Do the more basic stylus shapes (conical and elliptical) cause records to get worn out quicker?

You all here sparked my curiosity as well and I wanted to read up more on the effects of both the stylus AND the cartridge..This lead me to reading some interesting sources and watching YouTube videos on stylus mechanics and it's very interesting about the different shapes of styli.

What I now think I understand is that, (as we all know), it is actually the movements of the diamond through the grooves of a record picking up left and right Channel information which is sent through the cantilever that then is vibrating between two magnets in the cartridge. When the vibrations of the cantilever metal moves between the two magnets, an electrical signal is created. That signal then gets boosted through our amplifiers and is ultimately translated into what we hear by our speakers vibrating airwaves to our ears.

Looking at Harby's pictures above, one could rationally conclude the nude elliptical diamond is able to run through the groove and penetrate Deeper into the groove thus contracting more of the left and right side of the groove wall thus picking up more information than the "bonded" diamond. The more information gleaned from each groove translates to better sound, more detail, higher highs, lower lows, etc. The shibata/fine line stylus is an even finer, "narrower", diamond that goes even deeper into the groove thus contacting more of each wall, thus producing more and better detail while also hitting deep dust, imperfections in pressings and also picking up poorer mastering of particular music because the engineer did not do a great job in preserving the totalality of the music ( too much here, too little there...)

So I guess one must compare the stylus AND the cartridge design together to make a decision about what sounds best...stylus alone is not enough.

 

The Shibata profile was introduced for the purpose of tracking and reproducing the extremely high frequency signal on four channel records that carried the back channel information. Those frequencies could not be tracked by conical or elliptical styli of the day. What was also found was that conical and elliptical styli tended to wipe out the high frequency information in the grooves of these 4 channel records after a few plays. That is not to say that these styli would damage records with conventional signals any more than would a Shibata stylus, but it does suggest that the Shibata stylus (line contact) is better at handling very high frequencies and is good with delicate vinyl surfaces.

 

I forget... what's the difference between Shibata and 'microline' styluses?
.

 

Shibata was one of the earlier narrow profile stylus type. There are many variant that have been given different names or type designations, such as line contact, microline, etc. They are thin, but, they have a large vertical contact patch (they contact the groove from relatively deep in the groove to points far up toward the top). The pressure of the stylus on the groove wall is thereby distributed over a larger vertical area, while a conical or elliptical stylus distributes weight over a larger area in the front-to-back axis (90 degrees from vertical). The van den hul stylus shape is a more modern version of the Shibata designed to optimize vertical contact, reduce wear on the stylus, reduce record damage, etc. This is one of the profiles often described as "microline." The following is an explanation of the types:

Stylus Tip Shapes

 

Lots of info here:

Advanced Stylus Shapes: Pics, discussion, patents. - Vinyl Engine

One thing about shibata is that it currently seems to be "in vogue" as far as marketing goes. Even though there are more advanced shapes some manufacturers spec shibatas as their top MM offering. Ortofon has for awhile and AT recently went over to this as well.

 

Well, as a matter of marketing, those who make expensive shapes have to figure out how to sell their wares to customers who are probably already pretty darned happy with what they have. The classic route is to instill a little bit of insecurity with expert sounding advice that uses vague claims and unsubstantiated facts.

From the SoundSmith website (just one example):

"Stylus shapes
Lower performance, lower cost styli have advantages. Conical and elliptical designs are lower cost, and provide an ease of alignment and sometimes lower ticks and pops. The down side?? More record wear and far poorer high frequency reproduction and all that is lost with that loss, such as imaging and dimensionality.

Styli that are better fitting and narrower against the groove walls (contact line or fine line designs) do a far better job, but require more precise alignment and cleaner records. But like higher performance cartridges, they are worth doing. "

The first two sentences create an embedded assumption by association. The opening statement "Lower performance, lower cost styli have advantages," starts off pretty smartly by paying a compliment not only to the lower performance, lower cost styli, but to you, someone who is undoubtedly familiar with lower performance, lower cost styli." Right? But what is a "lower performance, lower cost stylus, exactly?"

Thank goodness you asked! The article will tell you, sort of, in the very next sentence. "Conical and elliptical designs are lower cost . . . " this is the moment the ******** meter should start going off, but wait, hang on! we're getting another compliment: [they] provide an ease of alignment and sometimes lower ticks and pops." That sounds good, right? Something about that "ease of alignment" thing, though. Kind of makes it sound like "it's good for the simple folk." That's an embedded insult along to go with an embedded assumption that conical and elliptical designs are cheaper, simpler, and, well, it sounds to me like the compliments are going to stop now. Let's see . . .

"Styli that are . . . " Wait! What's this? "better fitting and narrower against the groove walls (contact line or fine line designs) do a far better job, but require more precise alignment and cleaner records. Hmmmm. But what about that compliment that conical and elliptical styli provide lower ticks and pops? Oh wait, I see: that's only "sometimes." So there must be times when "better" styli provide lower ticks and pops than lower performance, lower cost styli. Hmm, well, this part about requiring "more precise alignment" is okay with me. I like a challenge. I'd like to up my game. All I needed was this information, encouragement to learn, experiment and spend and I can be in this nicer club, and hey! just when I'm thinking this, here comes a great opinion disguised as a statement. "But like higher performance cartridges, they are worth doing!" I already agree!

Especially now that I can go back to the first paragraph and see the obvious downside. "The down side?? More record wear and far poorer high frequency reproduction and all that is lost with that loss, such as imaging and dimensionality."

Hmmmm. More record wear. I don't want that. This guy sounds so much like he knows what he's talking about that I'll just take this as a fact. Also, who wants "far poorer high frequency reproduction?" I know I don't. I wonder what that sounds like, anyway. Not to quibble, but the way the English language works, this isn't really flattering to expensive styli, either. To say something is far poorer than something else kind of assumes that what's being compared to is not that great, just less poor. So you could say that contact line or fine line designs are just poor with high frequency production, but conical and elliptical designs are far poorer. Hmmmm. That's like trying to sell me a piece of poo car that's just less of a piece of poo than the less expensive one. Is that what the writer really means here?

But this record wear thing really has me spooked. Even if I can't hear any difference at all between these nice stylus shapes and the inferior ones, at least I know I'll be saving my vinyl.

And this is where it starts.

Nevermind that elsewhere on this same page, you can see a nice graphic depiction of the differences between different stylus shapes along with mathematical and numerical representations, but the most important, in my opinion, is the contact area. The higher the contact area, the less wear because the stylus pressure is spread out over a greater area. The higher the concentration, the "sharper" the tip and the more damage it can arguably do.



Looking at the chart above, the only stylus tip shape listed that has a higher contact area than the simple conical/spherical is the line contact and S.A.S. And yet, people also believe that elliptical styli wear less than conical styli, but this can't be true. Though not depicted in the above chart, the worst stylus tip shape must be the .2 x .7 elliptical since its contact area must be far smaller than the .3 x .7 shown there. But the even "lower performance, lower cost" .4 x .7 elliptical should have a larger contact area still than the .3 x .7 elliptical, so in terms of record wear, it's the better choice.

Obviously, SoundSmith must have borrowed this piece of marketing from Jico which has its own products to sell. Now, I'm not saying that SoundSmith and Jico SAS are not awesome manufacturers of crazy good stuff. I don't have any SoundSmith stuff, but I do have four Jico SAS for various cartridges, plenty of line contact, MicroLine, Shibata, MicroRidge, Stereohedron I and Stereohedron II, Fine Line, Fritz Gyger, and on and on. I also have many more conical, spherical, and elliptical of all shapes and sizes and even "special conical," "special elliptical," and even a few of the oddly named Grado styli like "twin tip," whatever that is.

With magnetic cartridges, it seems that the real number that means something in terms of high frequency reproduction is extended tip mass. For this, then, one has to consider whether or not a diamond tip is nude mounted or bonded and if that automatically means better. Bonded is certainly less expensive since precious diamond material is used in lesser quantity, but how much does a microscopic piece of diamond cost, anyway? To me, the cost is in the labor, really, the number of cuts and additional processes. Even bonding a diamond to a substrate is another process. I've never figured out how this saves money, but I suppose it's really a measure of stinginess. If you can buy a sliver of diamond for $10 and cut it into ten pieces and then cut those into individual tips that are then bonded to a substrate and mounted, then it's pretty obvious that you've saved 10x the materials over using that one $10 diamond even though the major cost is in cutting the tip. Seems pretty cheap, right? I think it is. But maybe from an engineering and performance standpoint, it actually doesn't matter. Perhaps, even, using an entire diamond piece when just a speck will do can be considered simply wasteful.

But in terms of marketing, if you can get someone to spend an extra $100 for a nude diamond tip by trumping up the benefits over bonded, well that's marketing gold! That $100 extra is pure profit!

Line contact styli were developed for quad playback, but they're not, from what I understand, entirely necessary for quad playback. A fine elliptical with a low extended tip mass will also reproduce the carrier signal. But people like line contact for stereo use, which can be considered overkill, but given the much higher contact area there's a great marketing angle for record wear and stylus life. If a line contact sounds great, protects your records and itself all at the same time, then it's still a deal. Imagine that your line contact sounds as good as your favorite elliptical. The line contact costs twice as much as your favorite elliptical. But the line contact could, in theory, last five times or more as long as your favorite elliptical, then the elliptical is simply a waste of money. You'll replace the $100 elliptical five times before you replace the $200 line contact. This simply means that over the same amount of play time, the line contact will save you $300.

If you're also protecting your records, then great! It's even more of a bargain. It's like the razor blade that never cuts your face and never dulls. By the way, these exist, too.

But, don't take all this to mean that conicals/sphericals or ellipticals are somehow bad. I love conicals. I find that they are often quieter than all other types. I'm also a skeptic in the moving coil/moving magnet debate and I tend to agree with SoundSmith's arguments, but in the end I can't say that one is definitively better than the other. I like them all.

Finally, not to disparage SoundSmith, because that's not my intention, but in the end, in the summary section, I do agree with the statements found therein.

"
Summary

In pure sonic terms on pristine vinyl a top notch elliptical can do as well as all but the very best Line Contact / Shibata styli, but will ultimately be surpassed by the better MicroLine styli. (my bold and italics here)

However in terms of reduced wear on both stylus and records - the entry point is the Line contact / Shibata category.

In terms of playing back worn vinyl line contact stylus types also have an advantage in that they can contact "virgin" unworn vinyl.

Narrower side radius = improved tracking and reduced high frequency distortion."

There is a lot more to it than just stylus shape. Record wear is probably lower with line contact types, but record cleanliness and stylus cleaning habits are paramount. Before line contact, fine line and MicroLine styli, conicals wore grooves the least based on surface area at equal tracking forces.

Finally, before I get too far afield, I would also assume that most record groove wear was caused by very worn styli that were forced deeper into the groove that they no longer fit by people stacking pennies on top of the tonearm instead of going out and getting a new stylus.

I've experimented with a few so-called inferior dinosaur-age ceramic cartridges and the results were extremely eye-opening and positive.

Also, I'm not going to say that more expensive cartridges aren't worth the money or that anyone who pays more than x amount for a cartridge or stylus is a fool. I've simply heard too many cartridges and styli of all types to generalize in any way or to even support the "you get what you pay for" argument in all cases--maybe even most cases. What I can say is that the quickest way to good sound is to spend a lot of money, but it's not the only way.

 

A good conical cart is a must for playing certain types of records. Now that I have one I wouldn't want to go without it. Don't want to give up my microline either though. Different tools for different purposes.

This is also why I'm a big proponent of turntables and tonearms with removable headshells.

 

Can you be more specific about what records play better with conical needles ?
(I use conical and elliptical at random, only some records are better of with elliptical on the last track when record is fairly loud)
Thanks.

 

I use my Shure 35X conical on worn records, records from the 50s and 60s, especially anything pressed on recycled vinyl (more common than many realize back then). It transforms these records from unlistenable to surprisingly decent sounding. If I had a mono switchbox or mono cart that would be even better, but I don't (yet). This conical cart also sounds great on any jazz or classical record with wide deadwax.

Anything aggressively cut with narrow deadwax needs to be played with an advanced stylus shape for maximum sound quality and minimum IGD. Hence why I use the microline cart on those.

 

I have a fraction of the knowledge of many of the posters here. What I do know is that since getting into this hobby last year and acquiring ~200 used albums since, I've been amazed at how many of them play and sound very, very good. Whatever styli Average Joe has been using on their records since the 1960s, they haven't apparently wrecked many of the albums that have been floating around for all of those years. Pretty amazing if you ask me!

 

For my older records, like the ones I had in high school and college that are still playable but either too hard to replace, have sentimental value or records in G to VG condition (I may buy second hand that are not in (minumm) VG to VG+ condition), I use the 2M Blue stylus in the 2M Black cart body. Ortofon USA reps told me that is perfectly acceptable (although you will not get the total benefit of the black cart body and Black stylus). Using the Blue on these types of records reduces the noise and imperfections because the stylus is not pulling all the same information from the grooves.

For 99% of my collections, which is in VG+, NM and new vinyl in M condition, I use the 2M Black stylus. That is a major plus by using the Ortofon 2m family of MM cartridges.

 

Sometimes it is pretty obvious when a record is worn. The surface looks grey, lots of marks in lead-in and deadwax, loose spindle hole with tons of spindle marks, etc. If you haven't come across a record with excessive groove wear from being played repeatedly on a record grinder or worn stylus with a coin on the headshell, believe me, you will. They sound really, really bad and there isn't much one can do with them.

For used records in VG+ condition that are just dirty, it's amazing what a vac-machine and some good enzyme record cleaner will do.

 

I don't know about the 2M body, but on many carts swapping styli often is not a good idea. Eventually the plastic gets worn and they won't "click" into place as well as they did at first. Hopefully you don't run into that problem. Swapping carts via a removable headshell works better, but many new turntables only come with one piece tonearms.

 

Thanks. It conforms my findings for loud cutted records, only playable with elliptical Philips GP412 II and still some IGD sometimes.
As I said a good record plays fine on any needle, if not bad record. Too loud, exceeding the norms.

 

One issue is there isn't any "norm" for how aggressively a record is cut anymore and there hasn't been one for a long, long time. Show me a record with wide, generous deadwax and a conservative cut, and I'll show you a dozen dating back to the 70s that have narrow deadwax and will not play back properly without an advanced stylus shape.

I'm sure we would all love to listen to nothing but 45rpm audiophile records with only 1 track per side but unfortunately not all the albums I like are made that way.

 

As a sidebar, let's talk about cantilever materials for a moment.

Sonically, what exactly does going to boron or beryllium cantilever get you that an aluminum one does not? And does this interact with the different stylus shapes in any way?
.[\color]

 

Lower moving mass, which is also the benefit gained from a nude mounted stylus although I believe it's to a much more significant extent with cantilever material

 

Anecdotally, at least for me, it will get you a cartridge that is much quieter in the groove and less prone to surface noise.

The quietest cartridges I've owned have had either boron or beryllium cantilevers. Sapphire would be close, followed by ruby (even though I've read they are the same or very similar, my experience is that sapphire is just a bit better at handling noise than ruby), with aluminum bringing up the rear by a considerable margin.

 

I didn't want to get into this in the above post, but mostly what you get is faster transients with boron and sapphire. Beryllium, of which I've only got two, don't sound any different to me than aluminum. And a good hardened and tapered aluminum can sound like boron and sapphire. But then a couple boron I have sound like beryllium which sounds like aluminum. So, in other words, it depends. Boron and sapphire are usually more aggressive, but not always.

 

Yes. Some of these diagrams, some which have been recycled for 35+ years, are deliberately misleading and/or sloppily wrong, and don't even tell what needs to be told.
For this example, notice the "Front view" of the "S.A.S. stylus" shows a groove that is exactly 90 degrees. The other grooves shown in that row are, I haven't measured but I can see, 100 or 110 degrees. Subtle, ain't it.
And the "Contact with records"-> "Line Contact Stylus" pic is tilted or sloppily drawn.
The cross sectional view of the standard "elliptical" is wrong.
The "Contact with records" is shown as perpendicular, it is supposed to be a 10 to 15 degrees tilt. That is the "15" of V15 and XV15 of Shure and Pickering model numbers of the time, and all styli.
These inaccuracies jumped out at me 35 years ago, and are still being perpetrated.

 

Yes these schemes should be taken with a grain of salt. Obviously the contact area cannot have these numbers, as they require an indentation that isn´t reasonable.

 

While I hardly think it is important that the drawing are perfect or not, I actually don't see the misleading aspects that others are pointing out. The groove cross sections shown all look to have a 90 degree angle. The contact patch on the line contact profiles will match the sharp "edge" of this design which will not change even if the stylus is canted at 15 degrees or 20 degrees. The patch is something hard to define, but it is an area that is indeed caused by an indentation caused by the stylus. The contact area of a stylus is so small, that the forces bearing down on that patch is very high. This causes the vinyl to deform quite a bit as the stylus tracks the groove. After the stylus passes the spot, the deformed vinyl snaps back to its original shape. As long as that elastic deformation stays below the point that the vinyl will tear, the deformation does not cause any damage. Part of the reason some people recommend not playing the same track in rapid succession is based on the theory that the deformed vinyl actually takes a considerable amount of time to fully return to its original shape (not shown to be actually true in tests).

 

It's interesting to observe how little of the needle is actually contacting the grooves. I took this video of a couple carts on my turntable at home with a Monoprice microscope.

Only the very tippity-tip is going in to the record grooves. It's impossible to see it's so small. You can also see my old Stereohedron Stanton D74S stylus appearing to tear up my record (!) though the stylus looks perfect under the microscope camera closer up and sounds fantastic.

Also interesting (to me) is that the record "jumps" to the next groove location every revolution. I always thought the grooves would be evenly set to gradually go from the outside to the inside - no it's one concentric groove - jump - next groove - jump - next groove. The last record is pressed off center I wanted to see what that looked like.

 

The CD-4 record problem was also aggravated by oil shortage era vinyl pressing, plating done less than carefully, and not using JVC SuperVinyl. Shibatas are best for CD-4 Quad discs, and Shibatas and other line contact exotica demand meticulous set up on tonearms which can be optimized for them, not all arms can be optimized for them. Adjustable VTA and SRA preferred, and precision bearings and easily set up for correct geometry. And DO NOT USE them for styrene 45 or LP discs, the risk for damage is high.

 

"New Member", huh? Please continue to post like this. Thanks for that great read!!