• 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

CONICAL LOVE -Who loves running a conical needle on a cartridge most don't???

Gotta mention conical styli for Audio-Technica's AT3482P p-mount (213-D6C), Empire's 909/X (235-D7) and ADC's XT-I stylus (115-D7M) for standard-mount XLM-style bodies. Also many "starter" styli provided by Japanese turntable manufacturers, especially for Pioneer's PC-400 and Akai's PC-10 (814-D7).
 
Last edited:
A few posters have mentioned conical needles of the .6 mil size. If .7 is considered standard for stereo LPs and later Mono records, why isn't .6 a bit of a misfit for those grooves?

Or does the .6 mil conical tend to ride the grooves where there is less wear or offer some other beneficial property?

I have worried, perhaps mistakenly, that a .6 mil stylus would collect up debris in the bottom of the groove that other needles don't encounter.
 
illinoisteve said:
A few posters have mentioned conical needles of the .6 mil size. If .7 is considered standard for stereo LPs and later Mono records, why isn't .6 a bit of a misfit for those grooves?

Or does the .6 mil conical tend to ride the grooves where there is less wear or offer some other beneficial property?

I have worried, perhaps mistakenly, that a .6 mil stylus would collect up debris in the bottom of the groove that other needles don't encounter.
Click to expand...

some conical styli are .5mil. the diameter of a .7 is of course 0.0007" the .6 mil stone can only sit 0.00005" further down in the groove.
 
illinoisteve said:
A few posters have mentioned conical needles of the .6 mil size. If .7 is considered standard for stereo LPs and later Mono records, why isn't .6 a bit of a misfit for those grooves?

Or does the .6 mil conical tend to ride the grooves where there is less wear or offer some other beneficial property?

I have worried, perhaps mistakenly, that a .6 mil stylus would collect up debris in the bottom of the groove that other needles don't encounter.
Click to expand...

There is also the in between ones like the Denon DL-103.

Needle tip radius - 16.5 microns (0.65 mils)

Or maybe the numbers are just rounded off. :scratch2:
 
mhardy6647 said:
... point (no pun intended) being?
Click to expand...

the point being, there is some relief before the tracing faces meet the vinyl.
Grinding flats on it front and back to make it "elliptical" ads further relief to the front and back.

on DaveyW's website, he has a photo of the 103 stone. Certainly not "yer basic conical"
 
illinoisteve said:
A few posters have mentioned conical needles of the .6 mil size. If .7 is considered standard for stereo LPs and later Mono records, why isn't .6 a bit of a misfit for those grooves?
Click to expand...

Gramophone magazine did an article on playing a mixed collection of stereo and mono records. Older mono records had a slightly wider groove, and the best fit stylus size was a 1 mil conical. However, Gramophone found that sizes down to a .5 mil, though riding a bit lower on the groove wall, worked quite well and could give less tracing distortion. For stereo records, .5 mil was considered the best fit, but sizes up to .7 mil worked quite well. The .7 mil size turned out to be the most common compromise and was the size RCA used in modeling tracing characteristics when they developed the Dynagroove system.

Edit: One advantage to the .5 mil conical, such as you find on the Sumiko Black Pearl, is that it does ride a bit lower on the groove wall and can give cleaner sound on records that have been worn a bit with a .7 mil.
 
Last edited:
I'm old enough to remember when the NEW stereo records had warnings on them not to play them with needles for mono LPs. That was when the earlier mono microgroove records were meant to be played with the 1 mil needles. (Of course, only a very few years later, the mono LPs were being cut in the narrower groove.) Of course, you could play those wider-grooved early mono records with the .7 mil stereo needle, so that is an example of a needle .3 mil smaller than recommended being considered acceptable. In that light, going from a .7 mil down to .6 or even .5 mil to play stereo grooves doesn't sound that weird.
 
illinoisteve said:
I'm old enough to remember when the NEW stereo records had warnings on them not to play them with needles for mono LPs. That was when the earlier mono microgroove records were meant to be played with the 1 mil needles. (Of course, only a very few years later, the mono LPs were being cut in the narrower groove.) Of course, you could play those wider-grooved early mono records with the .7 mil stereo needle, so that is an example of a needle .3 mil smaller than recommended being considered acceptable. In that light, going from a .7 mil down to .6 or even .5 mil to play stereo grooves doesn't sound that weird.
Click to expand...

The warning about playing stereo records with a mono stylus had less to do with the size of the diamond and more to do with mono cartridges' lack of vertical compliance, which could damage stereo records.
 
I've tried 0.7 mil spherical tips and found them dull and lifeless, lacking detailing on records not specifically cut to play thru a spherical tip.
The Denon 103 with it's 0.5 mil tip is otherwIse a pretty good compromise that many users like.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
 
I have a Red Ed conical on my Dual 1019, run through a Pioneer 1000TW receiver. This rig is pretty much Jazz specific, and the Red Ed, though cheap, does sound nice in this context.
 
malden said:
The conical that I use the most is a Shure SC35C with original U.S. made .6 mil stylus (of which I have about a dozen NOS) tracking at 4.5 grams in an Empire 398 turntable. I also use a M3D with a Jico N3 stylus (purchased directly from Jico) and for lighter tone-arms, a Shure M35X. All of which are very smooth sounding cartridges. I also have 2 rare NOS Shure N91GD (U.S. made NUDE .6 mil) styli that don’t get much use because they are impossible to find.

I’ll take a good quality conical over a run of the mill so called “elliptical” any day. The reason for this is that most of the “ellipticals” available are simply conicals with the leading and trailing edges ground flat to approximate an elliptical shape. This is done partially for marketing purposes and partially to reduce tip mass. The record groove still sees a conical profile.
Click to expand...

Try installing your M35X stylus in your SC35C cart. and track it at 3.5 grams and you are in for a real treat. The low inductance of the SC and higher compliance of the X are a great sounding combo.....
 
I just picked up a Shure M91ED but I can't imagine using it to play "modern" stereo vinyl. Heavy tracking, and a 2.5mil profile to boot. I got it to rip a bunch of old 78rpm long play disks (circa '50ish). Plan is to play it back at 45rpm on the good table through my DAC, and use Audacity to adjust the speed on the digital version.

The records are in good shape, but lot of noise in a couple test runs using a standard elliptical. Mostly hash from bouncing around too much ... You apparently need the larger diameter conical to fit the grooves properly. Someone mentioned damaging grooves designed for elliptical profile - I imagine the same could be true using a stylus that's too small for the format.

PS ... yall woulda got a giggle or three out of my first attempt - penny taped to the arm of a USB table to keep the stylus from bouncing out of the groove. Old meets new meets Red Green kinda thang ... <G>
 
With spherical needles (Shure N91G Hi-track and Ortofon FF15X MKII) I listen to records recorded in mono . Sound spherical needle on mono recordings I like more than the elliptical .
 
Only one of the cartridges in my current stable sports a conical stylus but I have no qualms about using it. I've used them off-and-on for nearly 50 years and have had no issue with undue record wear or performance issues with any of them. I do keep close tabs on stylus wear but that's always been a part of my routine.
 
Conical styli has their place.
I'm using a conical at-mono3/lp for Mono recordings, and also use a Denon DL-103.
Both are Irreplaceable for me: Conical is great for mono, since the info is encoded only to one plane (horizontal) and the conical stylus digs this info just as well. Conical is also great for records which are not in such a great condition. a round stylus digs less info from the groove, meaning that it's treks better over dirt and scratches, and sounds less "noisy" over imperfect records. I'm using my Denon DL103 mainly for imperfect or not-so-clean records, and can't think of anything that can replace it for this use.

Having said that, in a good arm, over good and clean records, I can't think of any conical stylus that can compete with more advanced shaped styli. not that any cart using elliptical, or Shibata, or contact-line (for example) cut are great, but when they are great - they're better than the conical by a margin!

Cheers,
Niv
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom