@wallytools
You wrote "I think a conical stylus is simply not appropriate for playing back ANY groove cut by a cutting stylus made in the last 75 years (and perhaps more). If the playback stylus is not a facsimile of the cutting stylus - or if it is misaligned - it will NOT take the same path through the groove as the path used to cut the groove in the first place.
This is NOT to say a conical stylus won’t sound good! I am only saying you are giving up information in the groove and adding distortion (including, but not limited to, some second order harmonic which could be pleasing, but certainly not accurate.)"
What do you think then of the DaVa field coil cartridge that features a conical stylus? Many, including the few on this forum who don't trash a cartridge they have never heard, claim that the DaVa is one of the worlds' best. Do you think these claims are simply emanating from a love of colouration and that the DaVa cannot by your definition be anywhere near a great cartridge?
|
@intactaudio Saying that a conical stylus causes premature wear isn’t an outrages claim but I have no idea about what the groove would look like before and after. This is the first time I’ve heard anyone say as such and while it’s a perfectly plausible statement, is it something to fret over?
|
@goofyfoot
To be clear, JR posted about the added vertical movement from a conical in a high frequency purely lateral groove. I added that in the case of a cartridge with minimal / no vertical compliance this can be a very bad combination. If this were a situation where the cartridge tracked at 1.5g I wouldn't be as concerned as one that tracks at 4g.
dave
|
@goofyfoot, this induced errant vertical excursion can be easily calculated mathematically if you are comfortable with numbers. A conical stylus (and, to a lesser degree an elliptical stylus) will exhibit this induced errant vertical excursion to make its way through the groove to greater and lesser degrees depending upon record velocity, frequency and playing radius. This "pinch effect" has been known for decades and has been written about in the scientific journals in the 50s and 60s. What few cartridge designers fully appreciate is that the perturbations in the groove that ultimately result in an audible signal can be measured CONSERVATIVELY in the low triple digit nanometer range. The stylus in the animation I shared above has this errant vertical excursion in the single digit micron range. The high frequency portion of a frequency sweep on a test record has a horizontal perturbation around 3 microns. That's all!
I have analyzed hundreds of cartridges by nearly 50 manufacturers and can attest that there are VERY few cartridge designers who fully understand the microscopic world their products are meant to navigate. Fewer still who understand why a high fidelity mechanical transcription requires the playback contact points to be not only a genuine facsimile of the cutting contact points but their angles must agree with each other NET of lacquer spring back.
|
For those of challenged imagination, look at it this way: a groove wall with lateral deviations will push back against the stylus (yes, that's Newton's first law). The shape of the stylus will affect the direction of force exerted on the stylus, which just a little painless thought about vectors will make obvious. Image pushing your finger in a horizontal direction against a plane inclined at 45° to the vertical. Your force will be equally divided into a lateral and a vertical component, and the inclined plane will move not horizontally, but in a direction 45° above the horizontal. Those vectors will mean that a rounded stylus profile will experience not only lateral pushback, but also some in a vertical direction. That will tend to make the stylus go up and down, just like the chatter on a machine tool. A stylus with a side profile that is more vertical, will experience that force more in the lateral plane and less in the vertical.
None of this will matter more than it does with a stereo record and a stereo cartridge, as long as the mono cartridge has vertical compliance. If you have a mono cartridge that has no vertical compliance, all that vertical force has no suspension to damp it: it must make the whole stylus/cantilever/cartridge move up and down with the resulting hammering in the groove. This seems rather elementary.
Now you might argue this - but what does vertical chatter matter if the groove only contains lateral information? Sure, we can go there. Conical styli used to play mono records for many years in the days when mono cartridges never dreamed of having vertical compliance. Did those records suffer more damage than a mono disc with a non-vertically compliant cartridge? Than a similar cartridge with an elliptical profiled stylus? Or a stereo record with a stereo pickup? I don't know, but I can see the theoretical argument for why this should be so.
This does make me feel more likely to settle on a cartridge that is an adapted stereo design, with its guts rotated 45° and with a modern profiled stylus. That way I'll do no harm if I accidentally put a stereo record under that pickup, and I know I'm theoretically less likely to damage my original mono Parlophone Beatles.
|
@wallytools Yes, I understand the theoretical principles involved. The size of the stylus is a factor here too. A larger stylus being exponentially more detrimental than a smaller stylus. My stylus is a 0.65 conical and my arm is a 9 inch set for Baerwald. I'm getting more noise with newer records than with my older records. For me, noise would be significant inside one groove and then it clears up for the remaining LP.
|
Hello @fortheloveof,
You asked, "What do you think then of the DaVa field coil cartridge that features a conical stylus? Many, including the few on this forum who don't trash a cartridge they have never heard, claim that the DaVa is one of the worlds' best. Do you think these claims are simply emanating from a love of colouration and that the DaVa cannot by your definition be anywhere near a great cartridge?"
For the record: I have not heard this cartridge, but would certainly like to.
NO...I am not saying that people love this cartridge because of any colorations, whether such colorations are real or imagined.
What I am saying is that if ANY cartridge has a conical stylus, it CANNOT possibly extract everything there is to get from the groove. This is a metrological certainty that can be calculated and proven in at least four ways I can imagine (one mathematical, two by software and one by microscopy).
So, if you think that this cartridge is great now...I can only imagine how great it would sound with a playback stylus that was a facsimile of the cutting stylus that was used to create the very groove is it was meant to transcribe (as long as that stylus has been properly aligned to do so, of course - just because you have a fine-line contact stylus doesn't mean you will realize its benefits without some work!)
Now, if someone - ANYONE - has heard two of the same cartridge design but one with a conical and one with a fine line stylus and claimed it sounds better with a conical than a fine line, I'd respond by saying all the variables in the test between the two iterations of the same cartridge have not been fully controlled for, making the experiment one with a negative value. Either that, OR, the listener values an extra bit of lush warmth (and not much more, at that, as the second/third harmonic content generated by conicals aren't very significant) OVER the improvements in focus, dynamics, high frequency extension, inner detail, imaging and soundstaging that a properly aligned fine line contact stylus offers.
I have no doubt it is a stellar cartridge and I want one, but I'll certainly take mine with a fine line contact edge, please!!! 😁
|
Hi @goofyfoot
You said, 'The size of the stylus is a factor here too. A larger stylus being exponentially more detrimental than a smaller stylus"
I don't know why this might be the case, but I am not surprised if there is a good reason for it. We have spend little time studying conical stylus behavior, putting our efforts on fine-line profiles predominantly. The one thing I have found to be certain in the last three years of diving very deep into the relationship between the stylus and the groove is that the more I learn about it, the more I realize how much I don't know! If you can please explain why this would be so to me, I'd be appreciative of it
To date, the only thing I see out of our research is that a larger conical stylus (vs. a smaller conical stylus) differs on where it will contact the groove wall. Larger conical styli track higher on the wall and smaller down further. This is why when some people change to a different cartridge and note how much quieter or louder the groove noise is, they mistakenly attribute the change to the cartridge being better or worse when it can more often be explained by the change in stylus geometry and the elevation of the contact point in the groove. If you've been causing damage to a groove wall and happened to have been using a large contact radius and then changed to a smaller contact radius you might experience a quieter listening experience. All you've done in such a case is ride below the previously made groove damage, so you're not hearing it any longer. This can happen when you realign a fine line contact stylus as well. When properly aligned, such styli will ride at their maximum elevation in the groove.
|
@wallytools From my understanding and maybe I'm wrong but I have read this claim, that a larger stylus will still ride far down into the groove wall and the difference in distance between the larger and smaller conical stylus is very minimal. This is why I believe the larger stylus will create more damage, because it is in contact with a larger portion of the groove than a smaller stylus.
|
@goofyfoot, it is definitely the opposite from what you were told. A larger object will not fit as far down into a 90 degree groove versus a smaller object of the same basic profile.
The degree to which they differ in their elevation on that groove wall can also be easily calculated. A 1mil (25.4 micron) diameter conical will ride about half way down a nominally cut unmodulated groove (50 micron width). A 0.6 mil (15.2 micron) conical will ride about 20% lower. That isn’t small change.
The contact area of both sizes are VERY similar. Why? Because the point of groove wall contact is on the spherical portion of the stylus. (Technically speaking, points of contact with a sphere are infinitely small but in practice you must consider groove deflection.)
Using a spheroid contact area is VERY important to allow for tolerance errors on the mounting of the stylus to the cantilever on the azimuth axis. This is also why fine line styli have a major radius. This is also why proper azimuth alignment has NOTHING to do with the stylus alignment in the groove regardless of stylus profile (up to a point, any way, but that point is usually past 2.5 degrees level headshell and often more)
Now, I would certainly argue that the smaller contact surface area of the stylus to the groove wall, the greater the chance for groove damage because the force is distributed over a smaller area, causing greater groove deformation. This is another advantage of fine line contact styli over conicals and also why a larger conical probably has a slight edge over smaller conicals in avoiding groove damage which is quite the opposite from what you’ve heard.
However, I AM ALWAYS OPEN TO NEW, YET CONFLICTING, INFORMATION. I invite it as it is the only way I’ve been able to help push this industry forward so far.
|
@wallytools Of course not all grooves are the same size. Just after shellac 33 1/3, the vinyl groove was at it’s widest, then came the microgroove and now we grooves equal to the size of a stereo record. So I’m not sure which of these grooves you’re talking about but I’m assuming you're referring to the microgroove. If someone is using a 1.0 ml stylus on the early mono records, it is reaching very far down into the groove but slightly less in the microgroove. Most likely only a 0.7 ml stylus should be used for later records and recent remasters. Pretty much any cartridge designer will tell you not to play newer records with a 1.0 ml stylus. So I’m curious,what are the variables between the different stylus and the different groove sizes?
|
When I found the DaVa to be the most high resolution cartridge I heard, I was initially worried how 3.5g tracking force and conical styli would affect valuable, high priced original records. Also, I am mainly a fan of linear tracking using Vyger especially with Top Wing Red Sparrow, which tracks below 2g, especially as I was introduced to it by an LP collector who had tens of thousands of LPs, some priced well over 10k. I also think that the issues pivot owners face because of the offset angle, aligning the cart right, and getting anti skating right, coupled with varying cartridge samples, can lead to incorrect set up causing harm to the vinyl. This is fine as most people are using reissues, or inexpensive vinyl, and it can be replaced easily, but expensive originals cannot.
As a background, my other favorite cartridges are VDH stradivarius and the Lyra Atlas Lambda. Also, Zyx, Allaerts, airtight, MSL, GFS, Decca, are all nice, and at lower prices, SPU is musical with less details and some rolloff, and Hana and Audio technica are good value for money. But as with Denon 103, you can hear less details.
Therefore when I liked Dava, conical and 3.5g tracking was initially a concern for me, but the sonics were so good, and there was so much more musical information, I decided to check with owners who use good LPs, and repeated play on their favorite ones using DaVa did not wear out the LPs. To start with, if you use fine style to track at 4g, you will cause harm, but with conical styli the pressure is spread over a greater area. What Darius then explained to me, is that most conical styli are 0.6 mil tip or more, he keeps it at 0.5 as per Shure documentation, which he found to get past that issue.
Regarding detail and resolution, he said if he used his conical styli in similar ways to how others use finer styli, it will be less detailed. But his cartridge is designed to kill eddy currents, which mask details, and the lack of eddy currents is what increases the detail. The higher detail and resolution via DaVa against any cartridge should be easy to hear, whether on rock, jazz, or classical. If you want more technical details of how the eddy currents are suppressed you will need to check with Darius. So I decided not to generalize with other conical styli, DaVa for me is onto something and they are changing things.
My further DaVa experience here. Please note one point there, I like TD 124 but normally find it has less resolution that higher level tables. However, on the TD 124 with basic DaVa vs Continuum Caliburn with Etsuro Gold, I found the 124 to have higher resolution. The owner also sold his continuum after that, and now bought a restored commonwealth to play the DaVa. This owner also has a Vyger with Red Sparrow.
After I receive my Dava, I will do a compare of it with Audionote field coil (another owner who had AN field coil put in sale after listening to the DaVa), and with Top Wing Red Sparrow on a Vyger on another system (not same as one above but a Cessaro Zeta), but this will take time.
|
To clarify, my DaVa comment was on stereo and not mono. I haven't heard the mono.
|
Look into the Miyajima Infinity mono cartridge. One of, if not THE, best true mono cartridges.
|
If you read the OP you'll see that Miyajima was on my radar. I understand though, that it is a cartridge with no vertical compliance at all.
|
@dogberry I can't even think of a mono cartridge with both vertical compliance and a micro line stylus. I'm eventually planning on getting the EMT HMD025 mono but the stylus description is; Diamond: SPH 25. Does anyone know this stylus? Also, nothing is said about vertical compliance.
|
@goofyfoot If I don’t hear back from the overly laid back guy at londondecca.com by the start of next week I shall be ordering an Ortofon Cadenza Mono, of which Ortofon write:
The Cadenza Mono model is made with a Nude Fine Line stylus and a cylindrical aluminium cantilever. The stylus radius is r/R 8/40 µm.
That should give me some vertical compliance and a more modern profile than a conical stylus.
|
@dogberry Forgot about the Cadenza. I'm sure that's a good sounding cartridge. It would be interesting to hear your opinion after you get it up and running.
|
I'm discovering more mono LPs all the time. I was lucky enough to inherit from a deceased surgical colleague a remarkably eclectic collection of several hundred LPs. No end of bizarre stuff, you know, nose flutes, Irish dance and suchlike. But half of it is early music and classics. Yesterday I cleaned a lot of mildew off a 1951 Furwangler/Bayreuth/Beethoven No.9 which sounded fantastic! Such treasures deserve a proper pickup, which is why I started this thread.
|
@dogberry I have about two hundred mono LP’s myself. Folkways, Archive Productions, Mylodia, etc… and remasters. Some 1950’s vinyl I’ve bought still has shards of vinyl along the edges from when they were cut. There is a treasure trove of mono out there, I honestly believe I’ve barely scratched the surface in my record collecting endeavors. I’m looking for a local professional record cleaning service, given the age of many of the originals I’ve purchased.
|
@bonzo75
To start with, if you use fine style to track at 4g, you will cause harm, but with conical styli the pressure is spread over a greater area. What Darius then explained to me, is that most conical styli are 0.6 mil tip or more, he keeps it at 0.5 as per Shure documentation, which he found to get past that issue.
I think you have this backwards. If you trust Namiki/Orbray, the fine line/micro-ridge/Replicant type profile has the largest contact patch size and the elliptical the smallest with the conical coming in with a slightly larger contact area of the elliptical but still 1/2 that of a microridge..
dave
|
FWIW, for the past 20 years Lyra has been making mono cartridges with vertical compliance (but no ability to convert vertical motions into electrical signals) and line contact styli of similar dimensions as a microridge (the contact radii of our stylus measure 3um x 70um).
I will add that for a few decades our cartridges have possessed neither polepieces (conductive or not) nor any body structure in the vicinity of the signal coils, with both features being targeted at the banishment of eddy currents.
|
@jcarr I was wondering if and when you would make your presence known, glad you’re back! Since you joined the conversation back in the day, several other cartridge manufacturers have created a mono cartridge of their own. One that stands out in my mind is the Hana SL Mono for $750.00. This is a pragmatic option due to its affordability. I know the Lyra cartridges are excellent and I’m guessing that the mono cartridges have made advancements over the years. For the large majority of audio enthusiasts, price is a factor. Especially if mono records amount to just a fraction of one’s entire collection. So to get some of the Lyra magic in a mono cartridge, what’s the price point?
|
@pryso +1 regarding your comment:
Nearly all mono reissues were made with stereo cutter heads with smaller size. I don't believe few if any mono cutter heads survive.
I assume from this mono reissues may be OK with current stereo cartridges, although a mono switch (per Lew) may still help sonics. But with original mono releases a mono cartridge with appropriate tip size should optimize the enjoyment.
I had the opportunity to acquire a collection of around 900 mono records, most of them in near mint condition (half of them are real mono, the rest are mono reissues)
I started with Ortofon 2M Mono and a MM phono preamp for the real mono recordings. To my ears it was ok but not more. For the reissues I am using the Orfoton Cadenza Red with a separate tt as stereo cutter heads have been used.
Then I decided to to a step further and purchased a Cadenza Mono and a Graham Slee Audio Revelation MC for the real mono recordings https://www.hifisystemcomponents.com/phono-preamps/revelation-mm-revelation-mc-archival-phono-preamps.html
Connecting only one cinch plug from the TT's phono cable and fit the other entry with a 'dummy' cinch plug (As per advice of Graham Slee).
I reckon that the possibility to choose from different EQ settings are making a big difference for early FFR recordings (pre 1953) and FFR recordings.
The different EQ settings will allow you to obtain a good tonal match to what the the original sound would have been on 78 rpm records, vinyl LPs and EPs
https://www.hifisystemcomponents.com/about/reproducing-old-records.html
IMO, the 2.5k investment in the Cadenza Mono MC and the preamp was a very good one.
Coming closer to listening to real-real mono would probably be using one speaker only? However, I do get wonderful soundstages from the old recordings using both speakers.
I'm happy to get any comments from you mates on how to improve mono listening even further.
Cheers, eagledriver
|
@eagledriver_22 What tonearm are you using and how important is the tonearm when tracking strictly mono records? Does the Cadenza sound better with older mono versus newer remasters?
|
Hello,
My input on this subject: my recommendation goes the same way as Lyra cartridges designers- the AT33Mono. It is a true mono, not neutered stereo! People get confused because it has two true mono coils. (They are not stereo coils connected to run as mono - this is a cart designed as mono, not the usual stereo cart internally connected in mono, which is the neutered stereo/mono.)
So, Lyra's designer was saying (reportedly) when they interviewed him, he said that in case one cannot afford a Lyra mono, then he'd recommend the AT33Mono as it's the next thing that comes close to his Lyra to his ears.
I can second that it's a fantastic mono cart, and for folks considering a very much budget option, the AT3MONO little brother is pretty good as well, and performs quit above its price.
I have the anniversary edition, which is essentially a premium AT33MONO. It is not far off a Benz MC3, and is a perfect match for the ET-SUT (1:25 step up, 100R load LOMC).
The huge advantage of the AT33MONO is that it can plug into a stereo system, so you don't have to reorganize your system and / or your room to switch between mono and stereo. (I have my stereo & mono on different arms, and just select the input to select between them.) It plays every album you throw at it, with the vertical compliance. I often just use it to play stereo albums....
Now, if the cart has no vertical compliance then you might get into a pickle, because restricting to mono records might not work: as some (older) monos were made with mono lathes, and others (newer) with stereo lathes! The ones cut on stereo lathes may need the vertical compliance! Briefly, you will go nuts to find out which lathe was cut for which of your recording...
If you have 5 mono records, no problem researching all 5 out. But if you have about a thousand like me, then its beyond frustrating to go through a pile of records, as you have to research each and every one, and cannot play the ones you feel like playing for the next few hours....
|
@goofyfoot
1 What tonearm are you using and how important is the tonearm when tracking strictly mono records?
2 Does the Cadenza sound better with older mono versus newer remasters?
1 It is a 9 inch tone arm, Gold Note TA-9 Ball Bearing. I do not have THE answer regarding the importance of the tone arm as I did not experiment with multiple tone arms. However, mid to heavy weight tone arms appears to do better than light arms. I tend to believe that the phono preamp is more important with respect to good sound reproduction than the tone arm. I have a second preamp, Pro-Ject Tube Box DS2, which usually I am using for stereo records only (the tone arm of this tt is on the lighter side, Ortofon Cadenza Red which has the same internal construction as the Cadenza Mono). Huge difference in the dynamic range compared to the Graham Slee Revelation C when listening to mono records.Of course, this is apple compared to pears as the two preamps have a completely different. But to me, t is interesting and fun to compare.
2 I do not own 2 mono records of the same which fits your question So, I cannot compare but I believe it depends on various parameters which record could possibly sound better. For example, has the remaster made from the same older mono record or from original master tapes or from other reissued records or from which mediium else? Have stereo cutter heads been used for the reissue? Do the same equalisation characteristics have been applied on both records?
Summarized, if the processing and mastering has be done correctly, a record should sound nice if you have done the same with your set up. And it depends as well from your auditory perception.
Writing this, I have been listening to some mono records on both tt's. Prefer the Cadenza Mono/Graham Slee Revelation C combo under this hearding conditions.
Cheers, eagledriver
|
Correction: ..as the two preamps have a completely different build-up
|
I have to say that one reason why I am drawn to the Cadenza Mono is my experience with the Kontrapunkt C (from Ortofon's 250th anniversary of JSB series), which has now become the Cadenza Bronze. I know the AT33 Mono would be a lot cheaper, but then I'd be wondering if I was missing something!
I just need the nice man at Acoustand to send me two tonearm pods and I'll be away. His 55 day build time runs out next week (no holidays, weekends and three weeks off at Christmas) so hopefully there'll be a very heavy package on its way soon.
|
Decision time today, as still no reply from londondecca.com. I e-mailed my enabler* and he is ordering me a Cadenza Mono and a Cadenza Bronze. I spent some time with the microscope today and it's plain the Kontrapunkt C has to go to the spa for a refresh - hence the Bronze).
*Jody Crane at brooklynaudioinc.com in Dartmouth, NS.
|
