Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

In article , Mr.T
MrT@home wrote:

What crap. A mistracking cheap conical stylus does infinitely more damage to
a record groove than a high performance line contact stylus connected to a
high performance cartridge.

You're wrong. A conical/spherical stylus is much less temperamental
about alignment and mistracking than an elliptical. Just think about
the shape of the stylus and the way it contacts the groove and you'll
realize why this is. An inexpensive cartridge with reasonably good
alignment and proper tracking weight and anti skate will provide the
least groove wear. It's the difference between an everyday stylus and
one intended primarily for transcriptions.

See ya
Steve

--
Rare 78 rpm recordings on CD! http://www.vintageip.com/records/
Building a museum and archive of animation! http://www.animationarchive.org/
The Quest for the BEST HOTDOG in Los Angeles! http://www.hotdogspot.com/
Rediscovering great stuff from the past! http://www.vintagetips.com/

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

In article , Mr.T
MrT@home wrote:

It's a moronic mistake to consider a $50 cartridge playing a $1 record, is
better than CD quality.

By the way, I never said that. I just said that you can get very good
sound and a wide variety of music for very little money with vinyl.
Both CDs and LPs are capable of high fidelity sound reproduction. The
quality of one over the other usually has more to do with mixing and
mastering than it does the format itself.

See ya
Steve

--
Rare 78 rpm recordings on CD! http://www.vintageip.com/records/
Building a museum and archive of animation! http://www.animationarchive.org/
The Quest for the BEST HOTDOG in Los Angeles! http://www.hotdogspot.com/
Rediscovering great stuff from the past! http://www.vintagetips.com/

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

"Stephen Worth" wrote in message
...
In article , Mr.T
MrT@home wrote:

What crap. A mistracking cheap conical stylus does infinitely more damage
to
a record groove than a high performance line contact stylus connected to
a
high performance cartridge.

You're wrong. A conical/spherical stylus is much less temperamental
about alignment and mistracking than an elliptical. Just think about
the shape of the stylus and the way it contacts the groove and you'll
realize why this is. An inexpensive cartridge with reasonably good
alignment and proper tracking weight and anti skate will provide the
least groove wear. It's the difference between an everyday stylus and
one intended primarily for transcriptions.

See ya
Steve

There is no reason for ANY cartridge to be misaligned or mistracked. Either
the TT owner can do it, or he/she can pay to have it done. So proper
alignment and proper tracking should be a given.

Given that "given", there is no contest. A line contact stylus in a
cartridge that can track two grams or less will play a lot of reps before
there is appreciable groove damage, assuming the record is well cared for
otherwise.

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

In article , Harry Lavo
wrote:

There is no reason for ANY cartridge to be misaligned or mistracked. Either
the TT owner can do it, or he/she can pay to have it done. So proper
alignment and proper tracking should be a given.

An elliptical tipped cartridge needs alignment every two to three
months. If a person can't do it themselves, they shouldn't use one.
Conical stylii are much more forgiving.

Tracking force has less of an effect on record wear than alignment. The
vast majority of worn records got that way from misaligned turntables
(and chipped stylus tips) not by tracking force. Those things may be a
given for you, but they're the main reasons records become worn,
particularly with inner groove distortion.

I'm convinced that misaligned turntables are a big reason that many
audiophiles complain about vinyl distortion and noise. They go out and
buy the most expensive elliptical stylus and then they track too light,
thinking that the lighter tracking force will reduce wear. Instead,
they destroy their records because the stylus bounces around lightly in
the groove tearing up the groove walls whenever it gets highly
modulated.

My point was, however, that you can get a very good sounding cartridge
for $50.

See ya
Steve

--
Rare 78 rpm recordings on CD! http://www.vintageip.com/records/
Building a museum and archive of animation! http://www.animationarchive.org/
The Quest for the BEST HOTDOG in Los Angeles! http://www.hotdogspot.com/
Rediscovering great stuff from the past! http://www.vintagetips.com/

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

In article , Here in Ohio
wrote:

On the other hand, there are some very inexpensive Grado cartridges
that are certainly more than good enough for vinyl.

I use Grado cartridges for my 78s. They make an excellent cartridge.

See ya
Steve

--
Rare 78 rpm recordings on CD! http://www.vintageip.com/records/
Building a museum and archive of animation! http://www.animationarchive.org/
The Quest for the BEST HOTDOG in Los Angeles! http://www.hotdogspot.com/
Rediscovering great stuff from the past! http://www.vintagetips.com/

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

"Stephen Worth" wrote in message
...
What crap. A mistracking cheap conical stylus does infinitely more
damage to
a record groove than a high performance line contact stylus connected to
a
high performance cartridge.

You're wrong. A conical/spherical stylus is much less temperamental
about alignment and mistracking than an elliptical.

In fact cheap cartridges are more prone to mistracking whatever the stylus
shape. You would need to review the many years of research by Shure and
others into groove wear caused by mistracking, and the reasons for it Their
conclusions don't support yours, now who should we believe :-).

Just think about
the shape of the stylus and the way it contacts the groove and you'll
realize why this is. An inexpensive cartridge with reasonably good
alignment and proper tracking weight and anti skate will provide the
least groove wear.

Easy to say when you provide no proof why many years of research including
microscopic photograhs, are wrong.
The only thing I would agree with is that a cheap cartridge with a conical
stylus will usually provide less groove wear than the same cheap cartridge
with an elliptical stylus, at the same tracking weight. That's a LONG way
from your unfounded assertions though.

However even you must realise there are other penalties to be paid for using
cheap cartridges!
But as I said, use whatever tin box and thorn needle you choose, it doesn't
affect MY listening enjoyment, or the majority of people who prefer CD.

MrT.

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
. ..
There is no reason for ANY cartridge to be misaligned or mistracked.

In fact it is easy to demonstrate cartridge mistracking on demanding records
with all but the very best cartridges.
DON'T try playing a vinyl copy of the Telarc 1812 with that cheap cartridge,
one playing will damage it. The CD version on the other hand, can be played
on any cheap CD player without damage. Cheap speakers may be another matter
though :-)

MrT.

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:42:50 -0800, Stephen Worth
wrote:

In article , Harry Lavo
wrote:

There is no reason for ANY cartridge to be misaligned or mistracked. Either
the TT owner can do it, or he/she can pay to have it done. So proper
alignment and proper tracking should be a given.

An elliptical tipped cartridge needs alignment every two to three
months. If a person can't do it themselves, they shouldn't use one.
Conical stylii are much more forgiving.


No they don't - once aligned they stay that way unless you change
something. And of course the kind of record player that uses conical
styli (no, not stylii thank you) doesn't offer much by way of tracking
adjustment.

Tracking force has less of an effect on record wear than alignment. The
vast majority of worn records got that way from misaligned turntables
(and chipped stylus tips) not by tracking force. Those things may be a
given for you, but they're the main reasons records become worn,
particularly with inner groove distortion.


Record wear is very little afflicted by misalignment. Record wear is
physical damage, to have that happen you need, as you suggest, a
chipped stylus, dust that gets ground in, too little tracking force
which allows the stylus to jump. All that misalignment will produce is
poor channel balance and distortion.

I'm convinced that misaligned turntables are a big reason that many
audiophiles complain about vinyl distortion and noise. They go out and
buy the most expensive elliptical stylus and then they track too light,
thinking that the lighter tracking force will reduce wear. Instead,
they destroy their records because the stylus bounces around lightly in
the groove tearing up the groove walls whenever it gets highly
modulated.


Nothing to do with misalignment. The reason why audiophiles complain
about vinyl distortion and noise is that both are inherent to the
medium. I have a good system and have aligned it as well as is
possible. The distortion comes in at about -45dB on a normal level
track. Noise, of course is there on the record - a good system simply
reproduces it more clearly.

My point was, however, that you can get a very good sounding cartridge
for $50.


It is very hard to make a good cartridge for that kind of money. The
lightness and fineness needed to keep dynamic forces low aren't cheap
to achieve.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

In article , Stephen Worth
wrote:
In article , Harry Lavo
wrote:

There is no reason for ANY cartridge to be misaligned or mistracked.
Either the TT owner can do it, or he/she can pay to have it done. So
proper alignment and proper tracking should be a given.

An elliptical tipped cartridge needs alignment every two to three
months. If a person can't do it themselves, they shouldn't use one.
Conical stylii are much more forgiving.

I'd be interested to see some references to some research/measurement
reports that support the above as a generalised assertion about "elliptical
tipped" cartridges.

What you assert also includes no qualifiers wrt conditions of use, amount
of using during the "three months", etc. Again, I'd be interested in some
assessable evidence on this.

Tracking force has less of an effect on record wear than alignment.

I would presume the relative effects would depend on the extent of the
"force" and "misalignment". As above, I'd be interested to see some
references which give evidence for the above and *quantify the levels of
force and misalignment involved*.

Can you please give, for example, some references in JAES or AES conference
reports?

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

"Stephen Worth" wrote in message
...
What crap. A mistracking cheap conical stylus does infinitely more
damage to
a record groove than a high performance line contact stylus connected
to
a
high performance cartridge.

You're wrong. A conical/spherical stylus is much less temperamental
about alignment and mistracking than an elliptical.

In fact cheap cartridges are more prone to mistracking whatever the stylus
shape. You would need to review the many years of research by Shure and
others into groove wear caused by mistracking, and the reasons for it
Their
conclusions don't support yours, now who should we believe :-).

Just think about
the shape of the stylus and the way it contacts the groove and you'll
realize why this is. An inexpensive cartridge with reasonably good
alignment and proper tracking weight and anti skate will provide the
least groove wear.

Easy to say when you provide no proof why many years of research including
microscopic photograhs, are wrong.
The only thing I would agree with is that a cheap cartridge with a conical
stylus will usually provide less groove wear than the same cheap cartridge
with an elliptical stylus, at the same tracking weight. That's a LONG way
from your unfounded assertions though.

In general, when someone makes a comparison between 2 versions of the same
thing, it is assumed that other things are held constant. Therefore, the
statement above, saying that conical stylii are less temperamental that
elliptical ones, assumes that the quality of the the stylus is the
same--only the shape of the tip is different.

I don't find any confusion at all.

Norm Strong