Replicant 100 stylus

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.'

Our question was if Replicant can be added to Ogura and Namiki as

supplier of styli in the sense of availability to manufacturer as well

''retipers'' ( aka repair services) .The context was  the assumed 

difference between  ''original parts'' by manufacturer and ''retipers''

as the reason to do, say, either ''refurbishing or rebuilding''  by the

manufacturer or retipers. We got answers about the ''sound'' of

Replicant but not about its availabillity. BTW Benz LP ( the 16 g )

moved from Gyger to micro ridge. The reason being that Gyger

is no more. We can conclude that the mentioned Japanese Jewel

companies  have monopoly position. As Axel told me: ''they

increased the price with 100% without any consultation''.

Then we also have JCarr's   ''levels of styli'' which can be

get by special order in order to charge prices of + 10 K.

I don't believe   that this is  ''our problem''. Also ''the kinds

of diamonds'' are not relevant for our investigation despite

they ''natural'', ''industrial'' or ''artificial nature''.

Ortofon is still able to deliver cartridges with Replicant 100 stylus, both with boron and diamond cantilevers. Perhaps this comes from their own supply of Gyger parts,  which will eventually dry up. Or there’s another jewel company who has bought Gyger’s copyrights and is now supplying these styli themselves, either from Ireland as has been suggested or someplace else. 

edgewear, We started with the fact that Ortofon uses Replicant stylus.

In addition there were suggestions that ''Expert stylus'' ( Paratrace) and

Decca London stylus look ''the same'' ( aka ''identical'') as Replicant.

But we were not able to discover who produces those as well if those

styli are available to other manufacturer as well ''retipers''. So we

can't conclude that there are more styli providers than the two

mentioned. So my first ''general statement'' that there are only

two producers in relevant sense of availability is not refuted. 

To refute this general statement was intention of the thread about

Replicant.