Post by Owen Y on Feb 22, 2017 8:33:47 GMT 12
Stylus quality, condition, wear, alignment, is a critical aspect of record playing - in recent times there's been a lot of talk about using USB digital microscopes (like the one used by Michael Fremer below). I'm not so interested in alignment (SRA etc), which I think is not so easy or even accurate with a digital scope, but just for general stylus inspection. The other advantage of digital scopes of course, is that image capture is easy. Has anyone tried these and can recommend a good, cost effective product? 
|
Post by Owen Y on Feb 22, 2017 9:09:56 GMT 12
A sample digital 'scope image (Denon 103R taken by John Elison), which looks around 150x magnif on my screen. 
|
Post by deano1974 on Feb 22, 2017 9:20:54 GMT 12
Agreed stylus inspection is critical, I know alot of people are using the usb type microscopes these days with great results and they are alot cheaper than the conventional digital scopes 
Manager & Product specialist at Rapallo AV & HI-FI
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2017 12:09:59 GMT 12
Gosh, I guess I am a dirty little heathen with my 30x Lupe... Seems to show me what I need to see though.
|
Post by guitardude on Feb 23, 2017 9:11:58 GMT 12
i'm waiting for the answer on a good cost effective recommendation on these too. SRA seems like a step too far to me, i'm surprised if a 30x Lupe would do much either, but Little Johnnys eyesite is younger than mine !
|
Post by Owen Y on Feb 23, 2017 12:10:30 GMT 12
PS. John Elison advises me that the image above was taken using a USB microscope camera attached to an optical microscope - not using a digital microscope. (I should have spotted the lack of grain, digital noise, on that quality image  )
|
Post by Owen Y on Feb 23, 2017 12:17:27 GMT 12
i'm waiting for the answer on a good cost effective recommendation on these too. SRA seems like a step too far to me, i'm surprised if a 30x Lupe would do much either, but Little Johnnys eyesite is younger than mine ! IMHO the problem with the published methods of setting SRA using a digital image is that many h. quality stylus profiles are not cut symmetrically - so you can't just calculate using the front/rear angle measurements of the stylus tip. In any case, the ear will always be the final arbiter. Both Michael Fremer & Wally Malewicz use Dino-Lite digital scopes, I believe.
|
Post by guitardude on Feb 23, 2017 14:02:41 GMT 12
Was cost effective a priority ? Those Dino Lites I'm looking at run out at $1200 AUD. Anything substantially cheaper about ?
|
Post by Citroen on Feb 23, 2017 16:00:26 GMT 12
I bought a cheap USB microscope which was about $50 wasted money. Supposed to be 300x, yeah right. "UM012C USB Digital Microscope 5MP Video Microscope 300X Magnifier Camera" This is as good as it gets, so may as well use a good loupe.  image hosting
|
Post by Owen Y on Feb 23, 2017 19:27:00 GMT 12
Citroen - that looks only around 30x to 40x on my screen. But the image is not bad.
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 13:37:11 GMT 12
Yep, reckon my loupe gives a better view than that and I can position the cart for best lighting to get a better image again. Not perfect but my willingness to indulge the neurotic minutiae of this hobby is rather more limited than some of you boys...
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 13:37:27 GMT 12
Yep, reckon my loupe gives a better view than that and I can position the cart for best lighting to get a better image again. Not perfect but my willingness to indulge the neurotic minutiae of this hobby is rather more limited than some of you boys...
|
Post by guitardude on Feb 24, 2017 15:12:29 GMT 12
Lucky you bought a plug and play turntable then Johnny....
|
Post by Citroen on Feb 24, 2017 17:43:35 GMT 12
Citroen - that looks only around 30x to 40x on my screen. But the image is not bad. Yes, 30-40x is prob about right. I think I get better images reversing a zoom lens on my SLR camera. And its about as fiddly. An additional light source would help. I'm not sure that even if I got a 200-300x image that I could interpret it correctly anyway - apart from if it was grossly worn (and then I'd probably/hopefully have heard the difference anyway). With the variety of shapes/profiles, and how they wear differently, who knows how much change in profile is too much?
|
Post by Owen Y on Feb 24, 2017 18:08:46 GMT 12
I think I get better images reversing a zoom lens on my SLR camera. And its about as fiddly. An additional light source would help. Using a camera lens - I presume that you mean for viewing only, not capturing a still image? I used to use a wide-angle Olympus lens & yes, those camera lenses give top shelf image quality. With an optical microscope, I find that bright sunlight is a good light source. PS. I'm sure you could assess stylus wear, with practice Esp if you compare with when new.
|
Post by Citroen on Feb 24, 2017 18:16:24 GMT 12
No, zoom lens reversed and attached to the SLR for capturing an image.
Of course being attached backwards you lose all auto functions, unfortunately including ring flash.
Can't seem to find any of my pics done this way.
|
Post by Owen Y on Feb 24, 2017 18:18:04 GMT 12
OK, using an adaptor mount? SLR or DSLR?
|
Post by Citroen on Feb 24, 2017 18:50:22 GMT 12
Modified plastic camera cap that a friend turned to add a standard screw thread for the 58 (52?)mm lens of a Canon EOS DSLR, so it could be screwed on in reverse.
|
)
