Acutex M320 III STR
- Thread starter Roger G F
- Start date
boreas
"If it sounds good, it IS good." E.K.E.
Which M320 III STR cartridges are you getting? There were two completely different Acutex cartridges with the exact same model number.
John
boreas
"If it sounds good, it IS good." E.K.E.
No, I don't. Acutex revised the specs for the LPM "Longnose" STRs, changing the recommended VTF to from 1.5 to 2.3g. This applied to all the STRs in the 300 Series. The elliptical M310 III E, though it had the lowest compliance of the bunch, also had the lowest recommended VTF of from 1.0.to 2.0g. Good old Acutex! I set my 312 and 315 STRs both to 1.75g and like the results.
As for the "Bricks", the brochure I have lists the VTF at from, 0.8 to 1.8g which was the pre-revision spec for the M320 III STR LPM. Walt, do you have different information? Good old Acutex!
John
As for the "Bricks", the brochure I have lists the VTF at from, 0.8 to 1.8g which was the pre-revision spec for the M320 III STR LPM. Walt, do you have different information? Good old Acutex!
John
Last edited:
boreas
"If it sounds good, it IS good." E.K.E.
Heh. Indeed! Acutex kept moving the goalposts. I revised my post to more closely agree with yours because I want people to think we're the same person.
But seriously, Acutex is one of those cartridge companies that kinda left us on our own. Magazines that tested the non-LPM M320 STR III back in the late '70s used 1.2g and 1.5g for their tests, and the mfr- stated VTF range differed from one magazine to the other. Then Acutex changed the published VTF recommendations. This is why I suggest starting at or near the top (1.8g) and working your way down, or, if necessary, up. Lining the cantilever up to obtain the optimum alignment with pole pieces on three axes may take a bit of fiddling. Some styli will have age hardening of their rubber suspensions. So play around with VTF, is my advice.
Wualta is correct. I start about 1.5 and tried up and down on both my versions of the M312 and found 1.8 to sound the best for both.
However this also depends on your tonearm . For the LPM versions they were meant for light tonearms so you might get away with
a slightly higher VTF, but I bet 1.8-2grm's to be its sweet spot.
One thing both do well is Bass. Fast, Tight and punchy with out ever being boomy.
Id like to know where he got a NOS M312 STR !!
Athanasios
However this also depends on your tonearm . For the LPM versions they were meant for light tonearms so you might get away with
a slightly higher VTF, but I bet 1.8-2grm's to be its sweet spot.
One thing both do well is Bass. Fast, Tight and punchy with out ever being boomy.
Id like to know where he got a NOS M312 STR !!
Athanasios
Thank you for the information!
This is not the LPM version that I picked up, but understand it to be a fine cartridge! I found it from a audiophile in Houston by happenstance!
I do have a LPM M312 STR III that I bought new in the day that sat in a closet for 25 years and it still plays amazingly after some fine tuning from all of your sugestions. As most of you, I would still like to find a new stylus for it. The hunt continues.....
This is not the LPM version that I picked up, but understand it to be a fine cartridge! I found it from a audiophile in Houston by happenstance!
I do have a LPM M312 STR III that I bought new in the day that sat in a closet for 25 years and it still plays amazingly after some fine tuning from all of your sugestions. As most of you, I would still like to find a new stylus for it. The hunt continues.....
I think the older 312 sounds a bit smoother than the LPM version. What i mean is its mids sound just right relative to the highs and bass. On the LPM they seem more subdued , which over states the highs and lows...... but not by much.
Athanasios
