Mono Cartridge Question

Hi @goofyfoot 

You said, 'The size of the stylus is a factor here too. A larger stylus being exponentially more detrimental than a smaller stylus"

I don't know why this might be the case, but I am not surprised if there is a good reason for it. We have spend little time studying conical stylus behavior, putting our efforts on fine-line profiles predominantly. The one thing I have found to be certain in the last three years of diving very deep into the relationship between the stylus and the groove is that the more I learn about it, the more I realize how much I don't know!  If you can please explain why this would be so to me, I'd be appreciative of it

To date, the only thing I see out of our research is that a larger conical stylus (vs. a smaller conical stylus) differs on where it will contact the groove wall. Larger conical styli track higher on the wall and smaller down further. This is why when some people change to a different cartridge and note how much quieter or louder the groove noise is, they mistakenly attribute the change to the cartridge being better or worse when it can more often be explained by the change in stylus geometry and the elevation of the contact point in the groove. If you've been causing damage to a groove wall and happened to have been using a large contact radius and then changed to a smaller contact radius you might experience a quieter listening experience. All you've done in such a case is ride below the previously made groove damage, so you're not hearing it any longer. This can happen when you realign a fine line contact stylus as well. When properly aligned, such styli will ride at their maximum elevation in the groove. 

@wallytools From my understanding and maybe I'm wrong but I have read this claim, that a larger stylus will still ride far down into the groove wall and the difference in distance between the larger and smaller conical stylus is very minimal. This is why I believe the larger stylus will create more damage, because it is in contact with a larger portion of the groove than a smaller stylus.

@goofyfoot, it is definitely the opposite from what you were told. A larger object will not fit as far down into a 90 degree groove versus a smaller object of the same basic profile.

The degree to which they differ in their elevation on that groove wall can also be easily calculated. A 1mil (25.4 micron) diameter conical will ride about half way down a nominally cut unmodulated groove (50 micron width). A 0.6 mil (15.2 micron) conical will ride about 20% lower. That isn’t small change.

The contact area of both sizes are VERY similar. Why? Because the point of groove wall contact is on the spherical portion of the stylus. (Technically speaking, points of contact with a sphere are infinitely small but in practice you must consider groove deflection.)

Using a spheroid contact area is VERY important to allow for tolerance errors on the mounting of the stylus to the cantilever on the azimuth axis. This is also why fine line styli have a major radius. This is also why proper azimuth alignment has NOTHING to do with the stylus alignment in the groove regardless of stylus profile (up to a point, any way, but that point is usually past 2.5 degrees level headshell and often more)

Now, I would certainly argue that the smaller contact surface area of the stylus to the groove wall, the greater the chance for groove damage because the force is distributed over a smaller area, causing greater groove deformation. This is another advantage of fine line contact styli over conicals and also why a larger conical probably has a slight edge over smaller conicals in avoiding groove damage which is quite the opposite from what you’ve heard.

However, I AM ALWAYS OPEN TO NEW, YET CONFLICTING, INFORMATION. I invite it as it is the only way I’ve been able to help push this industry forward so far.

@wallytools Of course not all grooves are the same size. Just after shellac 33 1/3, the vinyl groove was at it’s widest, then came the microgroove and now we grooves equal to the size of a stereo record. So I’m not sure which of these grooves you’re talking about but I’m assuming you're referring to the microgroove. If someone is using a 1.0 ml stylus on the early mono records, it is reaching very far down into the groove but slightly less in the microgroove. Most likely only a 0.7 ml stylus should be used for later records and recent remasters. Pretty much any cartridge designer will tell you not to play newer records with a 1.0 ml stylus. So I’m curious,what are the variables between the different stylus and the different groove sizes?

When I found the DaVa to be the most high resolution cartridge I heard, I was initially worried how 3.5g tracking force and conical styli would affect valuable, high priced original records. Also, I am mainly a fan of linear tracking using Vyger especially with Top Wing Red Sparrow, which tracks below 2g, especially as I was introduced to it by an LP collector who had tens of thousands of LPs, some priced well over 10k. I also think that the issues pivot owners face because of the offset angle, aligning the cart right, and getting anti skating right, coupled with varying cartridge samples, can lead to incorrect set up causing harm to the vinyl. This is fine as most people are using reissues, or inexpensive vinyl, and it can be replaced easily, but expensive originals cannot.

As a background, my other favorite cartridges are VDH stradivarius and the Lyra Atlas Lambda. Also, Zyx, Allaerts, airtight, MSL, GFS, Decca, are all nice, and at lower prices, SPU is musical with less details and some rolloff, and Hana and Audio technica are good value for money. But as with Denon 103, you can hear less details.

Therefore when I liked Dava, conical and 3.5g tracking was initially a concern for me, but the sonics were so good, and there was so much more musical information, I decided to check with owners who use good LPs, and repeated play on their favorite ones using DaVa did not wear out the LPs. To start with, if you use fine style to track at 4g, you will cause harm, but with conical styli the pressure is spread over a greater area. What Darius then explained to me, is that most conical styli are 0.6 mil tip or more, he keeps it at 0.5 as per Shure documentation, which he found to get past that issue.

Regarding detail and resolution, he said if he used his conical styli in similar ways to how others use finer styli, it will be less detailed. But his cartridge is designed to kill eddy currents, which mask details, and the lack of eddy currents is what increases the detail. The higher detail and resolution via DaVa against any cartridge should be easy to hear, whether on rock, jazz, or classical. If you want more technical details of how the eddy currents are suppressed you will need to check with Darius. So I decided not to generalize with other conical styli, DaVa for me is onto something and they are changing things.

My further DaVa experience here. Please note one point there, I like TD 124 but normally find it has less resolution that higher level tables. However, on the TD 124 with basic DaVa vs Continuum Caliburn with Etsuro Gold, I found the 124 to have higher resolution. The owner also sold his continuum after that, and now bought a restored commonwealth to play the DaVa. This owner also has a Vyger with Red Sparrow.

After I receive my Dava, I will do a compare of it with Audionote field coil (another owner who had AN field coil put in sale after listening to the DaVa), and with Top Wing Red Sparrow on a Vyger on another system (not same as one above but a Cessaro Zeta), but this will take time.