[Vintage-Audio] Re Cartridges and Styluses

Mon Jun 30 18:20:00 2003

Duane, Pete and list...

The 3.0 and 1.0 mils were tip radii for playback rather
than depth.of the cut by the chisel-shaped cutter.  Logic
also says that the depth of cut will vary by frequency
and amplitude with the 45/45 stereo system.

I do not know if the 3.0 mil stylus for 78's were ever
made in any but the conical shape.

The 1.0 mil LP stylus had many variations as an ellipse
of various angles and other modified shapes in order to
achieve more intimate contact with groove walls and to
avoid pinching.

There were mass-market players selling console furniture,
rather than sound, to the unsuspecting.  Probably the
most well-known was Zenith Radio Corporation with
their saturation advertising of the airwaves touting the
advantages of their 2G tone arm.  Tracking at "just two
grams.... one fourteenth of an ounce" the announcer
says.  This was the signal to the casual listener that
tracking
force was important because pressure was "the cause"
of record wear.  The man on the street could now brag
"I have a Zenith 2G."  (But he still stacks his records,
shuffles the stack like playing cards to read the labels,
allows them to get dusty and puts them in the album
without the protective sleeve.)  Many of the popular
slick magazines had their inner front or back cover in
full color carrying the same Zenith message.  It was true
saturation advertising in every sense of the word.

Shure was the leader in pushing light tracking AND
trackability.  But as everyone on this list knows, the
arm as well as the cartridge plays an important part
not only in tracking, but in the sound from a cartridge.

So here we are today with a nearly fifty year old
vinyl system that will kick-butt on every digital system
under a hundred grand and most that cost even more
than that.  Ain't it great... then there is the reel-to-reel
tape system which far out-sonics the vinyl record.

Hope that causes some memory recall among my
fellow geezers out there and gives you younger folk
some new info on how evolution took place.
Bob McKee

----- Original Message -----
From: "Duane Fischer, W8DBF" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Vintage-Audio] Re Cartridges and Styluses

> Pete,
>
> Some were 1 mil and others were 3 mils in depth. The older
vinyl required
> anywhere from 3-6 grams, remember putting a penny on the
tone arm? That penny
> weighed 4.11 grams!
>
> There was a change in the depth and width of the grooves
somewhere back there
> and the stylus and tracking weight changed also. I believe
it was the late
> sixties to early seventies, but I would not swear to it. I
do know that there
> were several variations in the fifties.
>
> Yep, I remember those flip over stylus/cartridge units. Did
they ever come for a
> turntable though, or just a record changer?
>
> Duane W8DBF
>
>
> ----------
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Vintage-Audio] Re Cartridges and Styluses
> Date: Monday, June 30, 2003 12:43 PM
>
> I thought the tracking weight had to do with the type of
stylus and/or
> cartridge and the type of tone arm and its balancing
mechanisms. I seem
> to recall  playing 78's required a different stylus size
than for 33 or
> 45 records but not a different weight. Many of the ceramic
cartridges had
> the typical turnover mechanisms (1 side of the cartridge for
playing 78's
> and the other side for 33 and 45 playing; each side with a
different
> stylus size) mounted in the arm head. Many magnetic
cartridges required
> changing out the plug in stylus. I don't recall ever
considering the type
> of vinyl when using the various measuring tools to set up
the initial
> parameters on a tone arm.
> Pete
>
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 08:51:35 -0400 "Duane Fischer, W8DBF"
> <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >
> > During the seventies, what was the typical tracking weight
> > recommended for a
> > stylus used to play stereo records of that era?
> >
> > The same question, but for the sixties?
> >
> > What about the mono recordings of the middle fifties and
then stereo
> > into the
> > middle to late sixties?
> >
> > When did the vinyl industry go from the thicker recordings
to the
> > flimsey 33 1/3
> > records that flexed if you wanted to fan yourself with
one?
> >
> >
> > When the vinyl record itself was changed, did the tracking
weight
> > change? If so,
> > to what?
> >
> > What was the tracking weight recommended for playing the
mono 45 rpm
> > records?
> > What weight is now recommended for the reissues still
available from
> > oldies
> > specialty record stores?
> >
> > The wisdom used to be to change the stylus every thousand
hours of
> > use, I think.
> > Does anybody know the truth of the issue? The goal is to
minimize
> > wear on the
> > grooves and to maximize the fidelity.
> >
> > Thanks to all for sharing your experience on these issues.
> >
> > Duane Fischer, W8DBF
>
>
______________________________________________________________
__
> The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno
SpeedBand!
> Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
> Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
> _______________________________________________
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/vintage-audio
> List Administrator: Duane Fischer, W8DBF
> ** For Assistance: [email protected] **
> _______________________________________________
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/vintage-audio
> List Administrator: Duane Fischer, W8DBF
> ** For Assistance: [email protected] **