I have 2-450c2, and 2-451,s
The stylus assemblies are the same on both except the tip profiles conical or shibata, stock OEM versions, no bliss examples
The rubber donut and the mounting end of the cantilever material are the same also, at least to the naked eye from what I can discern.
The 451 is the best balanced version to ultimately get the new boron beam. The 450c2 sounds the same but to much gain overall IMO
I am torn on just using the stock push on version (easiest) or an entirely new body that will require some time to design right as I want adjustability while in there.
The stock mounting end sits in a U shaped channel and I want to make a brass cylinder to capture the entire round portion instead of half on it like in the stock versions when I decide to remake the entire body.
This very small brass “wedding ring” would then be inserted into the structure with a set screw to vary its depth and orientation to azimuth if I screw up.
Have to be careful on keeping the damping the same and will only lightly glue the perimeter to keep it in place.
This end doesn’t get to much movement anyway.
Not sure if I will be successful as this is new territory but if others can do it, I can do it.
Regards
David
The stylus assemblies are the same on both except the tip profiles conical or shibata, stock OEM versions, no bliss examples
The rubber donut and the mounting end of the cantilever material are the same also, at least to the naked eye from what I can discern.
The 451 is the best balanced version to ultimately get the new boron beam. The 450c2 sounds the same but to much gain overall IMO
I am torn on just using the stock push on version (easiest) or an entirely new body that will require some time to design right as I want adjustability while in there.
The stock mounting end sits in a U shaped channel and I want to make a brass cylinder to capture the entire round portion instead of half on it like in the stock versions when I decide to remake the entire body.
This very small brass “wedding ring” would then be inserted into the structure with a set screw to vary its depth and orientation to azimuth if I screw up.
Have to be careful on keeping the damping the same and will only lightly glue the perimeter to keep it in place.
This end doesn’t get to much movement anyway.
Not sure if I will be successful as this is new territory but if others can do it, I can do it.
Regards
David
I would like to do it as well. I am wondering if this microscope is good enough.
AmScope M500C 40x-2500x Advanced Home School Compound Microscope 13964569094 | eBay
Adding a 5 mp camera, so I can measure the parameters.
AmScope M500C 40x-2500x Advanced Home School Compound Microscope 13964569094 | eBay
Adding a 5 mp camera, so I can measure the parameters.
Concerned with overall shaft length
Looking at the SSmith version photos they appear longer than stock
The Win is really long but use the ends of the elements to push on
I will assume gain would be affected the most
The high frequency peak resonance will be shifted as well , but the underlying
Way these work is different than LOMCs and strain gauges are loaded down and not as free floating so the peak is way less I believe ? Not sure....
Chime in with your thoughts on this
Regards
David
I meant using an OEM Panasonic stylus as the transplant candidate. I've no plans to attempt it myself, I'd need far steadier hands, fixtures and a stereo microscope to start.. You are far braver and hopefully more successful than I would likely be.
Hi -
First...fantastic to see this!
Second - a lot of variables happening here...I myself would try to match the original Panasonic dimensions - at least for the first attempts. Then testing and listening.
The SS may have other variables such as the beam makeup so it probably is a different animal.
On the 451c examples I have there seems to be assembly variation but I have not actually measured the physical dimensions to determine if it is the cartridge bodies or stylus assemblies or both.
Maybe a good starting point would be to collect measurements from as many samples as possible to determine some basic dimensions to use as a target for assembly.
Dave
First...fantastic to see this!
Second - a lot of variables happening here...I myself would try to match the original Panasonic dimensions - at least for the first attempts. Then testing and listening.
The SS may have other variables such as the beam makeup so it probably is a different animal.
On the 451c examples I have there seems to be assembly variation but I have not actually measured the physical dimensions to determine if it is the cartridge bodies or stylus assemblies or both.
Maybe a good starting point would be to collect measurements from as many samples as possible to determine some basic dimensions to use as a target for assembly.
Dave
these were some you posted awhile backAnd the length is considerable.
At first blush it would make sense to match the stock version length, but thinking further the bending forces are different with boron considerably stiffer and lighter and better tracking with a longer shaft maybe ?
I could be wrong about this, but I think it’s maybe not so simple.
I wonder how some retippers figure a length when an exotic cartridge comes in without a like reference to work from ?
Hi-
I agree! it is not so simple.
The ruby shaft is so much smaller in diameter...does it just look longer?
Maybe the diameter of the cantilever shaft (where it joins the coupler) can be guessed and try to use it as a gauge to measure the length...if there is a straight on photo to work from. And then there is the difference between ruby and boron anyway.
Then after assembly see how it resonates with some sweep tones.
I will work on getting some measurements of the unit to unit variation of the examples I have.
Dave
I agree! it is not so simple.
The ruby shaft is so much smaller in diameter...does it just look longer?
Maybe the diameter of the cantilever shaft (where it joins the coupler) can be guessed and try to use it as a gauge to measure the length...if there is a straight on photo to work from. And then there is the difference between ruby and boron anyway.
Then after assembly see how it resonates with some sweep tones.
I will work on getting some measurements of the unit to unit variation of the examples I have.
Dave
I think it's not so simple..
Consider the effect on overhang and whether or not you have enough adjustment range to cope with it. (ET-2.5 thing you know..)
Will lengthening the cantilever change the coupling to the transducers? I think it may reduce the mechanical amplitude coupled into the transducers, it will also change the base deflection of the transducers and possibly put them in a less linear part of their transfer function.
These are just badly formed thoughts on my part and could be completely wrong.
I think the original ratios were probably chosen to minimize mass and for appropriate coupling to the transducers. I'd probably stay close to the factory length simply because I suspect the guys who designed these cartridges knew a bit more about the transducers than we do.
Consider the effect on overhang and whether or not you have enough adjustment range to cope with it. (ET-2.5 thing you know..)
Will lengthening the cantilever change the coupling to the transducers? I think it may reduce the mechanical amplitude coupled into the transducers, it will also change the base deflection of the transducers and possibly put them in a less linear part of their transfer function.
These are just badly formed thoughts on my part and could be completely wrong.
I think the original ratios were probably chosen to minimize mass and for appropriate coupling to the transducers. I'd probably stay close to the factory length simply because I suspect the guys who designed these cartridges knew a bit more about the transducers than we do.
Panasonic being a large company at the time probably would have never considered using an exotic expensive boron beam and focus on massive sales over quality and thus mundane aluminum was the result.
Their frequency response was terrible as you know in comparison to their competing rivals of that period.
A ratio of leverage to bending forces needs some work to come close to matching a similiar transfer function , and it might even change keeping both the same length
If boron is stiffer at the same length of the weaker aluminum, this could be an issue as well.
So not so simple ..,.
Regards
David
Their frequency response was terrible as you know in comparison to their competing rivals of that period.
A ratio of leverage to bending forces needs some work to come close to matching a similiar transfer function , and it might even change keeping both the same length
If boron is stiffer at the same length of the weaker aluminum, this could be an issue as well.
So not so simple ..,.
Regards
David
