|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
96.250.127.20
In a post below (in the Are Cartridges Better Today thread) Anthony (flood2) asserts that in the Audio Technica line of cartridges cost cutting has moved the current top of the line cartridges (costing in the neighborhood of $1000) to a stylus called "special line contact" that measures 7 x 40 um. These are radii, the smaller number being the contact radius. Some of the less expensive, but older, cartridges in the line use a micro-line stylus that he asserts measures between 1 and 2 um, though I cannot find that figure in any AT literature.
In any event, though some cartridge manufacturers specify a shape yielding a smaller contact radius, there are a number of high kilobuck cartridges using radii similar to the AT special line contact. Among these are the Clearaudio da Vinci ($5500) 8 x 40 um, Dynavector XV-1S ($5450) 7 x 30 um and the Shelter Harmony ($5495) 7.6 x 40 um. I suppose there may be differences among these styli and the AT, but their radii are similar.
So the question I would ask is whether these stylus shapes limit high end performance from a PRACTICAL rather than a THEORETICAL view, notwithstanding very high prices and very favorable reviews.
Follow Ups:
Stylus shape makes a great deal of difference. My Benz LP was upgraded to the LPS. The only difference in the 2 cartridges was the sylus shape....but the sound certainly improved.
According to Musical Surroundings there are many other changes.
Not according to an Email I got from Garth,,,perhaps advertising BS
This chart is from Shure and compares the actual measured harmonic distortion for a range of styli ranging from spherical to hyper-elliptical. The Shure HE is a form of line contact, but the bearing radius is of the order of 30 to 40um similar to the LC styli on the latest AT models under discussion previously.
You can see how much inherent distortion the spherical stylus has compared to even a simple bi-radial cut.
The Hyper Elliptical has nearly 43% less average IMD compared to the spherical and nearly 22% less IMD compared to a bi-radial ("elliptical") tip.
The bi-radial has 27% less distortion than the spherical.
I think that is pretty compelling evidence to show that there is an advantage to going for even a short line contact stylus over an elliptical (and forget about a spherical!).
I mentioned yesterday that SRA was critical for line contact styli to really perform. You need to be prepared to compensate for different record thicknesses if you REALLY want to get the best out of your cartridge. If you jump from thick heavy weight vinyl which is about 1.8mm thick to the thin stuff from the 80s (which I have measured as thin as 0.76mm for some 7"s) and don't want to compensate with shims under the mat, then forget about the extreme cuts. You will just end up with sibilance and HF distortions.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Going from a 1.8mm thick LP to a 0.76mm LP with a 10.5" arm (273.4 Eff Length) will yield a SRA difference of 0.2 deg....unless my math is wrong. Not worth it to me to adjust VTA between LPs. Enjoy the music.
It depends on the shape of your arm - if it is straight then yes. If a J or S shape, then the distance used is not the effective length - you form the triangle that lies on the plane and calculate the length of the side that the headshell axis is on and take that distance... which is much shorter!
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Interesting! I see your point!
However, it doesn't matter whether it's a straight arm or a J or S shaped arm as long as it's an offset tonearm. Then, rather than using the effective length directly in the calculation you would use the cosine of the offset angle times the effective length. For example, the true change in SRA would be determined by the following equation:
1) Delta_SRA = Asin{Delta_Thickness / [cos(offset) x effective_length]}
The above method would yield a change in SRA that is slightly greater than the following method:
2) Delta_SRA = Asin(Delta_Thickness / effective_length)
The change in SRA would be about 0.013-degrees greater using the first equation versus the second equation with the numbers given in miner42 's post.
That is an excellent deduction. I hadn't thought of it before.
Best regards,
John Elison
John, Anthony: I must have still been busy thinking about that in some corner of my mind, 'cause when I woke up from the nap I just had, I had an additional thought: Namely that the effective length times the cosine of the offset angle should only apply, if it's an arm design with "angled pivot" (i.e. on which the pivot axis for vertical motion is angled to be perpendicular to the "headshell angle" to avoid rolling) - whereas for an arm design without angled pivot (e.g. SME M2) me thinks it would rather have to be the effective length divided by the cosine of the offset angle, wouldn't it?
Greetings from Munich!
Manfred / lini
Hi Manfred
So if we go back to the original point of my post, it was to explain the arm height compensation required to compensate for different record thicknesses to achieve the reference SRA.
It is easier to consider the J/S arm to see the reason for the effective length not being the length you use. Unless the arm axis and effective length lines are coincident, the effective length is an imaginary line going from the pivot to the stylus tip. The headshell is mounted on the arm such that the central axis is at an angle (i.e the offset angle) to this imaginary line. So if we want to calculate the arm height adjustment based on a measurement of the implemented SRA, we need to form a plane in the form of (right-angle) triangle which has the (imaginary) effective length line as the hypotenuse. The adjacent side (with respect to the offset angle) on which the headshell lies on is the length we must use for calculating the arm height compensation when we raise and lower the arm.
Using the Technics arm as an example, the effective length is 230mm and the length used for calculating the arm height adjustment is 161.25mm which is the adjacent side of the triangle on which the headshell is aligned with. The effective length is incorrect to use since the SRA is measured on a line which is not on the effective length line; if we consider the headshell/pivot plane it is with respect to the adjacent side.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
> effective length is 230mm and the length used for calculating the arm height adjustment
> is 161.25mm which is the adjacent side of the triangle on which the headshell is aligned
Since offset angle is 22-degrees and the tonearm bearing is aligned to this offset, wouldn't the length used for calculating the arm-height adjustment be Cos(22-degrees) x 230 = 213.25-mm?
Yes that is correct. In hindsight, my example was probably a bad one to use to illustrate the point - my dimension was copied out of my spreadsheet which I did years ago and I forgot that this is specific to the Technics arm - I have referenced the correction with respect to the headshell flange i.e 213.25mm-52mm = 161.25mm. Your calculation would indeed be correct for a normal arm where the headshell is part of the arm pipe or at least parallel to the arm pipe.
Although there is considerable variation in the tilt angles, the Technics headshell is designed to be tilted upwards (by +0.63°) to approximately correct for the arm height scale being with respect to the undeflected cantilever. I have therefore referenced to the headshell flange at the end of the S-pipe so that the arm height can be adapted to match any headshell (irrespective of the tilt angle of the headshell in question) to bring it back to the reference tilt angle so that the arm height scale is correct.
So to clarify, yes, in the *general* case, the correct length is (effective length) * (cos(offset angle)).
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Anthony, John: Tried to make a little illu for your guys to show what I mean - just had MS Paint at hand and I'm not exactly a great illustrator, though, so please excuse its lousiness...
Anyway, to make it a bit simpler I picked an arm design with the headshell sticking out to the right for the illustration, so that the tip is on the actual arm axis and the virtual and the actual arm axis are the same (at least in 2D as seen from above) and "headshell angle" and offset angle also are identical:
So, the way I understood Anthony's point way above, is that we have to heed what we're referencing to, which shouldn't be the angle of the arm axis to the record surface, but rather of the yellow line to the record surface - and I'd agree with that. However, my point would be, that this would only be arcsin (height change / (effective length x cos (offset angle))) for the arm with "angled pivot" on the right, but arcsin (height change / (effective length / cos (offset angle))) for the arm with non-angled pivot on the left. No?
Greetings from Munich!
Manfred / lini
I agree with your equation for the tonearm with the angled vertical bearing, but I can't wrap my mind around the other equation due to the additional complexity resulting from the change in azimuth when arm-height is changed.
Why wouldn't the equation simply be:
Arcsin [height change / effective length]
The fact that azimuth will also change makes it difficult for me to isolate SRA from azimuth. The more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to think the equation for the change in SRA might remain
Arcsin [height change / (effective length x Cos(offset))]
even though the arm-bearing is not aligned to the offset angle. It's just that there will also be a change in azimuth. I just can't seem to get an accurate picture in my mind of this situation, though.
Hi Manfred
Regardless of straight or bent arm, the Adjacent side of our triangular plane is the correct length to use for referencing arm height. Unless you have a tangential tracking arm the headshell axis is not coincident with the arm axis. Note also that with SME type straight arms, it is an illusion that the stylus lies on the arm axis since the mounting hole to tip distance varies from cartridge to cartridge so the effective length is still a virtual line just like the headshell reference axis.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Oh, man! That's too difficult to think about right now, although I don't think it would ever be the effective length divided by the cosine of the offset angle. Then, again, I can't really wrap my mind around it at the moment, so you could be right. It just doesn't seem intuitive to me, though.
I think we should move on to something more musical. If you don't address an issue when it's on Page 1 or Page 2 at the latest, it's just too hard for me to wrap my mind around it when it reaches Page 4. ;-)
Best regards,
John Elison
John: I wonder whether that's already correct enough, if one strives for exactness - but I must confess, that I find it quite hard to wrap my brain around a close to real world model...
Anyway, I think for a more correct and universal formula one would also need to consider the initial angle of the arm - and then also need to compensate for the vertical distance between the tip/record surface and the vertical pivot on non-OPS-arms (to use Dual's term (Optimum Pivot System) for an arm design with the vertical pivot axis lowered to tip/record surface level, foremost to minimise warp-related scrubbing...). I.e., if effective length = tip to horizontal pivot distance, that's practically already a 2D projection "as seen from above/below", but in reality we're usually rotating an "L" and not a "[", so that the actual radius would be a bit larger... And exactness freaks might even additionally want to consider tracking force over height level. ;)
But actually I think for a decent approximation the simplified formula (angular change = arcsin (height change / effective length)) will already do the job well enough...
Greetings from Munich!
Manfred / lini
Whatever works for you is fine with me. Personally, I don't even worry about changes in VTA from different thickness records. However, if I did, I'd use the equation that comes closest to the truth. I own a powerful programmable calculator so it doesn't bother me to throw a few more numbers into the mix. In fact, I just bought a brand new HP Prime calculator, which is probably the most powerful handheld calculator in the world.
Best regards,
John Elison
*lol* Neither do I, John. But I tend to regard wasting some thoughts on the theoretical side as a bit of a workout for the brain, which can't really harm, even if the matter doesn't really seem all too practice-relevant to me.
Oh, and nice calculator, btw. Are there as many games for it as for the Casio FX-CG10/20? ;)
Greetings from Munich!
Manfred / lini
..you made my day! :)
I've been on hold most of the afternoon trying to sort out an insurance claim on a large cracked window in the house....and then my RGP contact lenses suddenly cracked into 3 pieces whilst cleaning.
I'm scared to touch my records now in case something breaks there too!
Seriously though...
As you pointed out, the actual angular shift in SRA appears miniscule with the change from thin to thick discs. I firmly believe, after extensive experiments, that astonishingly small adjustments to have an audible effect WHEN ONE IS NEAR THE SWEETSPOT. I'm talking about fractions of an arc which, based on the calculations you just presented, are TINY adjustments in arm height which are beyond belief and certainly beyond anyone eye-balling.
Once one has dialled in as close to the optimum by measurement first, the only fool proof method to fine tune I found was to use test tracks (as in music or voice material) on the inner grooves and use sibilance or some HF rich material such as high hats where one can listen for clean sounds (a clean "tssssss" sound) . I am literally adjusting in 0.01mm amounts and testing for the smooth sounds. I can consistently hit the sweet spot now according to my measurements. A small error of 0.1mm in arm height results in an obviously "gritty" quality to sibilants and cymbal sounds with the MicroLine and Stereohedron. I can only imagine how difficult the Replicant 100 would be given that the bearing radius is 33% longer than the two mentioned tips.
I wish test tones would have been produced to make this process easier to do consistently. The IEC IMD 4:1 test tones at 60Hz and 4kHz for setting VTA are not much use - one needs another higher frequency tone in the upper presence band to examine the amplitude of the sidebands. However it is real to me! The subjective result is a clean soundstage and silky smooth highs.
For this reason, I think that exotic tips are an "undertaking". Without this level of attention to setup, the true potential of the tip is never realised.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
One of the advantages of a 12" tone arm is that the vta/sra is a bit less sensitive to record thicknesses.
So with all the information presented to you by myself and others, are you now convinced that the extended line contact designs have very real and significant advantages to the simpler designs?
The opinions you get from everyone will all be affected by how accurately they have their respective systems set and whether they compensate for each and every record. Those that do, will be able to give you a much more definitive answer about the clear superiority of the exotic cuts.
A standout benefit has to be the extended life of the stylus before audible degradation.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
I have always understood that the closer is the stylus profile to the cutter the better is the theoretical reproduction. Also, the longer the profile, the longer lasting is the stylus.
My question was always about audibility.
What I find interesting therefore is the number of relatively expensive cartridges that have a less than optimum design by that standard. I mentioned the Clearaudio da Vinci at $5500. I might also have mentioned the Clearaudio Goldfinger Statement at $15,000 or the Dynavector XV-1t Phono Cartridge at $9450 or the Lyra Atlas at $12,000.
Your original post did not name those cartridges or provide the prices.
"..Also, the longer the profile, the longer lasting is the stylus."
Taking that last statement into account sort of makes your original question rather pointless don't you think?
The stylus is continuously wearing - the life of a stylus before harmonic distortion exceeds 3% at 15kHz (which is the metric that is used to define wear rate) is the point in time where distortion will become audible. Elliptical styli only give you about 200 hours or so until you reach that point, Shibata is about 400 hours or so and MicroLine is about 500 hours. The Shibata cut has two variants. The shorter one, which has a bearing radius of 50um, will last somewhat less than 400 hours. The 40um LC styli will be shorter again and I think 300 to 350 hours would be a reasonable expectation. However, stylus wear depends on how clean the records are and the groove modulation which affects the friction coefficient. Interestingly, the wear is greatest if you were to play the same record over and over during the tests compared to changing records. This would tend to confirm the groove modulation influence on wear.
At what point in the life of the stylus are you talking about sound quality? Once the simpler shape has worn, the more advanced shape will always sound better!
If you only take Time Zero as your reference point then for the Average User who only plays LPs, they probably wouldn't notice the difference.
As pointed out, the exotic shapes require scrupulous attention to alignment.
Secondly, the audibility is VERY obvious on inner grooves and errors in SRA are magnified by errors in HTA and antiskate.
Sibilance is a dead giveaway that you have a problem somewhere. The longer the contact line, the more precise you need to be.
I am using a DL304 at the moment which has the same tip as the S1. Based on information and photos from John, I am convinced that the tip is probably a form of hyperelliptical or short line contact stylus.
On my test records (as in "records I use to challenge the system setup" not actual "Test Records" of which I have several), the MicroLine still gives audibly superior imaging and clarity on the innermost grooves.
At the outer grooves, the DL304 *sounds* the most pleasing cartridge I have and from a technical point of view, the DL304 also has the best tracking ability (at 1.3g) giving a 2nd harmonic distortion component at -33dB (2.2%) relative to the fundamental on the +18dB test tone on the HFNRR test disc which is a 105 to 110um amplitude track. This gives absolute clarity on all material especially hot cuts....until you get to the inner grooves and the cartridge is let down by the stylus profile.
The Sound Quality is a combination of the suspension design, damping PLUS the tip capability. What I want is a MicroLine on the DL304 and THEN that cartridge would be The Best in my collection. I will settle for a Paratrace on it.
It's about your priorities and how accurate you are with your setup. I'm lucky to have access to very high accuracy equipment. I'm confident that I have taken my vinyl playback system about as far as it is possible to go within the limitations of the cartridge.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
What type of styli do those expensive cartridge have? I would expect them all to have line contact styli. Are you suggesting that they have conical or elliptical styli instead of modern line contact styli?
On the other hand, most of us with experience know that cartridges in that price range are simply a rip-off. If you are concerned solely with sound quality, the best sound quality can be achieved for less than $1000. Check out Michael Fremer's cartridge drop-test comparison where he included his $9000 Ortofon Anna along with nine other cartridges all costing less than $1000. Only 12% of the 442 participants thought his $9000 Ortofon Anna sounded better than the cheaper cartridges. In other words, 88% of the listeners thought one of the cheaper cartridges sounded better than the $9000 Ortofon Anna.
Yes John, they all have line contact styli like the AT ART-7* and ART-9, the discussion of which gave rise to this thread.
What they DON'T have are microline, van den Hul, Shibata or other exotic shapes more nearly duplicating the cutter.
The Ortofon line seems to be an exception . . . and of course the van den Hul line, and others I'm sure.
I don't give much credence to the Fremer tests. Besides the digitizing (I can see a dispute coming on.) problem I'm guessing that most voters experience these files through their computer DAC and speakers. At the very best they copy and play them on systems of widely varying quality. Also the exotic shapes are more likely to reveal as superior on the inner tracks, though compromised by tracking error. I don't know if Fremer highlighted that aspect.
*By the way, I think it would be great if you did score an ART-7 and report its comparison to your Denon.
> I don't give much credence to the Fremer tests.
It's obvious you don't have much experience in digitizing vinyl; otherwise, you would place significant credence in Fremer's tests.
> Besides the digitizing (I can see a dispute coming on.) problem I'm guessing that most voters experience these files through their computer DAC and speakers.
I don't know how most people listened. I listened through a $3200 April Music Eximus DP1 DAC and Thiel CS3.7 speakers, and the Ortofon Anna was not as impressive as two or three of the other cartridges.
I owned a Dynavector XV-1 several years ago and I came to a similar conclusion.
I will probably buy an ART7 when I see a good price again. I just procrastinated too long when 2juki had them in stock. However, my Denon DL-S1 is a topnotch cartridge that I feel is every bit as good as most of the ultra expensive cartridges I've heard so far.
Best regards,
John Elison
...if the DL304 is anything to go by!
Apart from the Silver wire for the coils and the slight increase in nominal VTF to 1.3g, I'm not sure how different the damping configuration for the S1 is to the DL304. Certainly the stylus and cantilever look very similar and the bandwidth is virtually identical.
My sample of 304, despite the cantilever twist has the most remarkable tracking ability of any cartridge I have yet used. I initially set 1.3g and achieved 2.2% distortion on the +18dB HFNRR test tone which we know is > 100um. So I am more than happy at nominal 1.2g. I'm not even sure if the distortion I see on the waveforms weren't created by previous cartridges chewing up the groove!
That aside, tonally, Denon have sweetened the upper presence band by pulling back a tad at 10kHz (wrt 1kHz) and then allowing a gentle lift of about 2dB at 23kHz.
This is a very similar characteristic to what I measure with the Shure V15V and Stanton 881, 980LZS and CS100 - all cartridges that have a very subjectively pleasing sound to my ears.
Incidentally, I was just looking at the reference FR chart supplied with my 304 and was surprised to see that the reference load used was 1k ohm of all possible values they could have chosen to match a 20:1 or 15:1 SUT...or even 10:1.
I haven't gotten around to building a SUT yet so I experimented with different loads with the MC input stage on my phono preamp and ended up preferring 400 ohms (well that's what the phono stage labels it as!). 800 ohms added a certain "diffuse" quality to the HF range and slightly reduced definition. 400 ohms gives close to maximum output as you'd expect, and overall the best subjective performance. This DID surprise me a little in that I wouldn't have expected shifting the ultrasonic electrical resonance peak to have ANY discernible effect in the passband especially since the subjective changes would be mostly observed in the upper presence band. Unless I am hearing the effects of amplifier stability changes...
Just out of curiousity what was the value of the test load used in the chart supplied for your S1?
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
> Apart from the Silver wire for the coils and the slight increase in nominal VTF to 1.3g,
> I'm not sure how different the damping configuration for the S1 is to the DL304.
The coil wire for the DL-S1 appears to be gold when viewed under a microscope. Denon describes it as: "A newly developed ultra fine wire combining pure gold and 6N copper is used in the voltage generating coil." My guess is that it is gold plated copper wire but I suppose it could be a gold and copper alloy. It appeared like pure gold when I looked at it under a microscope.
Thanks for the info. I honestly don't know where I got the Silver reference from!
I wonder how much of the decision to change the wire is purely due to an expectation that the wire itself improved the sound or there was a subtle change in mass which was beneficial when combined with the damping system?
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Hi Anthony,
The frequency response chart that came with my DL-S1 used a load of 47k-ohms and went from 1-kHz to 50-kHz. I couldn't find out whether the TRS-1005 was RIAA equalized or a constant velocity sweep. I have a feeling it might be a constant velocity sweep. The TRS-1007 is an RIAA test record with a 20-Hz to 20-kHz sweep.
Best regards,
John Elison
Hi John
Thanks for sending the scan. Here is the one for my DL304 - they look very similar if not identical at and below 20kHz. The S1 appears to have a slightly greater rise at 30kHz to 50kHz, but it could simply be that the test disc used for mine was worn more.
It is interesting that the measurements for yours were done with a 47k load and mine with a 1k load.
I am wondering if the measurements are being done using a SUT and they are specifying the matching load to achieve ~100ohms? 20:1 in your case and 10:1 in mine?
I think you are probably right about the test being constant velocity - the possible errors that might occur with the equalisation during cutting, not to mention distortion due to the cutting head having to be driven very hard would likely give rather inconsistent results when being used to verify the performance of the cartridge.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
These charts tell very little about how a cartridge sounds....just advertising.
Yes,but John and I own the cartridges and compared them to others and find them both technically and sonically excellent. Charts like these go a long way to identifying possible anomalies that might contribute to tonal imbalances. For example the brightness often attributed to cartridges like the AT440ML is due to an engineered emphasis around 10 to 12kHz. You will note that these cartridges have a very slightly reduced output in that range.. As do the Shure cartridges and Stanton.
Anyway, the point was that we were trying to compare the reference load used to establish the performance relative to the specifications.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Mel: Do you happen to have the 2013 AT catalogue in PDF form? Then check the comparison table on of the last pages - like on other, similar AT tables before, their ML version is specified with 2.5 x 75 µm = ca. 0.1 x 3 mil there. While iirc Namiki specified their MR version with 2 x 75 µm and Shure with 0.15 x 3 mil = ca. 3.8 x 75 µm.
Oh, and I'm not sure, whether the recent trend to somewhat milder/less sophisticated line-contact shapes really has to do with cost-cutting or rather with limited availability.
Greetings from Munich!
Manfred / lini
With respect to the data for the MicroLine scanning radius, the original Shimamoto patent describes a range of 0.5um to 15um for the "width" of the ridge. This translates to a possible range of 0.25um to 7.5um as the scanning radius. The minimum is defined as the point where the ridge would be too weak and there is a large risk that the thin "wall" breaks off! The maximum is defined as the upper limit where tracing becomes compromised.
I should imagine that the exact implementation will vary according to the grade of diamond being used and the grain orientation so there is probably no "fixed value" although "preferred" values are sold to customers which have a sufficient safety margin to ensure the specification for expected wear in service use and those are the common 2um or thereabouts figures quoted. Although it is likely to be the case, there is no reason to suppose that all AT models with a "MicroLine" need necessarily share the same cut specification. For example the shank on the AT440ML appears to be larger than the 150MLx and PTG although it is hard to see with the amount of adhesive used! The wording in the 150MLx manual implies a change in specification to the ML (compared to previous embodiments) although it is hard to determine if they are referring to previous versions or just "older designs" of LC styli....
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
One more thing to add... The more exotic cuts have a longer useful life before 3rd harmonic distortion components increase to an audible level- Largely due to the reduced contact pressure in the groove due to the large bearing radius. The time to final failure with these tips can extend easily beyond 1000 hours partly because higher quality (jewellery grade) diamond is used and the better ones are selected for grain orientation. However, the more extreme cuts tend to fail catastrophically when they get close to the end of the useful life. A microline may have chips knocked off the ridge and then the vinyl gets ripped up!
The Simple Elliptical cut (front and back face cut from a basic spherical tip) has the shortest life and gives the greatest record wear. The worst offenders for wear would be the 0.2x0.7mil variety.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
For a LC design to give of its best requires absolutely perfect attention to detail in alignment especially SRA (the most important). The extended line means that small errors will result in scanning losses at high frequency and high levels of IMD. Entirely analogous to tape head azimuth.
Consequently, for the very extreme designs, it is very conceivable that the full benefit of a particular exotic cut may not yield the results one might expect if there are errors in alignment (either through production issues or final setup). If arm height is not correctly set or the tip is not mounted correctly in the cantilever, the LC design (especially Shibata) will sound very much worse than a simple elliptical cut or conical.
In fact, I believe the popularity of the DL103 is probably largely due to the freedom from SRA related distortions although the spherical shape has its own inherent problems.
The Shibata stylus with the curving contact line will sound significantly worse than an elliptical if the SRA is off the optimum position. The tip cannot be aligned via the USB microscope method since the contact line is NOT in line with the shank axis. The SRA is defined by the cut and you would need to see the cut to confirm SRA.
Stability of SRA is paramount and compliance related variations (i.e mismatch with respect to arm mass) will also contribute to poorer performance.
So to answer your question, in practical terms a line contact is superior to the simple elliptical in terms of reduced tracing distortion and improved bandwidth with the caveat that the alignment is correct. A smaller contact radius will yield wider bandwidth than a larger contact radius especially when the recorded wavelength is short (i.e inner grooves).
The shorter the contact line, the higher the groove pressure (and increased wear), but you get slightly reduced sensitivity to SRA related scanning loss.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Once that's achieved, polish is important as well.
A micro-scanner is audibly better than a parabolic.
Warmest
Tim Bailey
Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger
What IS the Micro Scanner cut like? Is it just a renaming of the Namiki MicroLine (or subtle variation thereof) or a proprietary cut? I contacted Garrott Bros for details when I was considering them for retipping, but they weren't forthcoming.... They offer a FGS too which is quite appealing but rather expensive by the time the surcharges are applied for cantilevers etc.
I'm gathering up candidates for retipping now, but am thinking a Paratrace from Expert Stylus is possibly the way to go. My understanding is that the Paratrace is *similar to* if not the same as a VdH Type II (I think..)
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
On a 103D the results were very special. I was a customer of the brothers Garrott for two decades. They encouraged me to develop a part-time business in setting up turntables and aligning arms & cartridges.
IME the second (current?) owners of the Garrott Bros business name aren't worth a dam.
I am not persuaded that they like doing / want to do the detailed down the microscope work. It is very likely that they contract it out.
They'd rather you buy something they have in stock.
Warmest
Tim Bailey
Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger
Thanks for the tip!! They seemed rather expensive compared to Soundsmith and Expert but I have always liked the performance of the MicroLine and was hoping to fit one to a Stanton low impedance cartridge and REALLY make it sing!
It is disappointing that they don't really seem to be passionate about their business.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Of somewhat tangential interest, for what it's worth: I went to a Michael Fremer cartridge setup demonstration and asked him the following question: If you have a fine-line stylus and you cannot assure just about dead-on perfect VTA/SRA, would you be better off with with an elliptical? His answer was yes.
-Bob
Bob ("Hesson")...Indeed, I'm surprised about Fremer's comments about VTA/SRA whilst recognising he was on a 92 degree "crusade" at the time.
Personally I think Azimuth is more critical. Although my tonearm can give precise adjustment of VTA I've often been too lazy to change the setting and have often been happy with 120g and 180g sharing the same setting even though I can hear slight differences.
For example, warps can be 2X or 3X the height of a 120g but you'll seldom find anyone complaining that they can hear the effect of the warp on the music when reading the groove with a line contact stylus. ;^)
Azimuth on the other hand is something I would actually lose sleep over.
It's funny but decades ago the consensus among industry pundits was that a "tail-down" VTA attitude was claimed to provide the best average for typical LPs.
I concur! Also the risk of damage to records as the tip gets worn is actually less since the exotic cuts fail catastrophically - if the ridge on the MicroLine breaks off then that's the end of the record unless you can identify the location of the loose chip of diamond and remove it. The next sweep past the loose diamond would destroy more of the tip and the stylus would be gouging out the groove.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Keeping in mind that there are all sorts of other difficulties when playing passages close to the label. Cartridge tracking, for one.
You can definitely hear the differences, but which one you like is a different story. I used a Talisman S on an Oracle Prelude tonearm. With the ruby cantilever and a shibata stylus, it sounded great. However, I got tired of having to adjust VTA on every record and eventually went back to elipiticals. I have messed around with Denon 103's and like the sound. 103's have a conical stylus. Bob Fulton though that the conical stylus was the best and was fond of the Shure V15-IIIG. It is hard to give definitive rules. Try and see what you like.
Dave
I can not only hear the difference of the shape of stylus, but also can hear the difference of the material of cantilever.
I'm currently using a V15III with a JICO SAS stylus in my main deck. I've also used cartridges with line-contact, elliptical, Gyger, and conical styli in the same deck.
I much prefer the SAS-type microridge, with Shibata a close second. I don't hear high frequencies as well as I did twenty years ago and I need a system that can pull more detail from the grooves. SAS is best at that.
___
The little old ladies wait in wild anticipation for the meetings of the Double-A-C-ASSN...
Your question, "[I]s whether these stylus shapes limit high end performance from a PRACTICAL rather than a THEORETICAL view." The answer is No.
However, as noted below the integration of every element of the cartridge assembly affects the performance of all styli shapes. And every component from the cartridge through the phono preamp will make or break the performance of a cart. Finally, installation of a properly assembled cart greatly affects performance. Some styli require more precision than others.
From a "PRACTICAL" viewpoint at any given price point, I would pay more attention to the synergy of all my components and the "sound" I wished to achieve than I would to stylus shape.
Cheers,
Ian
Conical and elliptical styli were often specified in mils, which are thousandths of an inch.
1-mil = 25.4-microns, which is the same as 25.4-um. A micron is a millionth of a meter.
Therefore, a conical tip measuring 0.7-mil had a radius of 17.8-microns. The Denon DL-103 and DL-103R had a conical tip specified at 16.5-um, which would be 0.65-mil.
An elliptical stylus with radial dimensions of 0.3 x 0.7-mil would measure in microns at 7.6 x 17.8-um. A 0.2 x 0.7-mil hyper-elliptical would measure 5.1 x 17.8-um.
Consequently, a 7.6 x 40-um line contact stylus would be equivalent to a 0.3 x 1.6-mil elliptical tip and a 7 x 30-um line contact would be equivalent to a 0.28 x 1.2-mil elliptical.
I have no doubt that Anthony is correct about micro-ridge or micro-line styli having radial dimensions of 1 and 2-microns. This will allow them to trace the groove more accurately, especially the higher frequency inner grooves.
In terms of practical tracking ability, most of us feel that line contact styli will trace the groove more accurately than a conical stylus. In fact, I thought the Denon DL-103 and DL-103R were significantly inferior to modern cartridges because of their conical tips, but when I finally decided to buy one I discovered they didn't produce any inner groove distortion to speak of when mounted in my Sota Millennia / SME V. That actually surprised me very much. Moreover, when I measured harmonic distortion on 15-kHz and 20-kHz test tones, they had slightly lower distortion than both my Audio Technica OC9ML/II and my Shure V-15VxMR. This also surprised me very much.
I still believe that line-contact styli are superior to conical styli, but there is no question that Denon cartridges with conical tips sound very good in many respects. Moreover, I wasn't expecting them to sound as good as they do especially on inner grooves.
Best regards,
John Elison
We've talked about this before and I remember you mentioned you had looked under a microscope and concluded that it appeared to be a line contact variety...
It suddenly occurred to me after seeing the dimensions and cut spec for the Shure HE, that the "Special Elliptical" could well be a version of that. I had been misled for years by what I had seen on the Vinyl Engine claiming that the Stereohedron and HE had the same diamond cross section. The Shure drawing clearly shows an elliptical cross section and an extended thin elliptical contact line compared to the conventional bi-radial cut. This might explain the excellent performance one gets from the Denon MC cartridges and justifies the hyperbole over "superior tracing" in the manuals.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Here is an interesting comparison between the DL-103R and the DL-S1. The pictures don't show the stylus profile of the special elliptical, but they show the size difference between the DL-103R and the DL-S1. They are taken with exactly the same magnification. The DL-103R has a much more massive hollow pipe cantilever and stylus whereas the DL-S1 has a tapered hollow aluminum cantilever with a tiny stylus shank. The square cross-section of the stylus shank is 0.20-mm for the DL-103R and only 0.07-mm for the DL-S1.
.
.
A massive difference....Literally!
The DL304 has the same shank dimensions too. I don't know if the cantilever is the same.
Your photo of the S1 stylus chip appears to show a very clear line which would tend to confirm the theory that it is a Hyperelliptical profile...which is gratifying to know in so far as I hate not knowing!
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Since USB microscope measurements of SRA are such a pain, is there a way to dial in SRA via some sort of SNR or harmonic distortion measurement?
Admittedly, that may be an even more painful approach for some, but I think I would like it better than using the USB scope, which I hate.
I had my Talisman S on an arm with VTA adjust while playing. When setting by ear, almost ever record needed a little tweaking to sound its best. I did not do it on every record, because it was too much of a PITA, but on my better sounding records, I would optimize VTA.
Dave
I've never tried it, but if you think you would like it better than using a USB microscope, then I say go for it. You can be the one to discover how it's done.
Best regards,
John Elison
I'd love to play around with that--the trick is finding the time. :)
Sorry, John, but 0.2 x 0.7 mil (ca. 5 x 18 µm) only is sharp elliptical, not hyperelliptical. Whereas Shure's hyperelliptals were 0.2 x 1.5 mil (ca. 5 x 38 µm) and would hence belong to the line-contact shapes with enlarged major radius.
Greetings from Munich!
Manfred / lini
I have found that stylus shape doesn't matter that much. It's the synergism of stylus canti, and motor that matter most.. Now different styli do sound different but better is subjective. I have a Denon DL-103R that I just live the sound of. It doesn't get all the details off of the record but that is ok by me. Some like styli that get all the details, which are nice to. But mount these finely cut styli wrong and you will do more damage to your records than a lesser cut stylus. Some say that a spherical cut stylus with a high tracking force will also damage your records. So far I have not found this to be true.....pick your poison...
It's all relative. Higher tracking force = more wear yes... but a conical tip at the same tracking force as an elliptical will have much less wear depending on the minor radius of the elliptical. The 0.2mil elliptical is brutal on records by comparison to a spherical. I can't remember the exact equivalent VTFs for wear without looking back at my references which I don't have to hand right now, but I think you would need to be no higher than 1g or so for the 0.2 mil elliptical to have an equivalent level of wear as a conical at about 3g IIRC. The numbers are possibly a little bit out by 0.2g or so, but I remember that you needed to be at around the 1g mark for the wear to be similar to a surprisingly high VTF on a spherical! The 0.3mil could go up to about 1.5g to be equivalent to 3g for spherical or thereabouts.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: