Another salmon counter-current swim.

[bauzace50]

Hi,

The explored grooves have tracking obstacles going up to extremes. This basic AT P-mount cartridge shows very pleasurable qualities below those extremes, and clearly merits many playings.

It's good enough to be a keeper in the company of better performers. This includes the superior conical-tipped DL-103R. Its P-mount adapter gives the happy capability to explore that area .

Regards,
b50

PS- regarding the conical tips: The DL-103R has given so many excellent and problem-free playings that one asks where the measured improvements of ellipticals begin to be significant.

From old test reports, the threshold of MEASURABLE difference begins above 15 KHz. Program material is usually contained below that threshold, so as to make the difference ALMOST moot, but not quite. Perfectonist playback makes use of the difference, even if it is invoked infrequently and almost inaudibly.

[dlaloum]

There was a time when definitions of high fidelity reproduction were based on a bandwidth covering 40Hz to 16kHz...

20-20kHz was chosen later as being the limits of (most) humans hearing. (at least when in their youth/peak)

[Ldg]

There was a time when definitions of high fidelity reproduction were based on a bandwidth covering 40Hz to 16kHz...

For good reason. Above 15kHz, if one can hear at all, qualitative hearing is virtually absent. No pitch sensitivity. No tonal sensitivity. Significantly lowered threshold detection. And not much spectral content anyway.

And actually, such hearing 'degradation' typically begins at far lower frequencies still. It's not like a brick wall. You think you can perceive tonal quality well, even at 8kHz ?

So, the frequency range where conical performance might become disadvantaged is not typically qualitatively important. It's no accident that conicals can sound good in a way that exposes myths of specmanship.

20kHz was chosen as an arbitrary population limit description. It says nothing of qualitative perception. That's the mistake here. That leads to attaching value to effects which have far lower audibility, if any, than misinterpretation of raw specs might suggest.

I went full circle on this, before the penny dropped, and so I came to respect the quality conical.

[bauzace50]

HI,

and, additionally, tracking those ultra-high frequencies competently might conserve the groove surface.

Imperfect tracking above 15 KHz introduces groove damage, which may be audible regardless of its origin in shaved-off ultra treble

We have a serious interest in tracking near 20 KHz, if only to preserve vinyl.
So, despite my admiration and love for my conical DL-103R it MAY be burnishing smoooth some supersonic material, aka: groove wear. Is this suspicion justified? Will the grooves pass the bill later on? I'm whistling in the dark .

Regards,
b50

[Ldg]

Hi b_50. Groove-stylus forces are smaller for conical, in the unlikely event of curvature being limiting. Mistracing therefore seems kinder for conicals, in this respect. Mistracking, the event where stylus loses contact with at least one wall, one might also consider kinder with conicals. In that the surface presented is always less like a blade when it lands. On the premise they track equivalently well, which other things being equal is evidently possible, if anything conicals might have advantage then. For example, i wonder why one doesn't one see linecontact styli at high VTF ?

I think the challenge is to keep conicals tracking well, particularly in the presence of pinch effect, which is always adverse.

It's not all caviar, but it's far better than salmon roe. And the alternatives have their own fish tales and compromises. The overall package is what matters, IMO.

[bauzace50]

ld,

the contact area of a conical stylus ON A GROOVE is smaller than the contact area of an elliptical. The elliptical distributes the tracking force over a wider area. So, the conical does more groove indentation than an elliptical at the same tracking force.
Pinch effect: noted.

Thanks for all your comments,
Regards,
b50

[Ldg]

There's a few awkward contradictions if that were true, b_50. I suspect its another myth. The best way out of the contradictions, IMO, is if the instantaneous contact area is about the same. But the contact location moves about within different, potentially larger zones, dependant on profile, as the stylus traces. So if one inspects the wear patch, yes it may have a smaller area for a conical. But that does not mean the instantaneous contact area is smaller, or indentation deeper.

I posted about, and illustrated, one of the enigmas, in the stylus profiles sticky in a few posts starting here :

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=22894&start=131

Even if one doesn't agree with my 'best way out' of the enigma, the geometry remains an arkward problem that AFAIK isn't adressed by 'accepted' views of the way various stylus profiles contact the groove. And it appears to directly contradict them !

[AudioSoul]

Hum,a conical stylus on the AT and the Denon DL carts. and they both sound great? Who needs a better stylus? Sorry for the wrong answer I didn't see there was a second page....