advertisement


Have I (or my system) outgrown the Denon DL103 or have I damaged or got something set up wrong?

djftw

djftw

Heterodox Member
I have the Zu version of the DL103R, as well as several other cartridges. An AT OC9MLii, a DV Karat 17D2 and a Lyra Delos, ridiculous I know - I got a bit carried away at home with lockdowns!

A couple of nights ago I decided to switch from the AT to the Zu/Denon. Still mounted in its headshell from when last it was used, referred to my notebook and carefully set everything up as I had previously determined was "just right" with the help of test discs and effective mass calculators etc etc. And it sounded painfully dull! It always did sound less exiting and more romantic than the OC9, but this was more than that; the bass is very subdued, not just quieter but indistinct compared to the AT. The top end is also attenuated compared to the AT, which was something I remembered and expected, but what I hadn't expected was a notable reduction in detail/resolution across the full audio band. I tried lowering the tonearm, thinking the bass in particular could be a VTA issue, but perhaps unsurprisingly with a spherical stylus this made very little difference.

Now, quite a lot has changed in my system since I last ran these cartridges back to back. An SDS IsoPlatMat has made my KAB/TimeStep modified 1210mkII's platter a lot less ringy. My Arkless GTI Turbo has arrived and replaced my old DV P75mkII (in Phono Enhancer mode.) My power amp has also been to see Jez after having a wobbly, going DC and cooking one of my XELs and came back with NCC220 modules having replaced the NCC200 (and some new speaker protection.) And consequently the XELs have also been replaced, most recently by some JBL Studio 530 (but I also still have some ELAC CL310i I switch back to occasionally and the speaker saga may still be ongoing :rolleyes:)

But I digress. Are all these changes merely revealing something previously hidden from me? That the DL103 is a 1960's cartridge with a conical stylus (albeit a good one) limited by its technology, where the similarly inexpensive AT can outclass it, with its boron cantilever and microline stylus etc? That the DL103R is now a weak link in my system and ready to move on. Or is it an indication that there is something amiss with the DL103? Perhaps some damage or ageing of the suspension or that something is amiss with how it is set-up that wasn't so obvious with the previous system set-up?

Thanks!
 
Sounds like compatibility with the arm

I had a similar experience with a standard 103, it was poor on a Jelco arm and consigned to spare. Changed to a Funk arm and tried it in order to ensure it was functional before selling. Wow, came to life, bit grainy but finally understood why it has any sort of reputation
 
From the horses mouth.
“Gain is set by the internal resistance of the cart itself, the lower the resistance, the higher the gain, hence for a given vol control setting loudness will vary considerably for different cart models. This is intrinsic to the operation of such a phono stage.”

The 103 has quite a high internal resistance, it just might not suit the Dr T mode Arkless.
 
The 103 was designed when arms were generally quite “massy”. I can’t think of a better way of describing it. Your problem could be the arm or it could be the amp. I use a bog-standard 103 in a Pioneer PL71 which has a high mass arm. Amps are either a Pioneer A-9 from the early 80s or a NVA P2/P90SA/Stereo Statement. Both of these combos are rather good.

My advice is to check the arm first. There are calculators for arm mass / compliance but you will need the specs of the arm to do this. I never really got involved with this as I just bought the tt and cartridge as a combo.

I hope you get this resolved as the basic 103 is surprisingly good. I quite fancy trying a modded 103 or a 103r (with or without mods to see if there is any improvement). I’ll be following this thread with interest.
 
yeti42 said:
From the horses mouth.
“Gain is set by the internal resistance of the cart itself, the lower the resistance, the higher the gain, hence for a given vol control setting loudness will vary considerably for different cart models. This is intrinsic to the operation of such a phono stage.”

The 103 has quite a high internal resistance, it just might not suit the Dr T mode Arkless.
Click to expand...

VERY unlikely. Although I've used the term myself lets get away from "Dr T mode" and "phono enhancer" as they are Dynavector marketing BS for one of the most common circuits in electronics. Transimpedance is the correct technical term but current input will kinda do. The OP was using a transimpedance phono stage (P75) with the 103 anyway!

Changing speakers would seem the most likely thing to me...
 
The Denon 103 series can sound very dull if the phono stage isn't correctly matched. This is most noticeable with step-up transformers but also with head amps.
 
My DL103/Mayware setup isn’t dull at all.
I experimented a lot to optimize it to suit my Quad 34 – I finally settled to 1 kΩ on the 34.
With the standard 200 Ω of the module it was rather dull.
Then I switched over to the unmodified Luxman LV-105 (200 Ω) and it was perfect.
I have no plausible explanation.
 
The 103 might actually just be worn out. Loss of resolution and sparkle are the usual indicators. System changes may have just revealed it better.

The ATOC9 in any version is a pretty good cartridge and with the way prices have gone in recent years probably now much better VFM than the DL103.
 
Stemcor said:
The 103 was designed when arms were generally quite “massy”. I can’t think of a better way of describing it. Your problem could be the arm or it could be the amp. I use a bog-standard 103 in a Pioneer PL71 which has a high mass arm. Amps are either a Pioneer A-9 from the early 80s or a NVA P2/P90SA/Stereo Statement. Both of these combos are rather good.

My advice is to check the arm first. There are calculators for arm mass / compliance but you will need the specs of the arm to do this. I never really got involved with this as I just bought the tt and cartridge as a combo.

I hope you get this resolved as the basic 103 is surprisingly good. I quite fancy trying a modded 103 or a 103r (with or without mods to see if there is any improvement). I’ll be following this thread with interest.
Click to expand...

I had though I got this right when I did it last time, as I have various headshells and auxiliary counterweights so I can adjust the effective mass to suit cartridges. Zu also makes the cartridge a lot heavier than standard (14g IIRC) which makes it much easier to match with a more typical modern medium-mass arm. But it could well be that I screwed it up. I'll do the maths again and check with the HFN disc!

Does anyone have a recommendation for an ideal effective mass? As Denon helpfully give the compliance at 100Hz rather than 10Hz, every method I know involves eyeballing a likely 10Hz value!

Watch this space, if I don't get anywhere with it and conclude it is somehow out of it I will move it on. I had heard ESC can put a sapphire cantilever and Para-trace on these, so this might be a good donor for someone. As I have three other good MC cartridges, this might be a good excuse to move one on! :rolleyes:
 
Arkless Electronics said:
There's no such thing as matching with transimpedance stages.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'd more or less discounted this as an option, it also sounded fine with your Demo unit. But maybe I was so focussed on how much better the phono stage sounded, I just didn't notice how much better the OC9 sounded than the 103. IIRC I think the Delos actually spent the most time on the table with your Demo unit...
 
Woodface said:
Maybe the OC9 is just better?
Click to expand...
Aye, that was kinda my question :D

Rockmeister said:
Maybe that...what are 'XEL's"?
Click to expand...

Rega's old flagship model...

colasblue said:
The 103 might actually just be worn out. Loss of resolution and sparkle are the usual indicators. System changes may have just revealed it better.

The ATOC9 in any version is a pretty good cartridge and with the way prices have gone in recent years probably now much better VFM than the DL103.
Click to expand...

I'd like to think not with the hours I think are on it, but it is entirely possible I was mislead about that, or that I have damaged it at some point. Zu wan't shooting for supplying it with the stock Denon stylus guard, which is worse than useless with their body on it...

I don't doubt it, I find myself using it more than the Delos, but that may be cos I'm less worried about the financial implications of damaging it!
 
I have been playing lots of records and swapping cartridges. And I’m beginning to wonder if my choice of records might have been the issue and the loss of detail I’m hearing is actually wear on on some records that the 103 stylus is finding where the microline styli are finding a fresher part of the groove. I’m noticing a distinct pattern where the phenomenon occurs constantly on my Dad’s old records, which are unabused but well played with a Nagaoka MM I imagine might have a similar stylus profile… on records I have owned from new it consistently does not.

I think I do indeed like the OC9 better, but with new to me, and some other presumably less worn records the difference does sound very much more along the lines I remember; i.e. that the 103r is more romantic and softer spoken at the top and bottom, but the detail is all there…
 
Yes the ML – once also called MR –boldly goes to the bottom of the groove and extracts details that have all but disappeared further up.
Another benefit is that it will play old mono records once played on Dansettes perfectly again!
That said, the Denon conical tip is about as good as they get – it is cut to perfection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top