Barry
03-04-2009, 18:42
Comparison of the Denon DL103C with EMT XSD 15
This posting was prompted by a question from Marco, who asked how the EMT differs sonically from the Denon. Whilst much of my system has remained unchanged for around 30 years, I do like to experiment with cartridges and frequently change them. I have recently been listening to an elderly Ortofon SL15E, and have not listened to either of the above-mentioned cartridges for some time. I have a poor memory for subtle acoustic detail. I tend only to remember the obvious aspects: such as, for example, the unmatched attack and presence of Decca cartridges.
In order to give as best an assessment as I can, I decided to listen to each cartridge in turn mounted using the same arm, listening to a variety of records chosen to cover a wide a range of music.
An SME 3012 arm was used fitted to a Thorens 124/II turntable. The Denon was mounted in an SME S2 headshell, whereas the EMT with its own integrated headshell plugged directly into the arm. The Denon was set up with a tracking force of 2.5g with 2.0g of bias. The EMT was used with 3.0g tracking force and 2.5g of bias. The arm was set up as per the usual procedure of counterbalancing in both planes before applying the tracking force.
I usually set up SME arms in a ‘minimum inertia configuration’, whereby the tracking force rider weight is positioned on the weigh rod in line with the pivot and, using a playing weight gauge, the main counterweight is moved so as to provide counterbalance along with the required tracking weight. This is an iterative process, relatively easy to do on the improved versions of the Series II SME arms, but a tiresome and frustrating procedure on earlier versions (and on the later R versions). Correct vertical tracking angle was achieved by ensuring the arm was parallel to the record surface and therefore horizontal, rather than by making minute adjustments to the height of the arm pillar whilst auditioning. This was done for the sake of expediency; such adjustments, whilst technically the correct thing to do, are tiresome to apply on SME arms (apart from the new M series). Tracing error was minimised using an alignment protractor. Whether this is done according to the theory of Baerwald and Lofgren or to that of Stevenson I don’t know and I’m not going to worry too much about it, as it is all a bit of a compromise when using pivoted pickup arms. Finally the stylus tilt or zenith was zeroed using a mirror rather than an oscilloscope, again for expediency - life is too short.
As set up, the Denon / SME 3012 arm arrangement has an LF resonance around 15Hz. The EMT / 3012 has an LF resonance at around 8.5Hz. Since these are a little outside the ‘comfort’ zone, and as I don’t know what their respective ‘Q’ values at resonance are, I applied a small amount of pivot damping using the SME FD200 dashpot.
The signal from both cartridges was fed into a Quad 44 preamplifier fitted with the MC 4A board, loading the cartridges with 100 Ohms and offering a sensitivity of 200uV. In view of the relatively high output of the EMT, I would have preferred to use the MC 4C board with 400uV sensitivity. The value of the impedance loading was as recommended by Quad, but I’m not sure if it is optimum. This is an area within some experimentation and adjustment can be carried out by ear; an aspect I’ll return too later.
The first cartridge auditioned was the Denon. I played a variety of records (listed at the end) and made notes. The procedure was then repeated with the EMT. The EMT has twice the output voltage than that of the Denon. Fortunately the Quad 44 uses a stepped attenuator, with precise level increments, for the volume control. By making a note of the volume setting used for each record whilst listening to the Denon, I was able to increase the attenuation by 6dB in each case when using the EMT, so that the listening level was the same for both cartridges. My speakers are Quad ESL (57) powered by a modified Quad 405 amplifier.
After the above preamble you might be disappointed to learn that there was not a vast difference in sound. There were differences but they were subtle, not easy to describe, and obviously subjective.
My impressions are as follows. The Denon 103 offers a lively clear sound, essentially neutral with a wide and, where the recording allows, deep sound stage. Again where the recording allowed, the spatial presentation was good, with the placement of individual players easily imagined within the sound stage. I thought the important mid range both clear and detailed; voices sounded natural. Deep bass was taut, but not lean: the sound of both plucked and bowed double bass was good and well controlled, likewise bass kick drum. The treble was extended and detailed, allowing one to hear the acoustic of the performance. Clarity in the treble was especially appreciated on percussion: cymbals ‘sang’ and decayed naturally, the harmonics of bells and gongs was well portrayed, as was the finger ‘squeak’ of wire wound strings on acoustic guitars. Flutes seemed to have the right ‘breathy’ quality. Transient attack was also good: on rim shot cymbals the initial tap was distinct from the subsequent note: on jazz double bass played with a bow, the ‘slap’ of the bow on the string was distinct. Other percussive sounds, be they piano, plucked strings (guitar, sitar or harpsichord), or mechanical music boxes sounded realistic. When things got busy the Denon made a reasonable job of keeping everything clear and separate, but this was very dependant on the recording: some recordings become muddled regardless of cartridge used (so far).
The EMT is a warmer cartridge than the Denon, so is not as neutral. It does however perform as well, if not better, than the Denon in most of the areas mentioned above. One area in which the Denon beats the EMT is in the control and portrayal of deep bass. Whilst not bloated or flabby, the bass of the EMT is fuller and not as well controlled. Transient attack is better than that of the Denon (although not up to Decca standards) and the treble more detailed. When things got busy I found the EMT to do a better job in separation than the Denon. One important quality the EMT has over the Denon is rather difficult to describe, but I’ll try. I believe the EMT offers more detail, however it doesn’t sound it. Whereas the Denon is a detailed cartridge the detail is made obvious. With the EMT, the detail is not immediately obvious, you just realise that you are hearing more. It’s as if the cartridge is doing its job quietly without fuss and without drawing attention to itself. This for me makes the listening experience more relaxing and more enjoyable, and for that reason alone I prefer the EMT.
So to conclude: the Denon is a very good cartridge, especially considering its very reasonable cost and I would be more than happy to live with it alone. The EMT to my ears, whilst not exactly neutral, is more detailed with greater transient attack. The portrayal of deep bass by the EMT is not as good, but this aspect is not very important to me (I do after all use electrostatic speakers). It has the virtue of ‘disappearing’ and so for me is the better cartridge. At three times the price (for used samples, 25 times for new) this is probably just as well. Both cartridges track very well, but the EMT has a mass 1.5 x that of the Denon / S2 and so doesn’t track quite as well. It was caught out only once: that was on the ‘Dafos’ track where Micky Hart (of Grateful Dead fame) picks up a drum and drops it on the floor. If you have a look at the record groove it is not surprising that some cartridges might mistrack at that point.
Examination of response plots for each cartridge shows that the Denon has the flatter response: displaying a ‘sag’ of 0.25dB over 3 – 10KHz. The treble falls off at 15KHz and is 1.5dB down at 20KHz. The EMT has a more ragged response: there is a 1dB dip at 65Hz and a very gentle sag starting at 200Hz and finishing at 7KHz, bottoming out at –2db at 4KHz. Extreme treble displays a 4dB notch at 18KHz.
Whereas I have used EMT s for nearly 30 years (first bought in 1979), I have had the Denon for less than 6 months. It is quite possible that I can get much more out of the Denon, perhaps by fitting it into a stiffer and heavier headshell, such as the ADC. I also think that there is great scope for experimentation with impedance loading; both cartridges might well benefit by using larger values. EMT suggest a minimum of 200 Ohms. Examination of the circuit for their STX-21 transformer shows that when fed into a 47Kohm input, the transformer will load the cartridge with 171.5 Ohms. A review in ‘The Absolute Sound’ magazine, however, suggested that 800 Ohms is the ideal loading.
Well that’s it - apologies for the length of this post. I hope it is of interest and useful; remember that a lot of it is subjective and personal. Any comments will be appreciated, especially on getting the best out of the Denon 103C.
Regards
Barry
PS The list of records used will follow as a separate post.
This posting was prompted by a question from Marco, who asked how the EMT differs sonically from the Denon. Whilst much of my system has remained unchanged for around 30 years, I do like to experiment with cartridges and frequently change them. I have recently been listening to an elderly Ortofon SL15E, and have not listened to either of the above-mentioned cartridges for some time. I have a poor memory for subtle acoustic detail. I tend only to remember the obvious aspects: such as, for example, the unmatched attack and presence of Decca cartridges.
In order to give as best an assessment as I can, I decided to listen to each cartridge in turn mounted using the same arm, listening to a variety of records chosen to cover a wide a range of music.
An SME 3012 arm was used fitted to a Thorens 124/II turntable. The Denon was mounted in an SME S2 headshell, whereas the EMT with its own integrated headshell plugged directly into the arm. The Denon was set up with a tracking force of 2.5g with 2.0g of bias. The EMT was used with 3.0g tracking force and 2.5g of bias. The arm was set up as per the usual procedure of counterbalancing in both planes before applying the tracking force.
I usually set up SME arms in a ‘minimum inertia configuration’, whereby the tracking force rider weight is positioned on the weigh rod in line with the pivot and, using a playing weight gauge, the main counterweight is moved so as to provide counterbalance along with the required tracking weight. This is an iterative process, relatively easy to do on the improved versions of the Series II SME arms, but a tiresome and frustrating procedure on earlier versions (and on the later R versions). Correct vertical tracking angle was achieved by ensuring the arm was parallel to the record surface and therefore horizontal, rather than by making minute adjustments to the height of the arm pillar whilst auditioning. This was done for the sake of expediency; such adjustments, whilst technically the correct thing to do, are tiresome to apply on SME arms (apart from the new M series). Tracing error was minimised using an alignment protractor. Whether this is done according to the theory of Baerwald and Lofgren or to that of Stevenson I don’t know and I’m not going to worry too much about it, as it is all a bit of a compromise when using pivoted pickup arms. Finally the stylus tilt or zenith was zeroed using a mirror rather than an oscilloscope, again for expediency - life is too short.
As set up, the Denon / SME 3012 arm arrangement has an LF resonance around 15Hz. The EMT / 3012 has an LF resonance at around 8.5Hz. Since these are a little outside the ‘comfort’ zone, and as I don’t know what their respective ‘Q’ values at resonance are, I applied a small amount of pivot damping using the SME FD200 dashpot.
The signal from both cartridges was fed into a Quad 44 preamplifier fitted with the MC 4A board, loading the cartridges with 100 Ohms and offering a sensitivity of 200uV. In view of the relatively high output of the EMT, I would have preferred to use the MC 4C board with 400uV sensitivity. The value of the impedance loading was as recommended by Quad, but I’m not sure if it is optimum. This is an area within some experimentation and adjustment can be carried out by ear; an aspect I’ll return too later.
The first cartridge auditioned was the Denon. I played a variety of records (listed at the end) and made notes. The procedure was then repeated with the EMT. The EMT has twice the output voltage than that of the Denon. Fortunately the Quad 44 uses a stepped attenuator, with precise level increments, for the volume control. By making a note of the volume setting used for each record whilst listening to the Denon, I was able to increase the attenuation by 6dB in each case when using the EMT, so that the listening level was the same for both cartridges. My speakers are Quad ESL (57) powered by a modified Quad 405 amplifier.
After the above preamble you might be disappointed to learn that there was not a vast difference in sound. There were differences but they were subtle, not easy to describe, and obviously subjective.
My impressions are as follows. The Denon 103 offers a lively clear sound, essentially neutral with a wide and, where the recording allows, deep sound stage. Again where the recording allowed, the spatial presentation was good, with the placement of individual players easily imagined within the sound stage. I thought the important mid range both clear and detailed; voices sounded natural. Deep bass was taut, but not lean: the sound of both plucked and bowed double bass was good and well controlled, likewise bass kick drum. The treble was extended and detailed, allowing one to hear the acoustic of the performance. Clarity in the treble was especially appreciated on percussion: cymbals ‘sang’ and decayed naturally, the harmonics of bells and gongs was well portrayed, as was the finger ‘squeak’ of wire wound strings on acoustic guitars. Flutes seemed to have the right ‘breathy’ quality. Transient attack was also good: on rim shot cymbals the initial tap was distinct from the subsequent note: on jazz double bass played with a bow, the ‘slap’ of the bow on the string was distinct. Other percussive sounds, be they piano, plucked strings (guitar, sitar or harpsichord), or mechanical music boxes sounded realistic. When things got busy the Denon made a reasonable job of keeping everything clear and separate, but this was very dependant on the recording: some recordings become muddled regardless of cartridge used (so far).
The EMT is a warmer cartridge than the Denon, so is not as neutral. It does however perform as well, if not better, than the Denon in most of the areas mentioned above. One area in which the Denon beats the EMT is in the control and portrayal of deep bass. Whilst not bloated or flabby, the bass of the EMT is fuller and not as well controlled. Transient attack is better than that of the Denon (although not up to Decca standards) and the treble more detailed. When things got busy I found the EMT to do a better job in separation than the Denon. One important quality the EMT has over the Denon is rather difficult to describe, but I’ll try. I believe the EMT offers more detail, however it doesn’t sound it. Whereas the Denon is a detailed cartridge the detail is made obvious. With the EMT, the detail is not immediately obvious, you just realise that you are hearing more. It’s as if the cartridge is doing its job quietly without fuss and without drawing attention to itself. This for me makes the listening experience more relaxing and more enjoyable, and for that reason alone I prefer the EMT.
So to conclude: the Denon is a very good cartridge, especially considering its very reasonable cost and I would be more than happy to live with it alone. The EMT to my ears, whilst not exactly neutral, is more detailed with greater transient attack. The portrayal of deep bass by the EMT is not as good, but this aspect is not very important to me (I do after all use electrostatic speakers). It has the virtue of ‘disappearing’ and so for me is the better cartridge. At three times the price (for used samples, 25 times for new) this is probably just as well. Both cartridges track very well, but the EMT has a mass 1.5 x that of the Denon / S2 and so doesn’t track quite as well. It was caught out only once: that was on the ‘Dafos’ track where Micky Hart (of Grateful Dead fame) picks up a drum and drops it on the floor. If you have a look at the record groove it is not surprising that some cartridges might mistrack at that point.
Examination of response plots for each cartridge shows that the Denon has the flatter response: displaying a ‘sag’ of 0.25dB over 3 – 10KHz. The treble falls off at 15KHz and is 1.5dB down at 20KHz. The EMT has a more ragged response: there is a 1dB dip at 65Hz and a very gentle sag starting at 200Hz and finishing at 7KHz, bottoming out at –2db at 4KHz. Extreme treble displays a 4dB notch at 18KHz.
Whereas I have used EMT s for nearly 30 years (first bought in 1979), I have had the Denon for less than 6 months. It is quite possible that I can get much more out of the Denon, perhaps by fitting it into a stiffer and heavier headshell, such as the ADC. I also think that there is great scope for experimentation with impedance loading; both cartridges might well benefit by using larger values. EMT suggest a minimum of 200 Ohms. Examination of the circuit for their STX-21 transformer shows that when fed into a 47Kohm input, the transformer will load the cartridge with 171.5 Ohms. A review in ‘The Absolute Sound’ magazine, however, suggested that 800 Ohms is the ideal loading.
Well that’s it - apologies for the length of this post. I hope it is of interest and useful; remember that a lot of it is subjective and personal. Any comments will be appreciated, especially on getting the best out of the Denon 103C.
Regards
Barry
PS The list of records used will follow as a separate post.