Yes, but a 103C would need to have been substantially rebuilt to have as a high a cu figure as a 103D

Posted by Timbo in Oz (A) on July 28, 2015 at 19:38:59

In Reply to: RE: 'Suitable for arms of 5-10gms effective mass' posted by 2con on July 28, 2015 at 14:26:25:

A standard 103 (a 103C) has quite low compliance and a higher TF than a D or a 103S. Unless you had the compliance increased when the work was done, the resonant frequency will only have shifted upwards a little if at all. IIRC effective tip mass / moving mass (ETM) is not a big factor driving LF arm/cart resonance, especially in MCs. The two main factors are arm mass (plus cart. mass) and the compliance of the cartridge.

So yours still should work in the Ittok's mass, and it does. A 103 will also work well in quite heavy arms like an FR64, or an Ortofon 212. It was meant to.

To use a 103D in a medium mass arm you may need some kind of magnetic or fluid damping, or the arm/cart resonance might fall below 1O Hz / raise the Q of the resonance.

Arm/cart resonances below 10hz / of high-Q are not a good thing.

Even with a system using *sealed speakers. Because as the power demands on the amplifier and into the bass driver/s will increase. And, this is almost always below the system's audible bandwidth.

*Even if ELF excursion doesn't increase in the sealed enclosure, IMD and HD will increase.

Also, sensitivity to warps increases.

LBNL, Denon used? to specify cu at a higher frequency than most MFrs (100 Hz?) which understates the compliance when making comparison with other makes.

Warmest

Tim Bailey

Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Follow Ups Full Thread

Topic - Linn LP12 with Ittok LVII with Denon DL-103D? - Lt Einhorn 06:41:34 07/28/15 (17)

RE: Linn LP12 with Ittok LVII with Denon DL-103D? - chickenlogic 16:07:28 08/03/15 (0)

'Suitable for arms of 5-10gms effective mass' - Timbo in Oz 14:09:34 07/28/15 (2)

RE: 'Suitable for arms of 5-10gms effective mass' - 2con 14:26:25 07/28/15 (1)

Yes, but a 103C would need to have been substantially rebuilt to have as a high a cu figure as a 103D - Timbo in Oz 19:38:59 07/28/15 (0)

The 103D is a fairly high compliant cartridge, at least as Denon 103's go...... - Ivan303 06:56:04 07/28/15 (12)

I've read that Denon works better with a high mass arm.... - kuma 09:02:50 07/28/15 (3)

RE: I've read that Denon works better with a high mass arm.... - Crazy Dave 14:47:18 07/28/15 (2)

AFAIK the body of a 103D is still made of plastic, might be a bit heavier. - Timbo in Oz 21:39:26 07/28/15 (0)

ah ok. that makes sense. thanks. (nt) - kuma 16:15:34 07/28/15 (0)

RE: The 103D is a fairly high compliant cartridge, at least as Denon 103's go...... - Lew 08:50:59 07/28/15 (7)

See above. - Timbo in Oz 21:30:49 07/28/15 (6)

Mea culpa - Lew 07:02:44 07/29/15 (5)

Suspension changes would be extra work, no? - Timbo in Oz 14:50:14 07/29/15 (4)

RE: Suspension changes would be extra work, no? - Lew 07:30:58 07/30/15 (3)

Such inadvertant changes would be small, - Timbo in Oz 20:28:35 07/30/15 (0)

RE: Suspension changes would be extra work, no? - neobop 14:28:04 07/30/15 (1)

It is ~ 27Hz @ 10 Hz where most Cart mfrs usually quote their figure. - Timbo in Oz 20:20:56 07/30/15 (0)

Follow Ups

Yes, but a 103C would need to have been substantially rebuilt to have as a high a cu figure as a 103D - Timbo in Oz 19:38:59 07/28/15 (0)

Yes, but a 103C would need to have been substantially rebuilt to have as a high a cu figure as a 103D

Post a Message!