dlaloum wrote:LD did I miss something?
Yes. You missed that it's the magnitude
of change that indicates extent of wear. Rather than whether its an increase or decrease. Put it like this, the groove has a different shape after the test either way. So the groove has changed shape, which is wear
. Don't blame me, it's Shure's method.
And by that criteria, "The results showed no significant difference among biradial, hyperbolic, and hyperelliptical tips." Which is true.
Plus you missed that wear is always
It is untrue that a line contact stylus showed lower distortion than the biradial in this test, for two obvious reasons. Firstly, we only know the change
, not the absolute level. Secondly, 'distortion' in the sense you mean can be defined as how different the 'after' is than the 'before' - which we do know - and by this criteria 'distortion' is not significantly different between tip types. In fact, it's all over the place.
dlaloum wrote:What I am saying is not related directly to wear - but I am stating that the resulting output after 100plays will be lower in harmonic distortion content when using a Line Contact stylus in most cases, and is unlikely to be worse.
What ?? You are actually suggesting that playing records 100 times with a line contact stylus somehow improves distortion, DL ? That's statutory
counterintuitive....... and it's nonsense, of course. For the reasons set out above, that's not what the results mean at all, you've simply misinterpreted.
dlaloum wrote:Clearly they were looking for and expecting a difference (so their intuition was the same as mine) - the results were inconclusive for wear (not for distortion... for wear), which they stated.
That's what happens when one tries to shoehorn an expectation into a test. It doesn't always fit, and generally can't be made to when it doesn't. But the result should be accepted for what it is, if one cares about exploring the truth rather than proving an expectation.
dlaloum wrote:The test was not however, trying to measure a relationship between VTF and wear. - Which is a shame! - leaves us with intuition again.
Your intuition that lower tip wear = lower record wear could well be wrong too, for example, if the contact location moves about more on a line contact stylus. Think about it. Contact location at a fixed moment on a groove is always the same, it's repeatable for say 100 plays. But contact location on the stylus varies with modulation, ie it varies for different groove 'moments'. So tip wear is lower the more the contact location varies, but groove wear at a point on the record is the same.
Shure : "The results showed no significant difference among biradial, hyperbolic, and hyperelliptical tips." No more and no less !