Dear friends: Any one of you own Philips cartridges as the 412 or 420 or other?.
Yes!: can you share your experiences?, thank you.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Yes!: can you share your experiences?, thank you.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Who needs a MM cartridge type when we have MC?
On my 3rd lp and darn if this little cartridge keeps me listening. Playing a fine copy of Steely Dan Gold the stage is well past my speakers and back into the rear wall. Deacon Blue has a nice bass line and 312 is moving the air. Yes my 4000d3 has a ton more of details but this little cartridge has nice pace and rhythm and sound will get better as i get more time in. Setup went relatively easy azimuth adjustment needed a good move compared to my empire. Tracking at 2g and vta is vertical. Going to leave the arm sit on an lp all night and keep weight on the Acutex. For 65 dollars what a deal. Mike |
Just delivered by the postman my m312 lll str. giving it a close look over with a 7x magnifying glass all looks very tight and well built. i was surprised the pins were gold and happy about that. it may be and hoping this can be confirmed the stylus assy is the only difference between the m312 m315 and m320 if so off its going to go for a retipping. one thing thats got my Italian heritage all juicy is the instruction manual is in Italian now how about that. going to install m312 tonight and will post my thoughts. mike |
I recieved my 415 to replace the out of stock 420. After comparing them by changing between 420 & 415 stylus on the same body, so far (1 album Fleetwood Mac Rumours) I think they are very similar, perhaps the 415 is slightly more dynamic on my setup with my ears. I could happily live with either and for me at the price I paid I couldnt be happier. Here is a link to some great info on acutex cartridges http://www.lencoheaven.net/forum/index.php?topic=6675.msg116386#msg116386 |
Dear Acman3: As you said a little confusing. I bought my first Acutex model " by error " because that time I was unaware of the M, LPM, etc. cartridge model description. It's weird that Acutex stated in the cartridge boxes M420 STR when the cartridge is a LPM type. The manufacturer it self had no rules about. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Hello danny if I have learned anything in my years in this hobby its any piece of gear in a system can sound as or not as good when introduced into another system. We all know its about synergy so no need to apologize. Im looking forward to hearing 312 in my system hell who knows it may be a true sleeper for me. Mike |
Dear Danny, No need to apology we all, except of course our Professor, have problems with the nomenclature of the Acutex carts. I was even sure that the M312 is identical with my previous M 312 and M 315. Ie the 'block' kind in contradistiction to the 'long nose' kind. I am still not sure which kind I bought because on the picture this new Italian 'proposition' looks like my 'old' M 312/315. Who btw will complain about the price? Regards, |
Hello All, I wrote a post last night but It did not go through so I guess I will try again. The Acutex terminology is very confusing as they used the same model number for different cartridges. The M312 that the Italian seller has for sell is not the short nosed M series Raul liked the best in his Acutex comparisons but it is the LPM long nosed M series Raul liked second best. To those who do not have the LPM series M3xx models this could still be retipped and upgraded if you want. I happened to look back at the add and saw the picture and noticed it was a LPM series long nose. I was personally purchasing this cartridge as an short nosed M series to upgrade so this cart does me no good. I wanted to make sure I did not mislead anyone else. Possibly some of you knew all this and I'm the only one who made this mistake but I just wanted everyone to be aware. |
Hello All, The Acutex terminology is very confusing so I wanted to try to clear up my mistake before I mislead anyone. The Acutex M312 being sold on Italian Ebay is an LPM long nose model. It is not the M3xx short nose model which Raul has said is his favorite Acutex cartridge. It can still be upgraded to perform closer to what we have been calling the Acutex LPM 320 which was Raul's second best cartridge in his comparison of the Acutex carts. Acutex used the same model # for both style cartridges. I happen to look back at the add and saw the picture of the LPM model. I am sorry if I led anyone else, besides myself, to believe it was the Acutex M series Raul liked the best. Sorry again, Danny |
I owned M 315 and M 312 but without the original styli. Searching for the original styli was a hopeless undertaking so I sold both. To me the corpus of both looked identical. I assume that this means the same 'generator'. This shouldalso apply to 320. If this is true then the only difference must be the styli? Can anyone confirm my assumptions? Regards, |
That Acutex M320 has been taunting me for two days. Would someone please buy it. The Italian seller is now selling Acutex M312. Will he start selling M320s next week for under a hundred dollars? I asked them by email and could not understand the response, but I think they said they had no M320 cartridges. I then started wondering about upgrading the Acutex M312 which is only $60. I ordered one and will upgrade in the future if they do not sell any M320s. The original is still calling in that sweet sirens song. Danny |
Hi Raul, "Please take your time and readed, worth the effort." I have been reading it and thank you for suggesting . It is not something you can speed read. I seem to read a paragraph, think about what has been said, reread the paragraph to varify what I think it said, and then go on to the next paragraph. It's kind of mind boggleing to think about how long ago these principles were established. Travbow's comment about Stevenson being a variation of the Loefgren is what had me thinking that Gramham's comment ++++#2 position is an alternative setting (proposed by Loefgren)++++, was what is called the Stevenson position. Thanks to everyones refresher course in Tonearm geometry, I have seen the error of my ways. This thread really can be a tool to learn or relearn what was forgotten long ago. Thanks all! |
Regards, Travbrow: The numbers you've run are for P/S of 235mm, try plugging in P/S of 250mm, I believe this is correct for your EPA-100. Lofgren writes (pg. 9 of his ca. 1938 report), "the largest distortion risk occurs when the overhang is not set correctly for the linear offset (cutting stylus). On the other hand, the angular offset is not so critical". Angular offset becomes more important with the introduction of the elliptical stylus/stereo Lp. Relative to your earlier comments, Lofgren also identifies alignment as influenceing the relation of summation and difference tones, suggesting RMS values depend on the frequency ratio and that alignment variances can result in either of these ratios becoming multiple times larger than the other. This particular section of math is fairly demanding and I'll not offer to offer proof but it could be fun to speculate that there is a difference to be heard with various stylus profiles and the effect on harmonics from alternate alignment sets. (That's s p e c u l a t e, I believe I spelled it correctly). I've "no dog in this fight", but have had similar thoughts in the past. Keep in mind his observation that the most accurate alignment results in the least record wear. Peace, |
Hi Griffithds, Correct. If you look at the inner null point, the further out from the spindle, the longer your overhang. Alignment changes the overhang (eff length) and offset angle. The greatest alignment error is in the center of the record. Loefgren B minimizes this by having the nulls closer to the center. Loefgren A (Baerwald) is the most popular though. Most "standard" protractors like Dennesen, DB Systems, Geodisc, etc use it. Regards, |
Dear Griffithds: Fleib is correct and your #2 position is Löfgren B that share similar offset angle with Löfgren A/Baerwald and with a small difference in overhang around 0.45mm. If you read through my cartridge official reviews and somewhere in this thread I'm using Löfgren B ( #2 position . ), sound quality performance is minimal at all. Stevenson is way different. My advise other that Fleib, me or other member can make a fast explanation is that you read both links I posted to you and try to understand the whole subject there especially with the Löfgren white papers discussion, is very enlighted for say the least. IMHO any audiophile must read the LÓfgren great works. IMHO we can't discuss cartridge/tonearm geometry set-up with out knowing what we are talking about. When we understand about then in automatic will be opened several " windows " big " windows " on alternatives to tonearm/cartridge geometry set ups. Please take your time and readed, worth the effort. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Hi Raul, I don't think it makes any difference wether you choose the effective length or pivot to spindle distance as the constant, you still end up with same tracing arc, just different set of values to get the same tracing arc. It is much easier for me too leave the pivot to spindle distance at recommended value (235 with my tonearms) it is time consuming to change my pivot to spindle distance. Getting the pivot to spindle distance set perfect so it would trace the mintLP arc perfectly the first time was time cosuming because of the way my armboard is mounted. Since I know it is right, I use the 235 pivot to spindle value to calculate other alignment geometries I want to try. |
Hi Flieb, Let me see if I understand the terminalogy correctly. Baerwald is Loefgren A, and there is a Loefgren B, sometimes just called Loefgren. Neither is Stevenson. Both the Baerwald and Loefgren points are farther from the pivot than the Stevenson with the Loefgren being the farthest. I'm I correct? Regards, Don |
Hi Timeltel, The vinyl engine template generator gave me these results using IEC groove radius figures. Stevenson A Inner groove radius= 60.325 Outer groove radious= 146.05 Pivot to Spindle= 235 Inner null= 60.325 Outer null= 117.417 Effective Length= 249.616 Overhang= 14.616 Offset angle 20.857 Lofgren A IEC Inner radius= 60.325 Outer radius= 146.05 P to S= 235 Inner null= 65.998 Outer null=120.891 Effective length= 251.403 Overhang= 16.403 Offse angle= 21.820 Technics factory settings are 15mm overhang effective length is 250mm and offset at 21 degrees, I think the null points are 62.2 and 117. Just wondered why you have different results using the other template generator. |
Hi Griffithds, ++++Still keeping the cantilever parallel with the longitudinal track lines, position the stylus tip so that it lines up the the points marke "1" or "2". Position "1" provides for the null points to be at the standard "Seagrave/Baerwald" positions, while "2" is an alternative setting (proposed by Loefgren) which is said to provide improved over-all distortion at the expense of slightly increased peak distortion at the beginning and end of the record. The precision of this alignment system allows the end user to experiment with confidence and accuracy.++++ Position #1 is standard Baerwald. Some prefer to call it Loefgren A because he discovered it. Baerwald popularized it. Position #2 is Loefgren B also known as simply Loefgren. It has the lowest total distortion. Baerwald has the most even performance from beginning to end. Loefgren B requires the cartridge to be a little more forward in the headshell. Stevenson moves the inner null to the lead-out groove and optimises tracking there to reduce inner groove distortion. It requires the cartridge to be a little closer to the pivot. Regards, |
Hi timeltel, according to the template generater at vinylengine (Stevenson A), overhang for my tonearm would be 14.616 instead of 15mm for the EPA tonearms pivot to spindle distance of 235. Effective length changes to 249.616 instead of 250 and offset angle from 21 to 20.857 degrees. The factory null points were closer to Stevenson A than Bearwald I thought. I don't have audible tracing distortion, But being the stylus is so sensitive I might tinker with the alignment and hear what happens. |
Dear Raul, There is a side benefit from all these cartridges I've been rotating in the last 2 days. I know the Signets are not on your list of perfered but, I would position the 420 equal with the TK/SU with the Akai RS 180 stylus. That would be below the 15Sa, the 20ss and the Ruby3. High praise for me because I like the Signets. Just my opinion. |
Hi Raul, Timeltel After your posts, I have gone back and dug out my Graham tonearm installation manual. I have not looked at it in years. He provides a device that is used to setup the cartridge to the arm wand. You position the arm wand with a loosly fitting cartridge into the device. There is a plastic flip down window that has 2 lines on it. One is identified as position 1 and the other is identified as position 2. I have been refering to them as the Baerwald position and the Stevenson position. I might be wrong in calling the 2nd one the Stevenson. I am going to type a paragraph from my manual. ++++Still keeping the cantilever parallel with the longitudinal track lines, position the stylus tip so that it lines up the the points marke "1" or "2". Position "1" provides for the null points to be at the standard "Seagrave/Baerwald" positions, while "2" is an alternative setting (proposed by Loefgren) which is said to provide improved over-all distortion at the expense of slightly increased peak distortion at the beginning and end of the record. The precision of this alignment system allows the end user to experiment with confidence and accuracy.++++ I assumed the "proposed by Loefgren" position was the Stevenson? Would this assumption be correct? The #2 position does increase the length from the bearing to the stylus tip. I am finding it has been far eaiser to hit the non signal distorting position (sibilance elimination), using position #2 on my gauge. Tonight, I have tried 3 shabata type stylus cartridges. The AT20ss, the AT15sa, and the TK/SU with the Akai RS180.I also tried the Ruby3 which is a F/Gyger. I do not have a preference with either setting #1 or #2 using any of the cartridges mentioned. I have setup the 420, twice tonight using pos.#2 and found the sweet spot easily both times. I then tried setting it up using pos. #1 (Baerwald), and after 3 attempts, gave up. I'm not saying I would not have found the spot eventually, but it is so much eaisier/faster using pos.#2 which I will call Stevenson, I'm just going to stick with it on this cartridge. I do not understand why this is so? I does not make sense concidering what little differences the 2 setting should provide. |
Regards, Griffithds, Travbrow: In the kit here there's a Denneson "Geometric Soundtractor", Baerwald geometry. The Denneson is handy for getting the cart aligned within "ballpark" standards and this is a good starting point, the remainder done by ear. Cart gently clockwise for IGD, counterclockwise for OGD. Distorion at both extremes, cart towards the pivot (decreases offset angle) & the reverse. This has worked well for me. When finally finished with the Acutex, it was just short of 14mm overhang. Conrad Hoffman's template generator for Lofgren A alignment (almost Baerwald) calculates IEC overhang for the EPA-250 at 15.487mm and for Stevenson geometry, 13.786mm overhang. Technics compromises at 15mm overhang, square to the headshell. The cart seemed best (IMHO) on the EPA-250 at just short of 14mm, this alignment/overhang is closer to Stevenson than Baerwald. Hope the above makes sense, somewhat smashed following a recent (minor) oral surgery and the keyboard is looking like a very complicated peice of machinery. Peace, |
Dear Griffithds: You don't explain in a wide way what you did when pass from Baerwald to Stevenson, I mean that normally when we are choosing for tonearm geometry set up the main and fix " number " we took is the manufacturer tonearm effective length so when we pass from Baerwald to Stevenson and to match in both geometry set ups that manufacturer tonearm effect6ive length we need to change the tonearm bearing position against the TT spindle: that's it that we have to move the tonearm position and not only the overhang/offset-angle. You can see it here with an example: http://www.vinylengine.com/tonearm_alignment_calculator.php?mv=&l=e&ev=250&i=i&c1=&o=i&c2=&cal=1&submit=calculate that's the normal process on that tonearm geometry set-up. Of course that we can do what ever but is important to follow what Löfgren stated about. Maybe you have to think on that subject and to think that Stevenson always gives you higher tracking distortions but at inner grooves, it does not matters stylus shape. Those old calculations were made all taking in count where the stylus tip will have to stay against the bearing tonearm distance and that's all: well almost because that off-set angle calculation too. As always the other side on this whole subject is that we can like more this or that geometry set-up but the important thing IMHO is that what we are doing for the set-up is right/according the rules. Of course too, that what Travbrow pointed out is important: it does not matters which geometry set-up you choosed if the alignment during the set-up is not accurate, as more accurate the better but remember that we belongs to an imperfect way imperfect analog world an even that the set-up could be accurate things when the stylus hit the grooves during playback could change due to LP waves/LP off-center and the like. In other threads already some of us ( along other contributors. ) discussed in depth the overall subject. You can look for on the forum if you have doubts about. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
I am using the Technics EPA 100MKII tonearm with the 420 and my Mintlp protractor was made for the Technics EPA100/500 tonearm factory alignment geometry, very similiar to Stevenson. I have always considered the accuracy of the alignment very important, maybe more important than the geometry chosen. Very interesting, I never considered the idea of different stylus profiles performing better with a specific alignment geometry. |
Hi Timeltel, Your comment,"After six hours, realigned it from Baerwald to Stevenson overhang," has had me puzzled. Years ago, I use to try every cartridge in both positions and I have never discovered at cartridge I prefered in the Stevenson position. After awhile, I just started to align every cartridge in just the Baerwald position and have continued to do it that way for years. With the difficulty I have aligning the 420, and thinking about your above quote, I realigned it using the Stevenson. Much improved, not in just ease of setup but overall quality of the presentation. I have been lead to believe that the 2 setup positions only pertain to the inner groove tracking areas. But with the 420, the entire record surface playing area is improved. Last night, I picked 5 different cartridges. Listened to each of them in the Baerwald then the Stevenson position. I prefer the Baerwald on all of the tests. I do not understand and perhaps with your vast knowledge, explain to me why this is so? What is it about the 420 that has it requiring the Stevenson? Does the unusal stylus shape have something to do with this? |
Dear friends: reading the 2012 Stereophile Buyer Guide I found out that it listed 320 different models that handle MM/MC cartridges where 16 has the 100K option and in almost all those 320 models the capacitive loading options are minimal. Obviously that the " alternative " is the MC one. Even that in the cartridge list we can see there are more MM/MI options than in past years. I think that the MM/MI alternative could and is a very good one to impulse the analog/LP advocates especialy for new comers. This alternative is a lot less expensive and a good " entry level " for any one. Many people refuse to try analog because is an expensive option through MC alternative and all what surrounded it. Yes there are unexpensive MC like the 103 but this is an exception. Anyway, the last " word " is in the audio manufacturers side. Btw, whom will take that M320?. Probably this seller has more samples. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Hi Acman3 There must be something going around? +++"I need to get rid of a few but they seem to come in much faster than they leave."+++ I seem to have the same problem as you. I scored a Garrott Brothers P77 and a Andante P76 last night. The problem is, it's hard to thin out your stash when you like everything you have! |
Hello Banquo363 and Ct0517, Thanks for the clarifications. Sorry for misreading the post. I also have to many carts but I would have liked to have heard the m320. The differences of the individual carts are really interesting to me. How these little tranducers can alter the entire sound of a system is addictive. I need to get rid of a few but they seem to come in much faster than they leave. |
Acman3: neither. I was just an unaffiliated messenger. Seemed like something who reads this thread would want, so I passed on the info. Evidently someone wanted it badly. I am not a cart collector and I have many more than I can use as it is, e.g. I've barely listened to a NOS Shure ml140he that I found 6 months ago. And yet I keep reading this thread with interest. ??? |
Acman3 - sorry for the punctuation in my last post. It should read. Banquo - that 320 did not last long. (in response to his post to us) Then I was curious so I asked - Anyone here ? separately. I guess someone believes that cartridge is better than just "a hair" than the 420, if they have been reading here or thats one expensive strand of hair. |
stuff your turkey with the latest: m320 str My turkey runneth o'er with MM carts already and at nearly $500 more than the 420, which I bought, I'm out of that game. But if Raul's right, and he's never steered me wrong, surely someone should gobble it up (sorry). |
Dear Travbrow: ++++++ " I am not looking for perfection just models that let me get lost in the music, and the emotional impact of music. I don't care about utmost accuracy or tiny details a cartridge may miss. " ++++++ I'm with you on half part. Difference between what you are looking for and what I'm looking for is that I ( like you ) want " to lost in the music with its emotional deep content ( I have to add. ) " and be nearest to perfection cartridge ( or any audio item. ) quality performance level. Please read what Frogman posted in other tread about that could give you a wider " window ": +++++ " I reluctantly admit to being a "neutrality apostle". But I am reluctant only because, IMO, the term neutrality is usually misunderstood. In your comment you pair the term neutrality with sonic-footprint. From my vantage point, sonic footprint is, by definition, usually the result of distortions. Neutrality (or however close a component gets to it) is a measure of musicality. In other words, a component that is truly musical IS closer to neutral. "Precision control" allows musicality. " +++++ you can't have/achieve neutrality with out accuracy, such is life and MUSIC. I don't like distortions even that my ears are not better than yours but only with different training. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |