Replicant 100 stylus

I try to explain function of names in my other thread . Raul

missed my point by Glanz and Astatic because of lack of education.

Those names are used not to refer but to hide reference by

suggesting different ''animals'' while being ''the same'' product

of Mitachi company in Japan. Aka ''misleading  names'' . The

Glanz thread is illustration of name confusion and our own

discovery that both names refer to the same products.

The same is/was the case by Gyger versus Van de Hul styli as well

by ''Van den Hul'' cartridges them self. Those are not made by

Van den Hul.. The explanation of terms, use of words , kind of sentences

or statement or propositions is not possible without knowledge of logic,

linguistic and philosophy of language. Those are ''subjects'' about

which Raul has never heard because of his very low level of knowledge.

Intellectual property, justice and cheating. The older among us

know who Kondo-san was. His company ''Audio note'' produced

very expensive component. In UK however was a company  

with trademark ''Audio note'' which copied Kondo's inventions.

This is obvious stealing. Kondo-san was not able to do anything

against UK law.  Consider (general) patent duration of +/- 20 years.

Compare this with the discrepancy with copyright . Duration is 70

years after passing  of  the ''author'' . ''Original'' (sic) this right was

meant for, say, writers, Check at present what singers  heir get for

their ''copyright''. American are complaining about

 hinese accusing them of stealing but are not able to get the

idea to increase duration of patent law. We have seen  Raul's

''argument'' that Glanz and Astatic got ''licence'' for production

of ''MF'' technology invented by Mitachi in Japan. He obviously

have no idea what ''licence'' means. ''Glanz'' is an German

expression meaning ''shining'' . So it suggest German company.

But as dgob mentioned in his Glanz thread  this company is

Japanese, So according to Raul an Japanese company  sold

''licence'' to other Japanese company. But the sense of an licence

is to sell permission to some other country because establishing

own company abroad is very expensive, So as one can conclude

intellectual property is pretty complex for even the professionals

not to mention an nitwit from Mexico. 

 

 

 

 

 

To try and take it back to the subject, has anyone done a vertical comparison of cartridges equipped with a Replicant 100?

I have the SPU on my Schröder, I’ve heard a Cadenza Bronze on a Naim Aro fitted to a Linn LP12 and an Anna boron on an SME V fitted to a Technics 1200G but there were too many variables and too much time between them to draw any conclusion about the cartridges.

I’ve never done a comparison specifically aimed at the Replicant 100, but I do have 4 different cartridges equipped with that stylus. These are Benz LP, Ortofon SPU Gold Reference, A90 and A95. Is there a sonic imprint that they share and that could be attributed to the Replicant 100?

I might need to refresh my memory, but I’m inclined to say no. The Benz LP and the SPU both sound warm and lush, while Ortofon A90 and A95 are very neutral, open and transparent. Totally different characteristics and yet they all use the same stylus/cantilever assembly. Just goes to show that you probably shouldn’t make to much of these parts of the equation. The choice of body, coil and magnet materials, damping, compliance, output level, etc. all play their ‘part’.

@edgewear The Copy and Paste below from a previous Post within this thread would seem to offer similar content to your own findings when comparing Styli within an assembly, even though only two of the four styli types were the same design, the general assessment was that the overall Build of the Cartridge was the most contributing factor to the differences in presentation being detected.  

 

'As there were Two of the same Brands Styli Model and One other Styli from the same Brand of the former, the effect of the Styli on a replay was suggested to be a consideration to be assessed when listening, i.e surface noise, and whether any comparatively noticeable changes to the information retrieval was being detected. 

As said previously, not one attendee was able to say with conviction that they felt the Styli was solely responsible for the noticeable differences in the SQ and Performance on offer from a Cart'.

The discussions concluded with an agreement that leaned toward,  the known differences about the methods used for the assembly of the Cart's, was most likely the reason why the Model used in the Standard Form, which was also the Model with most hours of usage of approx 200 Hrs, was the one showing the least attractors and the model with the rebuild to the New High Spec' Parts and approx' 100 Hrs of usage was showing the most attractors.'