|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
74.130.29.193
In Reply to: RE: How Important is Stylus Shape? posted by Mel on February 01, 2016 at 08:45:25
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
Follow Ups:
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
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: