[neobop]

Not rim drive....a belt.
See Link..and it has the SDS speed controller built in.
Yes...my friend prefers it to the Micro motor. So much so that he designed his own deck using another HRX motor....

The Achromat I agree has deficiencies.....and they are instantly audible compared to my references.

I thought you meant the VPI rim drive option on the HRX.
http://www.vpiindustries.com/manuals/TNT_HR-X-12_7.pdf

Did you try the mat on top of the metal one?  Is it the 5mm version?
I mentioned that I'm a chronic arm height adjuster, and when the mat arrived I had the arm lowered.   I made a minor adjustment for the new mat and it seemed pretty good.   Subsequently, I couldn't integrate the sound with other LP's.  Last night I put on Ron Carter's Piccolo album (2-LP). Great sounding live album and I raised the arm.  The sound was amazing but seemed like the arm was a hair high.  This triggered a progression of adjustments that ended with loading the Z1 at 32K.   



The album is highly recommended.  I'll have to see about the mat + lead. 
Ron Carter plays piccolo bass which is a little smaller than a regular 3/4 size upright.  Buster Williams is on acoustic bass, Kenny Barron piano and Ben Riley drums.  Recorded live at Sweet Basil NYC in '77.   The playing on this album is great - catchy and it swings.  The sound is phenomenal.
neo

[griffithds]

Hi Halcro,

   I have a question for you in regards to your FR-7f/LC.  I have been under the impression that the 'f' model was conical?  I am not all that convinced of that because of the 'cf' version.  A person would think that  the 'c' would stand for conical of the 'f' model. I own a FR-7 Line Contact (late model).  I find some of the understanding of these models rather elusive hence the question! (grin)
BTW:  Out comrade Nikola in The Netherlands has the 'fz' model.  He considers it one if not 'the' best cartridge he owns!
Regards,

[Halcro]

Hi Griff,
Yes it is quite confusing if you look up Vinyl Engine's specs on the Fidelity Research FR-7 range of LOMC cartridges...
It was always my understanding that the FR-7f was held in higher esteem than the plain old FR-7...and sometimes even higher than the FR-7fz.....
It wasn't till I acquired my FR-7f and sent it to Dertonarm for re-tipping (as he knows the original technician in Tokyo who did them for the factory) that I realised that the original stylus for the 7f was in fact conical....


After the re-tip to original specs....whilst the cartridge sounded quite good, it wasn't clearly ahead of the UNIverse or even the XV-1s I already owned.
Unfortunately...or fortunately as it now turns out....one day when I lowered the 7f onto the lead-in groove, a crackling noise was the only result. Under the 10x loupe, it was revealed that the 'new' conical stylus by the 'Japanese Master' had sheared in half...
Sending it to Axel for a new 'new' re-tip...his recommendation was to replace it with a Line Contact which was done.
The result was nothing short of revelatory....
Now the specs on VE say that the FR-7 has a Line Contact as does the FR-7fz with the FR-7f having the conical. This simply doesn't make sense to me..
Why do the FR-7 and FR-7fz have exactly the specs (other than impedance and compliance)...and we know that the FR-7f cost a lot more than the plain 7 and fz more than them both...
There needs to be an authorised account of the differences between these models to clear up this 40 year mystery....
It's hard for me to say that I have now turned my 7f into an fz (simply by changing to a Line Contact stylus) as the load and output impedances are different...
What is your opinion of the plain old FR-7?

Regardless of all this....my FR-7f/Lc is simply the most convincing LOMC cartridge I have ever heard. Nuff said....
Regards

[neobop]

Maybe Dertonarm can help with the mystery if you're still in touch?   I'm a little surprised you guys don't have more magnification.  You don't need a fancy microscope to tell a spherical from a line contact.  100X would be more than adequate, but I'm one to talk - now with 30X. 

There are mistakes on the database, but not that many considering.....  The FR7 was the first (1978?) and not surprisingly, is really spherical.  .2mV, 3 ohm generator is modified to 2 ohms on the 7F & 7FE with same output.   If the data is correct it's hard to tell what the change is.  1 ohm difference isn't much, but it's 1/3 of the total.   
I guess it's safe to assume the 7E is elliptical.  It looks like the 7FZ came later ('84) and is further modified to .24mV, 5 ohm.  Looks like longer coils make more voltage.  We don't know what internal changes were made if any, but it's a little different. 

I'll have to get a new scope.  Last year I got a used conventional scope with USB capability.  The thing doesn't seem to work which was a big disappointment.  It's an expensive piece.   I'm pretty sure I can modify a USB scope to check for wear.  It's easy to take beauty shots but checking for wear is  tricky.  I used to do that professionally with an AT scope.  BTW, most of the USB scopes have half of advertised magnification.  The other half comes from the software.  I've seen shots where people think it's 200X and it looks like about 80. 
Another project.   
neo

[griffithds]

Hello Halcro,

  I find it quite difficult to explain what it is about my FR-7 that I find so enchanting. When compared (A/B type testing), to some of my other cartridges,  it seldom comes out on top.  These comparisons reveal that it sort of sounds slightly rolled off on the top and lacks a little detail.  Yet I find it one of my most enjoyable cartridges to spend time with.  There is something magical about it that I just can not quantify.  It is a quality that no other cartridge that I have owned or heard has.  How is it possible for it to sound so 'right' but then when directly compared to other cartridges, it sounds so 'wrong'?  Perhaps we have been lead to believe in the wrong things to 'judge' by.
Personally, I think it has something to do with those huge Anico magnets in the FR. 
Regards,

[griffithds]

Hi Neo,

   Good to hear you also have discovered the special qualities that the JVC/SAS brings to the table.
When I think about how much money I have spent on some of my cartridges that this Z-1/SAS outperforms, I begin to think of myself as a fool!  (grin)
To state that it outperforms above its price point would be a major understatement!
   Neo, I think many of us do own test equipment with higher magnification.  It is not that difficult to determine a Conical from a Line Contact but when you get into comparing the Elliptical with a Supper Elliptical or a Supper Elliptical and a Line Contact, it get more difficult. How about telling the difference between an Fine Line and a Line Contact?  Or the various Shibata's.  It takes a very good trained eye to see these differences. To actually determine wear!  Well we are kidding ourselves when we run out and buy one of these high power microscopes if we think we are going to be able to determine life expectancy of a stylus or actually see wear this way.  You Neo can see and determine this.  It is because you have received the training and have had the experience working in the industry.  But those of us that are only in this as a hobby, well, ignorance is sometimes bliss!
Regards,

[neobop]

Hi Griff,
Regarding magnification -  Low power magnifiers are useful for alignment, stylus inspection, and a variety of tiny jobs where it's a big assist to actually see what you're doing, but you really need a variety of powers.  10X might be a little strong as an alignment aid.  The focal length is a bit short for that.  There's something called a linen magnifier, a low power lens that sits upright on an angled stand.  They come in around 2X to 8X.  You have to make sure you're not just looking from one angle, or the lighting is uneven, but it helps immensely.

10X is good for seeing if the stylus is caked with crud, while it mounted on your table.  People used to bring in styli so caked up I couldn't see the tip.  Sometimes it looked like a volcano with a little diamond top.  With 30 to 50X (small hand held scope) you can see a bushing or nude mount, the way it's fixed to the cantilever etc.  You can usually see a crack or chip in the diamond with this magnification.  Spotting something like this could save an irreplaceable record.  Advanced shapes and micros are often smaller and more susceptible, with sharper edges.  A chipped stylus can tear up a record.  It might sound okay for awhile but when you lift the cart at the end there's a long curled up ribbon of vinyl hanging from the tip.  Make your blood run cold?  It can happen.  It happened to me with an ML.  My hand slipped and it landed on a metal platter.  I checked and the tip was still there, but little did I know.....  When I saw that ribbon of vinyl I nearly shit myself. 

There's many sizes of LC, FL etc. and I'm not sure why you'd need to tell one from the other.
Checking for wear is a whole other thing and requires side lighting only.  You're looking for the reflection off the business part of the tip.  Like a lot of other things unfamiliar, it's only an obscure mystery until you find out about it.  Yes, you'll need some help interpreting what you see, especially at first, but that's what these forums are for.
Regards,
neo

     

[neobop]

While I had the Z1 on the table I did an experiment with the mat, which involved using another mat underneath.  This was with an old one made of "woven" expanded foam - silicone or polyester.  By itself the foam mat seems to outperform stock rubber mats, but ultimately falls short.  With Achromat on top, the whole seemed greater than the sum of the parts, much better than either by itself.  Is this like Herbie's?   Still, it doesn't perform like a Goldmund platter or Sota Supermat, but gives hope that replacing foam with lead could be even better.

I dismounted the JVC to send back to Griff.  (BTW, thanks again for this loan.)  I then set-up the 440/beryllium ML on the same table.  The difference took some getting used to.  For one thing the Z1 was louder.  The 440 w/Signet MR-ML stylus should be around 4.5 to 5mV.  AFAIK the Z1E is 4mV.  The spec is taken at 1KHz which could explain some of it.  When I turn up the 440 that piano in the background is now more forward.  Even with ensemble playing (as opposed to solo) the piano is much more prominent.  It's hard to second guess a mix, but the Ron Carter LP's are live.  Although the JVC is more exciting, I think the AT is more accurate in presentation - more like live.  A lot depends on the music and personal preference.  The Z1 makes the music come alive in a different way.  The bass solos are right there, prominent and real sounding, so are the cymbals.  All the other things I've said about transient response and detail hold true, including a slight lack of tonality. 

The Z1/SAS is a seductive cart.  After using one for awhile it's easy to see how Halcro can put a different variety on all three arms.  I don't rank carts the same way as some others, and while I think some carts are clearly better than others, good ones are different.   I'd like one of these because it's fun and enjoyable, not because I think it's the best MM.   I probably won't get one because I really want a 50ANV or ART9 or 7, or maybe even a PTG II.  Right now the ART9 has a special interest for me.  On the other hand the 50ANV .....
neo

[neobop]

BIN anyone?

LpGear has 2 HOMC's which seem to get some respect, even accolades.  Anybody try one?
http://www.lpgear.com/product/BIN215.html
http://www.lpgear.com/product/BIN323.html

1.7mV, 2.0g, 10cu @ 100Hz  .3 x.7 or nude square shank LC. 

I'm in the process of making a lead mat.  The stuff is a little tricky to work with.  It has to be flattened, cut out, and drilled.  Looks like it will be more like 1mm thick than 2mm.   The 3mm Achromat appears to be more like 2.5mm.  It weighs just under 4 oz - 112g.  The lead looks like it will come in around 510g - 1.1 lb. 

The AT MONO3 isn't broken in yet.  Played a Japanese pressing of a '50's Ray Brown LP and it was remarkable how much quieter it was, even with a good pressing.  The difference is even greater with a noisy copy.
neo

[griffithds]

Hi Neo,

Both those Bin (LPgear) cartridges sound interesting.  I hope someone can add some highlights!

[neobop]

Hi Griff,
Not sure if you noticed the story with these:
http://www.lpgear.com/category/BIN.html

I was looking around VE and saw this:
http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=73133&start=45

Bobinaz7 has something interesting to say.

Not many HOMC's make it to the big time.   

[griffithds]

Hi Neo,

   First I would like to let you know that the JVC/SAS arrived and all is good on the Western front!  (grin)
Thanks for the search attachments.  Interesting cartridge.  You are right.  Seldom does a HOMC ever make it to a recommendation. 
The extra winding's to create the extra output also creates extra mass so most of them sound sort of sluggish to me.  Not all though, but most!
I might have to give one of them a listen.  I'm a little busy right now but I have earmarked it for a later purchase. I will keep you and everyone else
informed when I do.
Regards,

[neobop]

Saw a thread on Asylum about Stanton/Pickering stylus failure.
http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=vinyl&m=1112841

Tell you the truth it doesn't make sense to me.   It's about rubber damper failure.  I don't know about all the models, but my 981 stylus doesn't seem to have a rubber damper, so how is that stylus failure?  I assume there's a damper inside the body and if that dried up any stylus would be bad.

I suspect it's more a case of re-break in.  It usually takes at least a few hours to get a cart going again after it's been sitting.  At least that's been my experience..... any thoughts?
neo

[griffithds]

Hi Neo.

I completely agree with your comment in regards to this required 'mini' break-in after a cartridge has sat for a while .  Some of you may be asking yourself, just how long is this
'for a while'.  Well, I had cartridges that don't sound quite as I remember them sounding only after a couple of days of this sitting.  Others take several weeks before this same effect takes place.  To me, the cartridges sound is a bit thin until it 're' settles in. I can not say for sure that it is the suspension that is making the change from sitting, or if it is the coil  wire being energized when placed back into use.  I do know of some audiophiles that will not even move their speaker wire for fear of having to 're' break them in.  A lot of Voodoo in this hobby of ours but I do know what I hear.  Something does definitely change in the sound of a cartridge when it sits.
Regards,

[multirock]

Wow! what a great site. I found a LOT of interesting info 
I found this site looking for info about the Victor Z-1s cartridge, which came with a Sansui TT that I recently bought.
Seems to be that it's a nice cartridge and with a JICO SAS stylus will sound very nice!
I have a question about it and I hope you can help me.
I have a Victor QL5-r TT with a Victor MD-1016 cartridge and I'm waiting for a JICO SAS stylus for it.
I wonder if the difference between the Z1s and the MD-1016 could be big enough to buy another JICO SAS stylus for the Z1s  . What do you think?

Thanks a lot! and greetings from Chile

Esteban

[neobop]

Hi Esteban, welcome to the thread and Vinyl Circle.

How does the MD1016 compare to the Z1 ?  Good question.  I suspect you'll have to tell us.   Maybe Griff knows something about it.  All I know is that the X1 and Z1 were TOTL carts.  I couldn't find any specs on the 1016, but with the Shure type stylus fitment it might be similar?  That's a long shot, but if they make an SAS for it, it's a definite maybe. 
neo

[griffithds]

Hello Esteban,

   I think Neobop has answered your question about as good as anyone on this thread could.  The fact that Jico offers a SAS for the MD1016 does say a lot. If you already have one on order, I would wait and give us your impressions of it.  After sufficient warm up time is given of course to that new SAS.   I would hate to recommend you spend another $133 for a SAS for the Z-1 and only receive small improvements or perhaps 'no' improvements if your remaining components (phono stage. tone arm, cables, etc. are not up to the task of fleshing out those slight improvements.  I am using the term 'improvements' in a very loose sense.  In many cases, what you will recieve will be just changes in flavor.  Easy to make something sound different, but to make it an improvement, well, that is another thing altogether!

[multirock]

Thanks a lot! I'll wait for the MD-1016 SAS, and then I'm gonna decide if a new SAS for the Z1s would be worth.
I can't compare the MD-1016 with the Z1s because the stylus on the MD-1016 it's a Shibata and the one on the Z1s it's a elliptical and isn't in a very good shape. I think any comparison it's unfair in these conditions.

These are the specs for the MD-1016:

Output: 3mV (1kHz)
Frecuency response: 10 to 25.000hz
Separation: Better than 25 db (1kHz)
Channel Balance: Within +/- 1.5dB
Load Resistance: 47 to 100 kohms
Compliance: 20x10'6/dyne
Tracking Force: 1.5 to 2.0 grams.

What can I say it's that I have a Jelco MC-14d with a elliptical stylus and sound much better than the Z1s  (bass definition and clear highs). I doesn't exist much info about the Jelco neither, but JICO also made a stylus for it, so must be a decent cartridge.

These are the specs for the Jelco:

Frequency Response 10~27,000Hz
Sensitivity 4mV at 1,000Hz/50mm/sec
Channel Balance 0.7dB at 1,000Hz
Channel Seperation 26dB at 1,000Hz
Impedance 2k ohms at 1,000Hz
D.C. Resistance 350 ohms
Load Resistance 47K ohms~100k ohms
Compliance 12x10`6cm/dyne
Needle Pressure 1.5gr ~ 3gr

Any opinions?

I will tell you my impressions about the MD-1016 when the SAS arrives.

Best regards

[griffithds]

Hello Multirock,

  There is something that I think you are missing or not understanding when you think of the SAS.  JICO only has (1) SAS cantilever/stylus but they install it in many different housings.  They also manufacture the housings.  When you receive the SAS for your MD-1016, what you will be looking at will be the exact same cantilever and stylus that is in the SAS Z-1 and all other SAS applications.  Only the housing's will be different which could also include the shaft that inserts into the body of the cartridge.  Also in regards to your Z-1.  If it is the 'S' model, then it is spherical or better known as conical (round).  If is the 'E' model, then it is the elliptical.  You have stated that the MD-1016 has a Shibata.  The SAS will be a Micro-Ridge.  You should find the Shibata to be a little sweeter sounding, but the Micro-Ridge should provide more detail.  The difference between these two will not be as great as what you would discover on the Z-1S.  Going from a Spherical to a Micro-Ridge is a major difference.  I would think that the MD-1016 with a Shibata would be a good cartridge to spend quality time with! Perhaps more so with the SAS.  Let us know what you discover.
Regards,

[James Romeyn]

...I'm not sure what I'm doing right now. I feel like I should fix up that old Sota, either with a Teres rim drive or even a motor on a pod with a controller. It's got a nice platter....
neo

Please post link if there some established method to add rim drive to the Sota TT.  That sounds like a fantastic idea.  The plinth, platter, and cabinet are fantastic starting points.   

On older Sota TTs the wow and flutter is quite audible, and bothersome.  I suspect the current models are much improved in that area, but have not heard them.

I have concrete floor, which minimizes or eliminates floor bounce.  I know of persons who owned older VPI HW-19 TTs (suspended and in other ways similar to Sota) and strongly felt replacing the springs with visco-elastic (AKA rubber) grommets vastly improved performance.  Sota now makes and sells the Jewel, same as the Saphire w/grommets replacing the springs.  The Jewel is my favorite current Sota.  If I bought an older Sota, I'd purchase the Saphire and convert it to a Jewel.

It may not look great, but the $6500 Merrill TT may be the world's best high end TT value.