"I don't think anyone ever said that no wear (not damage-the choice of terms shows a prejudice) to a record occurs."
Au contraire, dear Ron, it is eBay seller "nickjay" (or that's what he used to go by) who has said in no uncertain terms that he believes ZERO damage (or wear) happens with a single playback with a new steel needle. So yes, I'm afraid someone has said it, and I'm sure he's not the only "true believer" out there, as Rich pointed out. I'm suprised by the strongly defensive stance you take on behalf of steel needles, though I know you must have your reasons. But no amount of positive semantics replacing my negatively prejudiced choice of terms is going to reduce the amount of shellac dust I find all over the tip of every brand new soft-tone steel needle I play a shellac record with, so the terms really don't make any difference in the real world. I absolutely agree that optimal set-up on any machine reduces wear to a minimum (that's most of what the set-up is for, as minimum wear often equals optimum sound), but I was pointing out the one aspect of pivoted playback that the purveyors of this myth seem to be either ignorant or unaware: that azimuth error reduces the "new needles wear down to precisely match the groove and cause little to no wear after the first few grooves" theory to bunk. I also agree some machines had better designs than others. I know a lot of earlier, outside-horn machines had tonearms that were pretty darn long; every millimeter of added distance between the pivot point and the needle tip helps correct the azimuth error by some degree. I don't know how much heavier or lighter these older machines register at the needle tip, but I'd be willing to bet records suffered less wear played on them with new needles than on newer, shorter-tonearm'd models. (Unless, of course, there was very little compliance at the needle shank pivot on the older machines... I wouldn't know, I've never messed with any of them.) What I don't agree with is there being some great difference between wear and damage -- wear IS damage as far as I'm concerned, whether expected or not. Frankly, who among us makes such a distinction when considering buying a record that we later find out has almost completely greyed-out grooves? Who among us minds the occasional edge chip or flake? I fully expect those with shellac discs, as a part of "normal use" involves handling, and normal handling includes the occasional, accidental chipping of a record edge. No, I say it's a matter of simple semantics, none of which make any real difference -- but by all means, use whatever terms suit you, as will I. Lastly, a bit of quick clarification: regarding Edison DD's and the reasons for their relative lack of wear through playing, Pathe discs, unlike Edison DD's, are made of the same stuff as lateral shellac discs (minus the diamond dust, I'm assuming), and the only Pathe's I find with groove damage have obviously been played on a lateral machine with a steel needle at least once (it's a very obvious "look" the surface has when subjected to such numbskullery). As I said, Pathe's sapphire ball stylus machines offered exactly the same tip profile to the groove regardless of position and/or angle of the soundbox, because it was spherical; as such, I've never seen a clean vertical Pathe disc in the middle -- it has either been shredded to nothing by misuse, or its playing surface looks -- and sounds -- pristine. Final point (so to speak, ha ha): you won't get me to believe that the world's hardest substance can be altered by one of the world's most pliant. Modern cartridges are not "retipped" because of wear to the diamond; the entire cantilever is replaced, along with the cantilever's suspension. When burning in a new stylus, it is this cantilever suspension that is being broken in, and when the stylus needs replacing, it is because of the cantilever suspension, which cannot support the recommended Vertical Tracking Force after so many hours of use, making the magnets attached to the cantilever become misaligned with the coils inside the cartridge. Plastic does not wear down a diamond. (Playing shellac discs with diamond dust in them is, however, another story completely, as a diamond will obviously be reshaped by grinding against diamond dust -- that's how jewelers shape them to begin with.) Don't let wear OR damage stop you from playing your records, but do know what you're signing up for and act accordingly. Best as always, Robert ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron L" <[email protected]> To: "'Antique Phonograph List'" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 9:01 AM Subject: RE: [Phono-L] Shellac records and damage from steel needles >I don't think anyone ever said that no wear (not damage-the choice of >terms > shows a prejudice) to a record occurs. That is clearly wrong for the > reasons you have stated. Wear to the needle continues throughout the play > of the record. If a machine is properly maintained and the reproducer has > compliant parts, when a new steel needle(not a nail - see comment in > parentheses above) is used, wear is kept to a minimum. Having said that, > further qualification should be made. Some machines had better designs > than > others. Steel needles are ground to a point and tumbled to create a > particular radius on the tip they are not merely, "headless nails." What > has happened over time is that the whole playback system has become > refined. > Even diamond styli are worn by vinyl records and the records themselves > are > worn (degraded) every time they are played. No contact system of playback > will eliminate this. If you have a super-valuable/rare record, should you > play it repeatedly with a steel needle? No. But then again, you probably > shouldn't play it repeatedly with any needle/stylus. > > I think Greg Boganz mentioned the lack of wear on DDs on the Electrola > list > recently. It is not entirely because of the tone arm and has to do with > vertical grooves and the nature of the DD surface. > > Ron L
