Sparky's Fabulous DIY Stylus Microscope

Status
Not open for further replies.
Good, good, good. Someone finally built the stylus microscope. And you used the suggested lighting technique which I maintain is better than the point-source illumination others are using. The results look good, very good, the best I have seen. You have it, my friend. You have a life-long tool. I am very happy for both of us.

super, very glad to hear that and thanks so much for your comments! thanks so much for posting this thread. this will be an invaluable tool!!!

I would still suggest that you persue the suggested magnifications I outline in the article. They will make your scope both more useful and easier to use.

As you suggest, I will seek out the suggested magnification shortly.

I wonder if you could give more detail about the microscope you are using, the eyepieces, and the objective lenses? Your pics in your post are rather small. Do you have a micrometer adjustable stage? Is it practical for you to change the eye pieces? Specifically, what lamps are you using? They look like the ones I used but a different color. Are they? All of this info might help others who are considering this project. Any other comments you might have concerning the project are appreciated.

Certainly!

Microscope: Supertek student microscope, monocular, 4x, 10x, 40x objectives, 15x eyepiece, coarse/fine focus, and non-adjustable stage which is VERY TEDIOUS to use, so I will be building or buying an adjustable stage in the very near future, believe me!!

Lighting: ACE hardware 20W halogen under-counter lights, white

Michael

PS: having several styli on hand, especially a relatively new one as a 'control', made it easier to see the difference between wear on each.

this project was very easy to build -- took about 20 min
 
Last edited:
HI,
You will definitely appreciate the micro adjustable stage. It makes life so much easier and safer, I believe, for your cartridge. It will help even more when you jump the magnification to 200X.

Thanks fo the detail. Others should take note that your success is based on a single tube microscope proving a stereo model is not necessary.

Sparky
 
Great thread!

Just so I can compare, what was the magnifiction of Muthafunk's scope?

Lee
 
Have been inspecting styluses for a friend. Actually this sounds harder and more time consuming than it really is. It took me all of 10 minutes to evaluate half a dozen styli and the degree (or lack) of wear on each was as plain as day.

Thought I'd share more pics to help folks "calibrate" what to look for. Styli in all pics are oriented up/down and so the contact and wear spots are on the left and right. The elliptical styli are wider than long as you can make out in some pics. We are always looking at the very, very tip of the stylus. Usually you can make out the sort of conical shape of the rest of the stylus in the background. The cantilever is "too far away" to be in focus.

One of two Shure M91's - we know one of the pair is new and never used. Apparently this is the one. Those specks of light (reflections) appear far smaller in the microscope, like point sources. That happens when the stylus surface is curved -- ie, when it is barely used or new. The stylus surface looks almost perfectly clean, btw, and is kind of pretty :D You can make out the shape of the stylus pretty clearly here.
StylusMicroscope004.jpg


The other M91. Note you can make out an identical stylus shape as above. I only saw small reflections from flat spots. These flat spots don't "meet in the middle," that is, at the point of the stylus. These look closer to the "light wear" pictures in the SEK-2 manual than the "badly worn" pictures, but let Karma16 be the judge.
StylusMicroscope005.jpg


Shure M95 stylus. You can see the oval, wide flat spots shining in this pic pretty well. They are nearly meeting in the middle (close to the tip) meaning much of the sides have been worn away. This looks more like the "badly worn" pics in the Shure SEK-2 manual.
StylusMicroscope002.jpg


Here's an Ortofon DN155E from a Dual turntable. The large, oval wear spots are quite obvious here, too. They are even worse -- compare the gap in the middle here versus above. This is probably the most worn stylus I have seen yet. I did play a couple of records with this stylus *before* checking it (wished I hadn't now). Interestingly I could not hear any obvious, audible clues that the stylus is this far gone. :scratch2:
StylusMicroscope001.jpg


Here's a Stanton 681EE. The wear spot on the left of the pic is pretty big and round and smooth, bad news. On the right you can kind of make a similarly sized wear spot out and the two seem to meet very close at the point -- almost as bad as the one above. But the wear spot on the right is not smooth; it's interrupted by dark spots. I thought the stylus was cracked or something. In the next pic, after cleaning with Magic Erase, you can see the dark stuff was just dirt.
StylusMicroscope006.jpg


StylusMicroscope008.jpg


EDITED to add this AT122LP I have on my Technics. You can see the wear spots, both are fairly narrow (part of that has to do with the dimension/shape of the stylus, btw) and aren't worn all the way down to the tip. If I read the Shure manual correctly this is called "light wear" and with any "light wear" pictures suggests re-checking in another 100 hours. But let Karma16, guru of stylus wear, be the judge here (see his later post)
StylusMicroscope009.jpg


I still don't have the 200x mag -- the above photos simulate it with camera zoom -- but I can live with 150 at least for now. Am working on a manually adjustable stage/clamp mechanism but don't have that yet and can live without for a little while (I have steady hands ;)) But as above, both are recommended!

Michael
 
Last edited:
HI shimniok,
This is great information. New styli are very boring to look at. They look exactly like you would expect them to look. No wear, no crud, no growths, no facets. Boring. But simnioks pictures gives me the chance to write about general stylus wear and maintenance.

The photos show what happens when a stylus is used either way beyond where they should have been replaced (large facets), or what poor stylus maintenance causes (growths and crud). People may think these styli are unusual, maybe cherry picked to make a point. Not true.

In my experience examining thousands of styli when I had my repair shop open, these are typical of what I saw come through the door. I hope none of our fellow forum members have ever let their styus get to these advanced stages of wear. Because, if they have, they would also have damaged records. Any record most of these styli touch would be damaged.

When I read here about folks who brag that they have been using their stylus for ten years, or stating with pride at having 4000 hours on their stylus now have a portrait of what their stylus really looks like.

Many years of experience examining my personal styli has taught that a diamond stylus will last about 1000 hours no matter the stylus shape, cartridge brand, or tone arm. 1000 hours is where the stylus starts to show wear facets. 1000 hours is where you will first start to hear distortion due to wear; very little at first but rapidly increasing with more use. 1000 hours is one hour of daily use over a period of roughly three years.

I only know of one way to alter the 1000 hour limit. If you use Last Record Preservative and Stylast stylus treatment religiously you can increase stylus life indefinitely. Plus, Last products have other important qualities that will make your vinyl life much better. If you really value your record collection, you should check into these products. I have written about them and there is a fairly current thread discussing Last products. The link is:

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=219544

Because I have seen so many examples of what shimniok's pictures show, I decided to write about stylus microscopes and finally build a DIY microscope others could copy. I wanted to create an awareness about stylus wear and user stylus foolishness in the hi fi community.

None of the various magnifiers that people use would show what shimniok's pictures show. It can only be seen with a good stylus microscope. Yet, I only know, for sure, of two people that have actually built this DIY project microscope and one does not even belong to this forum. If you folks are really serious about your record collection, much of which cannot be replaced, you should get busy an build the DIY microscope. You have no excuse not to.

We owe thanks to shimniok for going to the trouble to take these pictures that show so graphically the result of poor judgement and maintenance practices. Thanks shimniok, I appreciate it.

Sparky
 
Last edited:
Happy to help. I really hope someone else builds one of these as instructed -- you'll end up with as incredibly useful a tool as I did. [edited]. Per our side conversation I am going to see if I can get better quality pics that better represent what my eye is seeing.

Question -- in your expert opinion, is my assessment of condition of the styli correct?

(The new M91 is obviously fine)

The pics of the used M91 and the AT122LP look like they are between "light wear" and "heavy wear" in the Shure SEK2 manual. Am I getting that right?

If not, it looks like I'll be saving up for new and running my records on the BIC with the new AT13e2.

Thanks,

Michael
 
Last edited:
Hi shim,
The way you worded your last post indicated your scope is not working for you. You said "I really hope someone else builds one of these in a way that is useful." I was under the impression that your scope was working fine. Am I wrong?

From my point of view, pictures are a very low priority. Sure, they can be shared on the forum but that gets old fast. I am only concerned with having an instument that I can use to examine my own and friends styli. Pictures don't contribute to this use so I don't worry about it.

Some camera manufacturers do make objective adaptors for their cameras that have interchangable lenses. Nikon comes to mind. Also, I have used my film Nikon's on a tripod and a macro lens to take high quality pics through the objective lens on the same scope I used in the article. It's a difficult setuup but works pretty well. Not ideal. I have not tried my digital Nikons for this use but I'm sure they would work.

The best way is to buy a microscope with a camera port but these suckers are expensive. It's not something I would consider.

Finally, I wish you would consider reposting your pics. If you do I will adjust my follow-up post to accomodate any needed changes. Your pics are better than no pictures by far.

BTW, what camera are you using? Include make and model number and I will look it up.

Sparky
 
Last edited:
I just dropped in on this thread for the first time in a long time and I just want to tell you guys (Sparky and Shimniok) that this is the best possible thread that could ever be in a turntable forum.

I mean, the stylus/groove interface is where it's at right? It's what it's all about.

Thanks,
Doug
 
Hi Doug,
I'm very glad we agree that stylus inspection and care is important. It's also very nice that another forum member goes to the trouble to complement this thread. Sometimes I feel like I am shouting into a black hole. Only two people have built the DIY microscope. This is difficult for me to understand. I think I have not yet been able to make my point.

Thanks, Sparky
 
Sparky, I want to let you know that I appreciate this thread and the effort you have put into it. I'd like very much to build a stylus microscope, but time is short and so many other demands.... I do have at work a binocular scope originally intended for metallographic use. It has adapters for a polaroid camera (now obsolete) and a video display. I intend to see if this can be adapted, as we have no use for it as is. It was purchased as part of a bulk sale of surplus equipment, we were going to sell it on eBay (it's worth several thousand), but it's been 3 years already... I think I can make sure we keep it around.
 
I would also like to assemble a stylus microscope. It's just a matter of actually doing it (well, and the money too, I guess). :^)

To think I used to work at a hearing aid factory and there were hundreds of high power microscopes the workers used to build the HAs

The factory closed, I was without a job, and the scopes all disappeared without any word from the company as to disposal.

Doug
 
Hi shim,
The way you worded your last post indicated your scope is not working for you. You said "I really hope someone else builds one of these in a way that is useful." I was under the impression that your scope was working fine. Am I wrong?

I didn't communicate clearly -- mine is extremely useful and I hope others build a DIY stylus microscope that is equally useful. :D

I have replaced the pics.

It is a Canon Powershot A80

Michael
 
HI shim,
Thanks. Please correct me but it appears the set of pics you put back into your post are duplicates of the first set. If that's what you intend, OK. But the second set were more interesting.

Sparky
 
Hi Shimniok,
I did check out your camera. It's very similar to my Fuji but has some unique features. Looks like a very nice camera. The only real drawback is, because of its age, the pixel count is a bit on the low side. But, it is capable of taking good pictures.

Canon makes excellent cameras. Personally, my full size DSLR's are Nikon (the professional D2 series) with fully interchagable lenses and I have a lot of lenses. My mini-camera is a Fuji. The Fuji is handy but not on the same planet as my Nikons. None-the-less, my Fuji took the pics in the DIY article. I was too lazy to set up my DSLR's.

I hate to say this. I have been told this too, so don't feel like the Lone Ranger. It ain't the camera. It's the photographer. I think you just need to be more careful or need to learn how to use the camera better. Perhaps, mounting the camera on a tripod will make things better. Usually it does, especially at the slow shutter speeds that will be used taking these type of pictures.

Generally, your pics look over exposed and you have a lot of focus problems. You will probably have to go into full manual mode and use the spot meter and perhaps compensate the exposure by underexposing by a stop or so. Try to keep Zoom to a minimum because on this type of camera once you get past a certain point, zoom is no longer an optical zoom but an electronic zoom. Typically, electronic zoom has poor resolution.

Sparky
 
I hate to say this. I have been told this too, so don't feel like the Lone Ranger. It ain't the camera. It's the photographer.

:D No problem. I'll give your suggestions a try and see if I can come up with some better images. Stay tuned!

Michael
 
Hi SaSi,
Thanks for sharing this excellent contribution to this thread. In this day of new vinyl users and a market where vinyl is merely a niche technology, getting good vinyl information can be difficult. Things like this article used to be published regularly but not anymore. I hope many people will read this and learn more about their vinyl hobby. Your article has some of the best high mag vinyl groove pictures I have ever seen.

I think you should post in the forum and provide a link both to your article and a link to this stylus microscope thread. They are certainly related and I want people to read both.

I have some observations concerning only the stylus portion of the article. Note that the highest magnification used for showing stylus wear is 200X. This is exactly the same magnification used by the DIY Stylus Microscope and the one I suggest. It is also the same magnification that the Shure SEK-2 stylus microscope uses. I'm not sure if there is any controversy about this but the few people who have built the project scope are using other magnifications. I suspect people are using what they have already installed on their microscope.

Also note the that at 200X, the actual stylus shape is unrecognizable. This seems to surprise many people. All you can really see are the wear facets which is the only thing that is important. A stylus microscope has only one purpose and that is to observe wear facets. If all you really want to see is the stylus shape, or the cantilever, or your dust bunnies, get a different instrument. A stylus microscope is a serious instrument.

I have commented on this. Folks are not getting the best from their project scope if they insist on using magnifications other than 200X. 200X offers the the best combination of image quality, magnification, depth of field, working distance and cost. Given the cost of new cartridges, the irreplaceable nature of most vinyl records, and the fact that a stylus microscope will be a lifetime investment, I don't think the relatively low cost of a new purchased lens system is unreasonable. Saving a few bucks on the optics is a poor use of money.

Sparky
 
Hi Sparky,

so as not to confuse the issue, the link I posted is something I found on the net and found interesting and useful. I didn't take the pictures or post the article on that web site.
Cheers
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom