Thank you Henry
Yes - fantastic and fascinating article... Vinyl records - the impossible medium... so many things that cannot be achieved perfectly, and yet the end approximation we get can be so damn good!
It is interesting that the TT101 and related JVC drives appear to use a similar design principle to the Rockport Sirius III...
I wonder how many other drives are out there that use similar principles?
bye for now
David |
I am thankful that I can live without ever hearing the 1812 Overture again. |
I haven't got the 415 yet. Based on the info that comes with the 420 the bodies are all the same in the 4xx series and the 415 stylus has a slightly lower cu but is otherwise the same as the 420. The Italian seller has some 415 for sale and they are 15 euro cheaper than the 420 so they should still be a great buy. |
Dear Lew, I think one can understand your attitude regarding 1812 Overture. But this has not much to do with carts (tracking) but with the Achilles tendon of electrostatic speakers...
Regards, |
Regards, Dyna10-X. By the way, a first generation 10-X still remains in my collection, a survivor. IMHO, the Acutex LPM 415STR maintains the presence and soundstage of the 420, as does the (sleeper) 412. The upper-mids are more forward so listeners who focus on reeded instruments and strings might prefer the 415. I thought them just a tad too assertive whereas several others commented on a vagueness of inner detail in the mids with the 420. As you have both carts, you are fortunately in the position to make up your own mind.
As you mentioned, at the price a good value. When your 415 is run in, would you be kind enough to post your impressions?
Peace, |
Dear Nicola, If you refer to bass response, your statement does not apply to the Sound Lab 845PX; believe me. How about transient response to make those cannon shots sound "real"? ESLs do that better than most. (Also, and in parenthesis, the frequencies of the cannon shots are not in the low bass at all, more like 100 to 300 Hz range.) Transistor amps have trouble pushing ESLs in the low bass, because the impedance of an ESL is quite high at low frequencies (and conversely becomes quite low at high frequencies, just like a capacitor). It takes a sturdy tube amp, preferably an OTL, to bring out bass response in a big ESL. Anyway, I do not sit around listening for those cannon shots any more; I could not sit through the sturm und drang that comes before them. |
Regards, Raul/Henry/Lew/Fleib: Tables that feature bearing friction. Great thread and relevent to the current discussion, some of you might remember it ;). Fleib: Jean Nantais resolves a question of terminology by refering to the phenomena as "Stylus friction drag". I've been enjoying a Pio. PL-70L 11 (a second tier Exclusive) for several months now, coreless/slotless hanging rotor, eddy current brake. Very smooth pitch, sounds open and free of grunge, it proceeds with no discernable concern for exteraneous influence on speed. The above mentioned thread helped with the decision to acquire the Pio. TT, a belated thank you to those who posted to it. T_bone, too. For a nice illustration of the internals of a coreless motor: http://www.thevintageknob.org/yamaha-YP-D71.html. For a comparison of motor design: http://www.thevintageknob.org/denon-DP-80.html, the illustrations help make Henry's point about the differences between a slotted coil-wound armature and coreless/slotless designs. The Yammie had good reviews for a consumer-level deck (as did the quieter coreless Kenwood KD-770 and KD-990), has an interesting tonearm and is VERY affordable. Please be aware these are not recommendations, just info. gleaned while researching a good quality/budget friendly coreless motored deck. A fun site to look around in, click on "TVK Museum", you'll find the Pio. P-3 and Kenwood L-07D, among others. Peace, |
Interesting Link Professor, on bearing friction. It shows Teres.......believing in 'stylus drag' before he could accurately prove it exists via the Timeline? Many pertinent comments there possibly requiring amendments to views held by some only 2 years ago? Cheers |
Regards, Regarding Acutex 412,415 and 420. They share the same body (aka 'generator') and differ only qua compliance. So, it seems, only the tonearms should make any difference qua sound (?). If the contra argument is the stylus (412?) this argument does not apply for 415 versus 420. If logic is analytic than only some 'strong' empirical statements or evidence can refute my assumption. BTW I still enjoy my Virtuoso and have not (yet) listened to my Acutex 'collection'.
Regards, |
Regards, Nandric: Nikola, you've stumbled on something that in the cartridge industry is a closely guarded secret. It's not the stylus configuration that determines the performance, it's the color of the grip! The evidence is obvious: AT, Orto, etc., their finest cartridges all share the same characteristic, the grips are BLACK!
Acutex provides supporting evidence in the booklet that accompanies the LPM carts. Orange, red, blue, #4, #3, #2. Then there's #1, of course it's black. All one needs to do is look at the last four pages of the brochure. It's all there. Channel seperation, fr, compliance, even output improve progressively. This gives rise to the frequently observed "colorations" heard with different carts, it's the color of the grip having their way. Sounds are heard with greater awareness in the darkest of nights, black Lp's have superior sonics, many of the finest films are termed Bete Noire, financial affairs are best kept in the black. In regard to certain other affairs (one's audio budget, of course), it's judicious to keep the significant other in the dark. The list goes on.
Peace, |
Dear Professor, There is this 'if' in logic. The first one is: if the premise is not true than the deduced statments are also not true. The second is: all the premisses need to be true. I was not aware that the 'colour of the grip' was relevant for my assumptions. If the 'colour of the grip' is actually relevant than I obviously missed (at least) one of the premisses. However if the 'generator' (aka 'corpus') is the same and this is also the case with the cantilever and the stylus than we still have only compliance which is different. BTW the producer need to somehow justify the price difference. But this issue bring us back to Fleib and his assumptions regarding the Clearaudio MM prices (as example). Ie the buyers have no idea that they can (ex)change the whole cantilver/stylus combo for much less money. And this actually explains, the price difference. Or so I thought.
Regards,
Regards, |
Hello Nandric, It's much the same with the CA carts. Because there is no grip color to designate status, there's the little gold faceplate. Mine has a V, so I know just how special it is. When the faceplate fell off, I glued it back on right away. Alas, the Maestro has a (you guessed it) black faceplate, so it's obviously the top one.
It's interesting that CA doesn't say anything about the stylus. On Musical Surrounding's web site (US importer) some of the specs differ from CA. They say that they all have a tip r/R = 5/80um. I think CA used to specify different tips. I know they used to have a fancy name for the Maestro tip, but now they only say boron cantilever.
The problem with replacing the stylus is finding one worthy enough. I think the Jico AT-95 shibata or vivid line are pretty good. Any aluminum cantilevered modern one could be transplanted, or 3400 series P-mount styli can be substituted. Right now I'm experimenting with a tip from a 92E. This seems to be about the same quality as the orig? only with high cu. There are also other P-mounts, some better with line contact or even micro styli. I have it on a low mass arm, a modified Sonus Formula 4. It sounds pretty good. I have a 140LC, another high cu stylus that I didn't really like on another cart. Maybe I'll try transplanting that. The 7V sounds pretty good on there. That's another transplant though. The problem is the AT 3400 series is generally budget carts. I still think a boron or other exotic cantilever w/micro would be the ultimate. BTW, there probably are tolerance differences between models. Regards, |
Hi Nandric,
++++they can (ex)change the whole cantilver/stylus combo for much less money++++
The exchange price is about 1/2 of the full price, or what it would cost you to send your cartridge to SoundSmith for their best ($450), cantiliver/stylus replacement! Concidering the SS cheapest version ($150), is a improvement over the original, it would be smarter to send Peter the cartridge instead of having it replaced. Of course, you would have to decide what's it worth, the waiting of 3 or 4 months for its return from SS? |
Or two weeks from Alex.
R. |
Hi Raul,
I have been meaning to contact you about your upcomming Acutex reviews. How is it progressing? I am quite interested in hearing how you compare the 420 to the rest of the field. Especially how and where you would rank it when compared to my top 2 cartridges, the AT20SS and the Virtuoso. |
Raul,
I should have said top 3 cartridges. The 3rd being the 420. BTW, the 3 cartridges are in no particular order. They each do something special that the other 2 do not. |
Dear Griffithds,'They each do something special...'. This looks to me the right answer to the wrong question: 'which is the best?' I think that even my son will understand this answer better than : 'I am searching for the ultimate.'
Regards, |
Regards, Nandric: Apparently you'll not settle for less than a serious reply as to why differences should heard from various styli mounted in the same generator.
Let's proceed from the basic conical and hopefully not argue about exceptions. A typical 0.7mil round stylus will respond to around 16k. Then on to a 0.4 x 0.7 elliptical, response to (+-) 20k. The advent of four channel recordings resulted in a hurried effort from cartridge designers to supply a stylus capable of response in the 35kHz range the four channel carrier signal required. Norio Shibata of JVC developed the original Shibata, essentially a relatively large conical stylus with two cuts to the face, resulting in a 75 micron (um) major radius contact surface, but only 6um in the minor radius. Compare these figures with the 18um contact surface for a 0.7 conical or 13um for a 0.5 round stylus. In this instance, bigger is definitely not better.
The original Shibata was refined and other makers climbed aboard the CD-4/Phase4 (etc) wagon with their own variations, the micro-ridge and Orto Replicant are two examples of minor radii contact taken to an extreme. Increased major radius contact results in an overall greater stylus/groove contact area, wear to your records is lessened as a result and the quality of response is improved with the increased vertical engagment of stylus-groove modulation.
Concerns other than cut are diamond quality, mounting (nude or bonded) and polish, each of which and on the scale involved, can be complicated and expensive, QC is an absolute must.
Now, on to the Acutex STR, a third generation Shibata. The 412 I have no specific information for, presume the description is the same as for the 312. An alu. bonded stylus, 0.3 x 1.6 x 0.6mil. The 315 sports a nude tri-radial, same dimensions. The 320 (420?), that's where it's at! The diamond is first squared and then one face is reduced by 40%, resulting in a tri-radial profile of 0.3 x 1.6 x 0.5mil. The cantilever is laser cut with the cut square to the axis of the cantilever instead of diagonally, as is more typical, the diamond is more solidly supported than with a diagonally mounted stylus and alignment to the cantilever is more easily determined. The diamond is selected for quality, grain oriented, cut, brought to a high degree of polish and then nude mounted. It costs more to do this than to glue a chip of diamond in a hole poked in a cantilever, there are some who claim to hear the difference in performance between a carefully cut and polished extreme profile nude mounted stylus and a 0.7mil bonded conical. It's not always "where" the rubber meets the road, with vinyl, it's "how".
Hope your question is answered, although I must confess I had a lot more fun with my previous post ;).
Peace, |
Hi Timeltel,
There are times, when I read some of your posts, I wonder if I accidently clicked google search. You are one knowledgeable individual. Professor describes you quite well! |
Hi Timeltel,
There are times, when I read some of your posts, I wonder if I accidently clicked google search. You are one knowledgeable individual. Professor describes you quite well! |
Dear Professor, Very interesting lecture as one may expect from a Professor. But I made my premisses explicit and one among them was the assumption that the stylus/cantilever by 412,415 and 420 were identical. This was also assumed regarding the corpus (aka 'generator') so my conclusion was that (then) the only difference was compliance. I also stated that if the premisses are not true the conclusions also can't be true. This is what Kant called 'pure reason' or analytic statement based on 'meaning' and not on experience. Your lecture imply that there are differences in styli between mentioned Acutex carts so my assumptions are 'ground-less'. I now also understand why the good diamond grinder or polisher are in such a high esteem.
Kind regards, |
Hi All,
Just tried the Acutex 420 on a Nagoaoka magnesium headshell. Early days but the performance is far better: lower-mid problems appear to have absconded.
Time to reassess while awaiting some suggestions on the ideal set up. |
Professor, what is the difference between conical and round? -
"18um contact surface for a 0.7 conical or 13um for a 0.5 round stylus"
I assume that was a typo and you intended to say elliptical but I don't want to put words in your mouth. |
Rdgards, Pryso/Nikola: Pryso, a latitudinal cross section of a conical stylus is round, an elliptical's cross section is, well, err, elliptical. Apologies for not being consistent in terminology.
Nikola: I would imagine stylus shaping is done now with CNC & lasers, the polishing may still be done by hand. Even if robotic, the requirements for reduction in range of movement are phenomenal. Anyone know for sure, speak up?
Peace, |
Hello Timeltel, I took your advise and painted a red Acutex 412 to black and the hot highs sound much better. I wish someone had told me about this sooner.
My thinking was along the lines of yours regarding the 3xx chart from 33audio and the 4xx chart in the Acutex 420 box. That the cuts were different on the 415 and 420 but both were called "Perfect Str". It makes no sense to me that Acutex would make the only change on their two best cartridges be compliance but I could be wrong. Has anyone else seen a Manufacturer do this ? Just a thought.
Danny |
Dear friends: I think I finished the Acutex cartridge " family " comparisons. The easiest was the LPM420STR against its big brothers: M320IIISTR, LPM315IIISTR and the LPM320IIISTR.
Why " big brothers "?, obviously: all them IMHO are better cartridges/performers.
Seems to me that the LPM420STR was designed and voiced by a different ( way different ) Acutex " team " or at least was designed thinking more on " marketing " that on top quality performance cartridge: as a " commercial " item ( and the LPM415STR is worst. ).
The ones of you that own the LPM315IIISTR knows very well its great " rhythm " and its " powerful " bass presentation with very good high frequency performance. If I did not have any other cartridge could be hard that I ask for more against this cartridge.
But the top of the line LPM320IIISTR ( in this series. ) is even better especially on the bass performance where not only still preserve the 315 grip/power but more neutral less colored bass. This fact gives the overall 320 performance not only better balance but a wider transparent quality performance. The 320 is more under control in its frequency range response. The more obvious/physical difference between the 315 and the 320 is the 320 stylus nude square shank that the 315 has not, other difference is at electrical level where the cartridge output in the LPM320 is sligthly lower: 3.2mv vs 3.5mv in the LPM315 ( only for your records: during the Acutex whole comparisons I even the SPL during listening tests. )
Against either of these LPM top 300 series the LPM420STR IMHO is almost a " caricature ". First has not the " power " /grip of the 300 family but instead has a fat/bold non-natural low mid-bass and low bass ( yes you can think on it as " organic " and yes for me is " organic " colored. A " commercial " cartridge has to has this kind of bass response to success. ). At the other frequency extreme all that " detail " and " wow " factor is only that a " false transparency " and " open/wide "/detailed higs ( IMHO manipulated. ): " better " than other cartridges.
In this frequency range the M420STR remembered me what I heard on the Nagatron 9600 that came ( unfortunatelly ) with non-original 9600 stylus but with a cheap different replacement. I remember that I reported in the same way and owners of that same cartridge posted that for them that cartridge was great about, days/weeks latter they agree with me.
Any one of you that own the M420STR and the LPM320/315IIISTR can make a simple/fast test: take the P:Barber Cafe Blue Nardis track ( I can´t repeat where in that track but you can look for what I posted somewhere ( in other thread. ) in specific of that test track. ) and listen to the cymbals very carefully: when you listen with the 420 the first " attitude " is that is better than the 315/320 till you understand what are you really hearing. Through the 315/320 you can hear very precise how the drumstick hits the cymbal/main notes and then its harmonics. Through the 420 you can hear only " white noise " undefined sounds more like the drumer was using a brush but not hitting the cymbals but only sliding. It sounds good but it's wrong.
Other 420 characteristic is that has a little laid back music presentation than the 315/320 and not only this but the layers in the music presentation are at lower SPL than in the 315/320s where it loose inner detail. The overall 420 tone balance is far away to be neutral or near to the one showed by its big brothers.
With even SPL and hearing/listening at 95 dbs at seat position with 102-105 dbs on peaks I have to lower at least 5-6 dbs the 420 level to made listenable the track. With demanding tracks like Telegraph Road on the Dire Straits " Love Over Gold " title I have to reduce the 420 even more because its distortions does not permit to go on.
The cartridges even been brothers are different: the 315/320 are 1.45grs. more heavy than the 4.0grs 420 weight, DC resistance 580 ohms for the 315/320 against 710 ohms in the 420, ideal VTF 1.9 grs against 1.5 grs in the 420. Where the LPM320IIISTR came with a nude sqare shank stylus the 420 not. Other specs are the same.
Now, where the M320IIISTR belongs, which quality performance level?
IMHO the best of all Acutex ever. If you like the LPM315IIISTR and the LPM320IIISTR cartridges then you will fall in love with the M320IIISTR.
The last M320STRIIISTR that I saw was in an ad here at Agon for 449.00 and I know that no one of you bought it and left pass the " opportunity of your life "!!! because this model is extremely rare ( it is the older design than the other ones. ).
I don't want to touch the M320IIISTR overall characteristics here due that the cartridge deserve an official review and I will make it " sooner or latter ", in the mean time if you " look at " just buy it ( I own two samples. ).
I can only say that the M320IIISTR cartridge along my Virtuoso and the Technics P100CMKIV are the ones MM/MI cartridges that are near to my LOMC reference, yes today other than live music a LOMC cartridge is my reference.
Regards and enjoy the music, R.
PS.: I don't know how or why Acutex write the kind of specifications in its manuals because are almost un-true. Example where they stated that the M320IIISTR output is 3.8mv in the chart/diagram that came with the cartridge measure was 3.3mvs. In the LPM320IIISTR the specs shows 3.2mvs and in the measure at chart/diagram 2.8mvs. There are other anomalies down there other that the ones some of you already posted about stylus/cantilever.
Anyway, I had some fun on Acutex comparisons and certainly very happy because the M320IIISTR new discovery.
R. |
Raul your a party pooper. All of that hype for 420str and after reading your review darn, i guess mine will stay in the box for a while longer. Thank goodness for Empire. |
Hi Stltrains,
+++ i guess mine will stay in the box for a while longer.+++
You'll be kicking yourself later for waiting so long. Mount it, and break it in. Then you decide how it measures up. Synergy is everything in this game, and life is to short! |
Dear Griffithds: Yes, Synergy is an important issue when the quality level permit it. Synergy between poor quality level audio items can't give you excellence in quality performance level, synergy means nothing with out top quality level.
A poor design IMHO has no synergy but with other poor items or poor environment. When that happen you have the same poor performance level.
Now, that is my opinion but for you your opinion is the important one and the one that counts.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Regards, Raul: Concerning the 420, my initial thoughts were similar to yours. On a back-up Denon DP-60L TT, resonances were so aggresive it was difficult to listen to the cart for any extended time. Cymbols were "hisssy" and the mids somewhat muffled. After six hours, realigned it from Baerwald to Stevenson overhang, much better but still very "hot" and the Denon is a lively deck so the 420 was moved to an EPA-250 arm and a Sumiko 12gm headshell. With some carts the arm is over-damped and uninspiring but the 420 was improved. Anyway, after 20 hrs. or so, my example of the 420 has settled nicely in, performance is approaching that of the LPM 320 which is indeed a very nice cart. Both loaded at 160k Ohm (total), 50pF. More seemed detrimental so it would help in understanding your findings if you would be so good as to mention the arm and loading used. The 420, like a chameleon, is extremely responsive to it's environment.
Thank you for the time taken to listen and report, I'm looking forward to your review of the M 320STR, and also the occasion when you choose to finally reveal your LOMC reference cart.
Peace, |
Hello Griffithds
"and life is to short"
Yes thats the facts. And we all want the best, one way to find it is to take others experiences. But with out our own trials and tribulations the truth may not be known.
I like what im hearing now and being a everyday listener i try not spending that listening time evaluating but enjoying. I dont know what im missing so i can enjoy what i have.
Thing is that inventory of boxs on hand is starting to add up and my inquisitiveness will get the best of me down the line.
Then again adding a second arm pod/arm may be the answer. And on it goes. |
Dear Professor, Your post about styli caused me to search for an old nr. of the LP Magazine (German) with the story about Fritz Gyger company. Gyger senior started the company by inventing some machine(s) for the production of sapphire styli .Year production of 2 million. In the 70is Gyger junior engaged Van den Hul to design a modern diamond stylus which resulted in Gyger I stylus (aka 'Van den Hul stylus'). Those were very difficult to produce so the next version was Gyger II and the last one FG-S. As far as I know the FG-S is used by Benz, Jan Allearts and Van den Hul. All of them are actually Van den Hul styli. No CNC lathe is used by styli but well the laser.With the laser the 'rods' are cut from the raw diamond in such a lenght that is suitable for processing with polishing machines. The last control, cuting of the 'rods' to the right lenght and polishing is done by (women) hands. Depending on the customer (aka cartproducer) the polishing can be more or less complex.Ie more or less expensive. The LP Magazine is from 2007 (March) the year production then about 12.000 and the intention of Gyger was (then)to sell the stylus company. BTW I noticed that the new Benz carts use micro ridge styli so it is also possible that Gyger is no more.
Regads, |
Hi Stltrains,
++++ I dont know what im missing so i can enjoy what i have.++++
Those are truly words to live by. BTW, do you need any help in reducing your inventory of boxes on hand. Just kidding of course. Got the 4000D back on so I must return to my few moments of heaven.
Regards, Don |
Dear Timeltel: This is a transcription of my latest answer to a person that email me ( I just received 8 emails on the subject. ) with a similar " stage/post " as yours:
+++++ " I tested all Acutex cartridges in three different tonearms and with three-four headshells including magnesium one. All cartridges performs way better in our tonearm design. I have now two same prototypes and this permit me to make fast and fair comparisons.
As I posted the 420 seems to me was develped ( design/voicing ) by a different Acutex team. I give it time to settle down an improve a little but its signature is there. It is a nice cartridge but at different level.
In the other side something that helps to understand its performance is the audio system resolution and today my system is IMHO second to none in this regards, I can detect cartridge performance characteristics that for other people is just undetectable.
I can give more time to the cartridge but its signature can't change because is part of its voicing. Yes, is very good tracker. " +++++
Timeltel, I'm not saying the 420 is not good, what I'm saying is that does not possess the LPM320IIISTR better characteristics and certainly not the ones in the M320IIISTR.
All in all a nice cartridge as many others.
Timeltel and friends: please let me know from all the vintage MM/MI cartridges you own one that does not performs good/decent: all performs good !! and this fact IMHO makes that we have to have better tools to discern/detect quality performance levels and even maybe make a little changes in our music/audio references or even priorities.
As some of you I know in very precise way what to look in a cartridge comparison and I know which kind of " comparison " I have to do to detect differences. A proved and good process to do it is a must for cartridge comparisons or any other items.
As all of you I know for sure what I'm hearing according my targets, priorities and system resolution. I take my time to be here and don't let nothing at random. My evaluation process does not permit it, it dissect the " animal/cartridge ".
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Hello all, As the proud Papa of this thread and contributor of many others, Raul has to be an expert in audioplillia. An expert has to look at things different than the normal lay person. He has to be correct all the time or risk losing the expert status and he cannot just enjoy something because he favors it. If he misses that a cartridge has distortion prolems at high volumes or has a midbass bump which other experts hear his reputation as a reliable expert is diminished. As somewhat of an expert in my chosen field I understand this pressure.
I am not an expert in audio in any form. I am a lover of music.Nor do I want any part of being an expert in audio. You will get my opinions as a music lover not a expert.
Raul is mostly correct in his assessment of the Acutex 420, although it is not nearly as bad as his writeup suggest.
The 420 as Raul states has a strong bass output which on my system did not sound extremely bloated. It images well and has good textureing and musical coloration (I believe like Halcro that music has beautiful colors}. I have not studied the cymbals on "Cafe Blue" but I have no reason to doubt Raul that they are not perfect when closely examined by an expert. I am listening for enjoyment in my spare time, not as an expert critical listener trying to find faults in comparison.
The Acutex 420 is just short of the best(my favorites}cartridges. IMHO. It is very enjoyable to listen to on my system and should be listened to with an open mind. I think the majority will get pleasure from it
Raul does us a big favor by sticking his neck out on these opinions as an expert and I mean no diservice to him.
Just a different look at things.
Disclaimer: I hope no experts were harmed in the reading of this post. |
Dear Raul, 'my sistem is second to none in this regard' and 'I can detect cartridge performance characteristics that for other people is just undetactable.' Those are very bold statements and ,as is usualy the case, your proof consists of your own words only. I think that your arrogance is immeasurable as well that your speakers are totally outdated so you must be able to hear even extra natural sounds which contemporary physics is not able to explain. Regards, |
Regards, Raul: Again, thanks for taking the time to express yourself. I've a (LPM) 310, 312, 315, 320, 412, 415 and the 420. Each has it's own signature sound, each does what it does well, none are an immaculate performer and each has also required an extended break-in period.
It does seem there is a shift in voicing goals with the later production models. There were comments made in earlier posts concerning the influence of early "perfect sound forever" (ahem) digital recordings/playback gear influencing listeners' expectations. Although there may be some of this effect concerning the 415/420, much of this "splashy" character is diminished with extended use, bass overshoot tightens up too. Please don't perceive this as argument but it would be regretable if one were to dismiss the 420 as a poor performer before allowing it to run for a time sufficient for the somewhat aged suspension to relax and the cart to reach it's potential. Whether one then likes it or not is a different matter. IMHO an interesting cart and capable enough each listener should hear it in his own rig and make up his own mind.
In re-reading recent posts, I need to make a correction. With the 420 (in my old rig) hf/upper mid glare is reduced at 50k/100pF (shunted), not 50pF/160k total as erroneously posted late last night. It was a long day.
Now, about that mysterious LOMC---
Peace, |
Dear Timeltel: +++++ " if one were to dismiss the 420 as a poor performer before allowing it to run for a time sufficient for the somewhat aged suspension to relax and the cart to reach it's potential. " +++++
I'm not dismiss the 420 as " poor performer ". If you are refering on my word " poor " in my post that was only in reference to synergy but never to say the 420 is a poor performer that it is not.
In the other side IMHO I not only give it its time but believe me that I try everything with the hope that the 420 could improve to the LPM320IIISTR quality performance level but unfortunatelly it stayed a little short about.
Btw, you own those Acutex cartridges but the best: M320IIISTR!!!
That sample of this cartridge was sold in Agon only five days ago. The cartridge goes to Rusia and I know it because I recomended to this guy whom email me for advise on MC cartridges. He bought two MCs and the Acutex.
I really would like that this kind of very top quality performance cartridge could been with any of you.
I stopped to post cartridge ads on good opportunities in this thread because some of you " blame me " once and again about and I thinked my effort was not enough, so why go on.
Anyway, if you have the opportunity/time try to find out the M320 to fulfil your nice Acutex collection.
regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Hello Griffithds
"Got the 4000D back on so I must return to my few moments of heaven"
Amen brother anyone who had the pleasure to enjoy this fine cartridge sure can relate to that.
Take care, Mike |
Regards, Raul: It's understood what you're saying; "hope that the 420 could improve to the LPM320IIISTR quality performance level but unfortunatelly it stayed a little short". If I had to choose to keep only one of the Acutex here, it would be the LPM 320, for which I fortunately have two styli. This did not prevent me from ordering a second 420 and I'm pleased to have them, IMHO a good cart. Your opinion is not without influence, it would be unfortunate if someone else was discouraged from allowing the 420 an adequate audition to the point of running it in to it's full potential because of your comments being misinterpreted.
The M320 offered here was tempting but I kept recalling the $80 or so price these went for just several years ago, another case of "if I had known then what I know now"! Holding out for a more reasonable price, if I listened to a different cart every day it would be an embarassing number of days before returning to the first. Retired and on a budget, even if it is a comfortable one, dang it, it's still a budget. The M320STR, Empire 4000D 111 and CA Virt. are, however, definitely on the wish list.
You're avoiding mention of your "reference" LOMC, I'm starting to believe you just made that up ;).
Peace, |
Dear Timeltel: Due that you have Acutex options and due to my very good experiences if I was you I will take any of next " opportunities: send to VDH the 315 for cantilever/stylus re-tipping or send the LPM320 to VDH for the same.
Each one alternative will give you high rewards. My 315 VDH goes to the M320 league, not exactly the same but better than the LPM320 by one hair. It is just astonish performer.
Btw: +++++ " Your opinion is not without influence. " +++++
absolutely right I have to say. The only influence I have came from: live music and of course my old " ears ".
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
++++With even SPL and hearing/listening at 95 dbs at seat position with 102-105 dbs on peaks I have to lower at least 5-6 dbs the 420 level to made listenable the track. With demanding tracks like Telegraph Road on the Dire Straits " Love Over Gold " title I have to reduce the 420 even more because its distortions does not permit to go on.++++
I have that album (Japanese pressing), and have no problem with it at those levels? It sounds like your analog setup has met its match! Your dbs levels are exciting the stylus more than any other cartridges you own. Don't blame the messinger. Its just trying to tell you that the synergy between the cartridge and your turntable needs to improve as far as vibration issues are concerned. You have a problem with air born vibrations and need to isolate your analog rig better or else distortions will follow.
+++I try everything with the hope that the 420 could improve to the LPM320IIISTR quality performance level+++
Did any of the things you try pertain to vibration issolation? Don't take the above comments negitively Raul. I had spent months with this same problem 8 years ago when I bought the Vandersteen 5's. They would excite tha air molecules so much, that most of the cartridges I had at the time could not be used. One of them happened to be the 4000D! Isolating the TT on a sand box help alot. Doesn't look all that great though. I had to change racks (raising the TT 5ft above the floor), TT position in relation to other pcs. of equipment, armboard material, TT feet, etc, etc. I had a SOTA Saphire table at the time and thought I had the problem solved. Then I sold it, and bought a VPI Aries. The whole cycle of air borne vibration effecting cartridge performance started all over again! Concidering your comments about the 420, and how it performs for you at high db levels are quite different than mine, tells me that my setup method is still very good. |
Regards, Nandric: Thanks for the research. After ?eighty? years, still being done by hand. In the future, when I lower the tonearm I'll think of the gal who made the stylus not as a technician but instead as a muse. And pretty, too.
Peace, |
Raul,
IIRC, wasn't there a cartridge awhile back that you decided you didn't like because of vibration/distortion issues you said it had? I beleave it was the Signet TK7. I wonder if the problems you (but not others), had with it, were nothing more than vibration issolation issues not tamed by your analog rig and not cartridge specific at all? Just wondering? |
Dear Raul, The only thing I would say for sure re your evaluation of the 420 is that it is specious to arrive at general conclusions based on only one sample, for a cartridge that is now 25-30 years old. It could be that yours has stiffened up more than other samples owned by others who are in disagreement. (I have not heard mine yet so have no opinion of 420.) Therefore, your conclusions are valid for your sample of the 420, so far, unless or until others hear what you are hearing in comparing 320 and 420. As far as that goes, what version of the LPM320STRIII is your reference in your comparison test? Original cantilever and stylus or re-tipped by vdH or Alex? It seems just about all the cartridges you like best are vdH or Alex re-tips.
I have a used M315 or 312 (can't remember, but the fat body early model). Is it your opinion that I should send that off to vdH or Alex for a re-tip to bring it up to M320 Nirvana or beyond? Is the M body the same across the whole range? |
Dear friends: I have not the time right now to answer all the posts but Griffithds. Later or tomorrow I will give answer to all other but the Nandric one.
Dear Griffithds: first than all my sample on Love over Gold an England pressing. I never had the opportunity to hear the japan pressing in this LP but I have several pressings from japan and are not as good as the originals, anyway we are talking on two different LPs.
Now, of course that I can listen this LP at that SPL with the 420 but due to its unnatural and emphasis in the high frequencies those climaxes on the guitars are really bad against the other Acutex ones where there is no single problem.
Love over Gold was only one example. If you take Laura Branigan " Self Control " that's even more deamnding in that frequency range you will know what I'm talking about, with the other Acutex cartridges no single trouble. Griffithds, I have no trouble with the really good cartridges but the 420 is not up to the task against those top cartridges.
I can listen demanding LPs ( wide frequwency range ) at 100 dbs at seat position with 110 dbs on peaks with no problems.
Do you think that when I make cartridge tests using the Telarc 1812 or the RR Dafos ( and many other that I use on deep comparisons like the Acutes one. ) at high SPL if my system was not well " damped/isolated " ( this maybe are not the words but I have no other, my vocabulary is to short about. Remember that I have two big subs and that those LPs goes down to 10hz and at that SPLs you can imagine what happen. ) could make any test?, of course I can't do it. I can because if something has my system is that: you can hear it at any level with out problems other than the ones intrinsic on each item under test.
+++++ " I had spent months with this same problem ..." ++++
dear Griffithds: I have not that " same problem ". I had it in the past but through the years I improve thank's to learn about.
The 420 is not up to the 320 level. What's wrong with that? why every single cartridge that you like it has to stay at the top?.
My friend, there are cartridges that are better than others and the 420 is not better than the Acutex LPM320IIISTR not even than the 315. I can't do nothing about. IMHO that's the way was voiced !!!.
I don't have any single interest in the 420: to celebrate it or to diminish it.
We have different audio systems and IMHO you can't hear in your system the kind of " errors/defects " the 420 shows during my tests against its big brothers.
Griffithds, what do you want: that all been big brothers? that all the cartridges we hear/heard stay at the top?: no way my friend, not in your system, not in my system and not in any audio system.
My God, if you can't hear or detect cartridge differences that puts one cartridge a top the other then where are we seated?
Can I enjoy the 420?, yes I can but why to do it when there are several other cartridges that are bettter performers and that gives me a higher music listening pleasure.
+++++" You have a problem with air born vibrations and need to isolate your analog rig better or else distortions will follow. " +++++
I always am looking to improve my system and you know what?: my main system target ( as you can read on several of my posts in this forum and other forums. ) is to lower distortions and add the less at each single link in the audio chain and this is what I'm doing in the last years with success. Even that I'm still on this quest of " perfection ".
Let me to tell you something that I experienced the last saturday: I know very well the Guillermo ( tonearm co-designer. ) audio system and I like his top of the line Sounlabs speakers. I heard there Halcro electronics, Parasound ones ( JC1 amps ), tube amps and very good analog rig. The system is in a dedicated room and performs very good.
Well, in the last 4-5 months I had not the opportunity to heard his system ( for different reasons when in the past almost every week we meet at his place. ) and during this time I made some changes at my speakers crossovers and in my phono stages ( MM and MC. ) as at electrical level too, these changes IMHO put the quality performance of my audio system 2-3-4 steps a top of what I had before those changes ( btw, I will make a not so simple change in my Levinson's that I think will be worth to do it where I wait for additional improves. ). Well this satursay I meet him at its place and between other things we listen for a wjile. The experience was " terrible " and I sak if he made it not obvious changes and he told me that the system stay the same. I try to fine tunning and even changing amps and many other thing but even that the performance level improves a little what I heard was and is far away from what I have today at my place. This " surprise " was so unexpected to me that yesterday I go to other frien's place who owns a top system that I know very well too and the " surprise " was similar.
I know that these histories could sounds conceited from my part but it is not, I'm not that kind of person. The true for me is that my system quality performance is second to none of the systems I already heard in the last years and some ones that I don't heard personally but that I know for sure how performs m( I'm trained for this. ).
Btw, no more than ten days ago came to my place a very good friend that happen likes music too. He already heard my system at least hundred times, so he really knows it. In the other side he has real " gold ears " ( not like me. ). We listen music for a couple of hours ( when he had no time to do it. ) and after a few minutes he said that I stop the music and tell me: Raul where are the recording microphones? I can't hear it and this is the first experience I have/had in my life that this is happening hearing an audio system. As surprised as he was as I was too because this was the first time I heard that kind of comment. Then we follow listening and talking about the quality of that sound and the system changes I did. I was unaware of that micro subject till he mentioned. This is the kind of quality performance level I have today and that will improve in the future and you know what? these kind of performance can you have it mainly because distortions everywhere goes down goes down.
These experiences help me to analyze if I'm in the " road " or not and IMHO I'm " walking " a head.
I can't pay you the fly from USA to México city but only all the expenses during the days you can meet me at my place. You can't understand all what I posted here till you hear by your self. IMHO no one of you can, so the invitation is open for all of you.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Let's not become hysterical about Raul's honest evaluation of the Acutex 420. FWIW......I happen to agree with a much of Raul's statement. Raul doesn't like the Signet TK3, 5 or 7 series of cartridges and in these cases....I disagree with him :^) I initially liked the sound of the 420 and made the mistake of reaching that conclusion whilst one of my Halcro DM-58 monoblocks was being repaired and I had my 30 year old Perraux 1850 back-up amp in place. The 420 is a cheap cartridge which does some things well but is certainly not in my top 10 favourite cartridges? I currently have the rare and elusive Signet MR-5.0 lc installed in the Micro MA-505s playing the Victor TT-101 with the Halcros in full operation.........and I am bewitched and entranced. The Acutex 420 is not really in the same ballpark.......but then again......not many cartridges I have heard, are. :^) |
Hi Raul,
I have absolutely no objection with your evaluation of what you experienced, or which cartridge you prefer. Your review actually was quite good at expressing what you heard being reproduced thru your system. You stated a problem you had during this review (distortion at high db levels), a condition that you could improve, by turning down the volumm. I can not imagine any thing else that would explain this except as what I expressed to you in my reply. I would have liked to have talked to you about this more on a one on one, but I honestly don't know how to contact you directly. This open forum is my only contact with you that I know of. But the turning up or turning down the volumm knob has absolutly no effect what the cartridge/stylus does. You know this. The related air molecule excitement when the db's change, would explain it. I felt this is the first cartridge that you have had in your system that had the capabilites, good or bad, to reveal air borne vibration abnormalities you system might have. I've had and still have some of the cartridges, in which I could duplicate exactly what you were experiencing. The increasing/decreasing of distortions with the adjustment of the volumm knob. I just wanted to give you the benefit of MY experience with this problem and hoped you excepted it (my advice), as nothing more that. Your review has actually got me concidering buying another 420. It would by my 3rd. I don't listen to your system. I listen to mine. I know what this cartridge is capable of in my system. I like it. I like it very much. Is it my #1 cartridge. No. Is it in the group of favorites. Yes. I would have bought the M320 you saw for sale if I had seen it listed, but see it I didn't. I will continue looking and expect someday, to find one. Raul, I might be old, but I will never allow that to stop me from learning something new everyday, and by just about anybody. Your friend, Don Griffith |
Dear Griffithds: Good that you find out in the 420 what you like in your system.
Your advise always welcomed as the one from other person. I don't agree with you on that " adjustment on volume knob " because it is only one of my test process with any cartridge . I don't rated the 420 only because that but because inside the overall test process can't approach what the other better cartridges did it, that's all.
Griffithds, you know that at Olympic Games goes the best runners to compete in the 100 m. race and as good all are only one will arrive in first place. Well the 420 lose this race where its big brothers arrive a top it.
I love winners but I understand loosers.
Btw, if you want a 4th 420 you can get for me.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Halcro: I can't understand why so big deal with the 420. Always are winners and loosers and this time the 420 belongs to these ones but that fact does not means is a poor cartridge, the 420 as I said twice is a good/nice cartridge but nothing more than that.
Btw, what happened to that DM-58?
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |