcast 103 cartridges might be the best example. They are used in a bandwidth 

limited environment. They use grain oriented, high quality diamonds. Then Denon has these 

diamonds polished as well or better than any other cartridge manufacturer. This would allow 

Denon to claim a very long useful life for this cartridge which is a huge selling point for 

broadcasters. The Denon 103 uses a 0.7 mil spherical stylus. Many non-broadcasters have 

reviewed this cartridge as being exceptional. I like and use Denon 300, 304 and 207 cartridges 

and I like them all. I have avoided using a Denon 103 because I thought the high frequencies 

would be either gone or distorted. But for long life, in non-critical listening systems, they might 

be excellent and certainly could be the longest lasting. 

Top 



(#p268500) 

by desktop » 10 Feb 2011 00:08 

I am making a separate post to ask what is wrong with a 0.4 mil spherical stylus (or a 0.5 or 

0.6 mil size stylus for that matter). I use an ADC .4 cartridge once in a great while when my 

friends and I listen to oldies-but-goodies. But I have recently taken a liking to regular listening 

to the Concord MC 100 cartridge I have. It uses a 0.4 mil stylus. I've always been concerned 

that these styli would wear out the fastest of all. But I get the feeling there is some other 

reason why Flavio suggests they might not work well at all. I wonder if this is a problem for a 

reason not identified in his presentation in this thread. 

Top 



(#p268503) 

by desktop » 10 Feb 2011 00:31 

To Luckydog. 

My memory is not as good as it used to be, but when I had explanations "dumbed down" for me 

about why dynamic indentation was actually greater in many ways, than static indentation 

(during arguments in the cartridge manufacturers booths at CE Shows), I was given a simple 

explanation (so maybe I would go away perhaps). 

Imagine the stylus is the part of the system that moves, and not the record. A moving stylus 

can send vibrations into the disc as it "impacts" the various frequencies cut/pressed into the 

disc. These ripples can actually change the groove shape momentarily. It should actually be 

possible to use laser photography to see these ripples in the vinyl as a stylus plays various parts 

of a disc. Since the stylus is actually putting energy into the vinyl as it bangs around in the 

groove, or bounces along the groove track or just "plays" the groove, it can easily cause 

momentary depressions in the vinyl. When the vinyl ripples are forward of the area the stylus is 

tracking and out of phase with the high frequencies (even beyond our hearing range) the stylus 

smacks each ripple, putting even more energy into the vinyl. 

There are many microphotographs of grooves showing small waves at the bottom of the 

groove. It has been speculated that this is caused by melting of the vinyl, then shrinkage as the 

sur 23 06/02/2012 15:10


vinyl cools, causing small "dishes or scales" to form at the bottom of the groove. But an 

alternative possibility is that this is the area where some specific stylus was setting up 

vibrational ripples into the vinyl, forward of the area being played, and then if these ripples 

were out of phase to the slight bouncing the stylus always does (in the 100KHz range and 

higher), the stylus might impact these vinyl ripples, causing visible deformities in the groove. 

We all have experienced the improvement in sound that a new mat can have on playing a disc 

if it transmits "away" from the grooves being played, the acoustic waves that the stylus tip is 

transmitting INTO the vinyl. These same waves must cause the vinyl to have ripples, and these 

ripples may cause vinyl deformities that are not just below the stylus tip as they would be with 

static deformity, but these vinyl deformities might emanate outwards from the portion of 

stylus tip contact. The movement of the disc, literally "hitting" the stylus tip, would have 

greater energy than a static tip simply pressing the flat vinyl groove with (for example) 2 

grams of pressure. 

What we all hear when we play a vinyl disc is the amplification of the MOVEMENT of the stylus. 

If the stylus is correctly Moving at the proper frequency, even though it is no longer in direct 

contact with the vinyl, our ears don't care, and measurement devices also don't read 

distortion. So within the audible range, a cartridge might sound great, while also having allot 

of high frequency problems that might cause some vinyl damage and some stylus tip wear. Just 

a thought. 

Top 



(#p268511) 

by flavio81 » 10 Feb 2011 00:55 

desktop wrote: 

I also agree with Yosh about stylus wear of greater than 500 hours with many high 

quality spherical styli (IMO because there is a more substantial piece of diamond 

in the groove, with less contact surface, equals lower wear "generally". Denon 

103 styli are a great example of this because their 0.7 mil stylus is reputed to last 

1000 hours in broadcast use.).. 

Conical stylus = less contact surface. 

Less contact surface = greater pressure 

greater pressure = greater wear/time 

greater wear = shorter useful life. 

The stylus shapes with big contact areas are the ones that will last the most. The Denon 103 

lasts a lot not because of the tip shape but because it is polished to a mirror finish, unlike 

many styli. 

Also "substantial piece of diamond in the groove" is a bit misleading. A conical stylus has only a 

very small contact areaa. Physical size of the gem makes no difference regarding wear. 

sur 23 06/02/2012 15:10



With a stylus like a spherical with limited contact with the grooves, the fact that 

the pressure on the relatively small contact area make be less significant than 

thought. Perhaps a stylus profile with greater surface contact in the groove 

(reaching measurable proportions in the styli that track the high frequencies best), 

the imperfections in the vinyl itself, small bits of cinder pressed into the vinyl when 

"hard" dust floats onto the record, etc. may be a more significant factor in wear due 

to abrasion. 

It's the opposite (see above) 


Then the greater surface area of the groove contact may give an increased 

probability of various imperfections in the groove impacting the stylus tip as it is 

playing 

It's the opposite: With a conical you are scanning the groove in one point. With the advanced 

tip you are scanning the groove along a line; thus groove imperfections are "averaged out". 

That's why one often gets lower groove noise with an advanced stylus tip. 


There are microscopic dust particles, electrostatically attracted to the grooves, 

which if analyzed would have a particle size less than 1/50th the size of the stylus 

tip. These particles are often swept away by the stylus. But sometimes they can be 

pressed into the vinyl instead. 

Source of this claim? 

What does happen is that chips of vinyl come out of the record groove. (Surface gets rougher.) 

This increases background noise. 


This now the equivalent of playing 100KHz sandpaper. We wouldn't hear it. But it 

would be abrading our stylus tip anyway. Worst of all, like crushed old vinyl, it 

would be more or less permanently embedded into the vinyl. I have actually played 

discs with so much crushed old vinyl in the original formula that bits of this old 

crushed vinyl can come out of the disc leaving a tiny place that "ticks" when played. 

I've had major stylus cleaning when that old vinyl "melts" on to my stylus tip. 

Desktop. Vinyl does not melt on the stylus tip. Also, what do you mean with "crushed old vinyl". 


sur 23 06/02/2012 15:10


So a spherical tip with its large size, 

The size of the stylus gem itself isn't related to stylus tip shape. 


would be less susceptible to this chipping and impact abrasion, 

Quite the opposite, due to the much higher pressure on the groove. 


because of limited contact surface with less diamond behind the contact area, the 

more complex line contact shapes could alternatively show wear from Damage 

because 

Complex line contact shapes have more contact surface, not less. 


and well made sphericals might last the longest with smooth unworn surfaces 

(giving up much of the high frequency tracing ability) 

The longest lasting stylus tip shapes are the most advanced ones, not the sphericals. This is 

widely known, even JICO acknowledges this. 


Denon broadcast 103 cartridges might be the best example. 

Again, long life of the tip in the DL103 is due to its mirror polishing. Behold: 

sur 23 06/02/2012 15:10


Much better polishing than your run of the mill spherical, elliptical or even Shibata. 

Greetings!! 

Flavio. 

Top 



(#p268537) 

by desktop » 10 Feb 2011 04:10 

Flavio, perhaps I was not clear. Higher pressure per square surface area does NOT HAVE to 

equate to greater stylus tip wear. As Yosh said, he has seen many spherical design styli with 

about 500 hours of playing time with little or no wear, and many high end stylus profile tips 

with obvious wear after 500 hours of similar use. You are discounting the fact that a stylus 

with a larger surface contact in the groove has a much greater probability of contacting some 

abrasive material, than a spherical stylus tip which only makes contact with the groove in a 

tiny track area. 

When the contact areas are all extremely small anyway, the pressures between the stylus tip 

and the groove are all very high, whether this is a spherical or elliptical stylus or the best ML, 

VdH or other complex profile. There seems to be no significant difference in tip wear with a 

Decca spherical stylus tip with a tracking force of 2 grams vs one with a tracking force of 3 

grams. For many years the dominant idea of the condition affecting stylus tip wear and/or 

record vinyl damage, was tracking force. This turned out to be misleading. There was no 

significant difference in either vinyl wear or stylus tip wear between a stylus designed to track 

properly at 1 1/4 grams and another one designed to track properly at 1 3/4 grams even 

though the pressure between the stylus tip and the groove is substantially higher for one stylus 

vs the other. It was the dynamics of the entire system (cartridge/record/etc.) that mattered 

more. 

So also the relationship between stylus tip wear and shape/profile may not be as iron-bound as 

0 sur 23 06/02/2012 15:10


previously thought. Yosh did not specify which spherical styli he checked which had almost no 

wear at more than 500 hours, nor did he specify which complex profile stylus tips he studied 

that showed obvious wear at 500 hours use. The spherical styli he studied may not have been 

Denons. The spherical styli he studied could easily have been typical spherical styli. The fact 

that there are numerous possible abrasive materials high up the groove wall, where spherical 

styli would never contact them, and line contact stylus shapes being the only stylus shapes that 

could ever make contact with these abrasive materials is a clue that should not be overlooked. 

In selling stereos for 25 years I often found new records needed deburring. I might play a disc a 

dozen or so times preparing my demonstration schedule for the CE Shows before it sounded the 

best it could sound. In the 70s I usually used elliptical styli because those were products 

dealers and consumers could relate to. When I played those same records after the shows (for 

my own pleasure), using a new line contact stylus loaned to me for the next CE Show, the burr 

problem often reappeared. This usually required a few more plays to smooth out that part of 

the groove. I still run into this problem today. 

It only points out that vinyl burrs in the groove were eventually smoothed out in the track that 

the elliptical styli were traveling along. In fact the "track" through the burrs created by 

elliptical styli was quite narrow, probably covering less that 10% of the groove wall. A stylus 

that contacted 75% of the groove wall would have a much greater amount of deburring to do 

to clear the groove. This meant the complex stylus designs were encountering substantially 

more abrasive material. If impact contact is more important than pure tracking force in terms 

of stylus tip damage then the line contact styli with lower force per square area would have 

suffered more abrasion than the elliptical or spherical stylus tips. 

As well, spherical and elliptical styli do not ride super close to the bottom of the groove, where 

most of the grit accumulates. I run into this problem allot. Even after a external cleaning, 

playing with a low end cartridge and then "dredging" by a Decca spherical stylus through a 

groove, there is often still grit at the bottom of the groove and I can easily hear the noise it 

causes when I use a stylus with a more complex shape. This is because a complex shaped stylus 

tip rides much closer to the bottom of the groove. The statistical chances that a .001 mil piece 

of abrasive grit will impact a complex profile shape is much greater than for a spherical or 

elliptical stylus shape. The more of the groove wall that is contacted by a stylus tip the greater 

the opportunity for grit to be a factor (and contact with crushed vinyl will be hundreds of 

times greater for complex shaped styli than the 2 most simple designs). 

If tracking pressure per square area is NOT the only force at work creating stylus tip wear, 

then the shape of the stylus tip cannot guarantee longer wear. Going back to the 70s, it was 

always assumed that a stylus tracking at greater force would cause more damage than the 

exact same stylus tracking at a lower tracking pressure. This made it difficult for some 

products to be sold (for example Decca London cartridges with their 2-3 gram tracking force 

recommendation). So since Decca had the help of its own record making division, they showed 

that many cartridges damaged vinyl MORE when tracked at the bottom of their recommended 

tracking force, than they did if tracked at the maximum recommended tracking pressure. They 

also showed that Decca cartridges tracking at 2.5 grams did not damage vinyl any more than 

sphericals tracking at 1.5 grams, and often Deccas made less damage than elliptical styli 

tracking at 1 1/4 grams. This same test showed that styli losing contact more often because of 

tracking pressure that was too low, caused more vinyl damage than using those same styli at 

the maximum recommended tracking pressure. 

Obviously the idea that there is ONLY one way to assess stylus tip life, and that way has to be 

that the stylus shape/profile which distributes the stylus pressure over a greater surface 

contact area using the same diamonds, with the same polish etc. must wear longer than a 

stylus tip shape with less groove contact area, cannot be accepted as an absolute. If there is 

1 sur 23 06/02/2012 15:10


lower pressure per square area, and since we know that almost no cantilever is perfectly rigid, 

perhaps the amount of time when the stylus is not in contact with the groove wall over the 

stylus' entire tracking surface is greater percentage-wise than for a stylus design that exerts all 

of its tracking pressure in one small track in the groove. 

At this stage of development for stylus shapes/profiles we are nearing the point where it is 

unlikely that too many more shapes will ever be introduced. So this is a good time to really 

test for stylus tip wear under repeatable conditions. A line contact stylus tip with hundreds of 

times more contact surface area than a spherical stylus should wear significantly slower, but 

that doesn't always seem to be the case. 

The longevity of some complex stylus designs can be more attributed to the fact that as the 

stylus wear away, the material behind the portion worn off retains approximately the same 

shape. While the shape of the stylus at that point is similar to the original stylus shape, the 

polish on the contact surface absolutely must be different, and quite likely represents a poorer 

polish than the original polish on the new stylus. It would be interesting to determine when the 

first .001 microns of surface polish is worn off of many complex stylus shapes. This may 

account for the problem of stylus tip chipping or shattering that some Shure MR users 

experience. 

In fact styli often lose contact with the groove, even when tracking at the optimum tracking 

pressure. This is more obvious with spherical or elliptical styli because there is a somewhat 

Go/NoGo relationship to what you hear and the the way the stylus is making contact with the 

groove, and the way the stylus tip crashes back into the correct tracking location after losing 

contact. This isn't always the case with line contact stylus designs. Cantilevers twist, and stylus 

tips make less contact, but still some contact. The sound we hear may not change drastically 

because the stylus movement may be approximately correct even if the stylus is not making 

proper contact with the groove. But the stylus contact points will still be coming fully back to 

the groove at some point and they can still suffer wear due to impact as opposed to abrasion. 

If Yosh knows which spherical stylus tips he checked which exhibited low wear after being used 

approximately the same amount of time as line contact styli that with similar hours of use 

were showing wear, we could sort out if the key was that it was the manufacturer's polish on 

the stylus tip, or simply a typical behavior of spherical styli. Since he has actually seen 

spherical styli that showed less wear than some complex stylus designs for the same hours of 

use, his input would be enlightening. If the polish on the stylus surface is NOT the key factor, 

then it must be something that is more important than contact square area surface pressure. 

I have seen and heard many near perfectly made records (pressing-wise) in the last 43 years in 

audio. Many names like Desmar and Ensayo produced records with very quiet surfaces and long 

lasting lubricants. I have test records (not the right ones unfortunately) that still have very 

quite surfaces. These discs exist in what I think of as my perfect view of the vinyl world. In this 

world, styli always make perfect contact with the groove, which never pick up grit, and which 

have never had any crushed vinyl used. All the discs weigh at least 180 grams. I go back to 

discs from this perfect world once in a while to hear just how great vinyl can sound. Usually I 

do it using a new, line contact style stylus. 

But we don't really live in a perfect vinyl world. Crushed vinyl was used in most records 

produced, even if the percentage of crushed vinyl was very low. To a stylus tip 1% crushed vinyl 

could create dozens of impacts when the new vinyl in the disc shrinks but the old crushed vinyl 

does not shrink. Then the old crushed vinyl is easily visible in the grooves. If the old crushed 

vinyl was ground up particularly fine, it still sticks out of the groove wall when the new vinyl 

shrinks, creating a sandpaper like finish. Crushed old vinyl of these types will be much more 

problematic for a stylus tip that has a large groove contact area than a small one. The same is 

2 sur 23 06/02/2012 15:10


true for grit that spherical and elliptical styli don't even touch because they don't ride on the 

bottom of the groove, and they don't make contact with top-of-the-groove grit that all records 

pick up. 

In this imperfect world I prefer enhanced elliptical styli because they sound better. I'm willing 

to pay extra for better sound quality. But whether the stylus is the most basic "improved 

elliptical" design which will not make great contact with the groove walls, but which has a 

sufficiently small profile that it tracks the highs properly out to 25KHz, or the most complex ML 

or SAS or Gyger design, I always seem to notice that new stylus tips can sound great, but 

almost all of them seem to sound much worse after less than 250 hours of use. A few like 

Deccas and Ortofon SPUs seem to age more slowly than the rest. But if I can hear the 

difference between a new Nagaoka MP-50 and one with 200 hours, or a new Stanton 

Stereohedron stylus and one used 200 hours or less, then there must be enough stylus wear to 

be audible. 

I have a friend with JBL 4310 and UREI TA loudspeakers. When he has turntable problems he 

invites me over to listen. Often we know there is something wrong, but can't be sure. Then we 

take his TT to my house to listen. Usually the problem is much more obvious. My loudspeakers 

are just so much better than his that I can hear problems clearly, when at best he has a vague 

feeling there even is a problem. Perhaps that is why I hear the onset of stylus wear much 

earlier than my friends who were also audio professionals. 

My last hearing test my ear tested at +1db at 19KHz compared to last year, and this year they 

have a 24KHz test signal and I aced it. I do have the normal hearing sensitivity curve, but my 

high end doesn't drop off compared to normal humanity. I'm not in the league of the Danish 

engineer whose hearing was 100% correct when the AES tested him to see if he could recognize 

an 80KHz cutoff filter, but I'm glad my hearing is as good as it is. Perhaps that is why I always 

felt good working in the audio business (always the speaker business), and I was usually right 

when debating what sounded more like reality compared to something else. So my high 

frequency hearing capabilities may also be part of the reason I hear cartridge problems sooner 

than other people. Women seem to have greater sensitivity to high frequency distortions than 

men, so maybe women would hear these cartridge wear problems sooner than most men. In 

any case the conventional wisdom is that all the more complex stylus tip designs wear more 

slowly than simple stylus designs because of less groove wall contact pressure per square area. 

But now it seems that theory can be faulty. 

Top 



(#p268543) 

by desktop » 10 Feb 2011 04:44 

Flavio, here is an example of me saying something previously that I understood but which was 

not clear and/or too easy to understand for others. 

My contention is that spherical stylus tips are structurally stronger than any other stylus shape. 

The example should have been to take any test groove and put every stylus into that groove. 

Cut off the portion of every stylus that sticks up above the top of the groove (the disc surface). 

The spherical stylus (of designs made now) will weigh the most. It will also be structurally 

stronger when suffering impacts, have better and have more lattice bond integrity, at the cost 

of weighing more and having restricted bandwidth due to larger size at the extreme tip. 

That means there is more diamond mass within the groove for sphericals than for any other 

design of stylus tip. These qualities are practically the definition of impact resistance in 

gemstones. Diamonds are not good when it comes to impact resistance. Diamonds have 

3 sur 23 06/02/2012 15:10


cleavage, sapphires (for example) don't because they have rope-y structures. Drop a big 

diamond ring on a marble floor and it might shatter. Hardness and toughness are entirely 

different qualities in gemstones. Diamonds are hard, they are not tough. 

So while on a strictly "wear-out" basis, with a stylus tip sliding smoothly along some surface (in 

the perfect vinyl world), a diamond is best because it is the hardest material on earth. But 

they suffer badly with impacts from grit and crushed vinyl bits protruding from the groove 

walls. Diamonds chip like mad due to impacts, whether it is a ring banging a doorknob, or a 

diamond stylus crashing into a bit of protruding old/very-hard vinyl sticking out of the groove 

wall. 

In this case sphericals will wear less than complex shapes. Worse yet, the laser cutting methods 

used to produce really complex shapes like the Shure MRs can actually bring out flaws in the 

diamonds that were part of the diamond's stress composition. This means that what might have 

been a tiny and insignificant stress line in a simple shape, now becomes a chip waiting to 

happen ... very quickly with nothing more that a cymbal crash to cause the chip to develop. 

High mass can cause mistracking, but it can also prevent cracking, chipping and microfractures. 

The really tiny microfractures can occur on the surface of the contact portion of line contact 

stylus design as well as anywhere else. In that circumstance it would look like the contact area 

was wearing away, when in fact it would be chipping away, and these are dramatically 

different in nature. 

So in the real world with crushed vinyl in the vast majority of vinyl discs, and microgrit floating 

in the air, a durable, solid spherical stylus may not sound as nice (especially in the high 

frequencies) but it may inhibit wear better than a fine line stylus design. 

I'm still using the line contact profile stylus tips because they sound better, but I may have to 

discard them much sooner than I used to. 

Top 



(#p268547) 

by lini » 10 Feb 2011 05:11 

desktop: All very interesting food for thought. I could imagine that structural robustness might 

be a reason, why the Shibata is still such a well liked line contact shape - and maybe the slight 

vertical curvature of its contact area also has something to do with it... 



Top 



(#p268641) 

by flavio81 » 10 Feb 2011 19:16 

Desktop, i feel you're creating a big theory based on hurried up conclusions and misleading info 

as a starting point. 


Flavio, perhaps I was not clear. Higher pressure per square surface area does NOT 

4 sur 23 06/02/2012 15:10


HAVE to equate to greater stylus tip wear. As Yosh said, he has seen many spherical 

design styli with about 500 hours of playing time with little or no wear 

Which is no surprise at all since 500h-1000h is the expected tip life for your common spherical 

stylus. 


, and many high end stylus profile tips with obvious wear after 500 hours of 

similar use. 

"Many"? Only JICO says their SAS stylus and then you assume that advanced stylus tips "last 

less". A big number of forum members report very very long lifetimes for their Shibata stylus, in 

the order of years of satisfactory playback, and Ortofon for example quotes more than 2000h 

of stylus tip life for their more advanced shapes. 


You are discounting the fact that a stylus with a larger surface contact in the groove 

has a much greater probability of contacting some abrasive material, than a 

spherical stylus tip which only makes contact with the groove in a tiny track area. 

Again, you're discounting the fact that i pointed out, and i have somewhere some 

microphotographies to back it up: Bad quality vinyl "shatters" when receiving certain pressure 

(higher with spherical/elliptical styli). A line contact stylus would (1) apply far less pressure 

and (2) read out a larger part of the groove thus averaging imperfections. This last thing is 

experimentally confirmed by simply listening to the noticeable lower noise floor obtained with 

a good LC tip. 


When the contact areas are all extremely small anyway, the pressures between the 

stylus tip and the groove are all very high, whether this is a spherical or elliptical 

stylus or the best ML, VdH or other complex profile. 

There is up to 6X (six times) contact are difference between a 0.2x0.7 mil elliptical and tips 

such as the Ortofon Replicant 100. 


There seems to be no significant difference in tip wear with a Decca spherical stylus 

tip with a tracking force of 2 grams vs one with a tracking force of 3 grams. 

Nice, but Shure has very interesting studies on stylus tip vs tracking force that shows that 

5 sur 23 06/02/2012 15:10


there is a significant difference between 3g and 1g. 


The fact that there are numerous possible abrasive materials high up the groove 

wall, where spherical styli would never contact them 

I don't know why you mention this so many times. I clean my records before playing. The 

material on the groove wall is vinyl, not abrasive stuff. Bad vinyl is abrasive and shatters off at 

any part of the groove: middle, bottom, or top. Then the amount of damage is directly 

dependent on pressure which (fact) is lower on the advanced tips. 


, , and line contact stylus shapes being the only stylus shapes that could ever make 

contact with these abrasive materials is a clue that should not be overlooked. 

Then why LC tips have the longest life span? (You insist on the opposite, but even JICO itself 

-the ones you chose to believe dogmatically- agree with me on their website): 

JICO: "On average the (SAS) stylus lasts two or three times longer (about 500 hours) than the 

average diamond tip stylus." 


In selling stereos for 25 years I often found new records needed deburring 

Perhaps you should clean them. IMHO new records always need cleaning. 


When I played those same records after the shows (for my own pleasure), using a 

new line contact stylus loaned to me for the next CE Show, the burr problem often 

reappeared. 

1. You chose to call the problem "burr problem". I contend it's just dirtiness on the groove 

(residues from the pressing process). 

2. It's obvious: The conical stylus contacted the groove in a different part than the LC stylus, 

thus the "problem" reappeared. Nothing wrong with the LC stylus per se. 


This meant the complex stylus designs were encountering substantially more 

abrasive material. 

6 sur 23 06/02/2012 15:10


See what i wrote before. 


there is often still grit at the bottom of the groove and I can easily hear the noise it 

causes when I use a stylus with a more complex shape. This is because a complex 

shaped stylus tip rides much closer to the bottom of the groove. 

If you don't WET clean your records, then your conical stylus will push whatever grit there was 

to the bottom, where your LC stylus will find it. It is a fact. So again, there's nothing wrong 

with the LC styli, just properly clean that record!! 


The statistical chances that a .001 mil piece of abrasive grit will impact a complex 

profile shape is much greater than for a spherical or elliptical stylus shape. 

You assume "grit" is around the groove. I contend (see above) that abasion is a property of the 

compound itself, which can shatter with stronger pressure. Stronger pressure is found on 

conical/elliptical shapes, not LC shapes. 


The more of the groove wall that is contacted by a stylus tip the greater the 

opportunity for grit to be a factor (and contact with crushed vinyl will be hundreds 

of times greater for complex shaped styli than the 2 most simple designs). 

Top 



(#p268642) 

by flavio81 » 10 Feb 2011 19:20 

I'm not going to quote all of your post. But it seems that there is a big white elephant that 

somehow you're choosing to ignore to favor your own theory. 

There are many AES papers from respected people that show experimentally the following: 

(1) tip wear is reduced with reduced VTF 

(2) groove wear is reduced with lower stylus mass on heavy modulated passages 

(3) line contact tip shapes do the least damage to the groove 

(4) some record compounds are longer lasting and quieter than other ones (i.e. RCA dynaflex) 

(5) record life directly depends on the vinyl compound itself 

(6) grain-oriented mounting of diamond tips increases tip life 

7 sur 23 06/02/2012 15:10


(7) polishing quality has an influence on stylus tip life 

(8 ) line contact shapes last longer than elliptical and spherical shapes 

I wish i could locate everything but i think Klaus R. will do it someday. 

Top 



(#p268645) 

by flavio81 » 10 Feb 2011 19:26 


In this case sphericals will wear less than complex shapes. 

Practically all AES papers and manufacturers have found the opposite. 


Worse yet, the laser cutting methods used to produce really complex shapes like the 

Shure MRs can actually bring out flaws in the diamonds that were part of the 

diamond's stress composition. 

The laser polishing used in some MR/ML styli leave smoother surcfaces which is better for 

stylus tip life. It's the opposite to what you claim. 


This means that what might have been a tiny and insignificant stress line in a simple 

shape, now becomes a chip waiting to happen ... very quickly with nothing more 

that a cymbal crash to cause the chip to develop. 

Styli chipping up due to a high modulation cymbal crash? Sorry, my friend, but this only happens 

in your imagination. 


High mass can cause mistracking, but it can also prevent cracking, chipping and 

microfractures. 

This is not a fact. 


8 sur 23 06/02/2012 15:10


So in the real world with crushed vinyl in the vast majority of vinyl discs, and 

microgrit floating in the air, a durable, solid spherical stylus may not sound as nice 

(especially in the high frequencies) but it may inhibit wear better than a fine line 

stylus design. 

In real life it's the opposite. AES papers. Let's hope Klaus R and Luckydog reffers to them ASAP. 


I'm still using the line contact profile stylus tips because they sound better, but I 

may have to discard them much sooner than I used to. 

Give them to me. 

Top 



Old crushed reused vinyl vs 100% virgin vinyl (#p268656) 

by desktop » 10 Feb 2011 20:11 

Flavio, 

I knew I was probably using some audio-biz slang that made my descriptions easy to 

understand, but might be difficult for others to understand. Here is a case in point. 

old crushed vinyl 

From its earliest days record companies were forced to accept returns back from record 

stores. Sometime the problem was that the record was often defectively pressed in such a 

large proportion or in such large numbers that record sellers could not afford to have hundreds 

of angry customers, so they returned all of the records. If there was a problem like warpage in 

an album that was a mega hit, the stores could not afford to test every album, so they 

returned to the record companies all of the albums the store's customers returned. 

Eventually there was a policy established that any record seller in a major market could return 

up to a certain percentage of records to the manufacturer. This percentage started at 2% and 

when there was a badly pressed mega hit, the record companies would often raise the return 

percentage up to as high as 6% of the store's total purchases. 

By the beginning of the 60s the record companies could no longer dispose of returned records 

by having the records tested, with the good units being repackaged (often as "punchouts" or 

"cut-corners") and then sold as discount records, while the truly defective discs were stored. 

Unlike defective carnauba wax 78s, which could be crushed after the labels were removed, and 

then reused, there were large problems using this same process with 33 and 45 rpm vinyl 

records. 78s had allot of noise on them anyway, so a bit more noise due to improperly remelted 

wax blobs was inconsequential. Also carnauba wax discs remelt rather easily, vinyl does not. 

Carnauba wax does not have tremendous stresses occurring in the melting and pressing 

process, vinyl does. 

In fact the first efforts to re-use old vinyl were failed attempts. Old vinyl would often stay solid 

9 sur 23 06/02/2012 15:10


after it was crushed up and added to virgin vinyl. The crushed vinyl bits often clogged pressing 

machines. When the temperatures were raised in the record vinyl production process, hoping 

to melt old crushed vinyl, the old vinyl would often char and the lubricants in the new vinyl 

could not be properly stabilized. Old vinyl chunks would often prevent a "mother" plate from 

fully pressing a vinyl "donut" so all the grooves showed. This created another returned record, 

and that record was a combination of new and old vinyl. So the problem was compounding 

itself. 

1974 became the year that almost every record made was using a formula of mostly new vinyl 

and some old crushed-up vinyl because the oil embargo and much higher oil prices forced most 

record companies to find a way to reuse old returned records in their production of old 

records. From that year on 90% of all the records pressed had some percentage of crushed-up 

returned records in every new record. 

Old vinyl has already been melted and pressed once. So it is harder than a batch of new liquid 

(hot liquid) vinyl ready to be used for record production. The ideas that were used to reuse old 

returned record vinyl are legion. For many the best solution was to pulverize returned records 

so that the old vinyl was like dust. Since the temperature of the liquid virgin vinyl liquid could 

not be raised to be hot enough to remelt old vinyl, the old vinyl dust seemed to be the simplest 

solution to the returned record problem. But it wasn't. 

The new vinyl in a record always shrinks a bit. The old crushed vinyl was not melted the second 

time around, and it wouldn't shrink at all. Eventually all the surfaces of the disc developed a 

microscopic pebble-y texture. This resulted in really noisy surfaces within a relatively short 

period of time. Obviously the thinner discs like those from RCA suffered the most due to finely 

pulverized vinyl. Often these relatively floppy dics, seemed to get much stiffer depending on 

the percentage of reused vinyl in their formula. 

Other companies tried a 2 part process. They heated old vinyl to the point where it would melt 

without charring, and mixed it in with the new virgin vinyl just before it was injected into the 

"donut" stage. This mixing was not perfect. The pressing machine is very temperature sensitive, 

so having 2 different temperature vinyls mixing together seconds before the donut is dropped 

onto the mother plate is very touchy and costly in terms of shutdowns, extra operator time 

and the cost of a second mixing "cauldron" for old vinyl. 

By the 80s audio equipment in general and loudspeakers/cartridges specifically got much 

better. The mass market was willing to pay allot more for records marked "100% Virgin Vinyl". 

The various levels of the market allowed record companies to have expensive virgin vinyl discs, 

and then discs with varying percentages of reused vinyl, and at the bottom were budget discs 

with a high percentage of reused vinyl. The next blow to the vinyl record business came in the 

late 80s with the CD. 

At the end of the 80s, CDs sold for premium prices, but those prices began to decline as CD 

sales increased (while vinyl sales decreased). Even though surface noise on a $12 virgin vinyl 

disc was very low, and was rather comparable to a $12 CD, most people were buying cheap 

vinyl discs with allot of surface noise, and CDs sounded much quieter to the masses. CDs were 

cheaper to make than vinyl and they had lower background noise too. So the record companies 

were pushing consumers away from vinyl. Although CDs were originally designed to replace 

cassettes because CDs are very bandwidth limited, record companies pretended CDs sounded 

better and so that allowed them to see if the mass market could be conned into switching from 

vinyl discs to CDs. They knew they'd win so they purposely stopped maintaining old presses to 

make vinyl sound even worse. 

By 1993 the switch was almost complete, away from vinyl and into CDs. Some record 

0 sur 23 06/02/2012 15:10


companies continued to produce vinyl discs for unique markets like DJs, and there was still 

record production being done for markets where CDs had not been fully introduced. Then there 

was a lull period. Record companies sold their disc presses to people who took them apart to 

make one good one out of 2 ill-performing presses. Allot of presses were exported cheaply. A 

few were purchased by new record makers who would produce 180 gram records in the early 

2000s. 

For people who make "scratch" records surface noise isn't a really problem. They would be able 

to use the cheapest formula of new vinyl mixed with old crushed vinyl and it wouldn't matter. 

Pressing quality was less important too, so they could buy cheap presses. The extreme 

discophile producers would get presses operating at near perfect levels and would buy 100% 

virgin vinyl at any price because they would be selling records to buyers who didn't care about 

the price. As well there were many vinyl suppliers whose prices dipped when major record 

companies switched to total CD production. 

Now that MP3 music is beginning to push CDs aside it is much easier to demonstrate why vinyl 

discs sound so much better than MP3s. But the market still doesn't generally care about sound 

Quality (or SACDs or DVD A or B would have done well). The market is now video oriented, and 

not audio oriented. Audio is too easily stolen for anyone to make a real profit. Music companies 

make more money from spin-off merchandising than they do from selling music (it's getting that 

way for video too, but where does that leave theater operators which have no equivalent in 

audio?). So vinyl is still being produced and in fact sales are up in spite of the economy (up 

from near zero in 2002 doesn't mean much though). Music on vinyl can still be copied, and the 

music biz is in trouble. Cheap vinyl discs are still made with allot of old crushed vinyl in them, 

and audiophile discs are made with 100% virgin vinyl. But there is such a small amount of vinyl 

being pressed it isn't the big issue it used to be. 

BUT FOR US AT VE 

There are between 3 billion and 25 billion playable 33 and 45 rpm vinyl discs out in the world 

today. About 90% of these discs contain allot of the old crushed/or/pulverized vinyl that was 

the norm from 1974 to 1993, and was a common practice before 1974 as well. The reuse of old 

crushed vinyl was a bit less common before 1974 because of cost and technical difficulties, but 

the record business has always taken back returned records, and they have always tried to 

remelt those records. Sinatra, Elvis, The Beatles and some others made vinyl a huge industry 

between 1949 and 1972, but when you added Led Zepplin, disco, and all the other super groups 

to continuing sales for the megastars, the late 70s and early 80s were the peak of vinyl sales 

around the world. 

OLD RULES STILL LIVE 

The old rule was that the 1st pressing always got the best vinyl, the best pressing machines, 

the best operators, and thus sounded the best. So look for 1st pressing runs if possible. Almost 

all radio station comp/promo discs were 1st pressings. If a disc became popular in a new 

country, then the 1st pressings in the new country would usually be as good or better than the 

first pressing run in the original country. Thus EMI 1st pressing discs for The Beatles from 

England may have sounded really good, but the 1st Dutch pressing, the 1st German pressings, 

and the 1st Japanese pressings might sound even better. In the USA records were often shipped 

in from England for The Beatles, so that new songs could be introduced immediately. What with 

remixed albums, and the fact that Americans were often listening to the 3rd or 4th EMI 

pressing of a Beatles album, American 1st pressings might only sound as good as the 4th 

pressing run from England (not a good standard). 

Americans eventually got used to low dynamic, noisy albums and so allot of albums were poorly 

manufactured in the USA. This was changing a bit by the 1979-1982 period because bands 

gained greater control over their production, and so Steely Dan records were made really well 

1 sur 23 06/02/2012 15:10


and some other big name band records were made poorly. If the band cared about their sound, 

then records were made well (at least the 1st pressing). If the band cared about other things 

and left all the manufacturing decisions to the record companies, discs were often bad. 

So when you want vinyl that will sound great, and treat your stylus nice, try to get 1st press 

run vinyl. Get pressings from outside the USA. A first press run from Honduras might sound 

much better than a 10th press run from England or the 4th press run from the USA. This is not 

always the case in Japan or Germany where vinyl discs were so expensive to start, and 

consumers were so fussy, that even the 3rd or 4th press run of vinyl discs from these countries 

continued to sound very good. These markets also used virgin vinyl whenever possible, and that 

sounds good, while preserving your stylus tips longest. 

But you will still find the vast majority of vinyl discs have crushed reused vinyl in them. No 

amount of lubricant on a disc surface will help these discs. Most vinyl discs are over 20 years 

old and by now a microscopic search of a disc's surface will reveal numerous kinds of "markers" 

denoting which form of reused vinyl is in the disc. Sometimes it was vinyl pulverized to dust, 

sometimes it was chips, sometimes chemically treated which caused problems for the virgin 

vinyl. You never know. 

The term that became popular in the 70s for reusing old vinyl was recycling. This is misleading 

because while old vinyl was used to make new discs (like recycled paper) the discs were worse 

for the reuse of old vinyl. It was more like taking the fender from a 55 Chevy and welding it on 

to a Jaguar body only because the laws say a fender is required etc. The information about 

reusing old vinyl was never available on album covers (unless it said No Reused Vinyl, or, 100% 

New Virgin Vinyl), or in the press packages for new vinyl discs. That's because everyone knew 

recycled vinyl was always bad. 

We consider dust, dirt, dandruff and other gums or detritus to be the worst stuff we could find 

on a piece of vinyl, as far as our styli are concerned. But by far the most damaging thing we 

find IN vinyl is reused vinyl. It is often twice as hard as new virgin vinyl It is in the form of 

particles, chips and abrasive dust that was mixed with new vinyl when making discs and it 

always retained that shape, so when new vinyl shrinks, it exposes bit corners or chip edges 

sticking out of the new vinyl. The particle size was usually determined by its high frequency 

signature. If the old vinyl bit produced a 25KHz "tick" then it was certified for manufacturing 

vinyl discs because record companies didn't care who complained. 

When multiple bits or chips started causing noise in the 7KHz to 10KHz range (because record 

companies tried increasing the percentage of reused vinyl in discs) it could be really obnoxious. 

Old vinyl dust is more insidious. It is more difficult to detect, and the high frequency signature 

is in the 50KHz range or higher, but it is incredibly abrasive. The grooves take on a dull matte 

finish after only being played 5 or 6 times when this form of old reused vinyl is present. It can 

cut stylus life by 75%. There is no test for reused vinyl dust, and only microscopic analysis will 

tell you if the vinyl discs have this dust in them. A clue is if you get a coating of vinyl on your 

stylus after playing a disc 2 or 3 times within one or 2 days. The old vinyl dust can mix with 

other forms of dirt and make a vinyl crust on the stylus. 

If you suspect a disc has old pulverized vinyl dust in it, don't ever use your best styli to play 

that disc again. These discs may be noisy anyway. A rugged elliptical stylus will probably work 

just as well as anything else, and a spherical stylus is better for these discs. You really don't 

want to contaminate your high quality discs with old pulverized vinyl dust anyway. It will stick 

to your grooves and then get pressed into the new vinyl the first time it is played. It is just bad 

stuff in all respects. 

Top 

2 sur 23 06/02/2012 15:10



Post a reply 

201 posts • Page 10 of 14 • 1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 


Jump to: 



3 sur 23 06/02/2012 15:10




Post a reply 

201 posts • Page 11 of 14 • 1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 



Re: Old crushed reused vinyl vs 100% virgin vinyl (#p268676) 

by flavio81 » 10 Feb 2011 21:45 


BUT FOR US AT VE 

There are between 3 billion and 25 billion playable 33 and 45 rpm vinyl discs out in 

the world today. About 90% of these discs contain allot of the old crushed/or 

/pulverized vinyl that was the norm from 1974 to 1993, and was a common practice 

before 1974 as well. 

(...) 

You really don't want to contaminate your high quality discs with old pulverized 

vinyl dust anyway. It will stick to your grooves and then get pressed into the new 

vinyl the first time it is played. It is just bad stuff in all respects. 

Sorry desktop but those are your beliefs, not facts. 

Vinyl cannot be "pressed into new vinyl" by a stylus. I have never seen any residue on my stylus 

that resembles vinyl at all. And by the way i clean the needle frequently. 

I have never had any problem with "crushed/pulverized" vinyl nor too much problems with bad 

quality records. Some records are notably made using better compounds than others, some are 

much better pressed, some are much better recorded, some of my records have been damaged 

by mistracking... But 75% of them sound great and this includes records from the 50s, 60s, 70s, 

80s and 2000s. 

Desktop, i'm starting to think that the key to all your problems is that perhaps you are not 

cleaning your records properly, using a proper cleaning fluid and a microfiber cloth before 

playing your records. 

There are all sorts of residues on records that have not been cleaned in such a way. Even when 

new, a record has a residue in the surface caused by the pressing process. This has wrongly 

been called "mold release agent", and also (wrongly) "lubricant". It's simply a chemical residue 

caused in the pressing process. It has to be removed otherwise, obviously, it will end up in the 

stylus. 

But no horror story. 

Top 



sur 27 06/02/2012 15:10


(#p269077) 

by Luckydog » 12 Feb 2011 17:39 


I am making a separate post to ask what is wrong with a 0.4 mil spherical stylus 

Hi desktop. Presumably base clearance is a problem, can't meet IEC standard (2um IIRC), risk of 

rake ? 

Top 



(#p269099) 

by Luckydog » 12 Feb 2011 18:39 

Hi desktop. 

Thanks for your post to me on this thread. Here's my reply: 

Physics is the same whether one considers the stylus or the record to be at rest. There is just 

not enough energy available for dynamic vinyl indentation, or ripples to occur. 

Dynamic deformation of vinyl requires energy, just like compressing any spring. Because the 

groove is continuously moving, such compression would constantly lose energy, leaving a wake 

of energy stored in compressed vinyl behind the stylus. 

The only available source of such energy is stylus friction/drag. When one does the sums on 

energy required and compares to actual measured forces, they are orders of magnitude too 

large. On this basis, I believe it's quite impossible for dynamic indentation (to any significant 

extent) to take place. Vinyl only compresses to the extent of available energy, otherwise stylus 

glides and surfs the groove surface. 

Furthermore, I have shown elsewhere it is unnecessary for vinyl compression to take place to 

account for the observed top resonance. It can be explained preferably in terms of cantilever 

resonant behaviour. 

As to melting of vinyl, I've already shown (along similar lines) there's just not enough energy 

available to heat groove vinyl at skin depth of 100nm by more than a few degrees. These 

arguments have to be overcome, not ignored, to continue to postulate on molten vinyl. It 

really can't happen ! 

As to larger curvature radius stylii having larger contact regions, I have already pointed out on 

this thread an enigma, that it would require deeper groove indentation. IMO, the enigma is 

best solved by assuming both low indentation, and associated small instantaneous contact 

regions. But the enigma cannot just be ignored. I already posted an explanation, on another 

thread, as to how larger curvature radius stylii may possess a property where the 

instantaneous contact locus shifts around the stylus with groove modulation, due to variations 

in groove angle and pinch effect. 

As to micrographs of ripples at groove bases, surely that's a region where there is no stylus 

contact. However, the base of the groove V is a stressed point, and (notwithstanding energy 

considerations) perhaps there are fracture mechanics involved in observed visible changes 

sur 27 06/02/2012 15:10


there ? Who knows ? 

As to mats and vinyl self resonance, of course all mechanical force is transmitted through those 

bulk materials, and vibrations exist there, including compression waves. But on a macro scale, 

as though the disc were static, and where energy available through friction can be aggregated. 

It's very different from micro dynamic stylus/groove physics. 

Lastly, the stylus must remain in contact with grooves at all times, otherwise motion to 'catch 

up' is mistracking, and is not observed in normal replay. Mistracking results in chaos, is not 

associated with any particular frequency, irrespective of causal stimulus. But often has 

recognisable content near one of the free-end cantilever resonances c 4-8kHz where it shows 

up as sibilant distortion. We all know what it sounds like. I doubt any mistracking can occur 

that has no audible artifact. 

Unfortunately, I disagree with much of your posts on this topic, desktop, and have tried to set 

out palpable and verifiable reasons as to why. I understand what you are saying, and that much 

established opinion agrees. However, I cannot overcome these fundamental counter-arguments, 

and can't just ignore them either. And I can't see a factual basis for established opinion. So on 

balance, I prefer the explanations I posted, for the reasons set out. If you disagree, kindly 

point out the error in my arguments ! 

Top 



(#p269904) 

by dlaloum » 16 Feb 2011 07:51 

I picked up a $50 aldi traveller USB microscope... 

Not exactly a precision tool... and focusing (and positioning on the stage) can be a pain... 

But in combination with a couple of Ikea LED lamps it does provide some photo's of interest.... 

so for the hell of it.... 

Here is a virgin NOS ADC SuperXLM Shibata 

Actually seeing the shibata facets is difficult to say the least - and may require 500x 

magnification rather than my max of 200x 

Still the gem quality diamond is clearly visible and translucent.... lovely 

sur 27 06/02/2012 15:10



sur 27 06/02/2012 15:10



sur 27 06/02/2012 15:10



sur 27 06/02/2012 15:10



sur 27 06/02/2012 15:10



sur 27 06/02/2012 15:10



sur 27 06/02/2012 15:10



0 sur 27 06/02/2012 15:10



1 sur 27 06/02/2012 15:10



2 sur 27 06/02/2012 15:10



3 sur 27 06/02/2012 15:10



4 sur 27 06/02/2012 15:10



I have tried to take similar photos of my SAS stylus - but the tip is smaller and facets even 

harder to see - the cantilever is clear but actually seeing the tip of the diamond..... 

bye for now 

David 

Top 



(#p270151) 

by lini » 17 Feb 2011 07:35 

David: Nice true Shibata tip shape. But just btw, is that the older version of the Aldi Traveller 

scope with 640 x 480 pix or already the newer one with 1.3 (?) Mpix sensor? 


5 sur 27 06/02/2012 15:10



Top 



(#p270169) 

by dlaloum » 17 Feb 2011 09:44 

It's the newer one - the quality of the images surprised me. 

I thought that for $60 it was worth a try..... 

I will say that the focusing mechanism is NOT smooth... at 200x it takes several attempts to 

focus, where on a "real" microscope you just smoothly move into the focus zone... 

With this the inaccuracy of the focusing dials means you need to try several times before 

getting what you want. 

Not to mention that there is no mechanical stage - so you very very gently poke the stylus to 

move it into place. 

Still for $60 it is an absolute bargain. - I have been experimenting with a pair of Ikea LED 

cabinet lights to set up a Shure SEK style wear checking configuration. 

This setup can definitely do it - but even with the Shure documentation and a microscope that 

meets all the requirements of that technique.... it is still very difficult to see the wear patches 

- and even more difficult to work out what is 1) OK, 2) starting to wear, 3) at replacement 

point, 4) use on records you wish to destroy 

Top 



Emperor has no clothes? (#p270178) 

by dlaloum » 17 Feb 2011 11:28 

I purchased an Ultra Magnetics "parabolic/shibata" for 4000D stylus.... 

I have tried repeatedly to see the shibata facets on this stylus.... but nary a hint... besides the 

fact that it is mounted skewed on the cantilever... 

Can those of you with more experience please tell me.... Am i just lacking experience in Stylus 

microscopy.... or does this Emperor indeed have no clothes - and the stylus is what it looks 

like.... a conical? 

6 sur 27 06/02/2012 15:10



7 sur 27 06/02/2012 15:10



8 sur 27 06/02/2012 15:10



9 sur 27 06/02/2012 15:10



0 sur 27 06/02/2012 15:10



1 sur 27 06/02/2012 15:10



The vendor has given me the option of refund (return) or replacement... 

But if this is a conical - there's not much point (!) replacing it with another from the same 

batch!! 

thanks 

David 

Top 



(#p270188) 

by lini » 17 Feb 2011 12:54 

David: Hard to tell, especially when the diamond isn't mounted correctly. But even in general 

it's sometimes very difficult - for example, the (nude, but round shank only) SST tip of the 

Philips GP351 also can be easily mistaken for a conical. That's why I sometimes prefer the "free 

hand method" (with loupe (I'd suggest ca. 20x) and led flashlight) for tip shape inspection, 

'cause then it's easier to kinda follow the contours by varying the viewing and lighting angles. 

For my taste that more continous method of inspection makes it easier not to misinterpret 

2 sur 27 06/02/2012 15:10


reflections... 

But yup, the newer, higher resolution sensor sure seems to make a good bit of a difference 

(and presumably you didn't even have to improve the pics by software, no?) in quality. With the 

older one I rather had the impression that one could already produce better stylus shots with 

an old 3 Mpix class digicam with good macro function... 



Top 



(#p270189) 

by dlaloum » 17 Feb 2011 13:05 

Thanks for the advice Manfred, 

I will try for a replacement.... 

No these are not processed in any way - with the exception on one shot in which I 

experimented with the software "zoom" function - effectively making it a 350x magnification 

pic - but it didn't help. 

I tried various angles, and used a hand held LED moving it around and trying to catch the 

reflection of any planes.... without any luck from any angle. 

In frustration, I then popped in my SAS stylus, which I previously had also found difficult, and lo 

and behold, with the additional effort, I got some nice shots of reflections from clear flat 

planes, I also managed once or twice to see the fine ridges, but couldn't get the lighting 

consistently - hence no photo. 

With my setup I need at least one more pair of hands to make some of this happen smoothly - 

one pair for lighting and focusing, and another pair for taking the picture... 

I did get some depth of field enhancing software - but to make it really useful it would need to 

work on the fly as you focus ... in actual fact it works after the fact by merging a stack of 

photos from various focus depths - not very useful for this purpose.... 

So yes the solution so far is pure and simple basic functionality with a lot of time and fiddling 

about. 

Not much point using the Zoom - as the detail is already in the still image - as long as what I 

want is in focus, I can zoom into detail after taking the image. 

Bye from Melbourne 

David 

Top 



Re: Emperor has no clothes? (#p270230) 

by flavio81 » 17 Feb 2011 16:19 

3 sur 27 06/02/2012 15:10



I purchased an Ultra Magnetics "parabolic/shibata" for 4000D stylus.... 

I have tried repeatedly to see the shibata facets on this stylus.... but nary a hint... 

besides the fact that it is mounted skewed on the cantilever... 

If it's a "parabolic", it isn't necessarily a Shibata. 

Top 



(#p270334) 

by dlaloum » 18 Feb 2011 00:47 

Ahhh so the emperor may be claiming silver thread rather than gold thread.... 

How does one recognise silver thread? 

What does a parabolic look like? 

Does it look anything like this stylus? (anyone have some shots of a parabolic?) 

Top 



(#p270506) 

by flavio81 » 18 Feb 2011 18:48 


Ahhh so the emperor may be claiming silver thread rather than gold thread.... 

"Parabolic" is just a generic term used for line-contact stylus. There are many LC stylus types, 

as you can see by going to the beginning of this thread. Not all of them have the evident 2 

back cuts like the ones on the Shibata. See the "Ogura" patent for example. Or the 

hyperelliptical. 

Top 



(#p270575) 

by dlaloum » 19 Feb 2011 00:46 

Hi Flavio, 

How does one recognise silver thread? 

What does a parabolic look like? 

Does it look anything like this stylus? (anyone have some shots of a parabolic?) 

I've been through the thread from start to finish.... (fantastic thread by the way.... stored a 

4 sur 27 06/02/2012 15:10


bunch of critical data points on styli in a handy spreadsheet for reference) 

I am also getting to know various shapes under the microscope, and getting the knack of 

working the angles and the light so I can spot the facets/shape. 

The SAS was tricky but I did (momentarily) manage to spot the MicroRidge shape... not so with 

this stylus. 

No matter what I do it looks like a beautiful cone.... hence my search for advice from more 

experienced microscopists.... 

Top 



(#p270819) 

by scho2684 » 20 Feb 2011 11:01 

A picture from my worn Dynavector 17D2: 


The picture is taken with a 200mm lens and a 20mm lens attached to it in opposite direction. 

Maybe the light should come from a different direction, to lighten up the dark spots on the tip 

a bit more, so that the worn will become visible.... 

Marco 

5 sur 27 06/02/2012 15:10


Top 



(#p270928) 

by scho2684 » 20 Feb 2011 22:19 

....and it's hard to believe that this mess play better music than the Dyna from above: 

The AT-OC9ML/II 


Weird hole in the middle maybe from getting grip during fabrication? 

In Iso view the ML is clearly visible: 

6 sur 27 06/02/2012 15:10



Marco 

Top 


Post a reply 

201 posts • Page 11 of 14 • 1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 


Jump to: 



7 sur 27 06/02/2012 15:10




Post a reply 

201 posts • Page 12 of 14 • 1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 



(#p270930) 

by dlaloum » 20 Feb 2011 22:39 

What is that second one? 

Looks a LOT like a Jico SAS.... 

Same style rod and same style mounting, even the needle overall shape looks similar... 

Top 



(#p270936) 

by scho2684 » 20 Feb 2011 23:13 

Sorry, forgotten to mention the brand, edited in the meantime, it is a Audio Technica 

AT-OC9ML/II.... 

Marco 

Top 



(#p270978) 

by dlaloum » 21 Feb 2011 04:07 

There is some suspicion that Jico may be making styli for AT... 

I must post some of the pics of my SAS.... it really does look the same! 

Top 



(#p271017) 

by dlaloum » 21 Feb 2011 06:47 

Here they are for comparison 

This is a Jico SAS on a N97xE 

sur 27 06/02/2012 15:12


(http://www.vinylengine.com 

/turntable_forum/gallery/image_page.php?image_id=16582) 

sur 27 06/02/2012 15:12



sur 27 06/02/2012 15:12



sur 27 06/02/2012 15:12



sur 27 06/02/2012 15:12



sur 27 06/02/2012 15:12


(http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/gallery 

/image_page.php?image_id=16576) 

sur 27 06/02/2012 15:12



Looks a lot like that AT stylus.... is it due to inherent similarity of the designs, or are AT 

Microline's in fact SAS styli? (or perhaps Jico manufactured variation thereof...) 

Top 



(#p271115) 

by scho2684 » 21 Feb 2011 17:46 

I see what you mean, but they are quiet different: 

Look at the tip from the AT, its a Micro Line: 

sur 27 06/02/2012 15:12



Number 1 on this picture: 

/turntable_forum/gallery/image_page.php?image_id=16600) 

Yours looks more in the direction of a Linear Contact? 

Marco 

Top 



(#p273125) 

by dlaloum » 02 Mar 2011 13:31 

Hi Marco, 

(http://www.vinylengine.com 

I have a feeling that if I can get that stylus at the same angle as yours in that photo - they may 

look the same.... might give it a try at some point... (takes a long time getting the stylus 

positioned at 200x - without a mechanical stage!) 

Here is a question (and a request) for the community at large... 

Has anyone taken good microscope pics of a Grado "true elipsoid"? 

And perhaps the older Grado high end styli: 

8MZ 

XTZ 

MCZ 

sur 27 06/02/2012 15:12


TLZ 

We are starting to build up a pretty good idea of what most styli shapes are like and their 

pros/cons/properties..... 

But there has been very little mention of Grado. 

And Grado themselves seem to avoid discussing the styli - lots of talk about their cantilever 

technology - but very little about needle shape.... 

Top 



(#p273425) 

by Klaus R. » 03 Mar 2011 14:29 

Hi all, 

a question that I asked myself more than once: with respect to the stylus-wall contact areas as 

provided by various sources, does anyone know at what tracking force these areas have been 

determined? 

Klaus 

Top 



(#p273450) 

by flavio81 » 03 Mar 2011 15:25 

Klaus R. wrote: 

Hi all, 

a question that I asked myself more than once: with respect to the stylus-wall 

contact areas as provided by various sources, does anyone know at what tracking 

force these areas have been determined? 

Klaus 

No, and this is the same question i've always make to myself. 

Top 



(#p275980) 

by scho2684 » 13 Mar 2011 14:57 

Guess what this is: 

0 sur 27 06/02/2012 15:12



No, this is no p**n! 

This is a Dynavector Karat 23rs, once fitted with a VdH retip... 

Now a Dynerotical 

1 sur 27 06/02/2012 15:12



A rather strange shape of one of the AT-ML150's: 

2 sur 27 06/02/2012 15:12



Still seems to play well however.... 

3 sur 27 06/02/2012 15:12



Marco 

Top 



What Exactly Is Ortofon "fine Line" (#p303212) 

by dlaloum » 16 Jul 2011 16:41 

Hi Folks, 

We've seen pics of the OM30 fineline, and the identical looking Digitrac 300SE stylus... 

I just ran up my Ortofon 320u under the microscope - it also claims a "Fine Line" stylus - but it 

could not appear more different...: 

4 sur 27 06/02/2012 15:12



5 sur 27 06/02/2012 15:12



6 sur 27 06/02/2012 15:12



7 sur 27 06/02/2012 15:12



I am getting reflections from some facets, but if this has a line contact edge, it will be a 

relatively broad one... 

I also came across this diagram in an 80's Ortofon catalogue (in the VE library) 

8 sur 27 06/02/2012 15:12



The following text describes them as 

A) Cutting sapphire footprint (the "ideal") 

B) SCL (symmetrical contact line) Diamond (MC2000) 

C) Fine Line Diamond 

D) Typical Eliptical 

The VMS30 is also described as a Fine Line diamond - but looks different again from the OM30 

9 sur 27 06/02/2012 15:12



0 sur 27 06/02/2012 15:12



1 sur 27 06/02/2012 15:12



Looks much more Shibata-like..... 

Any thoughts.... what exactly are these shapes? 

bye for now 

David 

Top 



(#p303355) 

by flavio81 » 17 Jul 2011 05:02 

David, thank you VERY much for the 320U shot. Since it's a bonded stylus, we cannot 

appreciate the shape easily. 

AFAIK Ortofon never published a detailed diagram of the fine line stylus... so maybe anything 

can be called FL by them ... 

Top 

2 sur 27 06/02/2012 15:12




(#p310891) 

by Luckydog » 23 Aug 2011 11:16 

Here's a scale sketch mark up showing how a standard eliptical fits in the groove, and where 

contact locations are : 


BTW, one can simply find contact locations for any stylus profile because it is always the points 

where stylus curvature has a tangent exactly 45 deg to the vertical/horizontal. 

On these lines, here's a SEM photo of a similar stylus in a stereo groove that also illustrates 

how the fit works, and where contact locations are: 

http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/215066/view (http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/215066 

3 sur 27 06/02/2012 15:12


/view) 

Top 



(#p316537) 

by flavio81 » 19 Sep 2011 23:16 

--- Updated with more generations of the Shure V15 and the Nagaoka JT-555, and some Philips 

cartridges, including some ceramic ones for comparison. Also the first Stereo MM, from ELAC. 

It shows how pickups have advanced a LONG way!! 


NOTE that so far what i have learned is that the cantilever is the main responsible for the total 

moving mass, more than the tip itself. 

6.000mg ELAC STS-200 (1958, first stereo MM pickup?? 4-6g VTF) 

6.000mg GE VR-II (1955, mono, variable reluctance, 4-7g VTF) 

4.500mg Sonotone 9T (1960, stereo, ceramic) 

3.000mg Philips GP316 (1958, crystal, mono, 5-7g VTF) 

1.400mg Philips GP380/GP390 (1968, high fidelity ceramic cartridge) 

1.200mg Shure V15 first generation (MM) 

1.000mg Ortofon SPU (all classic and 'mono' models) 


0.800mg (less than) Philips GP400, 401 1st gen (MM) 


0.600mg Nagaoka JT-555 (pseudo "carbon fiber" cantilever) 

0.600mg (less than) Philips GP412 1st gen (MM) 


0.500mg Philips GP922 (high end MC) 

0.450mg Shure V15-II (MM) 






0.290mg Technics EPC-P202C (p-mount, MM, boron cant) 





0.230mg Technics EPC-P310MC (p-mount, MC, boron cant) 



0.170mg Shure Micro-Ridge (0.15x3.00mil, MM, beryllium cant) 

0.168mg Denon DL-305 

0.109mg Technics EPC-P205CMK4 (p-mount, 0.2x0.7mil, MM, boron cant.) 

0.098mg Technics EPC-100CMK3 (MM, boron cant.) 

0.077mg Denon DL1000 (MC, boron cant.) 

0.055mg Technics EPC-P100CMK4 (p-mount, MM, boron cant.) 



4 sur 27 06/02/2012 15:12



Shure V15-IV specs from a shure paper 

Ortofon specs from Ortofon website 


Other Denon specs from the Denon MC cartridge brochure 

Shure V15-I, II, and III from July '73 issue on gramophone.net 

Nagaoka JT-555 spec from turntableneedles 

Philips GP400 specs from their own brochures 

Other Specs (Philips, Sonotone, GE, Shure, ELAC) from http://hupse.eu (http://hupse.eu) 

Top 




by empirelvr » 07 Nov 2011 02:06 

Here's a little curve ball for everyone. 

This is from the January 1960 issue of High Fidelity. The implications here are tantalizing. 

Strangely enough I can't find *ANY* other information about this other than a blurb about 

Fidelitone introducing this stylus in a 1960 issue of Billboard (via Google Books) 

And yes, you read that correctly. *1960*!!! 

Any clue if this is one of the first ellipticals or an early attempt at a Shibata-like line contact 

design? 

5 sur 27 06/02/2012 15:12


Top 




by Doug G. » 07 Nov 2011 04:34 

Actually, 1960 was not that early in terms of stylus development and after the introduction of 

stereo LPs,the experimentation really took off. 

The tracing of stereo grooves is quite a bit more complex than mono grooves which just move 

side-to-side. 

6 sur 27 06/02/2012 15:12


Still, a very interesting advertisement. 

It does kind of look like a Shibata except a Shibata has no facets on the front and the shaping 

at the rear is slightly rounded. 

Doug 

Top 


Post a reply 

201 posts • Page 12 of 14 • 1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 


Jump to: 



7 sur 27 06/02/2012 15:12




Post a reply 

201 posts • Page 13 of 14 • 1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 




by Cobra2 » 07 Nov 2011 10:41 

I browsed thru these pictures, and, (since I just got a good stereo-microscope myself), I looked 

thru my stylus-collection, on Shure, AT, Empire, Ortofon,...not many of the factory-nudes are 

nude. Not all ellipticals are elliptical..! 

No wonder so many sound shait! 

Seems like we are beeing fooled ever so often. 

Some of my stylus' were superb, like the AT15 & AT20SS, the AT130E!!!, Ortofon OM30, Grace 

F-9-Ruby...and a 3rd-party empire LT...was like the nice from AT! 

I binned a handful NOS Stanton , Empire & Grado-needles, just because they were FAR from 

what I paid for... (OUCH!) 

Arne K 

Top 




by dlaloum » 07 Nov 2011 15:07 

I have an original TOTL Pickering D7500S stereohedron... 

The gem is dark industrial diamond, the polish is not a patch on the AT's, Ortofon, or 

Jico....But it is still a great sounding needle. 

Much harder to see the facets on that type of needle too! 

You also need to be very careful of HyperEliptical, Hyperbolic or similar shapes - they are not 

faceted but seem to be ground to a curving shape - very easy to mistake them for conicals, and 

doubly so if they are using an industrial diamond (dark) rather than gem quality (translucent) 

as the shape is then much harder to see under the scope.... 

bye for now 

David 

Top 




by flavio81 » 07 Nov 2011 15:38 

Doug G. wrote: 

sur 15 06/02/2012 15:15


Perhaps it is like the Hughes (Diamagnetics, Inc) shape, although it was patented later. Aka 

"Stereohedron" 

viewtopic.php?t=15516 (http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?t=15516) 

Top 




by Cobra2 » 07 Nov 2011 16:17 

I have noticed that some shapes are easily mistaken for conical...but the overall size will 

usually be different, But a NUDE and a bonded...-easy to see. 

Point is; how often are we beeing fooled, like in any other gem-shop? 

Arne K 

Actually, 1960 was not that early in terms of stylus development and after the 

introduction of stereo LPs,the experimentation really took off. 

The tracing of stereo grooves is quite a bit more complex than mono grooves which 

just move side-to-side. 


It does kind of look like a Shibata except a Shibata has no facets on the front and 

the shaping at the rear is slightly rounded. 

Doug 

Top 







Actually, 1960 was not that early in terms of stylus development and 

after the introduction of stereo LPs,the experimentation really took 

off. 

The tracing of stereo grooves is quite a bit more complex than mono 

grooves which just move side-to-side. 


It does kind of look like a Shibata except a Shibata has no facets on the 

front and the shaping at the rear is slightly rounded. 

Doug 

sur 15 06/02/2012 15:15


Perhaps it is like the Hughes (Diamagnetics, Inc) shape, although it was patented 

later. Aka "Stereohedron" 

viewtopic.php?t=15516 (http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum 

/viewtopic.php?t=15516) 

I was alerted to an I.R.E Technical Paper from November of 1959 about this stylus on another 

forum, and it so happens the library at work had a copy of it! If the interest is there, I'll copy, 

scan and post it. It is EXTREMELY technical though and at seven pages is not an easy read for 

the audio layman. 

The upshot though is that it WAS an early line contact stylus, made to resemble a cutting stylus 

as closely as possible without the cutting edges. I can only speculate cost, complexity, quality 

control issues, and apathy were contributing factors to it's eventual demise and forgotten 

status today. 

I wonder if because its profile was so extreme it may have caused damage to records given the 

crude equipment of the day by today's standards. That certainly could have sunk it. 

Top 




by dlaloum » 07 Nov 2011 22:29 

Yes Please! 

Top 





Here you go everyone! 

sur 15 06/02/2012 15:15


sur 15 06/02/2012 15:15


sur 15 06/02/2012 15:15


sur 15 06/02/2012 15:15


sur 15 06/02/2012 15:15


sur 15 06/02/2012 15:15


sur 15 06/02/2012 15:15


0 sur 15 06/02/2012 15:15


Top 




by dlaloum » 08 Nov 2011 02:51 

The birth of line contact styli? 

The article also may be part of the beginning of moving to High Compliance, as it explains 

(p142) the need for high compliance... (on the other hand what is meant here by high 

compliance is likely to be low compliance in current terms) 

The article also implies that 5g is a low VTF. 

1 sur 15 06/02/2012 15:15


Very Interesting! 

bye for now 

David 

Top 




by Doug G. » 08 Nov 2011 15:39 

Yes, fascinating! 

I don't know if I would characterize stylus manufacturing equipment or processes of those days 

as being crude, even compared to today's methods. 

Of course, they wouldn't have had equipment to make such advanced styli as the SAS. Or was it 

just that nobody had thought of that stylus shape yet? 

The processes were pretty well developed by then. 

Doug 

Top 







I don't know if I would characterize stylus manufacturing equipment or processes of 

those days as being crude, even compared to today's methods. 

Of course, they wouldn't have had equipment to make such advanced styli as the 

SAS. Or was it just that nobody had thought of that stylus shape yet? 


Doug 

My comment about crude equipment was aimed at the playback end of things, not the styli 

manufacturing side. Heavy tonearms with lots of bearing friction, tracking weights in excess of 

8 grams with little to no adjustment on the arm, crystal cartridges, record changers with all 

the finesse of a bull in a china shop, that sort of thing. 

Top 



2 sur 15 06/02/2012 15:15



by flavio81 » 08 Nov 2011 20:33 


The article also implies that 5g is a low VTF. 

Implies that 5g is a low VTF... for a 0.5mil stylus!! LOL!! 

To put things in perspective, 5g with a 0.5mil stylus applies a pressure equivalent to 10g with a 

0.7mil (standard conical) stylus... or 20g with a 1.0mil (mono) stylus!! 

VERY heavy... 

Top 





And yet, 5 grams for a 0.5 mil stylus in 1959 WAS light as it was only 10 years or so from the 

birth of the microgroove "Hi-Fi" LP/45 disc. It was only in 1960 that 78's were well and truly 

gone from the marketplace and there was still a large base of pre-microgroove equipment in 

use where VTF was measured in ounces. So I can easily see where the equivalent of 20 grams 

would still be seen as a low VTF. 

I always have to laugh at audio related publications of that time. Ads touting cartridges with 

"super high compliance" or "the highest compliance available" with VTF ranges of 3 to 7 grams. 

Very amusing in retrospect. 

Top 




by flavio81 » 10 Nov 2011 18:45 

empirelvr wrote: 

And yet, 5 grams for a 0.5 mil stylus in 1959 WAS light as it was only 10 years or so 

from the birth of the microgroove "Hi-Fi" LP/45 disc. It was only in 1960 that 78's 

were well and truly gone from the marketplace and there was still a large base of 

pre-microgroove equipment in use where VTF was measured in ounces. So I can 

easily see where the equivalent of 20 grams would still be seen as a low VTF. 

Yes but some of my early 60s (1961/62) stereo records clearly indicate on the record sleeve 

that tracking forces of more than 5g should not be used for 0.7mil styli, and tracking forces of 

more than 10g should not be used for 1.0mil styli. That's why it surprised me. 

Top 



3 sur 15 06/02/2012 15:15



by Luckydog » 10 Nov 2011 20:53 

Thanks, empirelvr. That O'neal article is the best geometric write up of pinch effect, and how 

to avoid it, I've read. They knew their stuff in 1959. 

Actually i think it's also pre-emptive of the eliptical shape and some well known patented 

derivatives thereof. And I'm surprised this does not comprise pre-disclosure in terms of many 

subsequent patents. Shibata, for example. 

Great stuff ! 

BTW, all the maths assumes zero vinyl indentation, which IMO is fair. 


The article also may be part of the beginning of moving to High Compliance, as it 

explains (p142) the need for high compliance... 

No, that would be out of context. What O'Neal is saying there is it's beneficial/necessary to 

accomodate vertical stylus motion due to pinch effect, even in lateral modulation. 

Top 




by Doug G. » 20 Nov 2011 02:01 

empirelvr wrote: 



I don't know if I would characterize stylus manufacturing equipment or 

processes of those days as being crude, even compared to today's 

methods. 

Of course, they wouldn't have had equipment to make such advanced 

styli as the SAS. Or was it just that nobody had thought of that stylus 

shape yet? 


Doug 

My comment about crude equipment was aimed at the playback end of things, not 

the styli manufacturing side. Heavy tonearms with lots of bearing friction, tracking 

weights in excess of 8 grams with little to no adjustment on the arm, crystal 

cartridges, record changers with all the finesse of a bull in a china shop, that sort of 

thing. 

Of course. I misread. And thanks for all the info. 

4 sur 15 06/02/2012 15:15




Post a reply 

First unread post • 201 posts • Page 14 of 14 • 1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 




by Kavita » 08 Dec 2011 12:15 

Hi, 

This a bit off point. I am from Kenya and there are no dealers in turntables anymore. Dose 

anyone know of a dealer who can supply me with a stylus for my turntable: SANYO Auto 

Return; Direct Drive;DC-Servo System;Model TP-1020. 

Kavita 

Top 




by dutchflea » 16 Dec 2011 00:10 

Hi guys! 

I stumbled upon this thread today and would like to share a picture I made few years ago of my 

collection of styli, unfortunately using a crappy cheap microscope from a toy store. 

Nevertheless the basic shapes, tip sizes and mounting techniques can be clearly seen on these 

pics. 

The right side of this picture somehow does not show on this forum, so click on this link to see 

the full pic! (http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/gallery/image.php?album_id=1236& 

image_id=19691&view=no_count) 

sur 4 06/02/2012 15:16


Of course there are separate pics available of every stylus in this collection, most of them 

taken from 2 different angles. Just let me know if you are interested in a particular one. 

The cartridges I love the most sound wise are (apart from the modern Denon DL-160) the 

beautiful classics Ortofon/Thorens M200E, Technics EPC-P205CMK3 and - surprise surprise - 

especially the Signet TK5E. 

I also have a pic Technics EPC-310MC that I quite like, which I somehow did not include in this 

collection, probably because the picture was too dim. 

Combining the sonic performance with the pics I think it is safe to say that a finely shaped and 

sur 4 06/02/2012 15:16


well polished nude tip is a pretty good indication of great musical ability. 

Again, let me know if you'd like to see a the pic of a particular one. 

Top 




by dlaloum » 16 Dec 2011 04:31 

You wouldn't perchance have an EPSP205 stylus (worn out) that you want to part with? 

I have a stylusless body, and without a stylus, I cannot get it retipped.... very frustrating! 

Top 




by dutchflea » 16 Dec 2011 23:07 

No, sorry. Why can't you get a new boron cantilever? Although you won't get the original thing I 

guess people like vd Hul and SoundSmith should be able to mount something decent on that 

cart? 

I bought the EPC-P205CMK3 new old stock a few years ago and mounted it in a SL-10 which I 

cleaned and lubricated to perfection, but never got to use it. So the unit is just sitting on a 

storage shelf with a new cartridge and stylus. I have another SL-10 with a MC310 mounted. I 

am surprised by how much the popularity of these units has been increasing the last few years. 

Top 




by dlaloum » 17 Dec 2011 07:06 

Nice idea, but they need something to mount the stylus in... normally you supply them with the 

stylus mount - even if the cantilever is broken... 

So what I need is a spare stylus mount - then I can send it to VdH or SS (or expert, etc..) 

Top 




by St.Dunstan » 28 Dec 2011 03:06 

Many thanks for all, who make this very informative topic, especially for the papers from the 

initiators of the patents. 

Top 

Previous Display posts from previous: Sort by 

Post a reply 

201 posts • Page 14 of 14 • 1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 


sur 4 06/02/2012 15:16

Advanced Stylus Shap.. - Free

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?