Wkładki Victor/JVC

[cobra]

A czy tak samo jest dla Z-4s?
Bo chyba Wojek gdzieś pisał, że generatory są takie same.

[domibobi]

Tutaj: viewtopic.php?p=83625#p83625
Ale Z-1S (Z-4S) to trochę inna sprawa niż Z-1. Z-1 i Z-1E (ten sam generator), a Z-1S i Z-1EB inny.

[furgon]

Panowie, jeżeli chodzi o eliptyka to ten tonar jest rozsądnym wyborem do z1s?

[domibobi]

Ja sądzę, że jak najbardziej. W tamtym roku była jeszcze ta:

Ale po moim zakupie dla kolegi, została oznaczona jako niedostępna.

[furgon]

I tym samym zostałem pozbawiony wyboru

[domibobi]

Jak to, jak to? Do wyboru jest jeszcze nude elliptical (Jico), shibata (Tonar, Jico) oraz sas (Jico)

https://www.thakker.eu/en/needles/dt-z- ... us/a-5655/

[Paweł W]

No to jest. Jico Nude elliptical do Z-1. Ciekawe jak zagra. Mam co prawda X 1-II, ale korciło mnie by wykorzystać także ten zestaw.

[domibobi]

Często u mnie gości na ramieniu Z-1 z ori igłą i jestem wniebowzięty słuchając jak się prezentuje. Nie dane mi było jeszcze zapoznać się z X-1 czy X-1II. Ciekawe czy Z-1 zaspokoi Twoje oczekiwania jako bezpośrednia kontynuacja technologii X-1 z zaimplementowanymi z tej serii rozwiązaniami (laminowany rdzeń oraz magnes samarowo - kobaltowy).

[pavlos]

Zainspirowany wątkami sprzedażowymi próbowałem znaleźć czym (o ile w ogóle) różnią się wkładki Z-1 od Z-1S.
O igłach nie mówię, bo zawsze można zmieniać.

I natrafiłem na poniższy post, swego rodzaju "wstęp do świata wkładek Victora"
https://audiokarma.org/forums/threads/j ... t-10409624

Poniżej istotny fragment, również z kontekstem igieł:

You may be confused by JVC’s cartridge designations, and they are confusing. The Z-1S is not the same thing as the Z-1. Here’s a rundown of some of JVC’s cartridge models.

Higher-end models:

X-1 – JVC’s best cartridge (in the 70’s), laminated core, beryllium cantilever, Shibata tip, samarium cobalt high energy magnet, very flat frequency response, 60kHz response, 1.7g tracking force – this could be used as a CD-4 cartridge, but unlike many other CD-4 cartridges, it had an exceptionally flat response within the audio band up to 20kHz, unlike many MM CD-4 cartridges from AT, Shure, Stanton etc. They obviously had some talented cartridge designers at JVC.

X-2 – later model (~1980), beryllium cantilever, Shibata MkII tip, 60kHz http://wegavision.pytalhost.com/JVC/jvc80/jvc31.jpg , http://wegavision.pytalhost.com/JVC/jvc80/jvc37.jpg

Z-1 – second best to X1, same features, 50kHz, similar very flat frequency response, 1.7g tracking force.

Z-2E – later model, similar features to Z-1, but 0.3 x 0.7mil elliptical tip, without beryllium cantilever, 35kHz

Z-3ED – 30kHz, samarium cobalt magnet, laminated core, 0.3 x 0.7mil stylus, 1.7g. I'm pretty sure that the 'D' indicated it came fitted to a headshell, so there was probably also a Z-3E.

According to an aftermarket stylus catalogue I have, the Z-3E stylus interchanges with the Z-1S, Z-1E, Z-1EB and Z-2E, so can be used to upgrade those cartridges. However, it wasn’t shown as interchanging with the beryllium cantilever X1 or Z1 models.

Lower-level models:

Z-1S (also known as the MD-1025) – S = Spherical stylus (not Shibata), 0.5mil or 0.6mil*, aluminium cantilever, upper frequency response (probably -6dB or -10dB) 25kHz, tracking force 2g. This is very much a budget cartridge, which was bundled with many of their cheaper turntables, such as the QL-A2, their cheapest direct drive of the late-70’s. It was very much at the other end of JVC’s cartridge range from the Z1, despite the similar-sounding name.

Reviews I’ve seen of turntables fitted with this cartridge show it had quite a flat response for a budget cartridge, roughly 20Hz – 20kHz ±2.5dB, which is very good for a cheap cartridge. However, the 25dB at 1kHz separation specification was stretching the truth a bit – it was more like 22dB.

* Different JVC turntable manuals differ on the size of the spherical stylus size used for the Z-1S – either 0.5mil or 0.6mil. A 0.5mil spherical was known to be close to ‘bottoming out’ in the record groove, with disastrous results, so JVC may have later reverted to 0.6mil styli for most of their spherical-tip cartridges, as many companies did. For instance, Shure dropped their light-tracking N44-5 stylus (0.5mil) and replaced it with the N44G (0.6mil), both tracking at below 1.5g.

Z-1E (MD-1025E) – same features as Z-1S, but a slightly upgraded 0.3 x 0.7mil elliptical stylus, 2g tracking force. This didn’t seem to have been fitted to any turntables as standard equipment, so may just have been offered as an upgrade for the Z-1S.

Z-1EB (MD-1025EB) – 25kHz, 0.3 x 0.7mil elliptical, 1.75g. I suspect this had the same body as the Z-1S and Z1-E, but it had a better stylus tracking at a lower 1.75g, which could also be used to upgrade the Z-1E and Z-1S. It was bundled with some of their better turntables, such as the QL-Y3F and QL-Y5F – I have one which came on the used QL-Y3F I bought some years ago, and have been meaning to fit an SAS tip to it, but it’s not a priority at the moment.

Z-2E – 35kHz, 0.3 x 0.7mil elliptical, 1.7g. In the user manual it says that this was supplied complete with 5 tips when new, which would have been handy.

The samarium cobalt magnets used in the higher-end models mean higher magnetic energy from a smaller-sized magnet, so higher output and lower moving mass of the stylus/magnet/cantilever assembly can be obtained. Due to the use of the rare earth metal samarium, they generally weren’t used on budget cartridges, due to the high cost.

Did the Z-1S, Z-1E, Z-1EB or Z-2E have laminated cores? Well, I suspect that if they had, JVC would have mentioned it. Frequency response plots for the Z-1S and Z-1EB clearly show the midrange to high frequency dip characteristic of MM cartridges which have solid core pole pieces, so I doubt that they do have laminated cores.

Some later ‘JVC’ cartridges were just OEM re-badged Audio-Technica ones, but you can always pick them because they say in the specs they have dual magnets. None of the ones listed above are AT-manufactured – they’re all JVC designs.

So the MD-1025 cartridges (Z-1S, Z-1E and Z-1EB) are quite different from the Z-1 cartridge, which was much superior with its Shibata tip, beryllium cantilever and laminated core. Whether the styli interchange or not, nobody mentions in their catalogues and websites, although the body of the Z-1 looks very similar to that of the Z-1E on the Japan Audio Heritage website, and it mentions that it inherits the 'body structure', which probably just means the exterior.

So my guess is that the Z-1 and Z-1S/Z-1E/Z-1EB styli interchange, but because I doubt that the cheaper models have the laminated core, I don't think that fitting the Z-1 stylus to the Z-1S would upgrade it to Z-1 performance levels - the frequency response would still have a dip caused by its solid core.

[domibobi]

Tutaj pojawia się mała wątpliwość co do Z-1 i Z-1E https://audio-database.com/VICTOR/etc/z-1e.html

Z-1E - MM type cartridge with modified vibration system design while taking advantage of Z-1 body structure. By changing the replacement needle to DT-Z1 type, the same performance as Z-1 type can be obtained.

Chodzi o drugie zdanie (Poprzez wymianę igły na typ DT-Z1, można uzyskać parametry pracy identyczne z modelem Z-1)

[Wojtek]

To jest dość stary post i niestety nie jest wyczerpujący, a zarazem zawiera trochę błędów.

Mamy już ogólny wątek o wkładkach JVC/Victor więc wcielam ten temat do niego.

W kontekście Z-1 od siebie dodam - główna różnica po stronie generatora to laminowane cewki i może lepsza kontrola jakości/parowanie kanałów.
Kluczowe parametry generatorów są te same, obojętnie czy mamy w ręku topową Z-1/Z-1E czy plebejską Z-1S albo pośrednią Z-1EB.
Igła robi główną robotę między poszczególnymi modelami. Berylowy wspornik to jednak nie przelewki.

X-1 i X-1II są bardzo zbliżone parametrowo do serii Z-1, a jednak grają inaczej + igły nie są kompatybilne.
Dlatego siłą rzeczy traktujemy je osobno.

Z jakiegoś powodu JICO nie jest w stanie zaoferować SASa do X-1, a do Z-1 owszem. Ciekawe, prawda?

Coś czego nie mogłem nigdzie znaleźć i doprowadziło mnie do to zakupu zarówno X-1 i X-1II kilka lat temu by móc to sprawdzić samodzielnie:
wszystkie generatory X-1 są jednakowe, a igły są zamienne. Jedyne co tak na prawdę zmienili w X-1II to kształt body, bo stwierdzili że oprawka z pierwszej wersji X-1 nie zapewnia odpowiedniej stabilności. Jak spojrzycie na zdjęcia, X-1II ma taki daszek z przodu gdzie jest napis oraz masywniejszą oprawkę, to zapewnia dodatkową stabilność mocowania. Trochę karkołomne, ale tak to wymyślili.

[pavlos]

O, dzięki, Wojtek.
Nie dość starannie szukałem na forum...

To jest dość stary post

... Nadal przedmiotowe wkładki są znacznie starsze...