Actually that isn't quite correct or at least somewhat misleading/easy to misunderstand, depending on how you meant it.
Detail retrieval capability of a tip mainly depends on how small its minor radius is - that's the curvature radius along the length of the groove walls. And then there is the major radius - the larger, the flatter and thus larger are the two contact areas along the width of the groove walls), which is mainly interesting in combination with records that are already somewhat worn by tips with smaller major radius, similar to how a wider car tyre would easily ride over an embedded tram rail a small bicycle tyre would drop into.
So "digging down into the grooves" is somewhat misleading, as the actual bottom clearance and central ride height of different non-conical tip shapes doesn't differ all that much (unless we'd be talking about different tips for different groove types, of course). Instead this would rather go for differently sized conical tips for not sporting different minor and major radii.
Greetings from Munich!
Manfred / lini
