|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
216.169.136.209
I know... there are a million postings on the internet about this cartridge. But please humor me.
To those who own it, or at least, have heard it, what is the character or quality that defines this famous and long lived transducer?
I'm only interested in the original DL-103, not any of its variations.
Thanks so much, in advance, for your time and patience.
Edits: 09/21/14Follow Ups:
The only other under $500 cartridge that I've used that wasn't a serious weak link when playing up was the ClearAudio Beta Arum (or was it Arum Beta?). So IMO that makes it pretty special.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
The cartridge is in existence since the 60s and both the company and the product still surviving today.( and still made in Japan! )
I can't think of any other aside from Ortofon's SPU series cartridges.
Its fine but not a great cartridge....or even a very good one.
The DL-103 has received a lot of attention due to its very high performance at its price. The thing to remember about a DL-103 is that it has a very high quality generator in a old fashioned body with an aluminum cantilever and conical stylus.
If you hold on to the concept of the generator of this cartridge you can get a hold on all of its variations. Denon has released many variations based on the original DL-103. By changing its coil wires, slight changes to its suspension, changes to its cantilever/stylus and changes to its body they can easily yield increased performance.
Its pretty obvious that many audiophiles do not get the point that the cantilever and stylus is a key to cartridge performance. They continuously exchange opinions about this or that cartridge without regard to the cantilever and stylus.
A comparison between a cartridge with an aluminum cantilever and conical stylus and another cartridge with a boron cantilever and line contact stylus almost always yields the same result...the harder cantilever and sharper profile stylus will yield better resolution and high frequency performance.
It is just an expression of a cartridge that can better trace the tighter and finer groves where the delicate high frequency information resides.
All of that crap said the DL-103 is a cartridge that can be used to reproduce very nice midrange and bass reproduction but a slightly rounded off high frequency performance. Its just an expression of the conical stylus and aluminum cantilever's inability to trace the finer grooves.
The DL-103 can be improved to yield much better performance or left alone to produce a very nice sound. Its very inexpensive and can be the source of a much better cartridge. Its also a very good tracking cartridge. Its also a tough SOB and can survive handling that would destroy other cartridges from boutique manufacturers.
There isn't much to complain about in this old fashioned cartridge. Yeah, it requires the same stepup or pre-preamp requirements as any other LOMC cartridge and has a low dynamic compliance but it gets the music right and that is the point of this hobby.
Ed
We don't shush around here!
Life is analog...digital is just samples thereof
> Its pretty obvious that many audiophiles do not get the point that the cantilever and stylus is a key to cartridge performance.
I think you have a good point. I have come to the conclusion that I prefer cartridges with aluminum cantilevers. My favorite cartridge of all time was the original Ortofon MC-2000 with its tapered, hollow aluminum cantilever. At the time it was introduced, it was Ortofon's top-of-the-line cartridge. I've played cartridges with boron cantilevers like the Dynavector XV-1, Audio Technica AT33PTG and OC9ML/II, but I seem to prefer cartridges like the Audio Technica AT33EV, Denon DL-103R and DL-S1, all of which have aluminum cantilevers. They just seen to sound smoother and more musical to my ears.
Best regards,
John Elison
Opus 33 1/3
I'll second that and add that with an excellent SUT, you'll be rewarded even further.
The fact that it has been in continuous production for nearly 50 years should be the only explanation necessary.That and the fact that I'd seriously consider any cartridge that Garth Philippe recommended.
Opus 33 1/3
Edits: 09/22/14
I recall a really easy to listen to, some what polite cartridge.
By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.
Galileo Galilei
It's analogous to real estate's location, location, location....except it's midrange, midrange, midrange!!!!!!!!!!!! A midrange that's alive, rich, dynamic, grabs and holds your attention. Also, you can dance to it!
.
Having a pleasant mid-range but lacking treble extension and bass weight doesn't say goodness to me. . Comparisons to Koetsus and other Paeans from reviewers are just plain stupid.
OTOH, you can't do much better at the price point
The R though, for just a few dollars more, is the value many wish the plain 103 was.
This space has been deleted
is a better bargain than just a 103? Also, how would you compared the 103R to the Denon DL-301 mk11? thanks
Haven't heard any but the 103 and 103r so can't help with the 301.
The r has, if anything, a richer mid-range than the 103 but it's ability to portray all the instruments and voices from top to bottom with authority keeps it from sounding lush.
This space has been deleted
Ok here comes my two cents.
I have a 103 and a Soundsmith 103Gold.
The 103 has a cocobolo body.
The 103 is a tremendous value unlike anything else in audiophile land. It has great body, decent resolution and a very extended frequency range. Indeed, we were able to get 35db crosstalk from mine.
That said,due to its stout low compliance it is a poor match for most contemporary arms.
Too often I have read of people mounting them on Rega arms and either bitchiing that it sounds terrible or that it's wonderful.
This cartridge was designed for early 60s transcription arms with effective mass ratings in the high 20s and 30s. They also had removable head shells and loosey goosey bearings (by today's standards).
So heavy is the word when it comes to optimal arms to use. Fidelity Research comes to mind.
If that is unoptainable, then make your arm heavy by the liberal use of lead tape. Whatever it takes to put mass onto this very stiff twig.
The wood body is a easy and very beneficial mod. Do it.
The Gold Soundsmith is another world, because they soften the suspension and add a wood body with a heavy brass plate. This brings the mass up to around 15gm from the stock 7.
Not to mention the line contact stylus brings a new level of resolution and tracking.
Btw. Do set the azimuth on the stock 103. Many think that since it has a spherical stylus it is unimportant. Wrong wrong wrong.
E
it's about the music
Regarding the Denon 103 Soundsmith Gold version, it is important that I make clear that there is not so much as a change to "softer" damping materials as it is a change in the "rheology" of the material. Materials used for damping have both elastic and visco-elastic properties, and the choice of what to use has consequences not just in terms of performance, but longevity and performance drift.
The compliance of ay MC cart is in part due to the wire suspension, and then (unless its an EMT) the damping is performed largely by the damping material. I have long been a proponent of lowering the effective mass of the generating "moving" elements of cartridges. which is why I make Moving Iron designs, as mine have at least 5 time less moving mass. According to calculations, this results in up to 10 times less rotational inertia. Less stored energy, less damping required, and less reflected energy DOWN the cantilever. This is a terribly important topic for another time, but bear in mind that the phono cartridge system is designed to move energy fairly well in ONE direction - and when it is not damped well and reflects back DOWN the cantilever and tries to put energy into the record, it cant - and stylus jitter is one major result. Jitter = bad "sample" rate or sample accuracy. Especially of detail. In this direction, it is technically called a mechanical impedance mis-match. The stylus cannot effectively put energy back into the record.
This is specifically why I have been for the past 40 years so interested in research of damping materials - MC designs are especially critically dependent on them, as well as the degree of mechanical loading into the damper, which unfortunately varies in a surprisingly dramatic manner with MC designs from unit to unit (within the same model range) both due to manufacturing methods as well as degradation of SOME damping materials. As I rebuild all manner of cartridges and have done so for over 40 years, I have seen some materials last 30 years, and some not last a year in terms of preserving their properties. Since performance is due in large part to minimizing "stored" energy in the inertia of the moving system by critical damping of the moving system, one avenue of cartridge design improvement is reducing the generator mass. With MC designs, few have done this ever, and there is a practical limit.
During a recent forum I gave in Hong Kong, I showed the comparison of a small MC armature (Denon 103) compared to my MI part - it is easy to even visually see the 5 times reduction. So for the Denon 103 Gold I make, I alter the nature of how the energy stored in the moving system gets damped - because it is very, very critical. That is the direction to go, because the mass cannot be reduced. It does not change the compliance very much at all. But it DOES affect the way the step response acts.
I hope this clears up my use of "compliance" mod to the 103; imagine saying in the web page I change the "Rheology and step response" of the Soundsmith Gold.
I will be at the NY HiFI show in Brooklyn with a showroom this Friday, Sat and Sunday. I was asked my Michael to sit on a forum on "the state of analog" Friday at 4:30 with Micheal Fremer, Mat Weisfeld, and Chad Kassam.
I pray no one asks me a question that requires a humorous answer, as I am generally compelled to do so.
Peter Ledermann/Soundsmith
In other words, instead of changing the spring factor or spring constant of the cantilever suspension, you change the damping material and thereby change its damping characteristics. Does that pretty much sum up what you're saying?Thanks,
John Elison
Edits: 09/23/14
Thanks for asking John -
It is not just a simple "change" which is why I did not give the "horsey-ducky" version as a summed up post. Changing the material does in fact change the spring constant, as well do other changes (not mentioned)I do to modify the suspension on the 103. I felt it important to give some in depth background for those not intimately familiar with cartridge design as you are. I try, when I get time to post on forums, to anticipate the broad spectrum of folks who read them, and share a bit of what I know.
Peter Ledermann/Soundsmith
Take a closer look at Denon's compliance spec for the 103: it is dynamic compliance measured at 100Hz, not the static compliance that's used in the arm / cartridge resonance formula (and the resonance formula has some problems too). Denon doesn't publish a static compliance spec but Asylum correspondent Brian Kearns has theorized that there's an approximately 3 to 1 ratio between static and dynamic compliance. That would put the 103's static compliance at about 15 x10 -6 cm/dyne. In other words, Denon's spec is worthless.
You might do a search of Vinyl Asylum on "Denon +103 +compliance;" there has been a lot of interesting discussion about this subject over the years. The abstract is that the 103's compliance is actually a lot higher than many audiophiles have been misled to believe.
Uh, say what??? Dynamic compliance is the specification used in calculating arm/cartridge resonance.
Opus 33 1/3
and mounted my original 103 in, unfortunately the non-antiskate feature of the JMW 10 resulted in one side of the conical stylus from wearing out prematurely, I did not know that you had to mount the cart and then, by twisting around the wire coming from the arm, balance the cartridge with zero tracking so that the arm did not move either inward or outward when positioned above the platter. I am planning to send the mounted 103 in to SS to have a re-tip done, but will need to figure out the best way to mount the 103 into the aluminum shell, right now, the shell does not allow the stylus tip to be forward enough to be on the line of the protractor...
You can get a aftermarket anti skate for your JMW. Much better than twisting wire.
it's about the music
> The Gold Soundsmith is another world, because they soften the suspension and add
> a wood body with a heavy brass plate. This brings the mass up to around 15gm from the stock 7.
If they soften the suspension and add mass, that's just plain wrong unless you want a arm/cartridge resonance below 8-Hz. It might be good to add mass, but not to soften the suspension at the same time.
Best regards,
John Elison
The Soundsmith 103 Gold has a more compliant suspension,but it is still stiff by modern standards. It is much easier to match to a modern arm and the ruby cantilever is stiffer than the stock aluminum.
It is much more resolved and a much better tracker. Of course the optimized line contact stylus is a big factor.
it's about the music
The suspension of a stock DL-103R has compliance of 5 x 10 -6 cm/dyne at 100-Hz and compliance of at least 10 x 10 -6 cm/dyne at resonance. If you place it in a 12-gram effective mass tonearm and add a 15-gram plate to the cartridge, your arm/cartridge resonance will be less than 9-Hz. In my opinion, 10-Hz is optimal. Therefore, I wouldn't recommend increasing the compliance of a DL-103R if you intend to attach it to a 15-gram plate.
To each his own!
Good luck,
John Elison
John
My arm has a effective mass of 14 grams plus the cartridge makes it 29 grams. Add the big brass screws takes it well over 30. The compliance of the Gold is a still stout 8-9.
Trust me, it works.
E
it's about the music
> Trust me, it works.
I don't have to trust you. I own a DL-103R and a DL-103SA and I know how to measure resonance frequency.
Thanks,
John Elison
When it first came out in the 80's Harry Pearson of TAS rated it extremely high and, IIRC, claimed it had the best bass compared to many other much more expensive cartridges.
Its reputation started off there and has continued. Again, memory is a bit faded, but I believe HP liked the conical stylus version over the elliptical, FWIW.
Of course, YMMV
IIRC, HP was in love with the Decca 4RC, for at least a few years. That cartridge has/had a "spherical" stylus. Perhaps that's the one you have in mind.
The Dl-103 didn't come out in the 80's it came out in the 60's for broadcast use. It wasn't until later the audiophile community heard it and started embracing it. Probably as you said when Harry Pearson reviewed it....
You're right: I became aware of it in the 80's, come to think of it,and it was already an ancient design. Denon had already come out with the 301's and later models
.
Dodging bullets is the next best thing to not having to.
...for cheap money the 103 is very good.
If it cost more, it would not be as highly touted as it is.
A phenomenal bargain.
I've owned several iterations and like the 103D best (by far).
As for the current 103, it doesn't float my boat. But, if I only had $229 to spend on a new cartridge, it would be my first choice.
There you go. Clear as mud.
Dean.
reelsmith's axiom: Its going to be used equipment when I sell it, so it may as well be used equipment when I buy it.
hard to beat for it price . it is a killer cartridge under $1000 once you tweak it.
LT
It's a bit rolled off on top and bass detail isn't the greatest, but it does the "meat of the music" justice. I own two 103s. One stock and the other in a Uwe ebony wood body.
Opus 33 1/3
I just ordered a DL-103 from a seller on Ebay.
You inmates have done an excellent job of describing this component, and gave me the encouragement I needed to go ahead and order one.
Thanks to all.
They will work in most arms, but if the one you will be using is lower mass (below 12 g or so) try to use a heavier headshell (Sumiko HS-12?) or add a headshell weight to up the effective mass a bit.
My 103s sounded OK in the arm on my SL-1200 MKII (12 g mass), but much better on the Jelco arm (around 20 g with HS-12 headshell) on my Thorens table.
Opus 33 1/3
Lesley,
You've made a wise choice. Please post a follow up after break in.
Enjoy,
Al
No offense guys but if you could list the arms you are using with the 103 it would add a lot of validity to your opinions.
The idea that it gets the midrange right is fine,but my experience has been that it does a lot better than that.
I am using a Analog Instruments 12" uni pivot arm with the SoundSmith brass weighted screws.
This arm is on the heavy side and matches perfectly with the SS 103Gold.
it's about the music
total effective mass is in the 20 g range.
Opus 33 1/3
countertenor,
You post here like you're the ultimate authority on the 103 cartridge making your pronouncements from on high, but it turns out that all you've accomplished is to continue spreading falsehoods and old-wives tales.
On top of that, you ask other Inmates to list the arms that they're using to "add a lot of validity to your opinions." Like many others on this Forum my gear is listed in detail on the Inmates Systems section and I dislike redundancy. Why didn't you try looking up this information before asking? Or do you merely enjoy shooting your mouth off in your vain attempt to showcase your supposed knowledge?
Al
I am sorry you took my posts so personally. I had no intention of malice to you or anyone on this site.
it's about the music
103 is a great cartridge. I had one for years now it's worn out. Consider to have it retipped. It sounded great in my Ortofon AS 212 arm, which is fairly heavy. It's great for rock music due to it's great midrange and good bass performance. Less good with big classical things like symphonies and opera. If you have a good heavy arm and a decent trafo or head amp with 100 ohm you should try it.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: