• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

COMPARING CANTILEVER MATERIALS

E

ear4audio

AK Subscriber
Subscriber
When Shure came out with the beryllium cantilever, they used the stiffness-to-mass ratios to compare it to that of aluminum and explained how the beryllium had the lowest effective mass which resulted in superior high frequency tracking ability and a high frequency resonance beyond 20k Hz. It also lowered distortion and increased transient response. That comparison seemed valid since Shure compared a beryllium tube with an aluminum tube. I now see other manufacturers coming out with exotic cantilever materials hoping to ride on the coat-tails of the Shure beryllium cantilever but there is one big difference: All of these cantilevers (boron, sapphire, ruby) are solid rods. I’m not sure if the advantages claimed by Shure makes sense when you compare a solid rod to a tapered thin-walled aluminum tube. Is the mass of a solid beryllium rod lower than an aluminum tube? I tried a crude comparison using a Precept PC440 (beryllium rod) to a Precept PC220 (tapered aluminum tube).

I weighed the two stylus grips making the assumption that the only difference between the two was the cantilever (I could be wrong, but the two physically look the same).

The PC440 weighed 1.170 grams and the PC220 weighed 1.165 grams. The grip with the aluminum cantilever either weighed the same or was slightly less than the beryllium. So, it appears that the use of a solid rod cancels out any low-mass advantage one may gain over an aluminum tube. I’m not sure if my logical holds any water but I’m really hesitant to spend a premium price for one of those exotic rods to find out.

CANTILEVER-MATERIALS.jpg

Beryllium Rod:
PRECEPT440-08X.jpg

Aluminum Tube:
PRECEPT220-06X.jpg
 
Register to hide this ad
All I can say is from my experience I am drawn to the Boron cantilever carts , their is a distinct difference to the sound . That’s not to say I don’t like the sound of others but the boron ones track extremely well, solid on the low end light and extended on the top end (mine are at least ).

Audiofreak71
 
There used to be a few manufacturers using boron tubes, but not sure there are any around anymore, most are using 0.28mm solid boron now, usually from Namiki or one of the few other sources.

Like Audiofreak71, I'm using all boron cantilevers these days in my Audio-Technica and Benz Micro MC carts, I think it's supposed to be more about stiffness than mass, maybe better resonance control... or maybe just better marketing :)
 
The Slider said:
There used to be a few manufacturers using boron tubes, but not sure there are any around anymore, most are using 0.28mm solid boron now, usually from Namiki or one of the few other sources.

Like Audiofreak71, I'm using all boron cantilevers these days in my Audio-Technica and Benz Micro MC carts, I think it's supposed to be more about stiffness than mass, maybe better resonance control... or maybe just better marketing :)
Click to expand...

No, as far as Boron, I don't think it's marketing. LOL
 
T_S: Yup, Technics used to have some models with tubular boron cantilevers. Most fancy ever, though, in my view were Yamaha's diamond-coated, tapered beryllium tubes as used on their MC-1000/2000.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini
 
They are using Young's modulus, that means solid rods. The formula for tubes is different. Density gives you an idea of weight. If you look at aluminum and boron, for a given size rod the boron will be lighter and close to 10x as stiff.
 
bigaltx24 said:
They are using Young's modulus, that means solid rods. The formula for tubes is different. Density gives you an idea of weight. If you look at aluminum and boron, for a given size rod the boron will be lighter and close to 10x as stiff.
Click to expand...
Sorry if I mislead you. I only printed the chart for comparative purposes only. My point is that you can't compare any of those characteristics if one cantilever is a rod and the other is a tube....that's apples and oranges. Are aluminum tubes denser than a boron rod of equal dimensions? If that's true, then it makes sense to use boron instead of aluminum for the best performing cantilever, but without valid comparative data, manufacturers are just making assumptions.
 
ear4audio said:
but without valid comparative data, manufacturers are just making assumptions.
Click to expand...

What makes you assume none of the manufacturers have looked deeply into this, including comparing the performance of actual cantilevers of different materials and composition?

Boron/beryllium/sapphire pipes seem unfeasible to be seen again, unless some other industry needs ones that could work as cantilevers.

Hifi is driven more by subjectivity these days, people are less likely to buy because of a specsheet, it has downsides and upsides, in any case the market seems very different now to 70s/80s.

AT marketed carts in the west with beryllium rods back in the day. I've been unable to find any carts like that by them for the domestic market. That leads me to believe it might have been more marketing than performance. Or I just have been unable to find them. My japanese is by google translate...
 
lini said:
Seems so. There are quite a few models with beryllium cantilever included in their Cartridge Navi History (start page there: http://www.hifi-archiv.info/Dual/1978/dual78-79-19.jpg).

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini
Click to expand...

See what I mean, I can't even find Audio-Technica there :D Besides I meant for the the japanese market, though it's possible beryllium rods were a relatively late thing after and lack of them for japanese market could have been because of CD which I think they adopted faster.
 
I happen to have both of these carts, and while the numbers might be saying one thing, the distinct sound difference is all that matters to me. Both are great carts, but the 440 is glorious, even if it is a wee bit heavier ;)
 
We are looking at materials but not structures. And we are only told one side of the shortsighted argument.

Depending on design, baser materials can be equally strong.

For instance; smaller metal pipe can be equaled using wider diameter and thinner plastic PVC pipe. Or watch what happens if you tell those rough-housing mountain bikers using lightweight & oversized aluminum tube bike frames that they are weak. Some do not like the aluminum frame bikes. They complain that they are too stiff – the smaller diameter tube conventional frames have a soft, cushy, and more flexible ride. I agree: compared to typical thinner tube bikes, the oversized-tube aluminum bikes are lighter & stiffer.

Short & fat thin-walled cantilevers are stronger, stiffer, lighter, and they resonate at higher frequencies. Old world stuff; it sounds like what the unchangeable dinosaur MC cartridges successfully use. The pipes can be low priced. Marketing and their majority groupthinks tell us that we are wrong. As always, we bow to the noise. But with misinformation so widespread, the smarter can quietly benefit.

Something for everyone to think about.
 
muovimies said:
What makes you assume none of the manufacturers have looked deeply into this, including comparing the performance of actual cantilevers of different materials and composition?
.
Click to expand...
I get suspicious when manufactures charge a premium price without providing some data on what benefit the buyer is getting. Is it less mass, less distortion, better tracking??? I guess if it costs more than and it's only available on their premium models, then it must be better. I always thought that one of the goals of cartridge manufacturers was to have the lowest mass possible for their stylus assembly and my logical mind says the mass will be greater for a rod than for a tube. But I may have missed something when rods became a premium feature but at least the manufacturers should explain what the performance benefits are from these exotic cantilevers.
 
ear4audio said:
I get suspicious when manufactures charge a premium price without providing some data on what benefit the buyer is getting. Is it less mass, less distortion, better tracking??? I guess if it costs more than and it's only available on their premium models, then it must be better. I always thought that one of the goals of cartridge manufacturers was to have the lowest mass possible for their stylus assembly and my logical mind says the mass will be greater for a rod than for a tube. But I may have missed something when rods became a premium feature but at least the manufacturers should explain what the performance benefits are from these exotic cantilevers.
Click to expand...
Well, I think they do explain it to a certain extent, the speed of sound transmission in the material has a lot to do with the beneficial properties of some of the more exotic materials compared to aluminum, but light and stiff is a big part of the equation too...

https://www.ad-na.com/en/product/jewel/product/cantilever.html
 
Last edited:
Most cartridge manufacturers these days make really good (and expensive!) cartridges with many different types of cantilevers. I'm pretty sure cartridge manufacturers have no incentive to push for boron or sapphire rods, I imagine aluminum tubes are a lot cheaper. Of course from marketing perspective boron or sapphire/ruby seems more exotic than plain old aluminum.

As far as materials go boron > aluminum. But tube > rod. It's not black and white, doesn't have to mean boron rods are all snake oil or that anything boron is automatically better than anything aluminum, or that a pipe of anything is automatically better than rod of anything. But even with carefully designed aluminum cantilevers very low equivalent tip mass can be achieved and fabulously performing cartridges can be made. But same can be said of various rods and many people seem to in general prefer boron rods for their smooth and refined delivery. I guess good case in point would be Nagaoka MP-200 vs MP-150, though it can be said the cantilever on MP-150 is not the best you can do with aluminum tubing.

I think one problem with aluminum tubes is you can spend time and money hardening and tapering it, but it's difficult to market. Most people will still see it simply as "aluminum cantilver".

In any case, as far as the stylus part of the cartridge goes, I think suspension design is just as important as the cantilever assembly, or probably even more so. Then there's the rest of the cartridge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom