Hear my Cartridges....🎶

Many Forums have a 'Show your Turntables' Thread or 'Show your Cartridges' Thread but that's just 'eye-candy'.... These days, it's possible to see and HEAR your turntables/arms and cartridges via YouTube videos.
Peter Breuninger does it on his AV Showrooms Site and Michael Fremer does it with high-res digital files made from his analogue front ends.
Now Fremer claims that the 'sound' on his high-res digital files captures the complex, ephemeral nuances and differences that he hears directly from the analogue equipment in his room.
That may well be....when he plays it through the rest of his high-end setup 😎
But when I play his files through my humble iMac speakers or even worse.....my iPad speakers.....they sound no more convincing than the YouTube videos produced by Breuninger.
Of course YouTube videos struggle to capture 'soundstage' (side to side and front to back) and obviously can't reproduce the effects of the lowest octaves out of subwoofers.....but.....they can sometimes give a reasonably accurate IMPRESSION of the overall sound of a system.

With that in mind.....see if any of you can distinguish the differences between some of my vintage (and modern) cartridges.
This cartridge is the pinnacle of the Victor MM designs and has a Shibata stylus on a beryllium cantilever. Almost impossible to find these days with its original Victor stylus assembly but if you are lucky enough to do so.....be prepared to pay over US$1000.....🤪
This cartridge is down the ladder from the X1 but still has a Shibata stylus (don't know if the cantilever is beryllium?)
This cartridge was designed for 4-Channel reproduction and so has a wide frequency response 10Hz-60KHz.
Easier to find than the X1 but a lot cheaper (I got this one for US$130).
Top of the line MM cartridge from Audio Technica with Microline Stylus on Gold-Plated Boron Tube cantilever.
Expensive if you can find one....think US$1000.

I will be interested if people can hear any differences in these three vintage MM cartridges....
Then I might post some vintage MMs against vintage and MODERN LOMC cartridges.....🤗
With some trepidation, because I so respect Dover and Halcro, I ask is it not the case that so-called "ruby" and "sapphire" cantilevers are one and the same material?  That doesn't necessarily mean that a given sample of one must sound the same as a given sample of the other, because length and shape of the cantilever and stylus shape and method of bonding could dramatically affect the outcome of any comparison.
Dear @halcro  : "" 
Can you actually hear the differences between cantilever materials....?
My answer.......I'm not sure 🤔

The reason I'm regularly asked this question is because I've often written that I prefer Beryllium to all other materials.
This is no accident.....
.I have discovered that the majority of the 80+ cartridges that I LOVE.....seem to share Beryllium as their only common feature.
On the other hand.....the cartridges that disappoint me the most, seem to share Boron as their only common feature.  ""

Well, not only you but any audiophile with a decent room/system should be abble to listen the differences between cartridge different cantilever materials. 
Listen experiences of different cantilevermaterials in the same cartridge is a rare opportunity for some of us: as the Jico ruby/sapphire/boron .

In other thread J.Carr was very specific answering the question : which more important the stylus shape or cantilever?. His answer was that cantilever always makes a higher difference than cartridge stylus shape. That was him.

In the other side and as cantilever material beryllium  is way inferior to boron or diamond in that specific job where we requires  high stiffness with non-self vibrational/resonace at all..Here you can read facts that tell you that boron is superior to the beryllium:


beryllium elasticity modulus: 287


boron: 400.   Way superior


beryllium hardness: 3800

in the boron link you can read:  9800.

Tensile strength:

beryllium: 800    boron: 3100

Halcro, this is at least the third time that I post those facts about in other threads where you participated and is a little funny that till today you just can't learned on that specific subject.

What you prefer means nothing other that that is what you like it. What it count here is which is better cantilever material and facts are facts like it or not.

@lewm , yes you are rigth both are same material: corundum, with different color.

No one can question that Diamond and boron are the ones for cartridge cantilever as a material characteristic facts no matters what.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,

I think I remember reading that you had owned both versions of Audio Technica AT-ML180, the boron and the beryllium. OFC and OCC. Do you recall how they differed  in sound?
Both Ruby and Sapphire are the mineral Corundum. However, they each contain different amounts of trace minerals such as chromium which account for the differences in color, from red (Ruby) to blue (Sapphire); and shades in between. They each have a different molecular formula. So, technically, they are not “the same”.

Does single crystal oxygen free copper have an inherently different sound than plain old copper? Some feel it does. Both are copper....no? Why should it?

I don’t know. Jus’ sayin..

I ask is it not the case that so-called "ruby" and "sapphire" cantilevers are one and the same material?
I think it IS basically @lewm .....
What could possibly explain the differences here, is that the proportions of the RUBY CANTILEVER to the SAPPHIRE CANTILEVER appear to be different?