''Óriginal parts'', ''identity '' and ''retip'' conundrum

@nandric what exactly is your problem? Surely you don’t want to let those ‘what is the (absolute) best?’ folks get on your nerves? It’s a way to pass the time, but a futile and pointless (pun intended) discussion.

In case you’re wondering, I’m with you on the potential worth of retippings or refurbishings by others than the manufacturer. Who cares if it isn’t ‘original’ anymore? The sonic result should be the ultimate arbiter. From my own experience with over 40 different MC cartridges, I’m not ashamed to admit that two of my ‘best’ cartridges are ‘Frankenstein’s’ as some like to call them: a Kiseki Lapis Lazuli refurbished by vdHul (vdH tip on boron) and a Krell / Miyabi KC 200 by an ‘unknown’ (Ogura PA tip on boron, presumed not to be original).

So it’s not really a conundrum if you let your ears decide. But in a tumultuous sea of diverting opinions, philosophies and beliefs fighting for your attention (and money), learning to trust one’s own hearing is not at all easy. But ultimately it’s our only chance of audio ‘redemption’. Relax and take care.

edgewear, My problem? I addressed forum problems with self-appointed

''experts'' or ''authorities'' who have no idea what they are talking about.

Is the task of this forum not to provide objective information?

In my introduction of this thread I try to explain which assumptions are

made which are not true. That is ''if premise are not true'' how can

derivation from those premise be true? 

My ''general statement'' or assertion was that only two jewel company

produce styli such that manufacturer as well retipers get they styli

from the self source. JCarr also named only those two. But I also

started the other thread about Replicant in which my own assumption

is questioned. Alas we were not able to discover who produces those

styli as well if those styli are available to all manufacturer and retipers. 

There is old (Roman?) saying ; '' in the land of the blind ,one-eyed is

king''.  You obviously missed my points . I hope you can ''see now''. 

Dear Nandric, if only it were true that forums like this have the task of providing objective information. It’s all subjective opinions and beliefs, like everywhere else in social media. The folks with real knowledge have mostly left the ‘building’ amidst all the nonsense, a few exceptions notwithstanding. Too many egos making too much noise. Sad but true.

Your assumption that there are only a few jewel companies providing styli is most likely correct. We tend to forget how small our little universe really is, so it’s not a market that could sustain many more competitors. Yet it’s hard to imagine that Ogura and Namiki are the only ones, even with Gyger out of the picture as some have suggested. As you asked elsewhere, who would be making those Replicant 100 or vdHul styli now?

But even this assumption doesn’t tell us very much. For example, the Ogura PA tip comes in different shapes. Apart from the retipped KC 200 I own originals of Mark Levinson MLC-1 and Red Rose Petal (both versions of Miyabi Standard) and Miyabi MCA, all of which supposedly adopted the same Ogura tip. Yet none of these have the exact same shape. I have it on good authority that Ogura used no less than a dozen different shapes, which apparently were all marketed as PA. It seems Takeda san was prone to experimentation in search of the perfect sound and used several of these shapes. So in this case there were several ‘original parts’ and ‘identities’. So what?

As a music listener I don’t really care as long as it sounds good. I’m certainly no expert but I have no reason to believe there is any special magic involved in (re)building a cartridge, only human creativity, experience and craftsmanship. For the most part(s) the sonic result will depend on the designer’s or (re)builder’s level of expertise. If you find such a person, you can pretty much depend that they’ll do a good job in respecting and perhaps even improving the cartridge’s sonic performance. Exchanging notes on the work of these experts is probably more useful than establishing how many sources they can turn to for parts.

So let’s for a moment return to the example of the Kiseki. It’s evident that vdHul did a wonderful job with my sample, but that was done many years ago. When it requires the inevitable retip would I send it to the newly established Kiseki brand for reasons of so called ‘originality’? No way! These new Kiseki’s are most likely not designed and built by the same person who did the old ones and based on the reported quality control issues they would probably ruin it.

@nandric
elegant intervention; we may communicate with smoke messages for future topics to limit understanding to Cheyenne and Navajo only.

Cir di capimi: no tu puedis cjacarà come che ti par se no tu puedis la a cagà! and now translate the sentence into italics for me.

edgewear, Deed you ever try to sell an retiped cart? As you state 

you are very satisfy with retips done by Van den Hul. Van den Hul

was obviously proud of his work and made his inscription on the

cover plate. This may be seen as act of courage (aka nothing to

hide). But the owners of his carts with his retips can't sell them

because ''retips'' are  considered to be inferior in comparison

with ''rebuild'' or ''refreshed kind'' with the argument of ''original''

versus ''not original'' styli. That is to say that manufacturer use their

 own unique styli. This however is an myth. Manufacturer buy their

styli as do retipers by the same producer. Curiously you are

contradicting  your own ''pro retip'' position by suggesting more

shapes than can be proven. On those shapes patents are claimed

as Van den Hul and Gyger demonstrate. Besides ''original parts''

imply their identification which is connected with identity . Even for

logician an difficult ''subject''.

I try to reduce complexity of identity to ownership relation because

everyone knows what ownership means as well how one can prove

to own something. This means proving one to one identity between

owner and object of ownership. Both must have their own identity.

''Subjective valuation''?  The old Roman already stated ; de gustibus

non disputantum est. 

Besides what sense would asked advises have?