Hi Timeltel,
I like Tom Waits a lot and so, for me, yes I would more than willingly go along with your suggestion. I can now easily live with its comparitively bloated bass performance (with it settling in much more with time and change of headshell. If its treatment of cymbals, bells and drums was more detailed/accurate I would happily live with the 420 as much as my Technics, Empire or Glanz. None of these alternatives, I feel, matches the staging and tracking abilities of the 420 and I am filled with admiration for the technicians who put it together: inexpensively or not.
Vocals are pretty impressive too and brass can be hot on some tracks. Both of these features are most obvious with the 420's great job of resolving music that is complex, multi coloured and very demanding: Mahler's 8th - Solti/CSO/Decca being an obvious case in point here. I love what it can do in such instances and will continue to give it an airing according to circumstance and inclination.
I'm therefore grateful to you and others who raised my awareness of its existence.
As always |
Hi Temeltel,
"On first play cymbols sound like the rush of pressurized air from the can of black spray paint Danny is using to up grade his styli"
You acutally made me laugh. Very funny Professor, very funny indeed!
BTW, I am a big fan of Tom Waits and have almost all of his recordings. Seen him perform in person. Great show. I owe you for the Akai RS180 stylus suggestion so I have a deal for you. I was accidently sent 2 pressing of the Tom Waits "Alice" album. If you would like one, just tell me where to send it.
Regards, Don |
Regards, Dgob: I'm still maintaining the 420 is a chameleon. It seems no two descriptions are the same, other than a capability to deliver a stable soundstage and solid imaging. My example has been on four arms and three decks, it's doing best on a somewhat damped sounding Tech. SP-15/EPA-250 arm and Sumiko 12gm headshell. VTA is important.
In every configuration there is a consistent impression of not just aisle A, but instead table, front & center. Close to the stage and in a small venue. Those who enjoy delicate shading or the subtle detail of the oboeist turning the sheet music will not be enthralled with the 420. If one's pleasure is closely miked sax, harmonics evolved from female three part vocals or the raspy elements of a well resined bow on cello, the 420 will fulfill.
It does improve with use. On first play cymbols sound like the rush of pressurized air from the can of black spray paint Danny is using to upgrade his styli. Bass is a sonic BOOM and vocals, well, I like Tom Waits anyway. Approaching thirty hours on mine now, crackle and boof are receeding nicely but even with the well used example that came my way this summer, voicing retains a very forward, brassy element, this the purist is sure to notice.
Speaking of Tom Waits, one of his quotes is: "My kids are starting to notice I'm a little different from other dads". He has a consderable following so can we just think of the Acutex 420 as the Tom Waits of cartridges, just a little different? (And, no one HAS to like Tom Waits).
Peace, |
Raul, My quote "I like it very much." Your quote " only Griffithds fall in love with"
Like very much does not mean fall in love with!
My quote " Is it my #1 cartridge. No. Is it in the group of favorites. Yes." Your quote "Griffithds posted that is at the top of his ladder"
What part of "NO" did you not understand. Group of favorites does not mean at the top of my ladder. ON THE LADDER, YES. BUT NOT AT THE TOP!
Sometimes you just amaze me. You need to start doing fact checks before you print something. |
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? |
The poster who said that there may be variability between samples due to aging may have hit the nail on the head. I bought two samples and in one box the staples on the little instruction booklet had rusted to the point where there was just a brown stain on the paper ...there was nothing holding the pages together. On the other sample the staples are still perfect. This raises questions about how this lot of cartridges from Italy have been stored for all these years. I will in due course try and compare the two samples but as I only unpacked them today I can't comment yet.
|
Anyone else try the 420 on a tonearm such as the Mayware Formula IV? I've read that this combination works great. I am using mine with Technics EPA 100MKII with good results. 1.6g tracking force. I will try it with my ultralight 501E armwand and Technics EPA 500 at some time too. Maybe this model is one that actually benefits from a properly matched tonearm? Very high compliance cartridges sometimes work best on very low mass tonearms?
Anyway, not much hours on mine, but it sounds very nice to me, a little rough around the edges but will improve with more hours I believe. I am used to hearing the Technics EPC P100CMKIV and Empire 4000DIII and this little 420 didn't make me think it is a poor performer against those. Still can enjoy music using this cartridge just a different flavour of sound to me. But time will tell wether or not it stays in steady use or not. It takes me more time to try and get the best out of cartridge than a lot of others, especially Raul. |
WOW!I have to admit to lurking on this thread for some time and have found it very informative and of late extremely entertaining. I do not profess to have the experience or the "golden ears" to properly evaluate these cartridges and I know that Raul is the Obiter Dictum but the wax and wane of opinion about the 420 STR has been amazing to read. Kudos Raul, you rule with an iron fist in a velvet glove, your humility and leadership skills may exceed your knowledge and acumen as an audiophile.
I rather like the 420 STR but my very first impression was that it sounded more "hi-fi" (is that a perjorative term?) than the Empire 4000D/II or the Grace 9E I have been listening to. Hopefully with some break-in time it will become more balanced. It's a great tracker and plays loudly without distortion in my system, certainly equal to or better than the Empire 1000ZE/X.
|
Hi All,
Just to note that there has been an ongoing case of dyslexia on this site. "Axel" Schurholz's name has been unwittingly changed so that he is often referred to as "Alex". Correction of this should hopefully help in contacting him etc.
Mia culpa: he is Axel and his technical magic can be viewed as sheer Axel-eration. |
Hi Griffithds/Timeltel/Lewm,
As my above statement suggests, my findings have not really changed since I first posted here regarding the 420 on 11.04.11. However, as I hope I have consistently made clear, I do admire the things that the Acutex 420STR does well. If it satisfies anyone's requirements then it should obviously be kept and listened to, IMO. |
Hi Timeltel,
"concerning the 415/420, much of this "splashy" character is diminished with extended use, bass overshoot tightens up too."
I wholly agree with this and with your noting that "some" of the detrimental effects will diminish with extended listening.
My finding after that extended listening was emailed in a private correspondence with another Agoner. They were:
"I was just hoping (due to its tracking ability and staging capacity) that its signature could be changed or improved. Bells, cymbals and drums still defeat it despite improvements in many other areas. It still does not match the Technics, Empire 4000D/III LAC nor Glanz G5 although I was hoping. Maybe if someone comes up with a technical change in the future that works it can make a return among the elite."
The voicing issue not withstanding, it is still a magnificent beast for the things that it does well and at its purchase price, IMO. Maybe something for gatherings with friends around drinks and chatter: able to impress with its more overt virtues.
As always |
Lew: Do you take in count that from five persons that posted on the 420 quality performance level only Griffithds fall in love with?: Timeltel prefer the 320 over the 420, Halcro said the 420 is not it his 10 top list, Acman3 said is good but not at the top and I posted that is not at the top.
The only person on disagreement was ( till this moment ) Griffithds or we four that are in disagreement with him: as you like it.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Raul, Nothing ever goes wrong with the DM-58 monoblocks except for their stupid 'air-switch' to turn it on. Instead of a normal on/off switch that millions of electronic items have successfully used for decades, Halcro decided to develop a shmantzy 'air-switch' which turns on the electronics by air pressure up a plastic tube? This is the Achilles heal of the amps as they put in a resistor which controls this and sometimes it became too hot and the amp 'switched' itself off? Resistor and transistor all upgraded under warranty.....but now it appears that during manufacture........to slide the air-tube up through the electronics....the assemblers used a grease which after 5 years......apparently clogged the tube so that the air could not reach the electronic on/off switch? Grease in now cleared out :^) Sometimes being too clever is just dumb? |
Dear Lewm: Where are that disagreement on the 420? is there any words against it for my part saying is a poor or a crap of cartridge?. For what I read here no one other than Griffithds posted that is at the top of his ladder and even him I think does not said it in that precise way. So where are that disagreement?
I only have one version of the LPM320IIISTR: the original one. I own two versions of the 315 but I did not compared the 315 VDH version.
The M320IIISTR ( square black body. ) is IMHO the best of the Acutex cartridge lines and if you own the 415 then sure send to VDH.
++++ " Is the M body the same across the whole range " ++++
yes, physically but inside maybe a little different like in the LPM 300 series.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Acman3: Like you I'm first than all a music lover ( I posted several times. ) a very exigent/demanding music lover. I take my time and effort to improve as music lover and always waiting that what I heard always " respond " to that demanding music lover that lives in me. I never ask for less.
I make the same demands to live music as to reproduced music taking in count its respective environment. I work hard to ask my system my demands level, some items can some other can't. Things are that the 420 is in this last group.
As a music lover I'm not " easy " and as audiophile I'm like " nitric acid " starting with my self audio system. I'm really serious about music and reproduction of music as the deepest any one of you are. I'm looking for nothing less than excellence level and I mean it.
Btw, I'm not an expert because I have no single audio subject where I know everything but I try hard to be expert some day in some main audio subjects.
Where I'm near to be an expert is in my audio system knowledge.
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. |
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. |
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 |
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. :^) |
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. |
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? |
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? |
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, |
++++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. |
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. |
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, |
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 |
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. |
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 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, |
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 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. |
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 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, |
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. |
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, |
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. |
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! |
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. |
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. |
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 |
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, |
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. |
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. |
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 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! |
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, |
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, |
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. |