The best cartridge you can use with ease on Victor tonearm is Victor cartridges. Make sense? They are match in heaven to be used on this arm. Actually this is a top of the line tonearm made by JVC/Victor, their best model, a longer version of UA-7045.
What was the best MM cartridge made by JVC Victor ?
X-1 with Beryllium cantilever and Shibata stylus tip. X1II with Beryllium cantilever and Shibata stylus tip. X1IIe with Titanium Pipe cantilever with Elliptical tip.
You can’t go wrong with any of them, personally i have tried many samples of them all. I must say that X-1 normally has softened suspension and behave like a lowrider, so this model is problematic.
The X-1II was better for me and adored by many on here, search in the old threads about MM carts.
The X-1IIe is high resolution cartridge, cheaper than its brother X-1II, but very nice too.
For some reason, if you need some other cartridges, make sure they are MID COMPLIANCE, a low compliance cartridges also too heavy for use on UA-7082 tonearm without special Victor Subweight which you don’t have, also with your defective rubber grommet your counterweight will fell off simply under its own weight when you will balance the cartridge and move it all the way to the end for use with heavier MC carts.
A high compliance cartridges like Shure is not optimal for this arm and must be avoided in theory if you care about tonearm/cartridge resonance frequency.
Audio-Technica cartridges are normally Mid Compliance and you can use them!
This is a counterweight position with normal MM cart and lightweight headshell, as you can see the counterweight is behind the rubber grommet even on a lighter UA-7045. When it’s too far on your heavier UA-7082 the grommet simply can’t resist the weight and the counterweight sag down at 45 degree (too bad).
Actually Victor UA-7082 can be used even with Ortofon SPU cartridges, but ONLY with victor subweight screwed to the armtube on the back, and only when you will replace your defective rubber grommet.
Victor designed amazing LOMC cartridges such as DIRECT COUPLE MC-1, MC-L10 and MC-L1000 , those are low compliance and made for this arm as the reference models! Seach on audiogon and you will find threads about those unique models. I am using MC-L10 now on UA-7082 with subweight, some more Victor from my collection.
Elliot. Right now I am running a Glanz MFG610LX on my 7082 and very happy all round. But I do have my eye on a Victor MC-1 which as Chakster says should be a match made in heaven. However this is a fairly low output of just 0.2mv so you would likely need a step up transformer. And it is pretty fragile so a lot of care needs to be taken. I use an old and simple Denon sut for my MC carts and it has plenty of gain for my needs.
My current Victor MC-L10 is magical with Luxman silver SUT (also relatively cheap $500 vintage toroidal SUT). However, my friend @nandric said the MC-1 sound like an MM cartridge to his ears :)
Victor MM are giant killers! Super easy to drive with any MM phono stages and truly outstanding in details and resolution. I prefer Victor black headshells over conventional silver on those arms.
It is interesting to see than MC-1 was twice as much in price compared to X-1IIe, but nowadays the situation different (the Victor X-1IIe is equal to the price on second hand MC-1 now).
I believe the reason is that MC-1 coil wire connected to the cantilever is very fragile and one channel malfunction is pretty common for MC-1, it's very hard to find a perfect sample. I bought 2 and the one claimed to be working can only reproduce one channel after arrival, pretty sad, looks like new in the box.
But X-1IIe and X-1II survived and does not have any technical problems in its construction even after 30-40 years. The X-1II also have beryllium cantilever and Shibata tip like MC-1.
Btw, you are rigth in your other thread that the tonearm is not straigth.
Btw, The Shure V15V MR helps a lñot in the resonance frequenxcy between cartridge/tonearm due to its Dynamic Stabilizer this and the AT 440 cartridges are good ones and I think you can have any resonance frequency issues due that you have differents headshells where in any case you can use the headshell different weigths to match the cartridge about.
I prefer 9"-10.5" efective length tonearms. If it's true that can have a little higher tracking angle error has other advantages vs the 12"+ ones whwere a lomg tonearm develops more resonances/distortions than a short one, react too more " slowly " to the movements of the cartridge stylus tip and the cartridge/tonearm alignment must be extremely more accurated that with a short one ( not that accuracy is not importantin ashort one because it's. ).
A shorter tonearm ( everything the same. ) sounds different than a 12" one due to those higher resonances in the long ones. I think that the shorter arms quality performance is a little better not only different but better than in long tonearms.
Well not quite correct now as he cancelled that purchase. But he is still considering another near identical item
Does it change anything in my statement ? Prompt decision since the bug detected with the previous seller, just another victor hopefully in better condition. The arm is quite nice when it's near mint.
I tried SONY XL-50 (Boron Pipe cantilever) on dedicated Sony headshell on my 7082 and it was quite nice. A bit underrated cartridge in my opinion, actually great MM at moderate price. But the Victor X-1IIe i tried in many combinations on various arms/headshells, the X-1II is even better, and perfect for Victor 7082
But 7082 will MC cartridges support some of them today?
many MC cartridges can be used with this tonearm, but subweight is a must have for heavy ones, the subweight principle is similar to those on Technics SL1210mkII that screwed in the arm pipe from the back. With this subweight there is no limit for any MC including probably SPU. Without subweight it will be hard to deal not only with heavy stuff like SPU, but also with conventional MC if the headshell is heavier than Victor (which is very light).
Chakster! Yes it does make a difference when you deliberately misquote your own quote!
Let me try again.
Also the OP has bought the entire Victor system and the only component missing is top of the line Victor cartridge. Probably the best way to judge about Victor engineering.
So yes seeing as you insist on being pedantic, you stated the OP has bought, all I did was correct that to a more correct "in limbo' status which is 100% fact but no you still wish to contest the statement and have the last word! Have a good day, I am done smacking my head against a brick wall with you.
It has original Headshell and Cartridge: Victor Z1s, not sure what Stylus is in it.
More important is to know long it was in use before you will put it on the record, it can be worn out already. The Z1 is the lower model from Victor and its styli are not compatible with the higher models like X1, X-1II etc. There are various styli made for Z1 (conical, elliptical etc). If you have the original for 4 channel then it must be Shibata and it’s the best for this model, it’s probably this one.
You can always change the original to JICO SAS just like Halcro did.
In searching for an answer to the above, I came across the following post on Audio Circle forum by a member whose screen name is griffithds:
All Z-1 bodies are the same. There is a Z-1, Z-1S, Z-1E, Z-1EB, Z-4 which is also a Z-1 and a few others.
All the same. All the stylus are interchangeable. But they are not interchangeable with the X-1.
The cartridge generators are very similar but they (Victor/JVC), changed the diameter of the tube that slides into the cartridge body so the X-1 and Z-1 are NOT interchangeable.
But they do sound the same. I own both and have to get up and go over to the turntable to be able to make a correct determination as to which one is mounted and playing.
That is unless you have the SAS stylus attached. No mistaking it when it is mounted. Also, when you order the SAS from Jico you can get the clear housing, the green housing or the orange housing. These are the different colors of the -1 (clear), the -1E (orange),or the -1EB (green), stylus housings. Exact same SAS stylus but just in case you want to stay with the same color of the 'Z' cartridge that you own, Jico supplies you with the option to buy the same color of stylus housing. The 'clear' housing is the color of the one that came with the Z-1.
Just for information purposes, the Z-1 was a Beryllium cantilever with a Shibata tip. The 'E' versions were Elliptical tip. The 'S' version is conical or spherical. The 'B' on the 'EB' version was E for Elliptical, B for Beryllium.
Hope this answers your questions. If not, then ask again because someone could write a book on all the variations of this Jem!"
Hi Elliot, You are making life difficult. The Japanese mostly design their arms around stiff moving coil cartridges. My guess is the arm has an effective mass somewhere between 15 and 20 grams which is too heavy for many moving magnet cartridges like the Ortofon 2M series. The Sound Smith Zephyr MK III is a low compliance high output cartridge that would work well in your arm. Down the line is the Irox Blue. These cartridges have a compliance of 10 u/mN which is perfect for your arm. You want something between 10 and 15 u/mN. The Clearaudio MM's are 15 u/mN. Another important factor is the weight of the cartridge. Here is a graph that compares total effective mass (tonearm and cartridge) to compliance. https://www.ortofon.com/support/support-hifi/resonance-frequency/ Just add the weight of the cartridge to the effective mass of the arm for the total effective mass and look where it falls on the graph. I try to shoot for a resonance frequency between 8 and 10 Hz. I think the bass is better if you can get it down there.
From memory and I may be wrong right now I think the OP requires a fairly high output cartridge due to some issue with his phono stage. I think he said around 4mv which is very high and would likely only be served by some vintage mm carts and possibly some Soundsmith carts.
Elliott can you clarify on this and just what is the phono stage problem if this is so. Thx
The preamp has hum that starts just above my max listening volume, so I need to get a mono cartridge with high enough output, Shure 97xe gives 4.0mV now. so I wouldn't go below 4.0mV for the new Mono cartridge.
I'm gonna take the preamp to McIntosh in the spring when I visit my photo friend who lives 15 minutes from their headquarters in Binghamton, NY.
Guess my memory not so shabby. I know this is referring to a mono cartridge but it has to be the same phono stage? Or not possibly. Is this still the situation Elliott? If so it is probably really going to dampen your new table performance. Spring is a long way off......
I have tricky ways to avoid pushing the preamp volume up to hum zone. With current 4.0mV output, the hum starts just above my preferred maximum, that is why I am looking for high output, equal to 4.0mV.
alt. use 1. Current.
TT to McIntosh tube tuner/preamp mx110z (thru preamp for it's wonderful Phono EQ), Then preamp to Cayin A88T tube amp, via Cayin's 'preamp in", (just a thruput). Volume is from McIntosh preamp.
Volume limited by hum.
alt use 2.
TT to preamp for it's Phono EQ. Importantly, it has 2 MM phono inputs. I will use 1 for 12" stereo arm, other for 9" mono arm.
Then, the difference, plug the preamp into any Cayin amp line in, get volume from Cayin amp, no nooise of any kind.
alt use 3.
Now possible, using current TT (won't be option for TT81/7082/7045).
This would work until I have the preamp overhauled.
Audio-Technica has built-in phono preamp. I use it, go straight to Tube Amp, skip going thru McIntosh preamp.
In spring get preamp overhauled by McIntosh, solving hum.
As I say, with 97xe 4.0mV, the hum starts just above. If I get lower output, then we get into hum territory.
There is a good old mono cart that's been around forever it seems. Denon dl102. It's a mc but a very homc at 3mv. It's quite heavy as a result as only way to get that type of mv is more windings, think it's about 13g weight! They even still make a 3mil tip for 78 playback. Not going to work in modern lightweight arms for sure.
I may try a Shibata or SAS stylus in the JVC Z1 cartridge that is coming with the TT.
Meanwhile, I am reading that using Shure's Dynamic Stabilizer Brush allows using higher compliance cartridges in some higher mass situations, like the JVC-UA-7082 and 7045 arms.
I can easily try both my Shure V15Vmr and 97xe, both use the brush.
Shure only gives Static Compliance Specs.
Shure makes a correlation of compliance with designed tracking force, i.e. suspension must be stiffer, less compliant, for higher tracking force. I always set both my Shures at 1.25g successfully using Thorens Td124 with SME 3009, Audio-Technica AT120 with it's similar weight arm.
June 19, 2015
Static Compliance Specifications and Definition,
The static compliance specifications for Shure phono cartridges are:
V15 Type I - 0.000025 cm per dyne of force V15 Type II - 0.000025 cm per dyne of force
V15 Type III - 0.000030 cm per dyne of force
V15 Type IV - 0.000025 cm per dyne of force
V15 Type V (all versions) - 0.000025 cm per dyne of force
All cartridges that track from 0.75 to 1.5 grams - 0.000025 cm per dyne of force
All cartridges that track from 1.5 to 3.0 grams - 0.000020 cm per dyne of force
All cartridges that track from 2.0 to 4.0 grams - 0.000015 cm per dyne of force
All cartridges that track from 3.0 to 5.0 grams - 0.000010 cm per dyne of force
Note: Static compliance is an indicator of low frequency tracking only.
High frequency tracking is dependent upon stylus mass and stylus stiffness. High frequency tracking is specified (when available) by trackability specifications.
In basic terms, compliance is the opposite for stiffness. High stiffness = low compliance. Low stiffness = high compliance. The static compliance of a phono stylus is determined by the stiffness of the elastic bushing that supports the stylus shank.
Look above at the V15 Type I. Apply one dyne of force (by pushing sideways) on the stylus tip and the tip moves 0.000025 cm away from its resting spot. A stylus that requires a greater tracking force is less compliant because the stylus shank is more robust, and the heavier shank requires a stiffer elastic bushing for support.
Analogy: A plastic straw can be supported by a soft elastic bushing. That same bushing would collapse if the straw were made of iron."
before choosing the rear arm for Mono,
I will wait to see the exact location of the existing rear hole on the dual arm tt I bought.
We don't know what arm it was drilled for.
UA-7045 is effective 9-5/8"
I am warming up to the Grado ME+ Mono Cartridge, waiting for Grado to tell me the compliance. It's elliptical, not Shibata like the Ortofon, but the Grado internals sound advantageous, and help suppress Resonance.
light 1.5g tracking, J1 cartridge is high 5 mV output ........................................
Rear, to be purchased +/- 9" arm (not get a UA-7045)
Stereo and Mono use
select an arm specifically for medium/high compliance STEREO cartridge and a medium/high compliance MONO cartridge.
That way I can continue to use both my Shures: 97xe elliptical and V15VxMR microline. Both light tracking, high output, use or not use Dynamic Stabilizer Brush (brush also grabs dust, reduces static). Both light tracking/high output
The only way to accurately measure system resonance is with a calibrated low frequency test record and a chart recorder, or other sophisticated test equipment. Since most of us do not possess this capability, it is wise to do some preliminary homework in assessing the compatibility of any potential arm/cartridge combination. There are a few general "rules of thumb" that we need to consider:
* A tonearm whose effective mass is rated at 10 grams or below is considered low mass (e.g. early SME’s, Grace 747 etc.). A tonearm whose effective mass is rated between 11 and 25 grams is considered moderate mass (e.g. SME 309, IV, IV-Vi, V, Triplanar, Graham). Arms above 25 grams of mass are high mass in nature (Eminent Technology, Dynavector).
* A phono cartridge whose compliance is rated at 12 x l0ˉ6 or below, is considered low compliance. A cartridge whose compliance is rated between 13 x l0ˉ6 and 25 x l0ˉ6 is considered high to very high. Note: Another way of expressing compliance is um/mN. Here a rating of 5 to 10 is considered very low, 10 to 20 is moderate and above 35 is very high.
Elliot, they are not the same, it’s different series.
The Z-1 is cheaper (actually very cheap nowadays), the stylus is completely different and you can not swap the styli between entry level Z-1 and top of the line X-1 & X1II series. The Z-1 comes with conical, elliptical or shibata. If you have Shibata - this is the best original stylus for Z-1. While the Z1 is a $100-200 cartridge today, the higher model like X-1II in NOS condition goes way over $1k.
Look at Victor catalog HERE, the price for X-1IIe is twice as much compared to Z-1e.
So when you’re using Z-1 today you can get is Jico SAS (Super Analog Stylus), the one that made for Shure cartridges as far as i know, it is compatible with Victor Z-1 and our member Halcro posted about it before in MM thread, you can search.
When you’re using X-1, X-1II and X-1IIe you can ONLY use original Victor styli and they are the best, as i told you before i have a NOS DT-x1IIe stylus in the box and a cartridge too.
I am asking about putting a new Shibata in an X-1IIe body. Will that be equivalent to a new Shibata in a X-1II body?
I have no ideal what do you mean and the logic behind this idea. If you like to buy a broken cartridges to make a Frankenstein then it’s up to you.
Re-tipped cartridge will never be even close to the original Victor Shibata/Beryllium. The X-1IIe does not have a Beryllium cantilever like the X-1II, when you will put new tip on different cantilever the sound will be different. Actually the whole re-tipping process of MM cartridges is such a BS. No one on this planet can offer Beryllium cantilever anymore, none of those re-tippers, they can't offer even titanium pipe.
The price for a NOS original boxed DT-x1IIe with ultra light and rigid Titanium Pipe cantilever and pressure fitter Nude Elliptical tip is no more than $400 (for an original).
What else you can get for that amount and where ? Normally this is what re-tippers charge just for the stylus tip (make no sense), but they can only glue the new tip to the existing cantilever or they can offer completely different cantilever, but they can’t do that on MM cartridge properly. Those victor have a tension wire inside the stylus assembly. Rebuild/Retip is just a waste of money for inferior technology. Look at the images of my Victor cartridges on macro lens and check how the stylus tip fixed to the Titanium or Beryllium cantilevers.
I've seen some third-party styli for X-1IIe with strange aluminum cantilevers, but they are junk compared to the original Victor styli.
IOW, what, if any, difference in the X-1II or X-1IIE cartridge internals.
You can download the manuals and compare the specs.
P.S. Best Victor cartridges in MINT condition with original styli cost money, they are extremely rare and very hard to find in perfect condition. Once you will be able to check the original you will understand why they are expensive.
Anyone notice how little titanium is used in tonearms and cantilevers? There is a good reason for this. It rings like a bell. Actually, you can make bells with it. I have a classic Merlin Ti bike and every time you hit a bump big enough and a cable slaps the frame, TINGGGGG! It is also sort of rubbery. You will never see it in a bike fork because it results in very squishy handling.
I apologize, Mijo, if it seems I am picking on you. It's nothing personal, and you seem like a nice guy who just believes differently from me on many audiophile issues. But here is the result of a Google search for "titanium bicycle forks". There is no dearth of them, and the reviews are very positive for titanium:https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=titanium+bicycle+fork
Where the hell you can get original NOS Shibata stylus for Victor X-1II ?
The model of the ORIGINAL stylus called DT-X1II and the price for such stylus in NOS condition will be higher than for the whole NOS X-1IIe/D cartridge for sure. This stylus is impossible to find NOS. You'd better look here. The original stylus has Beryllium cantilever, the shape of the cantilever is unique as you can see here.
If you're talking about $259 modern Jico replacement then This stylus is NOT THE ORIGINAL ! And the cantilever is aluminum (the cheapest). It will never be even close to the original Victor stylus.
I like the Shibata stylus, i think Jico is not bad for back-up, but just do not expect it will be equal to the original. If you want to hear VICTOR you need an original stylus only (Beryllium or Titanium Pipe cantilevers).
Also i think the original DT-X1IIe (Elliptical on Titanium Pipe) can be better than the JICO Shibata. In fact X-1IIe is a high resolution cartridge.
The uber can be the smartest guy on the planet, but we’re talking about NOS STYLUS, not about a set of Victor X-1IIe/D (cartridge, stylus, headshell) in mint condition. I do not promote my listings here as many other people do, and ebay prices are at least 15% higher than it can be on other sources online.
I think realistic price for a NOS stylus with titanium pipe cantilever is about $400 for this model (just for the stylus) and this is about the same price that ANY re-tippers charge for their frankensteins. Comparing an original stylus with exotic cantilevers to some fake styli with aluminum cantilever for $260 i would always buy an original if i could find one. I did find a few, so i hope it is not impossible for X-1IIE model, but much more difficult for X-1II.
I have all these cartridges, styli, tonearms etc in my collection. All of them in multiple samples, it was important for me to check and to compare all of them in my system.
Anyone can join discussion about Titanium Pipe cantilevers, i can only recall Audio-Technica cartridges with this type of cantilever, but we're all aware of the Boron Pipe and the reason why they are better.
According to our member @simpikins5 and his inside the beryllium is the best (no wonder why the most expensive Victor has beryllium cantilever):
"There was a thread on Audiogon quite a while ago in which a former engineer from Audio-Technica was participating. He wrote a rather in depth post as to why Beryllium was the go to material for cantilevers and the panic that ensued at AT when the EPA came down with the order that it no longer be used due to the dangerous toxic dust released when machining the material. He stated that the engineering department underwent a lot of R&D to find a suitable replacement material and Boron was what they determined would be closest, however it was still a compromise. Apparently Beryllium allows for the largest frequency excursion without distortion and also permits better channel separation and signal to noise ratios. This is why it was so good."
Chak, If you say you are not the person selling the Victor cartridge in the eBay ad posted here by someone else, I will believe you, but the use of the English language in that ad is very reminiscent of your phraseology, and you are located in St Petersburg, are you not? (Maybe you're not.) Do you know the seller?
As for the wonders of beryllium.... beryllium, shmeryllium. As you know, I have Acutex 320 LPM and M cartridges that use titanium cantilevers. They are as good sounding as any other cartridges I own, MM, MI, or MC types. When I brought the Acutex cartridges up in the past, you were dismissive. As you also know, I don't judge cartridges solely by the materials of which they are constructed.
Dear @lewm ;: And the pictures he posted here are similar to the ebay ad. No, it's not a coincidence.
I really don't care about but is healthy that a seller disclose is a seller and not really an Agoner audiophile. He promotes only what he has on hand for sale and according him is the best out there and like in that ebay ad gives a wide explanation with information of what other people said.
He is waiting for Agoner posts asking for cartridges or tonearms and at once he post along pictures of the cartridges that many times no one ask for. Weird behavior for say the least. Fine with me.