Just a final comment on the droop seen on many 7082 and 7045 arms.
The only way I believe you will ever see one of these with zero droop is from a nos example that has lived in its sealed box all of its life.
Many reasons for the droop to exist on used examples.
Reaction of the rubber to chemicals present in the environment and natural degrading of the rubber over time, these arms are 30 to 40 years old.
Once a counter weight is mounted then the laws of nature and gravity will take over and again if have been in use for 30 to 40 years.…..
One possible reason for some arms showing more droop than others could be the weight of the cartridge used, a heavier cart will mean the counterweight was mounted further back to balance the arm and vice versa.
All of these factors explain just why most of these arms show some droop to one degree or another and why the amount of droop may differ.
My 7045 has more droop than my 7082, could be any of the above including maybe it was a nos example not used for many years. Who knows unless you personally owned them from new.
Certainly we should NOT be describing these used examples as "defective" as some have done as they clearly are not so.
Now common sense rules and if you see a droop of 45 degrees or more then yes I would be concerned but a couple degrees from level?
Just my take on the arm situation.
|
Elliot, the poly table Super 12 with a 12" Jelco arm is a great choice as long as you are using a fairly low compliance cartridge certainly less than 15 um/mN. Something like an Ortofon 2M Black will suffer greatly in that arm. The are a lot of MC cartridges below 15 and Sound Smith makes cartridges with very low compliance just for arms like this. |
Mijo.
Elliot bought a Victor TT-81 cw ua-7082 arm already......
Hence the last few posts have mostly centered around the attributes of the 7045 and 7082 arms.
I have no doubt the Poly Super 12 is a mighty fine table though. |
Hi Everyone. I cancelled the purchase amicably. That deck, and arm was not in great shape. I’ve got my eye on one in Canada, the counterweight rubber was just restored, everything looks in better shape. See the last 2 photos he added https://www.canuckaudiomart.com/details/649553719-victor-jvc-tt-81-direct-drive-quartz-lock-turntable-with-long-victor-ua-7082-tonearm/ That 2 arm base is HUGE. 565mm w x 508mm d x 202mm h. (22-1/4w x 20d x 8h). Once I realized how big, I have to rethink where it and other equipment will go, probably need to spend money to solve all that, ..... ........................ Question: IF I go for a TT81 with single long 7082 arm, does the smaller base have the same layered construction as the big CL-P2 base? The CL-P2, on some, looking closely, you can see the layers on the front edge, the smaller base, no layers are revealed, perhaps covered by veneer. Confusing. I am so behind on Christmas, |
The rubber for counterweight isolation is a great idea, however, it does break down, I had to restore the rubber in my SME 3009. |
Elliott.
Sounds like you are doing your homework and due diligence, very commendable.
I did see that one on Audiomart and it does look to be in nice shape and includes a step down transformer ( even though he says step up, lol)
Unfortunately some of the items exported from Japan can show some corrosion due to the high humidity and if they have been stored in a warehouse or store room for some time. You do have to be careful.
Yes rubber does degrade in the enviroment due to chemicals and reactions to such , unless you live in a clean room that is!
And yes that two arm base IS HUGE and heavy! I only just squeezed it into the space the TT-71 had been with barely mm to spare. I do not know if the smaller single arm base is constructed in the same fashion though.
Good luck if you decide to pull the trigger on the Audiomart item!
|
|
Just a final comment on the droop seen on many 7082 and 7045 arms.
The only way I believe you will ever see one of these with zero droop is from a nos example that has lived in its sealed box all of its life.
Many reasons for the droop to exist on used examples.
Not really, the NOS are normally very expensive compared to gently used samples, just like everything in audio. I've seen only a few NOS samples in 5 years or so, i bought one of them, it was 7045, sold it when i bought long 7082 (used). My 7082 does not have any problem with rubber grommet, but it's original, everything is clean like new. Regarding the used 7045 only 1 out of 3 wasn't perfect. So it's possible to find a perfect used sample, nice and clean. Another problem is oil in armlift, but the whole armlift can be replaced with new jelco armlift. The problem is that most people selling junk on ebay, i prefer to buy everything from a perfectionists like myself. |
Chak, I am looking at your post of 12/22 at 12:06. Do you not see a slight sag in the CW, even for your pristine example? I do.
|
C'mon now Lewm.
Chakster is always right and has to have the last word...... |
Do you not see a slight sag in the CW, even for your pristine example? I do.
We can look at another image from the internet: a perfect tonearm and a broken sample Anything in between is SAG at different degree, but clearly visible from the first fast look on it. |
Interesting pictures that do not quite tell the whole story as you are painting it Chak…….
If you look at a few more pictures on the net you will clearly see the one you posted has the whole collar askew.
There are quite a few with a straight collar and some degree of sag that is genuinely from the rubber but do not look as bad as the one picture you posted.
However you want to beat it to death, the terminology is NOT defective or broken!
Although the picture you did post would qualify as broken imho yes.
|
I’ll agree that the sagging photo is a bit too sagging. It’s condition is something like mine, which does need a new grommet.
Since there are may be half a dozen people in the whole world who give a s**t about this question, maybe we should stop? And maybe Chak would stop preaching on the subject. Instead, it would be better if you would qualify your remarks as "opinion". To which you are entitled.
And we can move on to something equally boring.
|
Amen!
And apologies to the OP for labouring this point.
Elliott, please do update on your decision if you go the way of the other all Victor combo or another direction entirely.
👍👍 |
Well, the guy in Canada has not responded to my offer. After he fixed the tonearm, he raised the price +$100, to $1,200. Canadian. ($912. USD).
I'll let you know of course.
Elliott |
Probably busy with, you know, Christmas stuff.
$912 USD sounds fair especially as it has the x-1 Cart and a step down transformer.
Hope it works out for you. |
|
uberwaltz
As far as I could find, there are only two available in the world, the one I bought and luckily got out of in Japan, and this one. Whew! |
Elliott
When I was looking I was lucky and stumbled across mine right here on Audiogon, it was the only complete all Victor dual arm plinth version I had seen at that time.
We struck what I thought was a fair deal but then like yourself I was shocked at just how large and massive the plinth was when I unboxed it and saw it in person!
Setup was a breeze and I already had a stepdown from my Victor TT-71 so was ready to play music right away.
I am sure you will be very happy with it indeed.
Merry Christmas and enjoy your present to yourself, the best kind!
|
|
|
|
For options, I found and bought the optional extra counterweight, fits either 7082 or 7045
https://www.ebay.com/itm/193237660632
Yes, this is what you need for heavier MC carts or heavier headshells on your UA-7082 |
|
Elliot, stay away from any tone arm that, "needs repair." A tonearm should never need repair. Any good tonearm is a life long investment. If it needs repair it was abused in some way or it was a bad design. Any tonearm with an offset angle requires an anti skate devise. Not having one interferes with the cartridges ability to track the right channel (outside) and increase both stylus and groove wear on both sides. You can demonstrate this to yourself with the HI FI News test record. Play the anti skate test and adjust your anti skate as per instructions. Now play the tracking ability test. Gently lift the anti skate device to inactivate it. What happens? You will have an "Oh Crap" moment. The most important function of any tonearm/cartridge combination is to be able to track the record. The best way to do a dust cover on a turntable that does not have one is to incorporate it with a platform. To be functional a dust cover must be hinged. Trying to place a loose dust cover over a turntable that is playing is difficult, time consuming and dangerous. A dust cover you do not use while the table is playing is 75% worthless. So, you hinge the dust cover to the turntable’s platform. My favorite design is a 1" thick acrylic base with a fixed upright back higher than the turntable to which the dust cover is hinged. These guys can make it for you. https://www.displaycasej.com/custom-audio-coversThey do excellent work. They made the dust cover for my SME and it is flawless. Some people here like lewm will tell you that dust covers SOUND TERRIBLE. As long as the dust cover is not attached directly to the structure carrying the platter and tonearm a dust cover will actually make your turntable sound noticeably BETTER. Using a dust cover is just like wearing hearing protection muffs. It attenuates any noise in the room decreasing the turntable’s noise pollution exposure by 20 or more dB. My SME dust cover is 1/4" thick. I played a 1000 kHz test tone by CD and adjusted the volume by meter to 90 dB. Then I put the meter on top of the SME’s platter and closed the dust cover. The volume dropped to 64 dB a 26 dB improvement. It is like putting your turntable in another room. Next. Any dust on the record while it is playing is detrimental to the sound, record and stylus wear. The stylus generates thousands of volts of static electricity while it is playing which attracts dust like a magnet pulling it right into the groove. The dust cover limits the amount of dust in the vicinity of the static charged record. Along with a dust cover get one of these. https://www.sleevecityusa.com/Antistatic-Record-Cleaning-Arm-p/tac-01.htm This will discharge the record while it is playing and collect any incidental dust at the same time. Records that I purchase new never need cleaning. Since I do not buy used records I do not need a record cleaning machine. I have a Spin Clean for the rare occasion that someone brings a record over to hear but all my close audiophile friends use the same system. Good Luck, Mike |
Mike, Your testfor the validity of a dust cover is fatally flawed. The problem with dust covers is due to the fact that sonic energy radiates from the cartridge as it traverses the LP. Trapping that energy under a dust cover so that vibrations bounce around and feed back on the cartridge body is not good. You’ve ignored that very real phenomenon.
|
|
|
mijostyn
thanks for your advice Mike.
Today I rearranged equip, it will fit in better than I feared. Measured twice, cut once, I will be ready before it comes. He will ship from Canada after new years. |
|
Not familiar with that Pioneer arm but you would get yet another huge Victor plinth and a lower model tt-61 table to boot.
Guess that depends on what f you need any of that or just resell minus the arm thereby getting the pioneer arm for cheap.
I can't imagine it is as good as a 7045 though. |
well, compatibility with high output mono cartridge is the draw, IF it's a decent arm. I don't need VTA on the fly for the short momo arm..
that base's wood is not sun bleached like the one I bought which I will re-finish. Perhaps I paint one Red! |
Elliot, I guess you have decided to be anal about the rubber bushing and CW droop, but in any case, the UA77 is not in the same league with the UA7045 or 7082. I'm sure it "works", however. It's actually a piece of cake to replace the rubber grommet on 7045/7082, if droop or sag bother you. You need a tiny metric socket wrench to remove two tiny set screws and a good hardware store or mail order from McMaster-Carr.
|
lewm, you have to be kidding. Please tell me you are kidding. Do you have ghosts in your closet? Even a cheap modern turntable transfers very little energy to the surrounding environment. A good turntable with a good record hold down system that dampens the record with a stiff multi bearing arm set up correctly will transfer virtually nothing. You can place an ear right next to both my tables and you will hear absolutely nothing. To say that this energy bounces off a mechanically isolated dust cover and somehow interferes with the signal is next to ludicrous. How can you possibly compare this to loudspeakers in the same room blaring at 90 dB? I know you do not like dust covers but you will have to find another reason. You might just say you don't like them instinctively and be done with it. Your loss. Even if somehow a proper dust cover caused some mystical degradation in sound protecting the record is paramount. Not to mention your tonearm. Dust is certainly not a good thing for them either. The myth about the dust cover being bad was perpetrated by manufacturers that either did not want to supply them or had designs that made integrating a dust cover difficult. Other manufacturers that had to compete on a cost basis were forced into not supplying them further advancing the myth. Marketing and mythology are first cousins. |
Elliot, smart man. Measure twice cut once. My contractor had that stenciled on his truck.
The Pioneer arm is in the same ball park as the JVC arm which I like better but I have to admit my preference is instinctive. Most tonearms with removable head shells have higher effective masses. That relatively heavy mechanism is right at the end of the tonearm and adds directly to the effective mass. If you want to use a high compliance cartridge 20u/mN or higher you have to use an arm with a fixed head shell or a novel system like the Kuzma 4 point 9. Look at the Pro-Ject Evo 12. That is a relatively light 12 inch arm. The SME V 12 is another but that one is very pricey. A used Kuzma Stogi Ref 313 might fit in nicely.
Mike |
lewm,
I'm handy, I could fix the rubber of any 7045 I buy. Does the flexibility of the rubber make much difference?
Being careful, 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.
|
mijostyn
while tempting, I am not going for the tt with tt61 and pioneer arm. I'm gonna get the stereo 7082 arm and cartridge/stylus resonled first.
Then measure the distance: spindle to the rear hole of the tt I bought when it gets here. 7045 arm is effective 9-5/8".
Mono Cartridge: Depending on chosen arm, I might buy the Ortofon 2 M SE with Shibata Stylus, output 3mV, but, I prefer the higher output 5.0 mV of the Grado ME+ (only comes elliptical). |
|
Dear Mijo, You wrote, "Even a cheap modern turntable transfers very little energy to the
surrounding environment. A good turntable with a good record hold down
system that dampens the record with a stiff multi bearing arm set up
correctly will transfer virtually nothing."
Where did I say that "turntables" transfer energy into the "environment"? What I inferred was that cartridges are microphonic; they all give off some audible noises as they decode the musical signal. Now it's my turn to be incredulous, if you say you've never heard such a phenomenon. But here is where I will confess to being guilty of a common audiophile sin: To me, that sound energy coming directly from cartridges is obvious, and to me it has always been obvious that dust covers add a coloration that I do not like. So, I put these two facts together and ascribed causality. I hate when others do that, so I plead mea culpa for having done it in this case. I've never proven that the coloration imparted by dust covers is per se due to cartridge microphony. Suffice to say that for me dust covers add a coloration that MIGHT be due to trapping the acoustic energy put out by a cartridge during play. Thus I never ever use a dust cover. I think you would find that most serious vinylistas don't use them either. I wonder how many others on this thread use dust covers.
Elliott: If someone can tell me how to post photos here, I will show you how I re-enforced and increased the mass of the Victor QL-10 plinth that came with my TT101. All done with aluminum custom fitted.
|
I’ve gone through too many tonearms to list, beginning with the old Garrard articulated arm, through Transcriptors, VPI, Unipivot and Graham. For a while, my vote went to the JMW Memorial 10.5-inch arm for its price, straightforward setup, ease of adjustment and use, but on my current turntable I went with an an Apparition 12-inch arm from Analog Instruments (New Zealand) and I'm not looking back.
First, assuming you’re doing the installation yourself, the geometry defined by the longer arm makes initial setup and adjustment much easier and slightly less critical. Second, the cocobolo wood arm tube does everything it’s supposed to do regarding vibration/resonance. Even with my midrange Shelter cartridge, the sound is pure and absolutely clean. Since my table was custom-designed and built, there is no plinth. Instead, a 70-pound solid brass pillar supports the tonearm; positioning is infinitely variable and, once set up, it’s virtually immoveable. The Apparition is a very simple pivot design that is not without caveats (the dimple in which the pivot sits is subject to wear and mis-placement), but what it lacks in sophistication it more than makes up for in ease of setup, use and quality.
In short, I'm a member of “the longer the better” club. I have no experience with air-bearing tangential arms but, given the choice (and with the room for placement), I would go with a 12- or even a 13-inch pivot arm over a 9- or 10-inch arm any day.
|
12-inch tonearm made of cocobolo must have very high effective mass. Fine for low compliance cartridges. Not so fine for high compliance ones. There is no single best length or best material for a tonearm. |
I have to err on the side of Lewm regarding dustcovers.
I will be blunt and state I have no idea what causes the difference but playing with the dustcover in place and then with it off is akin to lifting a shroud on the music.
It sounds corny but it is more open and dynamic with dustcover off and this is from THREE separate tables.
I use the dustcovers for two reasons.
To keep dust off the tables when NOT in play.
To provide a nice resting place for my tired old cats who otherwise would sit on the darn platter I am sure!
|
Everyone knows dustcovers down close in the sound. :-) I found that out on my LP12 back in the 80s.
Metal lids do the same thing to tube preamps.
|
Apparently not " everybody" it seems .... |
Seller says he is shipping my TT monday from Canada. I re-arranged everything, made a big improvement in stability I was putting off, ordered a tempered glass shelf for the monster. |
12-inch tonearm made of cocobolo must have very high effective mass. Fine for low compliance cartridges. Not so fine for high compliance ones. There is no single best length or best material for a tonearm. @lewm 18g, since there is no detachable "headshell" on my version of Reed 3p we can only add the mass of the cartridge and screws. So when you mount an MM on your Fidelity-Research FR-64s the "problem" is much more serious than with Reed Cocobolo. I think the mass of FR 64s is twice as much. However, you reported a good results with MM, i also can say that 18g Reed was superb with mid compliance MM cartridges (Garrott p77, Victor X-1 and X-1II, Glanz 61, AT-ML180 etc). I bought my Reed especially for ZYX Premium 4D SB2 when i sold my EPA-100 about 5 years ago, but everything turned up not as i expected, so i ended up using different cartridges on Reed arm. I remember i was happy with Garrott P77. |
Dust cover on when not playing, off when playing are the rules at this casa.
To do otherwise is counterproductive to the goal of excellent sound. |
Chak, I’m surprised the 3P is so light. My 10.5 inch 2A in red cedar is at least 12g. I never use any FR headshell in the 64S. Much of the mass of the 64S is due to the OEM headshell. I tend to use a CF headshell that weighs about 9 g. But your point is well taken if the 3P is as light as you say. And both of us are violating the golden rule when we pair these tonearms with high compliance cartridges.
|
As I have said before Lewm, sometimes stuff works even when on paper it should not.
But the last time I made a statement along similar lines over what I tried and it sort of worked, Chakster jumped all over it.
Maybe he has mellowed and realized that sometimes it just works out. |
I'll definitely be testing my existing cartridges in the 7082 arm with the Shure V15 torture LP with resonance test bands, as well as the Victor ZS1 that is already in it. |
