JICO SAS is currently out of production!!

I got this email regarding JICO.

Greetings,

For those of you not already in the know, the much anticipated successor to our SAS line of replacement styli is now available! We have already begun taking orders for the next generation neoSAS/s featuring the all-new sapphire cantilever construction.

The neoSAS/R is still in development, but we plan to release the tapered ruby cantilever model in the coming months. Keep an eye on our website www.jico-stylus.com for future announcements.

In the meant time, check out the initial impressions form guests who attended some of our audition sessions: www.jico-stylus.com/neosasnews.php.


Sincerely,
The JICO Team

 

got the same email. Just wondering where I find the SAS for the Shure M97xe...or am I looking in the wrong place???

 

What are your thoughts on this ruby/sapphire business? The reviews make it seem as if they're voiced differently. Not so sure how I feel about that. A step in the wrong direction if true. I felt the design philosophy of the original SAS was for it to operate in the name of accuracy with a lack of unwanted colorations, etc. so all this Grado-esque romanticism about one being suited for vocals, and the other for deep late-night listening… big turn off to be honest! And I'm as big a fan and devoted supporter of the original SAS as you could find!


I want to see some measurements.

 

Where can i find those reviews?

thx

 

There's not a lot of information is there? My Old JICO is still good, but hopefully there will be some information in the future when I decide about a replacement.

 

There's a link in Post 101.

 

- “It would be nice to hear genre recommendations to suit the sapphire and ruby cantilever, based on their individual characteristics…cheering from the sidelines as you rise to meet a new challenge.”

- “I like the ruby for vocals, sapphire for the deep bass of the orchestra. Both are very nice but the ruby is clearer and more natural, with a wider range between highs and lows.”

- “It seems the ruby cantilever emphasizes some frequency band, perhaps best suited to Rock music? That no doubt appeals to a lively experience, but I prefer the flat, natural feeling of the sapphire stylus, which I believe performs quite well.”

- “I knew of the difference in sound related to stylus tip shape and material but was not aware of cantilever materials. Very unique…this is the future of analogue.”

- “The S series is vibrant and youthful, a sound for noon until dusk. The R series is balanced and thick-sounding, for the evening and after dark. It far surpasses the original (VN35)…”

- “For vocals, the sapphire is better. The ruby has a sound with a sense of speed. I’m pleased to see the revival of the Super Analogue Stylus.”

- “Impressive sense of depth and energy. Each has its own quality and they should be used differently, according to the piece of music…”

 

That sounds horrifying, by the way. This is not what I want.

 

Thanks Ben!

 

Great minds and all that... Hopefully they'll give a little more concrete info on what the actual differences are and what they intend with 2 offerings on the market

 

From those descriptions, I'd have to go with the Ruby.

 

Soundsmith will retip most cartridges with different stylus profiles and also offers a ruby cantilever for $400 or so. I've been happy with their work.

 

I don't want to mind read the inscrutable East concerning cantilever rhapsodies. But it may just be that. Cantilevers are selected for stiffness and self damping of vibrations. Obviously any material will have somewhat different properties from any other. No cartridge is ruler flat. However stylus profile and the design of the magnet/coil assembly is going to have a larger impact on the sound than any appropriate cantilever material.

Soundsmith for example offers cantilevers of aluminum alloy, telescoping aluminum alloy, boron, ruby, and treated cactus spine. I don't see any admonishments to change cantilevers for different LPs. Whenever you change part of the signal chain the sonics will change. Just choose what works best for you and your music library.

 

Interesting points. FWIW, when I did a lot of cartridge testing a few years back, I did find quite big differences in EQ between:

1. A Shure V15VxMR fitted with the original Shure stylus and the same cartridge fitted with a Jico SAS.

2. A Shure M97xE fitted with the original Shure stylus and the same cartridge fitted with a Jico SAS.

This surprised me but the results were always consistent. What I don't know is whether Jico started with a target EQ and then manufactured their SAS cantilever/stylus in such a way as to achieve it, or whether they simply made the SAS to a certain quality standard at a certain budget and the EQ that came out of that was just, well, what it was.

I can try to dig out my old charts if anyone's interested.

 

I ran some tests on a M97xE with and without the SAS. I agree it was clear that the SAS was definitely not "voiced" like the original Shure stylus. In the case of the M97xE that wasn't a bad thing. But take something that was as perfectly neutral as you could get, like the old V15V-MR from the 1980s (before its suspension started to dry out), and a stylus that isn't voiced the same as the original is not going to be nearly as accurate.

Slightly off-topic but the problem I have with just about all styli currently in production from any manufacturer is that the materials being used now (including the boron "rod" on the original SAS) were considered already outdated 30+ years ago. Even forgetting about beryllium because it's toxic to process, there were quite a few lower mass options back then which greatly helped with tracking ability, overall distortion, and pushed cantilever resonance out of the audible range. I realize that those cantilevers don't exist anymore because of the cost involved and that's just how it is. I will say that the tapered ruby model from JICO seems promising.

 

What kinds of materials were being used in the 80's? Boron/beryllium are about all I've ever heard of, but I wasn't even alive then, let alone able to familiarize myself with high end offerings available at the time.

 

Denon used a hollow boron cantilever. Extremely low effective moving mass on those cartridges. Unlike beryllium, boron isn't nearly as toxic to process and handle. Apparently it's become too expensive to use now. Stanton and some others used a very short, hollow tapered aluminum alloy cantilever with a thin wall. Stanton's was an alloy of aluminum and 4 other metals. They called the alloy Pentamet. If you look hard enough, you can find a description of what was used and how it was made. Their best cartridges had an effective moving mass nearly as low a Shure V15V-MR. Much lower mass than long ruby, sapphire, or boron rods. Those cantilevers were also lighter and stiffer than these shiny, untreated aluminum pipes you're seeing more of now. Somebody could produce an alloy cantilever like that today and not even need exotic materials.

 

I would be curious as to where exactly the EQ differences were occurring. See the relevant discussion on Analog Corner:Can Putting a Jico V15xMR Stylus Replacement Turn a Shure M97xE Into a V15xMR? »

My point above was that the cantilever is a difficult tool to affect frequency response. Changing the cantilever also changes the relationship with the elastomer used to damp resonance. Therefore Jico rhapsodizing about favored music flavors of cantilevers is misdirection. The differences affect tracking and resonances which will occur erratically depending on the grooves. Changing the tracking force will affect that as will the capacitance as will the tonearm etc etc.

The V15xMR was explicitly stated at the time to shelve the treble down slightly from the previous models I think starting around 8-9kHz. But tests through the years have shown the Shure V15 cartridge the flattest of them all regardless. As long as the changes are in the top octave they can be handled through system "voicing".

 

OcdMan and Mr Bass, I agree with the above comments. My memory is that the Shure used to aim for flatness with the V15 but in response to consumer demand for a warmer sound, deliberately shifted to a warmer profile with its x-series, specifically the V15VxMR and the M97xE. Both those cartridges in my experience have a heavily rolled-off top end which makes for a very easy and relaxing sound but can sometimes leave you feeling something's missing. The old Jico SAS was a useful answer in the sense that, whether by accident or design, it still allowed for a slight dip through the mid-range but lifted up the top end instead of letting it fall off a cliff. A lot of the difference was out of the audible range of many listeners but it was just enough to save these cartridges from accusations of dullness.

The other thing about the Jico SAS was that you could play around with that extra treble by adjusting the cartridge loading. You can't do that with the native styluses because if the top end isn't there to begin with, you can't bring it back.

When I first started testing cartridges, I started a thread:

Flaky but fun

Although I was very unsure of myself at first, I think there are still some useful charts in it. I have plenty more if anyone ever wants to see them!

 

That is correct although the difference is quite mild between the old V15 and the x series. Given the mainly mediocre SS amps and receivers of the 80s and early 90s (always excepting some excellent high end models) and increasingly shrill recordings, who can blame listeners for not wanting treble ruler accuracy?

I went back to your old thread and confirmed my suspicion that even with the minor down shelving of the presence region, the V15xMR is extremely flat for a cartridge and the JICO SAS slightly less so. But again even the SAS deviates only in the top octave which is the easiest to tweak without destroying frequency balances.

 

One of the problems with the several V15VxMR styli that I went through was that none of them were the same. Different frequency-responses, channel separation, tracking ability, etc. Now I admit there can be a little bit of that when comparing multiple samples of any given cartridge model. But I feel that quality control had gone downhill at Shure during the VxMR era and that led to a wider range of differences. I think that contributed to the what I remember as being wildly varying opinions on the VxMR. For what it's worth, LPs cut with the same EQ as their CD counterparts sounded almost identical to those CDs when played with my older V-MR from the 1980s. The same couldn't be said for the VxMR which, depending on the stylus, sounded anywhere from pleasantly warm to bloated and muddy when compared to those CDs.

 

I agree with that. QC was definitely an issue but that is something different from the design aspects under discussion. It's just interesting that the Shure V15 was consistently the most accurate cartridge for decades but people would complain about its frequency balance haha.

 

Bloody hell, the ruby cantilever Neo SAS for the M97xE is $467, $200 more than the sapphire cantilever. Egads.

 

Right? Why bother at that kind of price!

 

I'll just go back to the stock Shure stylus when my Jico wears out!