Are there any advantages to less advanced styli?

What styli shape are you using?

  • Total voters
    67
jrtrent said:
There's no doubt such modifications change what you hear; each person just has to decide if those are changes that they want. In Stereophile's Listening #186, Art Dudley described what more advanced stylus shapes can do, ". . . a chisel-like cutting stylus can carve a groove with modulations as tiny as its own smallest radius points—presumed to be very small indeed—and a playback stylus that is not similarly tiny will find it difficult if not impossible to faithfully follow those minute bumps and wiggles. Thus, the listener will not hear all of the overtones, ambience, and whatever other high-frequency, low-amplitude information has been cut into the groove." But he later added, "Record lovers who enjoy the extra shimmer, sparkle, detail, and air brought to the listening experience by elliptical or more radical stylus profiles have nothing to be ashamed of: those choices are sonically and musically valid. But I continue to prefer the spherical experience—to me, it emphasizes musical content over air, allowing instruments and voices to sound more substantial, and music to sound, overall, less fussy than with other tip types."

In Stereophile's Gramophone Dreams #44, Herb Reichert said, "I have a BFF relationship with the spherical-tipped Denon DL-103 moving coil, simply because it has never disappointed me while playing a record." Quoting some of Dudley's comments, Reichert added, "I agree 100% with Art's observation: Spherical/conical-tipped cartridges emphasize 'musical content' with force and vigor. And simplification. By eliminating some amounts of complex low-level spatial, atmospheric, and harmonic information, conical tips seem to expose the raw, beating core of humans playing music. That's why I love them."

In the Charisma Audio Charm review linked to earlier, Mr. Hoffman made a similar observation. Extending a quote I included part of before, "Cartridges with a conical stylus are distinctive in their presentation, and in many ways mirror the same strengths that idler drive turntables I mentioned earlier are appreciated for. The presentation is honest and real even though the subtlest of details and shadings of harmonic overtones are diminished to a degree. This humble and unassuming cartridge can present musical truth in a way that few others can accomplish."

So in answer to the OP's question, "Are there any advantages to less advanced styli," the three audio writers quoted above seem to say "yes," at least for the conical, and at least for those listeners who don't mind losing "the extra shimmer, sparkle, detail, and air brought to the listening experience by elliptical or more radical stylus profiles."
Click to expand...
A micro ridge does not carve any groove, it does the least damage of any tip, the micro ridge is even safe in the groove mis aligned.
Stylus dont have a sound they have different abilities to track inner grooves and highs.
If you like the fact that as you get closer to the label distortion increases then get a conical,if not get the micro ridge fitted.
Apart roll off and increased distortion conical, they dont sound different.
You cant tune a cartridge with a stylus but you can make it track better.
I do wonder what Art was smoking when he wrote that.
Chris
 
Last edited:
I think he meant the stylus that cuts the groove into the lacquer. He says that's really tiny, and consequently you need a playback stylus that's similarly tiny in order to read the smallest details. If I read that correctly, that is.
 
Vlad Soare said:
I think he meant the stylus that cuts the groove into the lacquer. He says that's really tiny, and consequently you need a playback stylus that's similarly tiny in order to read the smallest details. If I read that correctly, that is.
Click to expand...

Not truly consequently as it’s trivial to cut a groove that no cartridge on earth would have a prayer to track, but true-ish for smaller physical wavelengths. The analogy to “details” is similarly strained as it’s high-frequency high-amplitude content that is the challenge, though a lot of people equate HF boost to detail. Same for the “complex” analogy.
 
Of course it's high-frequency harmonics we're talking about. Low and medium frequencies are easily tracked even by the most primitive styli.
While "details" may indeed not be the right word for it, some of those harmonics can make the difference between a violin that sounds full and natural, like it would in a concert hall, and one that sounds like a cheap fiddle. A subtle difference, to be sure, but one that enthusiasts can detect.
 
Last edited:
I view it as frequency: it may be a fundamental or a harmonic. Only the human knows or cares.
 
jrtrent said:
...In Stereophile's Listening #186, Art Dudley described...

...In Stereophile's Gramophone Dreams #44, Herb Reichert said,

...In the Charisma Audio Charm review linked to earlier, Mr. Hoffman made a similar observation. ...
Click to expand...
Who are those dudes you quote? Are they diploma engineers in this field of science?
Or do they simply preach what their flockaudience wanted to hear?
 
Last edited:
JP said:
I view it as frequency: it may be a fundamental or a harmonic. Only the human knows or cares.
Click to expand...

Fundamentals aren't really an issue, as musical instruments don’t go above 4kHz or so. A violin can only reach about 3.5kHz, and a piccolo about 4kHz or so if I’m not mistaken. Those are well within the abilities of any stylus. The cheapest turntable with the cheapest stylus can handle the fundamentals just fine. But it’s the harmonics that make the difference. Harmonics decide whether cymbals sound like cymbals or like broken glass.
 
Last edited:
Which harmonics are being discussed?
  • inherent to a particular tembre in the record?
  • introduced by sub-ideal reproduction gear?
 
out of curiosity i decided to try out the audio technica 40xcb stylus i have. im running a 45xml stylus on the 500x body that the conical stylus came on, but ive never used it. to start off, heres what the frequency responses look like. the conical assembly has a much higher high frequency lift than the boron/microridge assembly. i expected as much.
45xml-34k-280pf.png40xcb 34k-280pf.png
i then recorded a couple the last track of a david sanborn album i bought sealed and have only played a few times. the conical lost a decent amount of high end on the last track compared to the microridge even though its a brighter assembly.
conical vs microridge.jpg
here's the files. ill be sticking with line contacts.

 
lini said:
The DL-110 actually sports are pretty nice, rectangular-shanked nudie.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini
Click to expand...

Quite right, Manfred. :thumbsup:

IMHO, the stock DENON DL-110 - typically ~$US200 for a brand spanker - is one of the last great bargains in all of hi-fi!

After its first 500-hours of play, reconfigured with a boron cantilever and 5/15um elliptical stylus, the DENON DL-110 (Boron) becomes an absolute giant killer! :yikes:

Ask me how I know... :biggrin:
 
SONDEKNZ said:
Quite right, Manfred. :thumbsup:

IMHO, the stock DENON DL-110 - typically ~$US200 for a brand spanker - is one of the last great bargains in all of hi-fi!

After its first 500-hours of play, reconfigured with a boron cantilever and 5/15um elliptical stylus, the DENON DL-110 (Boron) becomes an absolute giant killer! :yikes:

Ask me how I know... :biggrin:
Click to expand...

I bookmarked an eBay seller who has them for $200. Wasn't hard to find. I haven't made any decisions yet, just soaking it all in. But the DL-110 seems like a pretty risk-free way to try out moving coil.
 
yofi said:
I bookmarked an eBay seller who has them for $200. Wasn't hard to find. I haven't made any decisions yet, just soaking it all in. But the DL-110 seems like a pretty risk-free way to try out moving coil.
Click to expand...

As long as you can partner the DENON DL-110 a phono stage that provides around 40dB of Gain, you will be in clover.

We actually prefer running ours in MC mode as opposed to MM mode - our phono stage is switchable - but they both work well. :thumbsup:
 
SONDEKNZ said:
As long as you can partner the DENON DL-110 a phono stage that provides around 40dB of Gain, you will be in clover.

We actually prefer running ours in MC mode as opposed to MM mode - our phono stage is switchable - but they both work well. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

That's good to know. I could shuffle around my preamps. The one in my office offers +40db. The one in my living room where I'd set up an MC is +36.
 
yofi said:
That's good to know. I could shuffle around my preamps. The one in my office offers +40db. The one in my living room where I'd set up an MC is +36.
Click to expand...

That's a very small dB difference. Both phono preamps will probably work fine.

You may well prefer one over the other, so be sure to try both! :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
narud said:
out of curiosity i decided to try out the audio technica 40xcb stylus i have. im running a 45xml stylus on the 500x body that the conical stylus came on, but ive never used it. to start off, heres what the frequency responses look like. the conical assembly has
Click to expand...

There is no "audio technica 40xcb" stylus, there is the VMN-10XCB stylus. Which has a simple non-tapered aluminium cantilever. So I understand you meant the 10XCB stylus.

The VMN-45XML has a boron cantilever. The frequency response differences, and many other differences, will be dominated by the massively different cantilever.

On the frequency response graph, you're not really comparing stylus tip shapes, you're comparing cantilevers here.
 
JP said:
Similar to reading a horoscope, and often flies in the face of the physical realities.
Click to expand...
JP, i need your astrological sign so based on this input, I can recommend you the cartridge, turntable and speakers that better match your astrological profile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom