I own the LPM and the 320 III, both perform a little different but loaded at 100K and with 100pf on capacitance both sound very good, do you already try yours in that way?, yes " time has moved on " and that's why I try those cartridges in a " new " manner.
Thank you both for answering. I really like them and was wondering what happened. Would you go as far as to say that a Soundsmith retip might not be too far fetched? New styli do not exist. There are some out there that fit, but they are quite cheap and would not provide anything close to the performance I am used to.
I don't know why Audiogon dredged up this thread to put it on top, since the last post was in October, 2008, but, under Raul's influence, I purchased both an Acutex LPM320STRIII and the snub-nosed predecessor, the 320STRIII. Whoever said these were "mediocre" cartridges was misguided. These are very very fine cartridges that can play on the same level with modern and expensive LOMC cartridges, like my Audio Technica ART7. I am currently running the LPM320 on my Victor TT101 and the ART7 right next door on a Lenco in a Dynavector DV505 tonearm, both feeding a Manley Steelhead, and the only real difference between them is with bass frequencies, where the ART7 seems to have more definition and to dig deeper. But even that could be an artifact of the two different tonearms in use and how the two cartridges mate with them, respectively. I intend to switch them around in order to make that determination. But by itself, the Acutex is a gem.
I worked for their biggest dealer in early 70’s , He bought them by the hundreds , the 320’s were very good and cost him about 30$ . He sold almost every cart made , my personal favorite was the Empire ED9 followed closely by Pickering 4000 . Best bang for the buck ever was Shure 91ED .
The 320 in all its variations was/is an induced magnet type. If memory serves me, the 400 series (including the 420) were conventional MMs. Probably different from the 300 series in sonic character.
For sure and being IM type one of the main reason. ACUTEX M320 STR III is the best of them all in my system. I bought one 5 years ago as guided by Raul the Seeker, Dave the Messenger and Vic the Magician
For those that posted on this thread, I'm in need of information regarding the Autex M320 STR III. I'm encountering a feedback issue on my Garrard 401, with a Dynavector 501 arm. The cartridge sounds amazing until the feedback rears its ugly head. The plinth is a heavy MDF DIY on a sandbox (Brightstar Audio BigRock 2).
I'm thinking the cause might be the subwoofer that's about 10 feet away. I should have tried it without the sub, but I changed to a different cart first.
I tried Vinyl Engine, they had no info regarding compliance and arm matching on this particular cart.
I dredged up this thread, because I am once again listening to an LPM320STRIII, this time in Acutex's optional "Saturn V" headshell, which really is the lightest possible headshell, running it in my Lenco in a DV505 tonearm. I had never tried the Saturn V headshell in my previous experience with the LPM320 cartridge. I wonder if anyone else has got one and heard it. Turns out, I have two Saturn Vs. Point of information: I also own an LPM420STRIII, the later series. Up to now, and in a post that I wrote in 2018, I would have (and did) say that the 400 series are MM type, not induced magnet type. But my current research indicates I was wrong. The 400 series also appear to be IM type. In fact, the specs for the LPM420 are identical to those for the LPM320, down to the stylus shape, although I have not found confirmation that the 420 would have a titanium cantilever, as does the 320. These are in a way oddball cartridges that sound wonderful.
Several years ago a cache of the LPM 4xx cartridges emerged from a vendor who became referred to as "the Italian seller". The cartridges were shipped in the original packaging. Examination of the enclosed literature clearly describes the 400 series as IM. The tri-pole configuration, although reconfigured, remained a design element and is speculatively responsible for the slightly more forward presentation of the later series.
A belated response to Islandmandan (I'd not seen this thread until now): I find that when the LPM carts are mounted on a metal headshell a cartridge isolation device improved definition on my rig (EPA 250 or 501 TA wands). Wether this is due to increased mass or diminished acoustic / mechanical feedback I cannot say.
Lewm, the LPM cartridges mounted on an Ortofon LH-8000 Japanese oak headshell introduces a slight resonance bloom at about 2k Hz. This midrange junkie finds it pleasing. A purist might prefer the Saturn V.
Hi Timeltel, Nice to hear from you. In all prior experience with the LPM320STRIII, I had it mounted in its headshell adaptor/coil housing, rather than in the Saturn V, but in a lightweight headshell, probably carbon fiber type. In a fit of stupidity that often overcomes me, I seem to have damaged the adapter section by pushing to hard on it, thereby causing an apparent short circuit of the L channel ground connection. That was more than a year ago, and I put the Acutex aside in order to listen to others of the cartridges I bought during the heyday of the Raul thread on "MM" cartridges. One of these was an NOS B&O MMC1. Along with a few other cartridges mostly MC types, the MMC1 held my attention for the past year. I really love(d) the MMC1; I would be hard-pressed to choose between it and the Acutex, except to say that the Acutex probably has a bit more bass slam, whatever that is. I use the past tense, because last week I broke the cantilever off the MMC1 while in the innocent act of flipping the stylus guard. They should have called it "the cantilever destroyer". That incident sent me back to the Acutex now on the Saturn V (because that conventional headshell adapter cum coil housing needs repair) as my go-to non-MC cartridge. These are the only two cartridges I ever "broke" in all of my audio life; I used to think of myself as "careful". My LPM420STRIII is also NOS; I look forward to auditioning it. I am sending off both of the broken cartridges for repair this week.
A vendor," PickeringUK" offered the low output cartridges some time ago, I received a XLZ-4500 and thought it wonderfully true to the recording. The third day of ownership a coincidental glance at the stylus revealed it snapped in half, the business end pointed straight down, hanging by a thread. I have no idea how it happened. Neither of us can assume the title of "The Destroyer", Conan has it claimed (woeful grin).
Acutex LPM cartridges with damaged styli occasionally show up at the "big auction site", IIRC within the 3xx & 4xx series all cartridges are the same, as in any 3xx stylus will work with the corresponding body, 4xx with 4xx bodies. During the heyday of Raul's MM thread I recollect a report of an output pin pulled off when removing the cart from a Saturn V headshell, a touch of teflon lube to the pins might be proactive. Occasionally a NOS pops up:
I've lately been listening to an AT-22, Signet TK9LCa and an AT OCC160ML rebuilt with Soundsmith's optimized LC stylus on "ruby" cantilever. A NOS Acutex 420, after some burn in, hangs with them.
Had I seen that ebay ad, and I did do a search on "Acutex" but it strangely did not come up, I would have purchased that unit rather than sending my damaged one to SS, as I just did today. I had a worn out LPM315. So I stuck that assembly on the tonearm adapter with the broken L channel ground connection and sent the whole shebang to SS. I asked them to put a sapphire OCL on the 315, just as you did with your AT OCC160ML, in addition to repairing the ground connection, if they can.
The 320 has been listed for more than a week, I'm surprised it's still available.
I have the Soundsmith stylus for Grace F-9 as well as the OCC160. For retrieval of micro detail, rise and decay without overshoot the AT cart is superb. With bowed instruments, resonance from wrapped strings is distinct from simple tone. Bass has presence without overwhelming the upper registers. The F-9, while delightful to listen to lacks the snap and separation of the AT. I believe there are two factors (at least) contributing to the difference. The Grace generates 3.5 mV, output impedance is 1700 Ohm. The AT, 4mV / 2300 Ohm output. More significant (IMHO) is the ceramic cap the cart body is fastened to. Resonances are apparently contained to the cart itself.
Years ago Edgar Villchur experimented with placing two small ball bearings and a section of sewing needle between cart and headshell. So to speak, tiptoes for your cart. I don't recall his exact words but he suggested the experiment was worth a listener's time. Seems terribly "fiddly" to me, never tried the application.
A while back Grado included a triangular aluminum spacer with their carts, a dimple raised in each of the three corners. No one could say exactly what it did but those who were familiar with it were pretty eager to obtain another. For several years they commanded a premium. On the Korf Blog, there is a test of the NLA AT ceramic spacer, the controlled testing it was put through found improved bass and reduced ringing:
The point is? On the Lenco Heaven site, the Acutex LPM315 STR was referred to as "the bass monster". I found the bass improved when the 315 was separated from the headshell with a spacer fashioned from a ten cent peice, drilled to accommodate the one-half inch mounting. Perhaps I was just bored? None the less, for a little effort and minimal expense, with the Acutex there was a positive outcome. There is noticeable ringing when mounted to either the standard Technics or a magnesium SAEC headshell, the Ortofon LH-8000 is well damped and to my taste, complements the Acutex LPM carts,
Anyway, the B & O MMC1 is very sought after. Regrets expressed for the wounding of your carts, I'm pretty sure SoundSmith is the right choice to return them to their glory.
I'm happy to have encountered this thread, it serves as a reminder to try my Acutex cartridges again (MCR 320 STR III, and 415 STR) again.
Other aspects in the audio chain has taken precedence over the Acutex issue, but recent improvements in the system has revealed how much better my analog front end is these days, so it's about time to put the Acutex carts back in again.
I've been enjoying an AT ART-9, incredible cartridge.
Timel, I actually have a Grado TLZ that I used as my one and only cartridge for several years back in the 80s. I still have its factory packaging which includes that triangular, dimpled piece of plastic for separating cartridge from headshell. I remember trying to install it was more trouble than the value of it, if any. With the Acutex cartridges, if you use the Saturn V, which I am using now out of necessity because I damaged the conventional headshell adapter, you of course have no use for a spacer, or the spacer is irrelevant. I can’t tell yet whether I like the LPM320 best in a headshell or in the Saturn V. The disaster with my MMC1 prompted me to dig out an MMC20CL that I bought "used" several years ago during the MM craze. Microscopic exam of the stylus the other day shows it to be in excellent condition, so I am going to give it a go. It either came with the B&O adapter that resembles the Saturn V, or I bought that adapter separately. So, once assembled, the MM20CL in its slender adapter that fastens right up to the arm wand, resembles an Acutex cartridge in the Saturn V. Haven’t heard the MM20CL yet. Maybe by tomorrow I will have an opinion.
There has been some contretemps on this website regarding the "Cartridge Enhancer" which is a spongy spacer meant to go between cartridge and headshell. Some loved it; some hated it; some heard no difference.
Lew, I tried the Saturn V, seemed to diminish that intangible referred to as "air". Resonances can be either constructive or destructive, I'm unable to support it but it seems to me the flimsy mount of the LPM series contributes a character to these carts I very much enjoy.
If I follow you correctly, the MMC20CL is line contact on sapphire, the MMC1, same, and now the Acutex 315 rebuilt with LC on sapphire, should make for some interesting listening!
Much discussion relative to resonance has been engaged in, wether to damp (at the pickup) or dump through the TA (deck, platter, LP & back to the cartridge). Spacers, isolation devices and probably the "Cartridge Enhancer" modify system dependent characteristics, there's no easy answer there. It seems I'm transitioning to Yamamoto and Ortofon wood headshells. With the variations in species there is a degree of capability to "tune" the cart to the rig, the Saturn V headshell and Grado spacer sit idle in a drawer.
Islandmandan, our fellow forumite "Frogman" has a high opinion of the Acutex 415.
Mine required attention to every aspect of setup. It is a very interesting cartridge.
Timel, I have always felt, and occasionally stated here, that for high compliance cartridges, in theory there is not much energy that needs to be dissipated from the cartridge body, because the cantilever and suspension dissipate most of it. I would think that something like the Cartridge Enhancer or a solid spacer would make much more difference for a low compliance type. I don't know whether this works out to be true or not, in practice, and the answer probably also varies depending upon the tonearm and the efficiency with which it is damped, or not damped. Yes, I look forward to a sapphire/line contact jubilee. Not only those three cartridges, but I also have a Grace Ruby with the SS OCL re-tip. So, 4 different cartridges with sapphire and OCL tips. The Grace/OCL is quite nice.
Last night, I listened first to my AT ART-9, and then I installed my Acutex M 320 LPM cartridge. I was astonished how good the Acutex sounded. It makes me realize I need to fine tune the setup on the ART 9.
The Acutex made the best sounding music I've heard on the Garrard 401/Denon 501 arm, and Modwright SWP 9.0 SE phono pre.
The new (to me) Herron VTSP-3A preamp has illuminated the strength of ancillary components as never before. Makes me want to listen to more of the LP collection again. The M 320 LPM is a keeper, I'll want to check out the 415 again soon.
Dan, I think you are inferring that you like the LPM320 slightly above the ART9. There's no shame in that, in my opinion.
Timeltel, I finally auditioned the B&O MMC20CL in its B&O Saturn V-like adapter. The assembly is so light I could hardly counterbalance it. I set VTF at about 1.2g, based on the age of the cartridge, even though it was sitting in a box all of its life in my ownership. Wow! I was floored, in a good way. Bass was a little shy, which I expect is partly due to lack of use, but the mids are wonderful and the treble is perhaps more extended than any cartridge I've heard on my Beveridge system. (Modified Lenco TT bearing a Dynavector DV505 tonearm into a slightly modified Manley Steelhead driving Beveridge amplifiers/speakers.) Well, one is usually euphoric after the first audition of a good cartridge. We'll see how it shakes out over time. Anyway, I don't miss the MMC1 right now. Compare to Acutex? Not yet.
I see you also use a Dynavector arm, in my case a 501 that I've had to rebuild the arm lift assembly on, and rewire. I love this tonearm, though I wonder how much difference there is from the newer models.
Any comment? Very curious regarding information about the Dyna arms.
I own a DV 501 tonearm also, but I have never used it. Years ago it was given to me by a close friend who has since passed away, and I believe he never used it either. So in effect mine is brand new. Those who have used both the DV 505 and the 501 have written that they prefer the sound of the 501, at least some of them. I have not been able to test this proposition, because I use the 505 on my Lenco . For the Lenco I built a slate plinth which has no provision for mounting a tonearm except by bolting it to the top surface of the slab. So I am limited to surface mounted tonearms like the 505. None of the other Dynavector tonearms will work.
Yesterday I received the one Timeltel referenced that was listed on the 'bay. Running in now on the Viv Labs arm w/Nelson Hold, and sounding very precise. The cart body says LPM and the stylus (sharp-nosed) container says STR, so there's a later version, snub nosed that's not LPM? Also has anyone removed the stylus guard, as I usually do? Looks difficult.
LPM were the later ones with the long narrow snout-like appearance. There was an earlier or overlapping series simply referred to as "M". So there was an M320, an M315, etc. They look more conventional and can mount directly into a headshell without any adapter. I have an M320 but have never listened to it. One wonders what I am waiting for.
Also, now I realize what your question was really about, the full name of the cartridge is "LPM320STRIII". Timeltel will know, but I am fairly sure the STR refers to the stylus shape, which is elsewhere called "VITAL" in their literature.
Least Possible Mass (LPM), Shibata Tri-Radial (STR). "LPM" is obvious, "STR" refers to Acutex’s additional cut to the stylus.
Maxson, early literature states the LPM carts track at 1.2gm (+ -). Practical application reveals best results are to be had at a nominal 1.7gm, later literature was changed to reflect increase in downforce. The 3 and 4 "15" series were equipped with titanium cantilevers, it is reasonable to presume Ti for the "20" carts. Maxson, with break in, you’ll hopefully appreciate the soundstage the 320 is capable of. Both depth and breadth are just about as good as it gets.
Lew(m), your comments on bass response with the MMC20 remind me of my first impression of the Grace F-9 when the stylus was received from SoundSmith; "where’s the bass?". With more exposure, a certain delicacy in rise time, decay and controlled overshoot were evident. First impressions are not always lasting impressions.
When SoundSmith first announced the Grace replacement styli, Peter commented the optimized LC / ruby version might not be to everyone’s taste. Once acclimated to the subtleties this configuration is capable of, first listen to another cart bass may seem somewhat ponderous.
IIRC, when the MM cartridge thread was active the B&O 1, 2 and 20 carts garnered high praise. When Peter returns your carts, would you consider reporting a "shootout"?
I did say that I thought or hoped the MMC20 bass would flesh out over time. The Grace Ruby with SS OCL would surprise any $10,000+ cartridge owner with an open mind; actually any of these we’ve been discussing would do so. But the first 10-20 hours with the retipped Ruby were a bit vexing until it came around.
Timeltel, thanks for the tips about tracking weight and break-in! Will look for changes in staging. Unfortunately (??) I've got a DaVa cart on another arm on the same table that I'm focused on right now.
Lew, I also have a 20CL that I like a lot, tho wouldn't say it's a bass monster. It is a low rider, tho, and I reduce the tracking force when using it, tho it still tracks great.
For what it's worth, I realized the other evening that the MMC20CL was adjusted so that the tail was "up" just a bit. It's sometimes difficult to level the very short vertical arm wand of the DV505. Anyway, I did lower the vertical pivot just a tiny bit so that the wand at least looks more exactly level to the surface of the LP, and bass did improve. I am tracking at 1.2g. What do others recommend for VTF? One internet source recommends 1.0g VTF, but that was the spec for a brand new cartridge in 1987. I figured my suspension must have stiffened over time, so chose 1.2g to start out.
Installed the 20CL. It's ever so slightly higher in back, but still delivering prodigious bass, VTF is at 1.0. Did the low riding heal itself over time?
Max, if you are asking me about low riding, mine never was and is not a low rider. What I said was that I had inadvertently adjusted VTA such that it was "higher in back" or tipped up with respect to the pivot. Leveling it did improve the bass impact. I will try going down to 1.0 g from 1.2g VTF to see if that is better.
No, I was referring to my own sample, which I remember having a somewhat collapsed suspension but which seems fine now. Suspension hardening in the right direction??
As for the Acutex, after 20 or so hours, timbre is richer, tho I haven't noticed a fuller soundstage yet. Maybe I should try it on the heavy Sperling arm, a soundstage champ. If the new Kuzma Sapphire at 60g effective mass is supposed to work w/most MCs, the Sperling at maybe 30g might be OK w/a high compliance MM. Anybody know the compliance of the 320?
Re-adjusted VTF on my MMC20CL, to 1.0g. That makes a much bigger difference than I expected. This is a really terrific cartridge. (I am understating my impression.) Better than the MMC1? Don’t know yet, and maybe I will never know since I knocked the cantilever clean off my MMC1. It’s currently at SS to have its cantilever and stylus replaced (sapphire/ruby + OCL tip). However it sounds when I get it back, it will no longer bear its OEM cantilever and stylus.
Compliance for the LPM 320STR is given at 42 x 10-6 cm./dyne at 100 Hz. Suggested tracking from 0.8 to (IIRC) 1.7 VTF. You might take the lower figure with "a grain of salt", maybe several. Considering the eff. mass of your tonearms, you might want to experiment with downforce.
Hidden somewhere on the TTNeedles site is a complete brochure describing the LPM 3xx carts. There is a 25 page Acutex thread at Lenco Heaven, the Infinity Black Widow (4gm eff. mass for the original Al. arm tube, 3gm for the later carbon fiber arm) is frequently mentioned as complimenting these cartridges. Using a Technics EPA 250 wand (12gm eff. mass) mistracking with the LPM 320 is controlled at 1.5gm VTF.
More information is offered at Adelcom.net, links to both:
FWIW, I used 1.6g for my LPM320 mounted in the headshell adapter, in my DV505. I didn’t experiment much with VTF because it sounded so good at 1.6. Some other setting might even be better. I’m also using 1.6 with the LPM mounted in the Saturn V.
After reading some of the Lenco Heaven thread, I was thinking about the lightest tonearm I have. So I installed the LPM320 in the RS Labs arm on JVC TT-81 in custom plinth with VTF at 1.6g. Now that it's burned in, it presents a wide soundstage and engaging level of nuance and detail. I have noticed some emphasis on string/plectrum contact, that seems to be a signature of MMs/MIs vs. MCs. Maybe I just have a MC bias that it doesn't belong there.
I own an RS labs RSA1 tonearm, but I have never used it with such a high compliance cartridge. I have no idea of its effective mass. Just from the looks of the construction I would imagine the effective mass is fairly high or certainly medium or higher. Do you have any data? And of course if the combination sounds good, it is good. That is my philosophy. As to the bit about string detail, I don’t know how you would define too much detail. I am not afraid to admit that I prefer a well set up LPM 320 or a B &OMMC1 to most of my low output moving coil cartridges, with the possible exception of the Ortofon MC 2000.
I have no specs on the effective mass of the RS Labs arm. but the arm tube seems less massive than the SME3012R, for instance, at 12g (plus headshell, of course).
As for the emphasis on plectrum strokes, it's just something I notice more on MMs or MIs than on MCs. More a matter of preference than too much or too little.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
