Does size really matter? :-

Rolloff,

Is the photo on your systems page the stylus of your 90X? If you look back in the posts on this thread, Dougdeacon has some photos of actual styli, and the differences appear pretty large, although some argued that the differences aren't really significant and, of course, it's only one among many factors in considering a cartridge, which is certainly true.

All I know for sure is now that I have a stylus with a "modern" profile, it's way quieter in the groove. Since the Zyx also has better resolution, I see no other plausible explanation than the stylus is hitting a different part of the groove than the Denon or the Shure. For those of us that buy mostly used records, or didn't take the best care of our records when we were younger (I'm guilty there!), finding a stylus profile that rides fresh vinyl is a big advantage.

I can't wait until my Bloom is broken in... :-)

Armstrod, I believe that some of the dimensions that you originally quoted refer to different things - the diamond shank (block) in the case of the Dynavector, as opposed to the stylus radii for ZYX.

The shank is what the diamond is cut out of, and has an effect on moving mass and resonant frequency. The stylus radii are what define the shape of stylus, and this affects the surface area of the contact patch with the LP groove, height of the contact patch from the bottom of the groove, tracking ability etc.

Naturally the dimensions of the shank will be larger than the stylus that resides within!

Have to say, however, that the stylus radii quoted for the ZYX look kinda funny to be a Namiki Microridge (which is what Nakatsuka generally prefers to use - certainly for his upmarket cartridge designs). I also use a Namiki Microridge for the Dorian, and the dimensions of what I use are 2.5 x 75 micrometers.

Smaller stylii in general offer superior performance, but are also more expensive to make, and are easier to damage (fracture or failed glue joints). But given proper TLC, they don't wear faster than larger types.

You don't necessarily want to go too deep into the groove because of dirt accumulation at the bottom of the groove (and in some cases the cutting stylus may have had a slightly flattened-out tip, causing an overly narrow and sharp stylus to "bottom out").

Having a stylus with a generous contact patch with the LP certainly does help in reducing noise - vinyl is anything but solid under the pressure of the stylus, and the stylus "floats" on the surface of the vinyl, much like the hull of a boat on water. Groove damage is usually localized, so it help to either avoid it entirely (ny having a stylus that tracks at a different height from the damage), or have a stylus profile that spreads the contact patch out over a wide area of the (semi-fluid) vinyl.

Other things that reduce noise are a low-mass stylus in the cartridge, a tonearm with good bearings and a phonostage that has good HF overload capabilities and low IMD. A low-mass stylus will have a minimum of overshoot when it encounters groove damage, and good bearings in the arm will help to minimize sympathetic resonances from occuring. High HF overload marging in the phono stage is recommended because a record tick is like a natural impulse, with the bandwidth and amplitude both extending quite high. If the phono stage circuitry is not designed properly, hitting it with a high-frequency impulse can trigger ringing which doesn't die down immediately, or you may get intermodulation effects which can be quite obnoxious.

hth, jonathan carr

David,
In the light of day, after rereading your and Rauls prior posts above, +++++ "attributable more to the different profiles of the styli rather than their absolute size? " +++++ I see, as I suspected last night, that this point was addressed. That's something like the "point" I was trying to make as well. The size of the stylus probably isn't such an issue, it's the shape of the point that matters, and of that shape, only the very tip. I suppose, if you've got used records, one should also try to take into account what stylus shapes may have contacted the grooves in past play if you want to insure that you're going to be contacting new portions of the groove with a new stylus? Whenever I've changed stylus shape on cartridges, I've also upgraded the overall quality of the cartridge as well, so comparison for me based on shape of the stylus alone are difficult to gauge. It might be interesting to do a comparison of the different stylus shapes on new vinyl, to see if there is any discernible difference n the sound from contacting the grooves of virgin vinyl with differently shaped styli. Anyone know of a comparison like this having been done? Raul?

Dave

Good insights from Jcarr, as usual (hi Jonathon!)

To clear up one possible source of confusion regarding ZYX stylus specs, the entry level Bloom does not use a micro-ridge stylus - it's an elliptical. I presume this was done to control costs.

Higher priced models do use a micro-ridge.

Dear Dave: I own almost any stylus cartridge shape and certainly are differences between them but we can't say that those differences are because the stylus shape because the cartridge performance is extremely more complex than the " shape " alone, like Jcarr posted.

Now, I had one or two experiences where I send to re-tip one or two of my " old " cartridges through Van denHul, who use its own stylus profile that was different than the original one: yes, I like the " new " sound performance but I can't tell for sure if was better or only different because the memory is not very good through the long time.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.