2. analog
  3. 127711-486

Jico SAS vs Neo-SAS(S) vs Neo-SAS(R)

For those analogue ‘tragics’ comfortable enough in their own skins to keep playing MM cartridges despite the media and peer-pressure propaganda towards MCs…….the success of Jico and their after-market replacement styli has been good news.

Of particular delight to that minority still playing vintage MM cartridges……the success of the SAS stylus from Jico.….. has transformed cartridges like the Shure V15, Victor X1 and Z1 and Garrott P77 into world-beaters amongst the cartridge elite.

 

What is so special about the SAS stylus?

It seems that Jico has invented a profile more radical that the standard ‘Line-Contact’, VdH or Shibata…..

An inspection of the diamond under a 60x loupe displays cutting-edge profiles I have never before seen on a stylus.

Jico claims that this profile better fits the record groove and is more akin to the profile of the cutting-lathe stylus.

The better the stylus fits into the record groove, the less distortion is caused by high-amplitude reproduction

But claims are pretty meaningless in the analogue world unless they are backed up……

And with the SAS stylus, the performance matches the ‘hype’….

In all three cartridges I have used….original 35 year Garrott P77, Shure V15/III and Victor Z1….the SAS has transformed each one, from a very good performer to a superlative one.

The improvement over the original manufacturer’s stylus is muti-faceted…

From frequency response (bass and treble in particular) to transparency to sound-stage (both width and depth) but most importantly……to the emotional content able to be extracted from the vinyl grooves.

My three SAS-equipped MM cartridges leapt into contention as ‘the best’ of the 80 or so cartridges I have owned and bettered all but 3 or 4 of the 20 LOMC cartridges I have owned……

 

So imagine the reaction when Jico announced 2 years ago that production of the SAS stylus was being suspended……?

The original SAS stylus came with a boron cantilever and there appears to be a problem with the world’s supply (or price) of boron….?

Now I have a preference for beryllium as a cantilever material but because of safety standards surrounding the toxicity of beryllium during the manufacturing process……it is no longer offered as a cantilever material.

Why they can still use it for dome tweeters is a mystery to me….?

Boron is used as a cantilever material by many cartridge manufacturers…..Dynavector, ZYX, Lyra to name but a few….so why Jico is no longer supplying it is puzzling.

Six months ago, Jico announced the re-introduction of the SAS stylus but this time with a choice of sapphire or tapered-ruby cantilever….both at massive price hikes to the boron.

The tapered-ruby is almost 4 times the cost of the original boron cantilever…..


A comparison of the three SAS assemblies is revealing……

With the original boron cantilever, the actual stylus is buried under an epoxy glue sarcophagus in a manner that can only be described as rather crude….

Just the tip of the faceted diamond is visible poking out of the epoxy…

The new synthetic jewel cantilevers are different animals entirely.

The sapphire appears translucent (not blue) with the nude stylus expertly and neatly cut into the jewelled rod whilst the ruby is even more impressive, again having a nude diamond cut into the ruby rod which has been ‘shaved’ down 2 or 3 sides to create the ‘taper’. And this rod glows ‘pink’…..justifying its premium pricing ?

 

I picked the Garrott P77 for this test because the neo-SAS(R) was not yet available for the Z1 and the V15/III, though wonderful…..was not quite up to the standards of the other two……

 

When I received the two new SAS styli, I was in two minds about them…..

Could the simple change in cantilever material make a noticeable difference in performance?........and for the price increases, it had better!!

There is little doubt in my mind that the SAS’s performance boost was due primarily to the radical stylus shape and as noted earlier…..boron is a respectable cantilever material utilised by high-performance exotic MC cartridges the world over.

If sapphire or ruby were to offer even increased performance benefits over the boron…..then why wouldn’t other manufacturers have already changed over?

These thoughts mingled with the aesthetic appreciation of the ‘nude’ mounting and the ‘glowing’ jewelled rods as I swapped out my original SAS and went straight to the neo-SAS(R)….

 

If I was expecting a revelation…..I was disappointed.

In fact, if I was expecting a difference …..I was disappointed.

No matter how many albums I played (and each album side I would change styli)….I could discern no differences.

And I really tried to hear differences….

At one point I thought I had picked the only audible difference as being slightly better bass response with the two jewelled cantilevers….

This was revealed by albums from Massive Attack and Dead Can Dance.

So I brought in the decider for bass reproduction…..the Barber ‘Adagio for Strings’ on Gary Karr’s ‘En Aranjuez con tu Amor’ (Firebird) sends even my Vandersteen 2Wq subwoofers into fibrillation mode…..

But no……seemingly equal bass response…..

 

So there you have it…..

For two weeks I have exhausted my test-record catalogue, loosened the stylus-plug-insert on my Garrott P77, annoyed my wife and angered the neighbours….

And I can report that I am able to discern no differences….absolutely none….between the original SAS the neo-SAS(S) and the neo-SAS(R).

I’m sure that there will be those who will claim they can hear differences and the differences are like ‘night and day’…..

Good luck to them.

Maybe they can….maybe they can’t.

At least I will have no need to buy replacement neo-SAS styli for my Z1 and V15/III.

 

The good thing to take away from this exercise is this:-

The neo-SAS stylus assembly from Jico is just as good as the original SAS and for that…..the analogue world should be eternally grateful….

 

 

128x128halcro
nandric's avatar
nandric
4,086 posts
 

Dear Jessica, I am obviously not very successful with referring.

I meant  ''some Aussie'' not you.

halcro's avatar
halcro OP
2,664 posts
 

I think that those who question my, say, interpretation of Carr'sopinion about saphire cantilevers should provide the referenceto his post about cantilevers. 

OK...here's a logical consequence.....

J.Carr claims in a Post on A'Gon, that sapphire cantilevers are second only to ruby cantilevers for high-end cartridges.

Anyone who questions this should provide reference to his post about cantilevers.....

nandric's avatar
nandric
4,086 posts
 

The logical conseqence from ''a and b are identical'' is that one

can substitute a for b or the other way round ''salva veritate''.

Say: ''whatever is true about Vienna is also true about Wien''.

To put this otherwise:  ''if saphire and ruby '' are identical kinds

of artificial stones , then...''ruby must be superiour to saphire''

(grin). BTW  I missed the Aussie humor for some time.

Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas
13,093 posts
 
Dear @chakster :  """ The best Fidelity-Research cartridges with Air Core  also comes with alluminum cantilevers and those cartrs considered the best of the best. """

certainly are not the best of the best, not for me. Are good cartridges and nothing more.

Now, of course there are reasons why the superiority of Boron against aluminum or berillyum. I paste this from somwhere in the net:

"""   Boron is a much more advanced material for cantilevers than aluminum alloy. The velocity of sound in boron is almost 3x what it is in aluminum. Boron is much harder and stiffer than Al resulting in less flexure and in Boron the frequency of the first major resonance is going to be out of the audioband. """

Probably stiffness is a main material characteristioc for cartridge cantilevers and hardness could be desirable too. 
Boron is way superior in both parameters than berillyum and aluminum ( the poorer. ).

Stiffness of a material is measured using Young Modulus where Boron has: 480 GPa, berillyum 287 and aluminum 69. Diamond has 1050 GPa and corundum 300.

About hardness ( Mohs scale. ): boron 9.5-10.0, berillyum 5.5, aluminum 2.5-3.0 and diamond 10 ( corundum: 9. )

Now, everything the same cartridges with boron in cantilevers makes a better work in that critical cartridge characteristic. Yes could be cartridges using boron in the cantilever that can sound not so good but not because boron it self but because its whole cartridge design.

In the other side and when I bougth my first JICO SAS for a Shure cartridge I was worried if the SAS replacement came with the same compliance than the original . Certainly not and this makes a difference as the different stylus shape and cantilever material and cantilever length and cantilever overall dimensions. Those differences are reflected in the cartridge quality performance levels.

It's obvious that a cartridge with a SAS replacement is a totally different cartridge design that not necessary means it performs better .

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
lewm
13,110 posts
 
Interesting data, Raul.  The question would be whether, for example, a hardness score of 9.5-10 is meaningfully superior to that of corundum (9), and I think there are a very few cartridges with diamond cantilevers; are they among "the best" sounding?  Also, I don't know whether the speed of sound propagation in the material is worth harping on, since the cantilever only has to transmit mechanical energy imparted at the stylus tip. In fact, one might think that the cantilever should not transmit sound, because that would amount to distortion, the sound energy arriving at the coil end being delayed compared to the physical movement of the cantilever that is solely due to groove modulation of the stylus motion.  Anyway, it's interesting to consider these things.  I really don't think there is a magic formula for cantilever materials.  Maybe it's cactus.
More to discover