Replicant 100 stylus

When it comes to ESC offering their Stylus, whether it be a same form as a Replicant 100, how the two Parts are perceived by the Purchaser will be dependant on the Sales Spiel that is attached to the part when used in an assembly.

When it comes to Ortofon, it will be offered with the noise attached that it is the finest diamond in the world, what ever that means.

I have never pursued any knowledge of the Paratrace as a Styli, as it is a stylus that can be found with reports of short life expectancy, and for myself this is an unwanted experience to be met with.

With Styli there is a great wealth of information that should show the unique form of the part. They are usually shown with their shape as the side wall dimensions are shown, Square or Rectangular can be determined, the length is made known, but this can be altered ? and the uM and Conical or Elliptical is known.

With having access to this information for the Styli, it will be very possible to determine how accurate each one is to another a match, the math will answer the queries.

Does 0.01mm on a Side Wall Dimension, or 0.5uM Tip Size/Radius, allow for a different Patent for a Design to be produced ?? 

The FGS and Gyger I, are two styli, that can be found with user recommendation to offer an extended service life, and maybe this is also part of the attraction to customers doing their research.

Then there is the common theme seen across most forums where Vinyl is being discussed, the more the Styli is able to gain access into the Groove, the more the skill set is required from the user to optimise the set up, and the time is required to achieve this and the constant tweaking of the Tonearm is not a task all want to be subjected to, so a Conical Tip might be a preferred Shape for this very reason.       

dover, imagine me  being your visitor  in N, Zeeland and you offering

to me only an half glass of your excellent wine. That is how I feel with

your info about origin of Replicant . 

mijostyn, my problem is not the microscope but my capability  to

see the difference between them. To me all ''not oval kinds'' look

the same.

@mijostyn My 'on the sauce' moments is fuelled by off the shelve products, no need to use illegal substances, fortunately for myself, caffeine based beverages is ample to get the party going.

I have not any recollection from any input from yourself on this subject, and I have read many individuals accounts over a long period of time. It is hard to determine where you are in your comprehension of this subject and if the subject of Styli Forms is something that you are quite serious about.

To help you understand my place that I am with this subject, a Styli is a Material that is hard wearing and has become the preferred material over other Jewels used in times past. More importantly it is a interface between two materials, and contaminants that might be present on the surfaces of the interface materials.

There are Jewels designed to have a form that are mechanically more suitable than other forms at this interface.

These forms of Jewels are produced mainly as an item offered by a Brand and are selected to be supplied at different levels of purchase value. The Sales Spiel offered to the Consumer is usually the information that will indicate where a Part offered fits into the Production Companies Pricing Range. Customers who receive  of such Parts, especially those who produce a Cartridge Range will be quick to add their own Sales Spiel to a already supplied Sales Spiel from a Producer, and hence the fantastical descriptions commence.

The 'merry go round' evolves to their being a Cartridge offered, of which there will hopefully be many, to make the product a worthwhile venture. This results in multiple Customers and Users of the Produced Cartridge, of which many will publically make their assessments known, with information supplied as a result of subjective description, combined with historical recollected information from the Sales Spiel, this can quite easily turn into a description that does not mirror the supplied information from another's assessment. 

Hence the suggestion I am keen to make, that is to attempt to experience the device in advance of purchase, or definitely speak directly with somebody totally qualified through a broad experience of carrying out assessments on differing assemblies of parts, to help with the decision being made. 

In the context of ''intellectual ownership'' which can be seen as the

usual ownership of movables and immovables in the sense of

relating persons and objects in ''one to one'' relation there are public

registers in which ''objects and persons'' are kept together such

that people can see ''who owns what''. But there is also ''know how''

which is only available to the inventors. This knowledge is different

from scientific knowledge because it is secret. There are commercial

interest involved . In this sense Gyger and Van den Hul are kept

apart as well Replicant and Paratrace suggesting with different

names different animals. There are btw also different names as

intellectual ownership called ''trademark''. Think of our disputes

about Glanz and Astatic with believe that those are different

animals and even our MM authority was convinced that Astatic is

not Glanz. while the ''poor thing'' is produced by an Japanese

company called ''Mitachi'' the inventor of ''MF'' (moving flux) 

technology. The consequence being embarrassment of some

of our ''honourable members''.