Stylus Microscopes

[www.records]

Karma, do you find it useful to see what the diamond looks like before it has any use. It would seem it would then be easier to see the wear that was taking place during use. I appreciate you sharing your experience.

Also, is your scope a stereo scope?

 

[Blue Shadow]

The key is to have lighting coming in from the sides where the record would wear the needle.

Using a microscope with light coming in from both sides and the tip of the needle in view, the wear spots will show as bright light spots. The larger the spots the more the wear. Ideally, two white dots, not spots, show up and the needle tip is half way between them. This indicates the needle has very little wear. As the wear increases these dots become spots as the flat area of wear reflects a larger and larger area of light to the viewer, eventually nearly meeting at the stylus tip. As Sparky explained the non-tangential tracking tonearms show more wear on one side than the other, hence a larger spot of light will show up on that side.

 

[hakaplan]

Karma16 -- Question for you

Maybe you didn't see my post so I'll ask the question again. Some of us would really would like to know if you have any opinion about this. Why couldn't I just get a cheap student microscope--I've seen them with 200X and much highter, cut off the stage and fabricate my own, and add a direct light source? Is there any reason wouldn't that work?

 

[Karma16]

HI hakaplan,
I'm not ignoring you. I was trying to decide whether to encourage your idea. Probably, you are underestimating the problem. It would be a worthy accomplishment if you succeed. To come up with a microscope that is reasonably easy to use and is effective is not trivial. Do you have any experience with microscopes? Or stages? Or zoom optics? It's easy to come up with something that kind of works. Can you come up with something that REALLY works? That is the question.

I'm definitely not hinting that you not try. I think you are going to be challanged. And I have no idea of your eventual goals. Some people are satisfied with a kludge that is a bitch to use. Others demand perfection. Which are you? I certainly don't know.

Sparky

 

[the-real-mandak]

Any who wants to know a bit more about the famous Rabco arms and other tangential tables, go here: http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/ttrabco.html

 

[hakaplan]

HI hakaplan,
I'm not ignoring you. I was trying to decide whether to encourage your idea. Probably, you are underestimating the problem. It would be a worthy accomplishment if you succeed. To come up with a microscope that is reasonably easy to use and is effective is not trivial. Do you have any experience with microscopes? Or stages? Or zoom optics? It's easy to come up with something that kind of works. Can you come up with something that REALLY works? That is the question.

I'm definitely not hinting that you not try. I think you are going to be challanged. And I have no idea of your eventual goals. Some people are satisfied with a kludge that is a bitch to use. Others demand perfection. Which are you? I certainly don't know.

Sparky

Thank you, Sparky. I didn't think you were ignoring me, but maybe just missed my post. That answers my question. It could work to one degree or another. My experience with microscopes is limited to viewing slides in college histology and microbiology. But I'm a tinkerer so I'll buy a cheap one and mess around with it and report back if anything good happens. My goals are something that's better than the lousy pen scope that I have, which is most certainly a bitch to use.

 

[Daravon]

Radioshack sells a newly redesigned 100x mono handheld scope for 10 bucks. It's pretty handy. I used to use it to look at my knife edges. For ten bucks you can't go wrong.

 

[Karma16]

HI,
Yes you can. You can waste $10 if you expect results on styli.

Sparky

 

[absolon]

HI hakaplan,
Can you come up with something that REALLY works? That is the question.

It's not a perfect solution but yes. Intel Play QX3 and QX5.

This was taken using a single sidelight provided by a desklamp. I haven't elaborated on that setup yet, but there is room for improvement.

 

[Karma16]

Karma, do you find it useful to see what the diamond looks like before it has any use. It would seem it would then be easier to see the wear that was taking place during use. I appreciate you sharing your experience.

Also, is your scope a stereo scope?

HI records,
I have looked at brand new styli. And, no surprise, they look new. No wear and no facets. Kind of boring after the first one. Wear first shows as very small, bright points of light, like a distant star. Advanced wear shows as bright areas similar to a planet. The shape (profile) of the stylus becomes more obvious with more wear as the flat facet contrasts with the curved edge. But you don't see much of the stylus at all. Interpreting the view takes practice.

My Shure was not stereo. I don't think stereo would be any advantage. The mono image is definitive. Depth of field at 200X is very shallow and the focus is critical. It takes practice to use the instument quickly. Sometimes I can't even find the tip. It's very frustrating if you are in a hurry. This is one area where the scope could be improved.

Sparky

 

[www.records]

Ok, that makes sense. Thanks Sparky. What are your impressions of the photo that absolon posted. It looks pretty good to me. Enough I would think to tell wear or not.

 

[the-real-mandak]

How about somthing like this: http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/electronic/8493/

----EDIT----

Just to show it is not a joke: http://www.coleparmer.ca/techinfo/techinfo.asp?htmlfile=Microscopy.htm&ID=504

 

[Karma16]

It's not a perfect solution but yes. Intel Play QX3 and QX5.

This was taken using a single sidelight provided by a desklamp. I haven't elaborated on that setup yet, but there is room for improvement.

HI absolon,
It's a nice picture but, obviously, you can't and don't have any idea how far this is from being useful. Understand, the Shure provides no recognizable view of the stylus. Just the facets. That's the only thing that's important. The magnification is far higher than your picture. Sorry.

Sparky

 

[absolon]

As you noted, this picture doesn't provide a view of the facets, but it was among the first I took after acquiring the unit and was posted to show that there are other options. It is apparent to me that even this poor photo shows some faceting at the tip, and asymetrical too.

I suspect that a person who gave it a bit of creative thought could indeed make this 200X unit useful. Moving the stylus closer to the objective, placing it in a more appropriate orientation and lighting it correctly should indeed clearly display the facets. Not all of us have your expertise or equipment so are forced to rely on our own creativity and accept results that while not as good as can be had with a difficult to find and expensive piece of equipment, are good enough for the purposes they will be put to.

 

[Karma16]

HI absolon,
I agree with your premise. And I will never discourage innovation. But I must tell you that if you want useful results you will have to change everything. I'll give you a short list and you can take it from there.

1) The point of view of the image is totally wrong. The view you need is with the stylus upside down with you viewing straight down onto the tip.

2) The orientation of the tip must put the sides (the portion that contacts the groove) at the sides, left and right.

3) With the stylus so oriented, two light sources must provide direct lighting aimed at the sides where the facets will develop, one light per side.

4) With the position of the stylus and the lights properly established, the microscope will see the flat facets as reflected light. The stylus itself will appear grey and mostly out of focus. The facets are tiny. Thus, very high magnification is needed to view a meaningful image. I was not exagerating when I said that you would not understand the image the first time you viewed it through the microscope. It does not look at all like what I think you are imagining.

5) With high magnification, positioning the cartridge is extremely difficult unless you have a zoom feature built into the microscope. Even so, it's not easy to get everything aligned.

6) High magnification also requires that you have a reliable way of moving the cartridge in the X, Y axis. A good micro adjusting microscope stage is ideal.

7) High magnification requires that you have a stable mounting system. Any relative movement, even a tiny amount, will completely remove the stylus from view.

8) Focus is critical and depth of field is minimal due to the magnification.

So, the key is high magnification and the orientation of the stylus and lights. All other design factors must accomodate those basic requirements.

There you go. I hope you come up with something that works well. I wish you could see the Shure instrument in action. My descriptions are a very poor substitute.

Sparky

 

[ozmoid]

http://www.micrographia.com/projec/projapps/viny/viny0300.htm

Go about half-way down the page, you'll see the kind of resolution Karma16 is talking about.

I have borrowed a standard "school" model turret-style microscope (3 objective lenses on a rotating collar) and tried this. It is difficult to get the light in a good location to reflect off the flats. Forget doing it with anything hand-held, the scale is so small your heart-beat will visibly move anything you're holding. I ended up clamping the cart/stylus in a large tweezer, and clamping that to a "helping hand" bench unit, and completely removing the little "slide stage".

 

[spartanmanor]

I know this has been asked before....even by me, but at what point should one replace the stylus? Considering most of us don't own said microscope is there a good rule of thumb?

 

[Karma16]

http://www.micrographia.com/projec/projapps/viny/viny0300.htm

Go about half-way down the page, you'll see the kind of resolution Karma16 is talking about.

I have borrowed a standard "school" model turret-style microscope (3 objective lenses on a rotating collar) and tried this. It is difficult to get the light in a good location to reflect off the flats. Forget doing it with anything hand-held, the scale is so small your heart-beat will visibly move anything you're holding. I ended up clamping the cart/stylus in a large tweezer, and clamping that to a "helping hand" bench unit, and completely removing the little "slide stage".

HI oz,
Exactly what I'm trying to describe in my lame way. Thanks for the link. As is said, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Sparky

 

[Karma16]

I know this has been asked before....even by me, but at what point should one replace the stylus? Considering most of us don't own said microscope is there a good rule of thumb?

HI spartan,
It's really pretty easy. You will notice mistracking as I described above. The very first signs are easy to pass over due to a normal amount of mistracking with the average turntable/arm. But soon you will notice more mistracking and it will occur more often. It tends to draw attention to itself. That is the time to get a new stylus.

You will already have rough idea of the amount of time on the stylus. Obviousy, if you only have 100 hours on it, it is probably an overmodulated groove, a damaged record, or the tracking force is set too light. To some extent it is a judgment call based upon experience. However, the stylus microscope always tells the truth. But don't be discouraged if you don't have one. Your ears can do a very good job.

I normally set the tracking force towards the upper limit of the manufacturers specification. Each cartridge has a tracking force sweet spot if you can find it with careful listening. I prefer to use a higher tracking force to avoid occasional mistracking which is a record killer.

Sparky

 

[absolon]

Thanks ozmoid, I supplied that very link to a thread on this subject about a year ago. (http://audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=64267&highlight=microscope)

Karma16, thanks for your description of what is required. This is the third microscope I have tried for this purpose and so far has proved the best. It does have a zoom feature that adjusts from 10X to 60X to 200X so getting the stylus centred is only complicated by the lack of a microadjusting stage, a problem I have managed to overcome. Here is another shot of a different stylus in the orientation you suggest. This was taken about at the same time as the first and facet lighting has not yet been worked out.

It is nowhere near the quality the Shure no doubt provides, but as you can see, it has the potential to provide a utilitarian substitute. Even so, there is one area in which this unit has it all over the Shure.