advertisement


Mayware Formula IV + Denon DL-103

chartz

chartz

If it’s broke fix it!
Hi and happy New Year!

I was happy enough with my Mayware and an AT VM740ML/SA on the SL-1500.

But I like to experiment - I easily get bored - so since I had that low hour 103 to play with, I bolted it on the Mayware, not expecting anything - a low mass tonearm with a low compliance 1962 tractor with conical tip? Nah, I know better.

Surprise, surprise... at 2.5 gr VTF, very little antiskating applied, it sounds very good, better than the AT's. It tracks well and suddenly voices are much more present, lows seem slightly boosted (remember, ESL 57s here) and treble presence seems more obvious. Imaging seems slightly better too, especially back to front perspective, something I crave particularly.

I'm using the QUAD 34 MC module.

Any clues to why it works when it shouldn't?
 
Jonathan said:
I seem to recall something about DL103s being VERY GOOD with unipivot arms
Click to expand...

Yes, but why everyone on the Internet says that the DL-103 can't possibly work with such a tonearm I wonder... Any rational explanation? Or am I deluded?
 
chartz said:
Yes, but why everyone on the Internet says that the DL-103 can't possibly work with such a tonearm I wonder... Any rational explanation? Or am I deluded?
Click to expand...

i've only heard the exact opposite - on a thread here on PFM i believe ...
 
But the other guys are so adamant it would never work that it is almost undocumented... but then I've never had a Linn ;) I am not so easily influenced you see.
 
I ran my Zu/Denon DL 103 on my ARO for many years, and it was superb, but the cartridge itself provided enough mass to put the resonance in the right place. However I use a Decca London Gold (almost no vertical compliance) in a Transcriptors Vestigial arm (almost no vertical mass) and it sounds superb, and the theoretical resonance should be well into the audio band. If it sounds good, it is good. Don't go looking for problems!
 
chartz said:
Obviously. So why does it work at all then remains a mystery, unless a mechanics boffin can explain.
Click to expand...


one need not even get into the mechanics - nor the physics of it - the problem is the compliance/mass rule is simply one aspect among MANY which govern what comes out of the tonearm leads ... it can be a predictable guide in some instances but not others ... much as the diameter of a bass driver does not necessarily govern the 'quality' (nor even QUANTITY) of what comes out of a loudspeaker ...
 
Yes. Chez moi a pair of ESL57’s can even do bass, so anything is possible I guess.
 
chartz said:
Yes, but why everyone on the Internet says that the DL-103 can't possibly work with such a tonearm I wonder... Any rational explanation? Or am I deluded?
Click to expand...

Slightly off topic, but the Denon DL110 works surprisingly well in the arm on my AR XA turntable.
I was ‘brought up’ on the idea that only a low to medium cost MM would work in the AR.
 
chartz said:
Yes, but why everyone on the Internet says that the DL-103 can't possibly work with such a tonearm I wonder... Any rational explanation? Or am I deluded?
Click to expand...

For someone who is not so easily influenced by others about Linns why are you so bothered about what they say about anything else?
 
Stunsworth said:
I imagine it's down to the arm resonance frequency. This page suggests it would be around 19 Hz - I think the arm has an effective weight of 4.5 grams, and the cartridge weight is 8.5 grams with a compliance of 5...

https://www.vinylengine.com/cartridge_resonance_evaluator.php?eff_mass=4.5&submit=Submit
Click to expand...
As is typical with Japanese manufacturers, Denon publish dynamic compliance relative to 100Hz, so the compliance value is approximately doubled for a 10Hz reference (which the calculator requires). This will push the result down a few rows in the calculator table.

Regardless, it isn't impossible for a given arm/cartridge combination to sound fine even if outside of the ideal combined resonance frequency range. Too low a frequency and the result is increased suseptability to record warp affects; too high, and the resonant peak can interact with the lowest recorded bass (and rumble) frequencies, causing an unnatural boost, which can waste amplifier power, and/or damage some 'speakers if the volume is high enough.

With a DL103 on such a low mass arm, I'd recommend going with the longest stainless mounting hardware in the drawer in an effort to get the combined cartridge end mass up another gram or two. Some of that extra bass could very well be the foothills of a lower bass peak that could push ESLs closer to arching on some material.
 
JemHayward said:
However I use a Decca London Gold (almost no vertical compliance) in a Transcriptors Vestigial arm (almost no vertical mass) and it sounds superb, and the theoretical resonance should be well into the audio band. If it sounds good, it is good. Don't go looking for problems!
Click to expand...

I've heard that combination, I thought it worked great.

I've always wanted to hear the Denon 103 on a Dynavector arm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top