[Edi Zubovic]

-----------8--------------------
I'm not sure I buy that in part because it depends on how you measure it.
The original standard for mono recordings was 1.0 mil spherical, but if you
use an elliptical stylus you'll find a slightly smaller stylus will ride at
the same point in the groove.

Which is part of why I think the fineline stylus is such a win when it is
possible to use them; they can ride evenly in a wide range of groove widths.
--scott

Yes, fineline styli have a profile resembling a chisel with long
contact areas and I find them superior for most of LPs especially
those thin ones, after oil crisis in the 70s . That was also the time
when improved cutting allowed more densely packed grooves ie. more
time without too much sacrifice in dynamics. You need something extra
light and a really big compliance for those. Yet I have some
mirror-like LPs with really unsatisfactorily dynamics (eg. Probe
Records, Three Dog Night - Seven Separate Fools). I'd be the 8th one
if I wouldn't treat this record with special care. It seems to me that
merely a fingerprint is a big issue there. What a difference compared
to older 180 g LPs cut to be loud enough.

I had a strange thing with a Shure 15 VXMR some ten or more years ago
when I found burnt vinyl at the stylus tip and had to carefully scrape
it off with a razor blade. I suspect a tracking issue with my Dual
1218 tonearm. I haven't seen that later.

Hovewer, for standard mono LPs, those with M in an inverted triangle,
you can use a 1 mil stylus and set the tracking force quite lavishly -
they were made for that. If there's mistracking, you'll not only hear
it, you'll actually see it. Heh.

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia