Who Is An Expert On Acutex Cartridges?

Was thinking that since the headshell is decoupled, the effective mass might be lower than what is otherwise apparent.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Shootout, yes.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.