Background
About two years ago, I decided to build a cutterhead for my DIY record lathe based on Grooveguy’s Stereoscriber design. What drew me to it was how approachable it felt for hobby builders without access to a proper workshop or precision tools. The clearly documented parts list also made it easy to get started.
About six months later, I had my first version up and running. Even though my initial embossing tests were quite lo-fi, they completely blew me away and pushed me to continue. Roughly a year later, I made my first stereo cuts with a diamond stylus — full frequency range, stable grooves, and a surprisingly good stereo image. Nice.
The only real limitation was output level. Using two HIAX19C01-8 exciters (2 W each), I could only reach around -24 dB RMS before distortion appeared, especially around 5 kHz. Since I wanted to get closer to -15 dB RMS, I needed more powerful exciters.
Ideally, I wanted something with similar dimensions so I could keep the aluminum funnels used to couple the exciters to the torque tube, and the phenolic blocks. After some searching, I found the Xcite Xtreme XT19-8 (20 W), which seemed like a perfect fit.
In this post, I’ll go through how I implemented these exciters and a few additional modifications, along with the results. Hopefully this can be useful for others working with similar designs who want cuts with more output headroom.
V1
The first version was largely a direct implementation of the Stereoscriber design: aluminum back plate, 40×40 mm phenolic side blocks suspending the exciters, and aluminum funnels connecting the coils to the torque tube via rods. The only major deviations were my V-spring system and the addition of a front plate.
The required compensation EQ (combined with inverted RIAA) revealed two main issues: a moderate resonance around 550 Hz, and a severe dip at ~5 kHz. The 5 kHz dip was the real bottleneck. It required over 25 dB of boost, as you can see in the picture below, which limited overall level since that region would distort first. Fixing this became one of the goals for V2.
Construction of V2
I started by removing the old exciters and enlarging the cavities in the phenolic blocks to fit the thicker magnets of the XT19-8.
To make the terminals fit, I modified them by soldering directly to the central metal tab and trimming away the unused portion.
The original aluminum funnels were reused, but had to be sanded down. Since the coils of the XT19-8 were 0.12 g heavier, I reduced the funnel mass to keep the total moving mass per channel (coil + funnel + rod + screws + adhesives) close to (or below) the V1 value of ~1.45 g. This resulted in slightly shorter funnels with a smaller base diameter.
Next, I redesigned the torque tube and V-spring system. I removed excess material from the front third of the torque tube, but kept the same thickness as before (6 mm diameter) around the stylus area. I also replaced the brass V-spring with an aluminum one and used aluminum screws throughout. This reduced the combined mass by nearly 1 gram. While the V-spring isn’t strictly part of the moving mass (I guess?), I still wanted to explore whether reducing its weight would have any effect.
The rest of the assembly was straightforward: mounting the system, attaching rods to the torque tube with metal epoxy, and wiring everything up. I also added a simple terminal for future stylus heating using a small PCB and two bolts.
Testing V2
After some lathe calibration (cutterhead weight ~11 g, stylus angle ~7–8°), I made silent cuts to check the groove depth, followed by white noise tests to evaluate the frequency response.
The compensation EQ curve looked kind of similar to V1 in shape, but now the main resonance was shifted up from ~550 Hz to 720 Hz, and the 5 kHz dip seemed to have shifted down to around 4 kHz and only required ~15 dB boost instead of 25 dB. I think that difference alone significantly increased usable headroom.
I then cut music and pushed the system to just over 500 mA. The result was a noticeably louder cut, reaching about -14 dB RMS.
Distortion was still present, but much less and shifted higher in the frequency spectrum, making it sound much more natural and less intrusive. Overall, a substantial improvement.
Here you can listen to the result. This is cut with diamond on PVC at 45 RPM, no stylus heating, only heat lamp.
Final words and big thanks to Grooveguy
This project wouldn’t have been possible without Grooveguy sharing the Stereoscriber design. It provided an accessible entry point into cutter head building and made it realistic for someone like me to even attempt this in the first place.
If you’re thinking about building your own cutterhead, I highly recommend checking out his work — it’s an excellent foundation to build upon and experiment with.
For me, this upgrade has made the lathe far more usable, and it’s been incredibly rewarding to refine and push the design a bit further. Hopefully some of the ideas here can be useful to others exploring similar paths.
Upgrading a DIY Cutterhead
Moderators: piaptk, tragwag, Steve E., Aussie0zborn
Upgrading a DIY Cutterhead
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Re: Upgrading a DIY Cutterhead
Oh my, buddy!
Your cutting head records better than the original DMM recordings made with the original SX84 heads. Keep it up, and you'll surely go far and compete with many head manufacturers!
I even had the opportunity to listen to a recording with a Swiss-made cutting head, and I can compare!
You've achieved great sound!
Maybe you should add some mass to the cutting tube, the high frequency response will probably be even higher, you know, resonances and so on...
Credibility and trust are key in this art.
Many trolls have already learned about these things, so keep it up. Don't you think it would be good to make the cones and other moving parts from copper or brass? Your head would then seem like a bell, cast from bronze or brass, and transmitting high frequencies very, very far.
Good luck!
All the best!
Your cutting head records better than the original DMM recordings made with the original SX84 heads. Keep it up, and you'll surely go far and compete with many head manufacturers!
I even had the opportunity to listen to a recording with a Swiss-made cutting head, and I can compare!
You've achieved great sound!
Maybe you should add some mass to the cutting tube, the high frequency response will probably be even higher, you know, resonances and so on...
Credibility and trust are key in this art.
Many trolls have already learned about these things, so keep it up. Don't you think it would be good to make the cones and other moving parts from copper or brass? Your head would then seem like a bell, cast from bronze or brass, and transmitting high frequencies very, very far.
Good luck!
All the best!
Re: Upgrading a DIY Cutterhead
Hi,
Well done on your head design and construction. I've also built a head based on Grooveguy's design, I too found his descriptions of the project encouraging and inspiring. I don't think I would have attempted this otherwise. Here is a link to t thread about my cutting head if you are interested.
https://www.lathetrolls.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=9398
My experience with these drivers was pretty much the same as yours. Sounded good but if you pushed the volume too high there would be distortion around that 5k frequency. I went down the path of adding damping into the drivers to get rid of the distortion. This was largely successful and in my case the damping seems to pretty much eliminate the main resonance meaning that my corrective eq doesn't need to do a great deal to get the response near flat. I am a bit concerned though, that the damping is not 100% stable because it is not properly adhered to the driver, it is just packed in as neatly as I can get it. I just need to keep an eye on it by doing pink noise tests regularly.
Your construction looks nice and simple too, mine is really a lot more complicated than it needs to be, though it is tidy.
I'm finding it a bit difficult to find the original 8 ohm drivers now. I've ordered a pair that are 4 ohm and 3W for one of my heads which needs new drivers. It will be interesting to see how these compare.
Great work, keep us posted on any more progress.
Well done on your head design and construction. I've also built a head based on Grooveguy's design, I too found his descriptions of the project encouraging and inspiring. I don't think I would have attempted this otherwise. Here is a link to t thread about my cutting head if you are interested.
https://www.lathetrolls.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=9398
My experience with these drivers was pretty much the same as yours. Sounded good but if you pushed the volume too high there would be distortion around that 5k frequency. I went down the path of adding damping into the drivers to get rid of the distortion. This was largely successful and in my case the damping seems to pretty much eliminate the main resonance meaning that my corrective eq doesn't need to do a great deal to get the response near flat. I am a bit concerned though, that the damping is not 100% stable because it is not properly adhered to the driver, it is just packed in as neatly as I can get it. I just need to keep an eye on it by doing pink noise tests regularly.
Your construction looks nice and simple too, mine is really a lot more complicated than it needs to be, though it is tidy.
I'm finding it a bit difficult to find the original 8 ohm drivers now. I've ordered a pair that are 4 ohm and 3W for one of my heads which needs new drivers. It will be interesting to see how these compare.
Great work, keep us posted on any more progress.
Re: Upgrading a DIY Cutterhead
Hi Estrada,
Thanks a lot for your kind words, I really appreciate it. And I’m pretty sure I’ve come across your thread before as well, so thanks for sharing your work and experiments.
I have to say, I’m really impressed by your damping approach. The fact that you were able to reduce the main resonance that much with mechanical damping alone is very inspiring. I actually considered going in a similar direction for my V2, but decided to first see how far I could get just by changing the drivers and reducing moving mass. But after revisiting your thread, I’ll definitely take a closer look at implementing some form of damping as well. Especially your results around the 500 Hz region are very convincing.
Regarding the driver issue, my experience was very similar to yours — the small exciters sound fantastic, but they run out of headroom quite quickly. In my case, switching to the 20 W Xcite Xtreme XT19-8 exciters made a surprisingly big difference in that regard. They’re still very similar in size to the original ones (19 mm coil), but since they have 10x higher power rating, they seem to handle higher levels much more comfortably, which gives a bit more freedom when shaping the response with EQ.
Of course, there are always trade-offs, and I’m still figuring things out myself, but I thought it was an interesting direction since it keeps the low moving mass while adding some more power.
It’ll be interesting to hear how your new drivers perform, please
keep us posted on that.
Thanks again for sharing your work!
Thanks a lot for your kind words, I really appreciate it. And I’m pretty sure I’ve come across your thread before as well, so thanks for sharing your work and experiments.
I have to say, I’m really impressed by your damping approach. The fact that you were able to reduce the main resonance that much with mechanical damping alone is very inspiring. I actually considered going in a similar direction for my V2, but decided to first see how far I could get just by changing the drivers and reducing moving mass. But after revisiting your thread, I’ll definitely take a closer look at implementing some form of damping as well. Especially your results around the 500 Hz region are very convincing.
Regarding the driver issue, my experience was very similar to yours — the small exciters sound fantastic, but they run out of headroom quite quickly. In my case, switching to the 20 W Xcite Xtreme XT19-8 exciters made a surprisingly big difference in that regard. They’re still very similar in size to the original ones (19 mm coil), but since they have 10x higher power rating, they seem to handle higher levels much more comfortably, which gives a bit more freedom when shaping the response with EQ.
Of course, there are always trade-offs, and I’m still figuring things out myself, but I thought it was an interesting direction since it keeps the low moving mass while adding some more power.
It’ll be interesting to hear how your new drivers perform, please
keep us posted on that.
Thanks again for sharing your work!
Re: Upgrading a DIY Cutterhead
Hi Zdenek,zdenek wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2026 1:24 pmOh my, buddy!
Your cutting head records better than the original DMM recordings made with the original SX84 heads. Keep it up, and you'll surely go far and compete with many head manufacturers!
I even had the opportunity to listen to a recording with a Swiss-made cutting head, and I can compare!
You've achieved great sound!
Maybe you should add some mass to the cutting tube, the high frequency response will probably be even higher, you know, resonances and so on...
Credibility and trust are key in this art.
Many trolls have already learned about these things, so keep it up. Don't you think it would be good to make the cones and other moving parts from copper or brass? Your head would then seem like a bell, cast from bronze or brass, and transmitting high frequencies very, very far.
Good luck!
All the best!
Thank you so much for the encouraging words, means a lot!
I’m glad you liked the sound. I still see this very much as a learning project and something I’m doing for my own use, just trying to get the best results I can out of a DIY setup.
Regarding your suggestion about adding mass, that’s an interesting idea. So far I’ve mostly been going in the opposite direction, trying to reduce moving mass as much as possible, but I understand your point about resonances and how they can affect the high frequency behaviour. It’s something I’ll keep in mind and maybe experiment with at some point.
Thanks again for your encouragement and for sharing your thoughts!
All the best,
-
farmersplow
- Posts: 645
- Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2021 3:43 am
- Location: Austria - Vienna
Re: Upgrading a DIY Cutterhead
Congratulations! You’ve done an excellent job. The audio sample of your recording sounds great, too.
My best advice is to keep experimenting with small changes and compare the results. Every cutting head design has its own characteristics, and what works well for one might lead to poorer results with another.
Damping with coating always changes the result. Check exactly how much coating you’re using and where. This will help you determine if it’s useful. Coating smooths out the frequency response, but it also increases the moving mass.
Increased mass limits the quality (and power) at high frequencies. Therefore, it should be kept low.
To shift the main resonance frequency to higher frequencies, you need to build a “stiffer” system. This primarily refers to the suspension of the main coil. Currently, yours uses a fabric spider. You can test this by stiffening the spider with some resin. “Stiffer” also means making the entire drive system stiffer (voice coil – spider – cone – cone rod – their connections, and the connection to the torsion tube). The trick (and it takes some trial and error) is not to make it too stiff, because then you’ll lose transmission efficiency again.
Once you’ve achieved a higher resonance frequency, the overall sound will also become louder.
That’s when things really get going: reducing secondary resonances (2nd resonance). The sound curve above the 1st main resonance is determined by the selection of materials, weights, and connections of the individual components. As a rule, a rigid structure and low (moving) masses are the foundation for achieving high frequencies. This requires a lot of research. For example, a torsion tube with a 3mm diameter has different natural resonances than the same material with a 4mm diameter. If you change its length or material, the natural resonances change significantly. So you have to deal with many natural resonances (V-spring, torsion tube, torsion tube retaining wire, cone, spider, voice coil former, adhesive, or fasteners, etc.). Some add up to large resonances, and others can (ideally) cancel each other out.
Ultimately, it comes down to the cutting head design. There’s no one-size-fits-all solution.
What you’ve achieved so far is already very good! I always say that a 20% improvement always means 80% more effort.
I’m already curious to see where your journey leads. Keep it up!
My best advice is to keep experimenting with small changes and compare the results. Every cutting head design has its own characteristics, and what works well for one might lead to poorer results with another.
Damping with coating always changes the result. Check exactly how much coating you’re using and where. This will help you determine if it’s useful. Coating smooths out the frequency response, but it also increases the moving mass.
Increased mass limits the quality (and power) at high frequencies. Therefore, it should be kept low.
To shift the main resonance frequency to higher frequencies, you need to build a “stiffer” system. This primarily refers to the suspension of the main coil. Currently, yours uses a fabric spider. You can test this by stiffening the spider with some resin. “Stiffer” also means making the entire drive system stiffer (voice coil – spider – cone – cone rod – their connections, and the connection to the torsion tube). The trick (and it takes some trial and error) is not to make it too stiff, because then you’ll lose transmission efficiency again.
Once you’ve achieved a higher resonance frequency, the overall sound will also become louder.
That’s when things really get going: reducing secondary resonances (2nd resonance). The sound curve above the 1st main resonance is determined by the selection of materials, weights, and connections of the individual components. As a rule, a rigid structure and low (moving) masses are the foundation for achieving high frequencies. This requires a lot of research. For example, a torsion tube with a 3mm diameter has different natural resonances than the same material with a 4mm diameter. If you change its length or material, the natural resonances change significantly. So you have to deal with many natural resonances (V-spring, torsion tube, torsion tube retaining wire, cone, spider, voice coil former, adhesive, or fasteners, etc.). Some add up to large resonances, and others can (ideally) cancel each other out.
Ultimately, it comes down to the cutting head design. There’s no one-size-fits-all solution.
What you’ve achieved so far is already very good! I always say that a 20% improvement always means 80% more effort.
I’m already curious to see where your journey leads. Keep it up!
Re: Upgrading a DIY Cutterhead
Hi,
Really nice work! I'm interested in checking out these exciters. They seem to be quite a bit more efficient than the Dayton drivers I've been using. Good power handling as well. If these are not ferrofluid damped, you might want to consider adding some. That will increase the max power rating and add a bit of damping. Not sure if these are available here in the US. Have you looked into using the 4 ohm version? Most modern amps can double the power into 4 ohms vs 8. The driver spec shows that the BL is reduced in the 4 ohm version compared to the 8 by about 1.1db (bl = 3.24 vs 2.53). But you will be able to drive 3db more peak power into the head with the same amp assuming it can double into 4 ohms. That might be worth the change.
Mark
Really nice work! I'm interested in checking out these exciters. They seem to be quite a bit more efficient than the Dayton drivers I've been using. Good power handling as well. If these are not ferrofluid damped, you might want to consider adding some. That will increase the max power rating and add a bit of damping. Not sure if these are available here in the US. Have you looked into using the 4 ohm version? Most modern amps can double the power into 4 ohms vs 8. The driver spec shows that the BL is reduced in the 4 ohm version compared to the 8 by about 1.1db (bl = 3.24 vs 2.53). But you will be able to drive 3db more peak power into the head with the same amp assuming it can double into 4 ohms. That might be worth the change.
Mark
Re: Upgrading a DIY Cutterhead
Hi Mark,markrob wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2026 12:13 pmHi,
Really nice work! I'm interested in checking out these exciters. They seem to be quite a bit more efficient than the Dayton drivers I've been using. Good power handling as well. If these are not ferrofluid damped, you might want to consider adding some. That will increase the max power rating and add a bit of damping. Not sure if these are available here in the US. Have you looked into using the 4 ohm version? Most modern amps can double the power into 4 ohms vs 8. The driver spec shows that the BL is reduced in the 4 ohm version compared to the 8 by about 1.1db (bl = 3.24 vs 2.53). But you will be able to drive 3db more peak power into the head with the same amp assuming it can double into 4 ohms. That might be worth the change.
Mark
Thanks, I appreciate it! I did consider the 4 ohm version, but went with 8 ohm because of the higher BL, and also because my previous design used 8 ohm drivers so it felt like a safe choice. You’re right about the potential power advantage. My amp doesn’t quite double into 4 ohms (200 W @ 8 ohm vs 300 W @ 4 ohm), so the gain would be a bit less than 3 dB, but still relevant, so the 4 ohm version would probably have been a better choice. I’ll keep that in mind for a future iteration once I’ve spent more time evaluating this head.
Best,
Jonathan