View Full Version : moving coil cartridges
hi,
i have a sony 700es amp that has a mc option,i can chose either 40 ohms or 3 ohms.
i must admit to being a bit confused when it comes to moving coil cartridges as i've only ever used mm ones.
if i decided to get one whats a good one to go for? how much would i have to spend to better my AT95HE?
what are the pros and cons?
thanks guys.
j.
walpurgis
07-12-2014, 09:26
hi,
i have a sony 700es amp that has a mc option,i can chose either 40 ohms or 3 ohms.
i must admit to being a bit confused when it comes to moving coil cartridges as i've only ever used mm ones.
if i decided to get one whats a good one to go for? how much would i have to spend to better my AT95HE?
what are the pros and cons?
thanks guys.
j.
You could always start with a high output MC working into the MM input. A Denon DL-110 won't cost the earth, sounds decent and will better the AT95HE in most respects.
cheers mate,that cartridge keeps popping up in all the stuff ive been reading so far.
the other option is to get the SA stylus for the AT95 cartridge but i dont think for the extra money its a lot better than the hyper elliptical which is night and day over the stock AT95 stylus.
PaulStewart
07-12-2014, 14:06
Hi Jamie,
What TT/arm are you using? Also, what speakears do you have, type of music do you listen to? Need to know these things before making a recomendation.
Cheers
hi paul,
i have a AR turntable fitted with a linn basik plus arm, music wise im listening too Kate bush,the eagles,pink Floyd.
PaulStewart
07-12-2014, 20:40
hi paul,
i have a AR turntable fitted with a linn basik plus arm, music wise im listening too Kate bush,the eagles,pink Floyd.
Hi Jamie
If it were me, I would want to upgrade the arm to something that will do justice to an MC. Maybe a Jelco 750 as that will be a drop in replacement for the Basik Plus. I would not bother putting an MC in that arm.
ok paul,id better start saving up then, cheers for your advice mate.
Martyn Miles
03-01-2015, 04:01
You could always start with a high output MC working into the MM input. A Denon DL-110 won't cost the earth, sounds decent and will better the AT95HE in most respects.
Yes, the D110.
It works for me In the arm of the AR XA, which can surprise some people...
Oldpinkman
03-01-2015, 09:19
I think the main thing is not to make the mistake of thinking there is a ladder which starts with moving magnet, and then climbs to moving coil. The very best cartridges probably are moving coil, although the old technics u205 moving magnet was better than most of them. And decca's, which are neither, have wonderful qualities. A good cartridge is a good cartridge regardless of type. And a good moving magnet beats a poor moving coil any day.
I think too many rush to get a moving coil in the mistaken belief it elevates them to a new level moving magnets can't reach. I've only heard the dl103 once, but in a funk arm (on an sl1200) set up by Arthur khoubesserian, and it was all that I dislike from cheap (forget price - poor) moving coils. The goldring 1042 was much better.
A good arm, and good phono preamp, will be necessary to allow any cartridge to achieve its potential.
Don't think you have to get the mc badge to enjoy music
(says the boy who has finally succumbed and bought the dynavector. But that is planets apart from the denon)
I've just been advised by another forum member to change my headshell because the one I was using with my cart, a Reson Reca,was too heavy and when I changed the headshell it was like I had installed a completely different cartridge:eek:
I've only heard the dl103 once, but in a funk arm (on an sl1200) set up by Arthur khoubesserian, and it was all that I dislike from cheap (forget price - poor) moving coils. The goldring 1042 was much better.
A good arm, and good phono preamp, will be necessary to allow any cartridge to achieve its potential.
Indeed (that is an undoubted truism), and although the Funk arm qualified as being good, it was the completely WRONG one (in terms of design) for a DL-103, which is precisely why, set-up by Arthur or not, you heard what you did.
Think about it: Arthur designs his tonearms to reduce mass, as far as possible and maximise rigidity, and the DL-103 LOVES/*needs* high-mass, ‘lossy' arms to work properly, therefore combine both items, and you have the perfect, erm, 'mismatch made in heaven’! ;)
Get it right with a DL-103, and it will piss all over a Goldring 1042 - so much so as to be laughable!! :exactly:
Marco.
P.S You should also do some research, Richard, and discover exactly why the DL-103 is a 'cheap moving coil’, in terms of price, and why that’s about the only thing that's cheap about it. Here’s something to keep you going (do me a big favour and scroll down and read the section entitled ‘A History and In-Depth Examination of the DL-103’):
http://www.high-endaudio.com/RC-Denon.html
You should find it enlightening, and it may put an end to some of your misconceptions about the Denon. Please pay particular attention to the need for a tonearm with a detachable headshell and why a spherical stylus may not have some of the sonic limitations that you think.
Btw, I should say that I very much agree with your first paragraph! :)
Marco.
You should also do some research, Richard, and discover exactly why the DL-103 is a 'cheap moving coil’, in terms of price, and why that’s about the only thing that's cheap about it. Here’s something to keep you going (do me a big favour and scroll down and read the section entitled ‘A History and In-Depth Examination of the DL-103’):
http://www.high-endaudio.com/RC-Denon.html
.
i wonder if anyone's tried this:
there is a SIMPLE trick to tame the 103 and make it sound MUCH better in modern arms. the trick is twofold: a--dont tighten the screws too much. the less tightly the 103 is coupled to a one-piece tonearm, the cleaner the highs and the better the focus. b-- take two 20 mm long pieces of copper wire ø approx 0.8 mm. strip off the insulation. straighten the naked wire. loosen the cartridge screws. place the wire pieces *across* the cartridge between the tonearm and the cartridge. realign and re tighten the screws. and wow... the effect is fairly big. if you use nylon (!!) screws on the cartridge, the soft copper dampens the energy being picked up in the groove by that hard suspension…
Hi Jamie,
I’ve done something very similar, but not with copper. It makes perfect sense and works a treat. However, far better in the first place to use the right tonearm, minus any bodging! ;)
The key with optimising a DL-103 in a modern system, and revealing its true sonic potential, is to completely alter one’s mindset/training, forget the rules that would apply with ‘normal’ cartridges today, and ’think 1960s’! Essentially, that means adopting the high-mass approach and an alternative form of thinking.
I’m being completely serious, as otherwise, all you’re doing is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole…. Get it right, however, and the rewards are substantial, as heard properly the DL-103 is a beautifully musical sounding cartridge, with some enviable sonic traits unmatched in modern designs.
Marco.
Hi Jamie,
I’ve done something very similar, but not with copper. It makes perfect sense and works a treat. However, far better in the first place to use the right tonearm, minus any bodging! ;)
Marco.
for sure,but.....i love tweaking if better results are achievable,in fact i really should wear boxing gloves near my turntable to stop me adjusting the bloody thing!!
i would guess for the dl110 the copper wires wouldn't do much??
Indeed, although as I said, the best solution is to get it right in the first place, by choosing the correct bits, than applying a ‘bandage’ afterwards, in an attempt to fix what’s wrong… That most certainly applies when using a DL-103 :)
The 110 won’t need that sort of ‘pampering’, but you could try one of these (or make something similar yourself), as it’s not particularly cheap: http://www.cabezon.eu/prestashop/en/home/114-isokinetik-graphite-cartridge-stabiliser-for-all-tonearms-a-must-have-upgrade.html or here: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/ISOKINETIK-GRAPHITE-CARTRIDGE-STABILISER-FOR-ALL-TONEARMS-A-MUST-HAVE-UPGRADE-/171336377021?pt=Turntable_Parts_Accessories&hash=item27e471a2bd
I’ve got one, and they certainly work. It’s a great way of ameliorating the deleterious sonic effect, created by the resonating plastic shell on a stock DL-103. Use it, and you gain about 60% of the benefit of fitting one into a new housing. Apart from that, almost any cartridge should benefit to some degree from its use.
Marco.
Gordon Steadman
03-01-2015, 12:20
Indeed, although as I said, the best solution is to get it right in the first place, by choosing the correct bits, than applying a ‘bandage’ afterwards, in an attempt to fix what’s wrong… That most certainly applies when using a DL-103 :)
The 110 won’t need that sort of ‘pampering’, but you could try one of these (or make something similar yourself), as it’s not particularly cheap: http://www.cabezon.eu/prestashop/en/home/114-isokinetik-graphite-cartridge-stabiliser-for-all-tonearms-a-must-have-upgrade.html
I’ve got one, and they certainly work. It’s a great way of ameliorating the deleterious sonic effect created by the resonating plastic shell on a stock DL-103. Use it, and you gain about 60% of the benefit of fitting one into a new housing. Apart from that, almost any cartridge will benefit from its use.
Marco.
I love the way they say a reasonably cheap upgrade!!! Over £50 for a bit of graphite the size of not very much. I wonder if I could stick a few pencil leads together with superglue.....
I know, it’s a ridiculous price for what it is, but I guess that’s what you get when dealing with accessories produced for the audiophile market, particularly when they’re made in minuscule quantities, such as no doubt that item is.
The benefit comes from utilising the unique vibrational properties of graphite, therefore if you can obtain some and machine it into the appropriate shape yourself, or know someone else who can, then it shouldn’t cost much.
Alternatively, you could try using something made from an exotic hardwood, with similar vibration dissipating/damping properties, which could end up being cheaper, especially in your position. Apparently, Ebony or African Blackwood are excellent :)
Marco.
Floyddroid
03-01-2015, 13:01
Well. What a hornets nest has been stirred. Which is the thing i love most about AOS. IMHO synergy is everything. Getting components to work together is akin to good cooking. With regards to not putting an MC cartridge in the tonearm i would take issue with. I once fitted a Sumiko BPS into this arm and it sounded pretty darn good. I would agree that it's agricultural bearing and internal wiring may not be up the the MC's further up the food chain but on the whole it's a surprisingly good arm in some respects. The best match i found for it was my Ortofon M2 blue when i had one fitted to my Lenco. My good friend Alan Towell recently made me a new arm board and i fitted said Jelco arm. I have to say that the jelco doesen't seem as happy with my Quintet black as it does with my 2M blue. I have similar views on Phono stages which i am saving for a different thread. I would counsel that stepping into the world of MC cartridges may invoke the domino effect and you may end up having to spend a little more money than you expect. The problem that we all have is like the Tesco shop, there is far too much choice. There is some good advice been given here but ultimately it's down to what sound you like and what is going to work well in your system. As someone correctly described, don't just buy an MC to get the badge. It can actually take you further away from the music if you don't get the elements right. sadly, cartridges are one of the items that only very few dealers will let you try before you buy. I have been one of the few fortunate people who buy from such a dealer. Take your time and don't rush into anything.
Well. What a hornets nest has been stirred. Which is the thing i love most about AOS...
Cheers, Steve. It’s because here we tend to get right to the nitty-gritty of topics (the heart of the matter), rather than brushing over things somewhat superficially, as often happens elsewhere :)
Marco.
Clive197
03-01-2015, 16:08
I think the main thing is not to make the mistake of thinking there is a ladder which starts with moving magnet, and then climbs to moving coil. The very best cartridges probably are moving coil, although the old technics u205 moving magnet was better than most of them. And decca's, which are neither, have wonderful qualities. A good cartridge is a good cartridge regardless of type. And a good moving magnet beats a poor moving coil any day.
I think too many rush to get a moving coil in the mistaken belief it elevates them to a new level moving magnets can't reach. I've only heard the dl103 once, but in a funk arm (on an sl1200) set up by Arthur khoubesserian, and it was all that I dislike from cheap (forget price - poor) moving coils. The goldring 1042 was much better.
A good arm, and good phono preamp, will be necessary to allow any cartridge to achieve its potential.
Don't think you have to get the mc badge to enjoy music
(says the boy who has finally succumbed and bought the dynavector. But that is planets apart from the denon)
Richard, for once, I actually totally agree with your comments. Someone else who thinks as I do about Denon cartridges. They were actually designed for broadcast use by radio stations which have very different requirements than for home use.
I run and have run MC cartridges for the last 15 years as I prefer the softer sound that they offer. That is not a criticism of MM cartridges, just personal preference. I also prefer Plasma to LCD/LED TV's for the softer, smoother images that they deliver.
Hi Clive,
Someone else who thinks as I do about Denon cartridges. They were actually designed for broadcast use by radio stations which have very different requirements than for home use.
Such as what exactly? :)
Essentially, they were designed to play music to a consistently and reliably high sonic standard, criteria that apply equally for hi-fi in the home. Did you hear a DL-103 properly partnered with the right ancillaries before forming your current opinion?
Marco.
Clive197
03-01-2015, 17:21
Hi Clive,
Such as what exactly? :)
Essentially, they were designed to play music to a consistently and reliably high sonic standard, criteria that apply equally for hi-fi in the home. Did you hear a DL-103 properly partnered with the right ancillaries before forming your current opinion?
Marco.
Answer 1: Broadcasters require absolutely perfect tracking and so therefore tended to use spherical stylus tracking at a relatively heavy VTF.
Answer 2: Yes.
Marco we have had this discussion on previous occasions and still I would beg to differ from your opinion. I think this particular discussion between you and I is simple. I don't like any Denon cartridges that I have heard (DL103,103R,103SL,103 Gold,104 plus a few others which I can't remember) simply my opinion.
Answer 1: Broadcasters require absolutely perfect tracking and so therefore tended to use spherical stylus tracking at a relatively heavy VTF.
Well, as an audio enthusiast, I also require/demand perfect tracking when listening to my records. Whether that’s achieved via using a cartridge with relatively high VTF, and one designed for use in radio stations, or not, is irrelevant.
It certainly doesn’t stop some of the finest cartridges I’ve heard, aside from the DL-103 (SPUs, EMTs, etc), some tracking rather more heavily than the Denon, sound superb both in professional and domestic environments.
I don’t see why the above requirements, and a desire for any form of sonic perfection, should be sought exclusively by broadcasting studios.
Answer 2: Yes.
Ok, so which context was that in? Please state the T/T and arm used, also phono stage and/or SUT. I’ll then give you my opinion as to whether it was partnered with the proper ancillaries or not :D
Marco we have had this discussion on previous occasions and still I would beg to differ from your opinion. I think this particular discussion between you and I is simple. I don't like any Denon cartridges that I have heard (DL103,103R,103SL,103 Gold,104 plus a few others which I can't remember) simply my opinion.
I have no problem with us disagreeing on this matter, or you holding a contrary opinion, but it has to be put into context.
Some might say they know what real pasta tastes like, even though they’ve only ever eaten it out of a tin. That may be their opinion, and they’re entitled to it, but it doesn’t mean that they’re right or that they have the necessary experience to be qualified as a judge! ;)
Essentially, on any subject, there are opinions, and ‘opinions’. All are not equal.
Marco.
Clive197
04-01-2015, 01:00
Marco, telling me I might not have the necessary experience is to be frank, insulting. I have mentioned previously that I was in the trade for over 8 years and was the stores resident vinyl expert. I have owned, played and set-up analogue equipment for over 50 years. I think I have the necessary qualification, experience and know how to form a valid opinion.
That’s not quite what I was getting at, Clive, but since this particular discussion is going nowhere positive, we’ll simply move on and ‘agree to disagree’ :)
Marco.
Some might say they know what real pasta tastes like, even though they’ve only ever eaten it out of a tin. That may be their opinion, and they’re entitled to it, but it doesn’t mean that they’re right or that they have the necessary experience to be qualified as a judge! ;)
Marco.
But, what if the aforementioned hypothetical person has sampled real pasta and yet still much prefers his Alphabetti Spaghetti in its rich, tomato sauce? In fact it could be argued that our convenience food loving friend has the more communicative of the two dishes as he can spell out on his plate exactly what his true feelings are towards the annoying food bore sat at the next table... :smoking: :D
This interests me. I have owned lots of mcs, mms and moving irons...although not a Decca (yet.) That doesn't exhaust the options...Soundsmith do that strange laser-reading unit. And there are strain-gauges too.
The best moving coils benefit from having quite a lot of design and money thrown at them. They tend to produce a particular type of sound....highly detailed, apparently very 'transparent, good soundingstaging. In fact all the 'hi fi 'boxes get ticked. However, for me at least, they pay the price by lacking natural warmth and tonality. it's as if the natural warmth and weight of music has been slimmed down to make a faster, more obvious, sound. Moving magnets tend to be cheaper, and they tend to lack the ultimate detail and subtle qualities, but they make up for it with a more full-bodied and natural sound. For me, the best moving-irons combine a bit of both approaches. My current low-output Grado Statement (0.5mv) offers a fascinating challenge to the most costly mcs.
So, for me, there is no one 'correct' approach. All can be made to work. As a general rule, moving coils have perhaps been over-praised and moving magnets patronised. But the wheel is always turning.....
Hi Peter,
The best moving coils benefit from having quite a lot of design and money thrown at them. They tend to produce a particular type of sound....highly detailed, apparently very 'transparent, good soundingstaging. In fact all the 'hi fi 'boxes get ticked.
I completely agree with that observation, although ‘best moving coils’ is of course subjective.
We’ve definitely been ‘conditioned’ into believing that MC is automatically superior to MM, and that patently isn’t the case. Snob factor and exclusivity comes into it too no doubt, as I’m sure that sound quality aside, many ‘audiophiles’ simply get off on owning some rare and super-expensive piece of 'Japanese jewellery'... ;)
In audio, I never automatically equate ‘best’ (‘best’, in that sense, relating to sonic performance) with ‘most expensive’, as experience tells me that is not necessarily the case, simply because the price tag of such is often grossly affected by brand reputation and ‘desirability’, as opposed to what actually goes into making a cartridge sound good.
Like you say though, it’s not just about ticking all the ‘hi-fi boxes’….
However, for me at least, they pay the price by lacking natural warmth and tonality. it's as if the natural warmth and weight of music has been slimmed down to make a faster, more obvious, sound.
That is also my experience, which is precisely why I use cartridges that don’t possess those traits, or at least do other things too, such as preserve the natural warmth and weight of real voices and instruments.
The way to hear that (and achieve high SPPV) I’ve found is to use the best vintage cartridges, both MM and MC, which are ‘voiced’ rather differently from today’s offerings, hence why I use SPUs and DL-103s on a turntable (tonearm) and system designed to release their full musical potential.
Moving magnets tend to be cheaper, and they tend to lack the ultimate detail and subtle qualities, but they make up for it with a more full-bodied and natural sound.
I agree, however with some of best vintage MC cartridges, optimised in the right system, you can get very close to having the best of both worlds. It just takes a proper understanding of what you’re trying to achieve, and how to achieve it :)
Marco.
Oldpinkman
04-01-2015, 17:58
This interests me. I have owned lots of mcs, mms and moving irons...although not a Decca (yet.) That doesn't exhaust the options...Soundsmith do that strange laser-reading unit. And there are strain-gauges too.
The best moving coils benefit from having quite a lot of design and money thrown at them. They tend to produce a particular type of sound....highly detailed, apparently very 'transparent, good soundingstaging. In fact all the 'hi fi 'boxes get ticked. However, for me at least, they pay the price by lacking natural warmth and tonality. it's as if the natural warmth and weight of music has been slimmed down to make a faster, more obvious, sound. Moving magnets tend to be cheaper, and they tend to lack the ultimate detail and subtle qualities, but they make up for it with a more full-bodied and natural sound. For me, the best moving-irons combine a bit of both approaches. My current low-output Grado Statement (0.5mv) offers a fascinating challenge to the most costly mcs.
So, for me, there is no one 'correct' approach. All can be made to work. As a general rule, moving coils have perhaps been over-praised and moving magnets patronised. But the wheel is always turning.....
As a long-standing MC avoider, I can only suggest you try to get a listen to a Dynavector XX2ii. I am sure there are heap plenty other good 'uns out there too, including the top Lyra's, and I'd have loved to hear the Zyx range. But the Dynavector is flawless as far as my poor little ears are concerned and has completely converted me.
But yes - to repeat - a good cartridge is a good cartridge regardless of its type. And buying an inexpensive moving coil for the sake of being in the moving coil club has been disappointing for many I know. Way back when, in the olden days, when my business card said "Managing Director" at Pink Triangle, I used a Technics U205, so did Arthur, Neal (had 6 of them so they would last him a lifetime - I laughed at the time, but not now), so did Owen, so did every dem and show we did. It wasn't like we were short of Moving Coils at the factory at the time (including some seriously expensive ones).
As a long-standing MC avoider...
Avoider, really? ;)
Marco.
:popcorn: :popcorn:
Marco.
Oldpinkman
05-01-2015, 20:05
Are you pop-corning me, Marco? What do you want to know?
Lol - yes, hence why I asked you a question in my last post! I just never had you down as a "long-standing MC avoider…”. I thought you were a big MC fan, and somewhat of an MM avoider? Was that not a typo? :)
Also, I thought you might have commented on my post about the DL-103, in reference to its suitability in the context you heard it with Arthur, with regards to the link to the article I posted about the 103 needing to be used with ‘lossy’ arms with detachable headshells, in order to be heard at its best.
Marco.
Oldpinkman
05-01-2015, 21:44
Moving coil avoider. I had (among others) a supex 901, and a koetsu black & rosewood in my box at pt. And that's where they stayed. Playing my records I had a technics u205 mm, which, when it wore out, I replaced with a technics p205 which I picked up in the backstreets of Osaka, in an adapter Arthur made for me. The p205, was the parallel tracking version of the u205,which was no longer to be found. They accounted for about 20 years, until the babysitter ripped the cantilever out, when I replaced it with a 1042 on arthurs recommendation. That lasted about 5 years, and I still have it, and don't plan to sell it. About a year, maybe 18 months ago I heard the mc version of the u205 (sort of) and amazingly managed to get an as new one from Arizona. That was the first mc I had used in 25 years. It was good. Really good. But made me want a u205 again. I got a nearly new one of those about a year ago, but after less than 20 hours the perished suspension failed. So I made a real nuisance of myself in Newhaven, and finally got to borrow the dynavector, and 2 lps in Sue said "you have to buy it". So I did :)
You don't seriously want me to answer about dealing with energy from a stiff cartridge by decoupling surely. Nor mass/compliance matching. Suffice to say ak believes rigidity is essential to tracing accuracy, and effective mass is not the same as mass, and is best achieved with mass at the headshell and ak makes headshell weights for his arm to enable just that. The boy has over 50 years experience. I think he knew how to set it up. :cool:
Moving coil avoider. I had (among others) a supex 901, and a koetsu black & rosewood in my box at pt. And that's where they stayed. Playing my records I had a technics u205 mm, which, when it wore out, I replaced with a technics p205 which I picked up in the backstreets of Osaka, in an adapter Arthur made for me. The p205, was the parallel tracking version of the u205,which was no longer to be found. They accounted for about 20 years, until the babysitter ripped the cantilever out, when I replaced it with a 1042 on arthurs recommendation. That lasted about 5 years, and I still have it, and don't plan to sell it. About a year, maybe 18 months ago I heard the mc version of the u205 (sort of) and amazingly managed to get an as new one from Arizona. That was the first mc I had used in 25 years. It was good. Really good. But made me want a u205 again. I got a nearly new one of those about a year ago, but after less than 20 hours the perished suspension failed. So I made a real nuisance of myself in Newhaven, and finally got to borrow the dynavector, and 2 lps in Sue said "you have to buy it". So I did...
Roger on that - I wasn’t aware of the history.
You don't seriously want me to answer about dealing with energy from a stiff cartridge by decoupling surely. Nor mass/compliance matching. Suffice to say ak believes rigidity is essential to tracing accuracy, and effective mass is not the same as mass, and is best achieved with mass at the headshell and ak makes headshell weights for his arm to enable just that. The boy has over 50 years experience. I think he knew how to set it up. :cool:
Like I said though, I’m not questioning AK’s tonearm design principles, experience or know-how, in terms of setting up T/Ts and cartridges, or either your ears or his. You heard what you heard with a DL-103, and formed an opinion on that basis - no question.
This discussion is simply about what’s right or wrong, and in that respect, SOLELY in reference to what makes a 103 perform optimally, nothing else! I’m sorry, but there are no ‘grey areas' in this instance, regardless of what Arthur, you or anyone else thinks.
Through design, a DL-103 will ONLY work optimally on a ‘lossy’, detachable-headshell tonearm of high effective mass, which is why an SME 3012, for example, ticks all the right boxes, and thus any 9” arm used with a DL-103, will require to be fitted with a sufficiently heavy headshell, in order to make up for the shortfall in effective mass between a 3012 and a 3009, using those two arms in this case as relevant examples.
Read here again for a suitable explanation, as to why that is so: http://www.high-endaudio.com/RC-Denon.html
Scroll down to the area entitled ‘A History and In-depth Examination of the DL-103’, paying particular attention to the need for a tonearm with a detachable headshell, and why "a one-piece high-precision-bearing tonearm of modern construction”, such as for example Funk or SME arms, is completely unsuitable. It also explains why a spherical stylus may not have some of the sonic limitations that you think.
This is the type of tonearm that was originally used by the NHK in Japan, with a DL-103 (a DA-302), and therefore, in order to hear the cartridge at its best, it is that which one must try and replicate today: http://www.ebay.com/itm/DENON-Columbia-DA-302-Professional-tonearm-arm-Used-in-NHK-broadcast-station-/261546896814?pt=Vintage_Electronics_R2&hash=item3ce568edae
The SME 3012 is about the nearest, reasonably obtainable, equivalent (or perhaps a 12” Jelco). Hence why I used the SME as an example earlier. Btw, Deccas are almost as fussy, so I doubt you’d hear one properly either unless it was on a London International tonearm….. I just believe in doing the job right or not at all - that’s all! ;)
You can’t just strap vintage kit (designed in an era when mentalities were totally different) onto modern equipment, and automatically expect it to work as intended. After all, would you expect parts for a Morris Minor engine to work in a Ford Mondeo?
Basically, my point is that there are certain ‘rules’ in audio, which one really should follow if one wants to hear things at their best. For example, would anyone here run a pair of Apogee ribbons with a 2W SET valve amp, or 1000W solid-state muscle amp with a pair of 110db horns? I suspect not.
Well, in reality, the above is just as silly/wrong as fitting a DL-103 onto, say, a Rega tonearm (in that respect a Funk arm is no different), and expecting it to perform at anything near its full potential, as it would only result in ’square peg/round hole’ syndrome.
The 103 should be viewed as a rather quirky/oddball design that simply doesn’t conform to modern ‘accepted thinking’ (or that will necessarily work in harmony with what any turntable/tonearm manufacturer today considers as ‘best’), therefore some lateral thinking must go into what you’re going to be using it with, and if what is chosen is sub-optimal, then sub-optimal results are what you’ll hear, as Arthur and you did! Simples.
Therefore, anyone who hasn’t heard a DL-103, in the right circumstances (as outlined above), simply hasn’t heard it properly, and thus cannot hold an authoritative opinion on the matter. The fact is, only when you’ve heard something at its best can you judge PROPERLY whether you like it or not. “Properly”, quite simply, is the operative word here.
That’s what I was trying to explain earlier to Clive! :)
Marco.
P.S - I’d also add either an idler or direct-drive T/T into the equation, in terms of what qualifies as being “the right circumstances” for a DL-103, as I don’t believe that the combination of high-mass arms and cartridges tracking at high VTFs, suits most belt-drive T/Ts (save the high-mass variety of those themselves).
Furthermore, an appropriate SUT or head amp (which the DL-103 was designed for use with) also comes into the equation. You simply can’t just plug a 103 into any MC phono stage and expect it to be sonically optimised.
Marco.
Clive197
06-01-2015, 17:22
Just a point, through the seventies I owned a Thorens TD160 with a SME 3009 II Improved (detachable headshell). I borrowed a Denon DL103 and a Ortofon SUT, my amp at the time was a Leak 70 (Oh how I miss that amp) and speakers were Celef Monitors. The Denon went into a spare headshell (can't remember which one, possibly a Pioneer) as my Ortofon VMS20FL was in the SME Headshell and I didn't want to faff about. I didn't like the 103 then (and haven't since) and subsequently returned it to its rightful owner who at the time worked for KJ Leisuresound in Watford. It was my 1st foray into MC cartridges and I gave up on them for a number of years after (about 20 years). I have since heard and temporarily owned a number of 103's and still don't like them, the one that came with the 1st Ittok II I bought did sound even poorer so went to a well known auction site before you could even say Denon.
Hi Clive,
Just a point, through the seventies I owned a Thorens TD160 with a SME 3009 II Improved (detachable headshell). I borrowed a Denon DL103 and a Ortofon SUT…
Much as I hate prolonging this argument any longer than is necessary, there are two, possibly three things about the above that are are wrong. A) the TD-160, as IME (as I’ve outlined above) you really need an idler or D/D turntable (or high-mass string-drive, such as something along the lines of a Platine Verdier) to properly accommodate the combination of a DL-103, tracking at 2.6g (the optimum VTF) and a high-mass arm. Sprung, belt-drive T/Ts, are unlikely to be very happy in that set-up.
B) As I’ve stated already, if using a 103 with a 9” arm, then you have to bolster it to equal the mass of the typical 12” arm a DL-103 would’ve originally been used with in broadcasting studios, and the headshell on a 3009 II Improved is way too light for that purpose. C) Your Ortofon SUT may not have been an ideal match for the 103. Far better to have used one of Denon’s own. However, A) and B) are liable to be more significant.
my amp at the time was a Leak 70 (Oh how I miss that amp) and speakers were Celef Monitors. The Denon went into a spare headshell (can't remember which one, possibly a Pioneer) as my Ortofon VMS20FL was in the SME Headshell and I didn't want to faff about. I didn't like the 103 then (and haven't since) and subsequently returned it to its rightful owner who at the time worked for KJ Leisuresound in Watford.
Again, how heavy was the spare headshell you used? With a 9” arm, you’re looking at 17-18g minimum. Do you think the spare headshell you used qualified? If not, well… Furthermore, ‘faffing about’, unfortunately, is precisely what is needed to get a 103 to ‘sing’...
It was my 1st foray into MC cartridges and I gave up on them for a number of years after (about 20 years). I have since heard and temporarily owned a number of 103's and still don't like them, the one that came with the 1st Ittok II I bought did sound even poorer so went to a well known auction site before you could even say Denon.
Again, an Ittok (for all sorts of reasons I could go into) is a serious mismatch for a DL-103. The bottom line is, mate, and you really ought to just accept this fact, is that try as you might, you haven’t heard a DL-103 at its best (and actually in some rather less than ideal circumstances), and so your opinion of them is consequently, and justifiably, jaundiced.
There are lots of things in hi-fi I haven’t heard properly, and so would never dream of forming a definitive, stubborn and immovable, opinion on whatever the items were in question! ;)
There are probably also lots of things in hi-fi you have more experience of than I do. None of us can know everything.
Even if you did hear a DL-103, fully optimised in the right way, you STILL might not like it, and that would be absolutely fine, but one of my bugbears is people saying they don’t like something (valves, D/D turntables, you name it), without first having heard them at their BEST. It is only then that their opinion on such could be considered as being in any way authoritative.
I do hope you understand where I’m coming from, so I hope there are no hard feelings :)
Marco.
Oldpinkman
06-01-2015, 18:17
P.S - I’d also add either an idler or direct-drive T/T into the equation, in terms of what qualifies as being “the right circumstances” for a DL-103, as I don’t believe that the combination of high-mass arms and cartridges tracking at high VTFs, suits most belt-drive T/Ts (save the high-mass variety of those themselves).
Furthermore, an appropriate SUT or head amp (which the DL-103 was designed for use with) also comes into the equation. You simply can’t just plug a 103 into any MC phono stage and expect it to be sonically optimised.
Marco.
The funk arm was fitted to an SL1200. For one of the cartridges. The other cartridge was fitted in a specially F.X modified SL1200 arm, also on an SL1200 deck (not the FX1200, but a standard techie arm with FX bracing stuffed up it). Regardless of how people like to mix and match and balance to make a sound they like, accuracy involves the stylus tip moving precisely relative to the generators (the cartridge body effectively). If the cartridge body is "loose" and "wiggling about" then the result is not accurate. Some of the voltage generated by the cartridge is due to the body wiggling about instead of staying still - and that voltage gets mixed with the voltage created by the record moving the stylus about. You are welcome to like the effect, but its not accurate. With some trepidation, as AK is supposed to be revising his website.
http://www.thefunkfirm.co.uk/arms/fxr_II.html
You want the resonance plots (just below FOX) about half way down, and then further down still what happens when a tube bends, and its effect on tracing accuracy. Decoupling "having a boingy bit" - makes the arm wobbly at the end. We are talking microns here. Well - the smallest signal is about 0.1 microns.
Moreover, that "decoupling" is effectively damping. You might just as well wrap some rubber bands round the arm tube. The same web site also discusses why damping causes as many problems as it solves. Actually an FX arm should potentially be good for a cartridge which generates a lot of energy to be controlled, since it has resonance plots with no peaks in excess of 3db, and is effectively "untroubled" by all that energy - and it does that without damping and without decoupling
I am happy you like the sound a Denon can make in the right arm. My Dad supports Arsenal, and I'm happy for him. I like the sound made by a Dynavector in a Funk arm. And I support Liverpool. We can like different things. If you enjoy listening to records played with a Denon cartridge, carry on listening to them. I have no interest in listening on every cartridge ever made and finding the optimal way to extract the best from it. I just find a few bits I like, and when something works, stop and enjoy it. I have tended to find, that stuff that sounds good generally does so because it is individually as well as synergistically valid. ie without balancing one fault with another.
Clive197
06-01-2015, 18:17
I do wonder how many other members have the exact set-up you favour for the 103. Interestingly the site you pointed us to in post 38, states you need a SME 3012 or 3009 for the 103 to work at its best. My system was at it was and I feel that does satisfy the criteria to make a valid opinion but I am happy to let others judge.
That is now my last word on this subject because you and I are never going to agree because we are probably both obstinate old codgers (maybe not so old for you)
LOL - well, I’m 49, how old are you? Besides, AoS is all about robust (but friendly) debating on all manner of topics. As long as no-one falls out, it matters not whether we agree or disagree! :D
I do wonder how many other members have the exact set-up you favour for the 103.
I don’t really think that matters. Much as combining the right amp with the right pair of speakers is mandatory to obtaining optimum results, so it is with arms and cartridges. In that respect, aside from variances in personal taste, there actually is a right and a wrong way of going about things!
Interestingly the site you pointed us to in post 38, states you need a SME 3012 or 3009 for the 103 to work at its best. My system was at it was and I feel that does satisfy the criteria to make a valid opinion but I am happy to let others judge.
Yes, but when a 3009 is in the equation it needs to be used with a headshell of sufficient mass to make up for the difference in that between it and the 3012. I’ve stated this numerous times now.
Anyway, we shall move on, hopefully with a smile on both of our faces! :cool:
Marco.
The funk arm was fitted to an SL1200. For one of the cartridges. The other cartridge was fitted in a specially F.X modified SL1200 arm, also on an SL1200 deck (not the FX1200, but a standard techie arm with FX bracing stuffed up it). Regardless of how people like to mix and match and balance to make a sound they like, accuracy involves the stylus tip moving precisely relative to the generators (the cartridge body effectively). If the cartridge body is "loose" and "wiggling about" then the result is not accurate. Some of the voltage generated by the cartridge is due to the body wiggling about instead of staying still - and that voltage gets mixed with the voltage created by the record moving the stylus about. You are welcome to like the effect, but its not accurate. With some trepidation, as AK is supposed to be revising his website.
http://www.thefunkfirm.co.uk/arms/fxr_II.html
You want the resonance plots (just below FOX) about half way down, and then further down still what happens when a tube bends, and its effect on tracing accuracy. Decoupling "having a boingy bit" - makes the arm wobbly at the end. We are talking microns here. Well - the smallest signal is about 0.1 microns.
Moreover, that "decoupling" is effectively damping. You might just as well wrap some rubber bands round the arm tube. The same web site also discusses why damping causes as many problems as it solves. Actually an FX arm should potentially be good for a cartridge which generates a lot of energy to be controlled, since it has resonance plots with no peaks in excess of 3db, and is effectively "untroubled" by all that energy - and it does that without damping and without decoupling
I am happy you like the sound a Denon can make in the right arm. My Dad supports Arsenal, and I'm happy for him. I like the sound made by a Dynavector in a Funk arm. And I support Liverpool. We can like different things. If you enjoy listening to records played with a Denon cartridge, carry on listening to them. I have no interest in listening on every cartridge ever made and finding the optimal way to extract the best from it. I just find a few bits I like, and when something works, stop and enjoy it. I have tended to find, that stuff that sounds good generally does so because it is individually as well as synergistically valid. ie without balancing one fault with another.
Richard, I wouldn’t argue with any of that, but you’re completely missing the point. The discussion is not about one’s opinion on how best to achieve accurate vinyl replay; it’s about hearing a DL-103 at its best, in order to be sufficiently qualified to critique it.
No offence, but I don’t believe either you or Clive, in that respect, are suitably qualified, just as I wouldn’t be if the discussion revolved around Funk products, which you have much more experience with than I do, and therefore can comment on with greater authority. Respectfully, I would say that the same applies with me, when it comes to the DL-103.
We all have our own little areas of ‘expertise’ in this game :)
Marco.
Interesting discussion here on the Steve Hoffman forum, about the DL-103. Observe the general advice being given, especially from ‘McLover’: http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/question-about-sme-tonearms-and-the-denon-dl-103-cart.265539/
Thank goodness the guy from Denmark (with an LP12) didn’t go for the 103/SME/LH-18 combo, or he’d never have gotten the platter to move!! :eyebrows:
Marco.
Oldpinkman
06-01-2015, 21:23
Marco, I daresay you're right. And I haven't heard a denon set up by an enthusiast. And maybe if I did I'd change arm and player too to get a better record player package than I have now. In a world of so many variables which of us knows we haven't missed a special combination. I doubt I will encounter any such enthusiast, so I will probably die wondering.
As will most of the rest of the forum die wondering what an fxr or f5 could sound like on their record player.
I am very happy with the combination I have managed to put together. I'm glad you are happy with yours. Back on the op's point - don't get Any moving coil just to say you have a moving coil. A good cartridge is a good cartridge regardless of how it works.
Marco, I daresay you're right. And I haven't heard a denon set up by an enthusiast. And maybe if I did I'd change arm and player too to get a better record player package than I have now. In a world of so many variables which of us knows we haven't missed a special combination. I doubt I will encounter any such enthusiast, so I will probably die wondering.
Lol! Well if you want to hear a 103 at its best (not necessarily the best record player), then come up and see me! :eyebrows:
Serious offer, btw… Or I could bring my T/T (fitted with a DL-103) down to Oldie Towers?
I am very happy with the combination I have managed to put together. I'm glad you are happy with yours. Back on the op's point - don't get Any moving coil just to say you have a moving coil. A good cartridge is a good cartridge regardless of how it works.
Can’t disagree with any of that :)
Marco.
I'm dying to hear a Denon 103 (R) in a proper set up TT.
I was over at Andy's (wiicrackpot) last Sunday listening to his system which was fabulous (Garrard 401 and SME IV with a Lyra MC cart) and he had a 103 ZU bodied Denon but unfortunately his arm is a fixed headshell arm and didn't want to bug him into changing carts over.
BTW, he has a fantastic looking gold Technics cart, not sure if it is a MC or MM cart but he was saying that it was one of the best ever made, beautiful looking thing, would loved to have heard that too.
Great thread this BTW:cool:
Tony
wiicrackpot
09-01-2015, 00:21
Hi Tony,
Just noticed this, thanks for bringing my speaker stands back,
the cartridge concerned and said by some to be one of the best was the Technics EPC-205C MK4,
it's a thing of beauty and urban myth said the only mm A.J. van den Hul would work on, i can't confirm that,
all i know is i take it out now and again and ogle it periodically, one day i will mount it on a appropriate arm and see what the fuss is about.:)
The Zu is a impulse buy from our very own Jerry (jandl100)
I have my 103R housed in an aluminium body in a set up with a Micro Seiki MA505S tonearm and Nagaoka magnesium headshell. The turntable is a Technics SP15. It sound very good indeed, though not as good as some, for example, the aforementioned Technics EPC-205C MK4 (the one I have is a P mount version). In fact, the Technics EPC-205C mk3 is not far behind in sound though easier to find. However, the cartridge I like most in my system is not a MC or MM but a stain gauge cartridge, the Technics EPS- 460C, I seldom play it, like the EPC-205 MK4, as there is no spare stylus available any more.
Riislingen
10-01-2015, 13:53
Reading through this debate sent me straight to hifi anxiety hell.
I'm running an alloy bodied 103, in an Orsonic 101b headshell, all sitting on a Jelco 750L 12" arm.
Am I overboard on weight here ? It sounds really good, but effective mass is substantial for this combo I reckon.
Tracking perfect at 2.6 g.
Opinions ?
Oldpinkman
11-01-2015, 15:24
Reading through this debate sent me straight to hifi anxiety hell.
I'm running an alloy bodied 103, in an Orsonic 101b headshell, all sitting on a Jelco 750L 12" arm.
Am I overboard on weight here ? It sounds really good, but effective mass is substantial for this combo I reckon.
Tracking perfect at 2.6 g.
Opinions ?
I thought one of the Denon fans (Marco) would have jumped on this one. I was thinking of adding a couple of (fairly long) posts about Marco's link to Denon tuning tips. As I noted on the Thorens TD160 thread, I visited Funks factory on Friday, and there was a Denon 103 with a ripped out cantilever on an SME 309 arm, and I relayed those bits of this thread to Arthur, who with a twinkle in his eye told me, as my old maths teacher always had to - "show your workings". "My workings" might help you understand the answer to the question.
The short answer is "I doubt it". I don't have time to go googling for the information, but if you can supply the data, I don't mind doing the sums. So - critically - what is the compliance of the cartridge you have, and at what frequency (since its Japanese it will probably be at 100Hz, which is usually crudely taken to be 1.75 times that figure at 10Hz)? The 103's seem mostly to be 5cu, although several seem to be 12 or 13. What is the mass of the cartridge (on the scales). What is the quoted effective mass of the Jelco arm? What is the actual mass of the Jelco headshell (I am assuming that is included in the quoted arm effective mass). Finally, what is the actual mass (weigh it on the scales) of the Orsonic, and any fixings.
If your cartridge is one of the 5cu ones (say about 9cu at 10Hz), it is really hard to imagine you are over mass. Even at a whopping 40g total effective mass (including cartridge) you should still have a resonant frequency of about 8Hz. (Interestingly HiFi News measured the dynamic compliance of the 103R at 13cu lateral and 8cu vertical - so "about 9" is probably a good working figure.
I am in 2 minds about "doing my homework - show your workings". I have actually posted about this stuff before, and could easily see folk getting bored. Equally, I always hated it when someone told me to "check the archive" on another forum, every time I asked about something someone discussed years ago. If anyones interested I'll explain my "Arthur knows how to blutak a coin to a headshell" comment properly. And for a bonus, in a separate post, why decoupling and damping may not be the only solution to "problem" high energy from a low compliance cartridge.
Oldpinkman
11-01-2015, 15:27
I have my 103R housed in an aluminium body in a set up with a Micro Seiki MA505S tonearm and Nagaoka magnesium headshell. The turntable is a Technics SP15. It sound very good indeed, though not as good as some, for example, the aforementioned Technics EPC-205C MK4 (the one I have is a P mount version). In fact, the Technics EPC-205C mk3 is not far behind in sound though easier to find. However, the cartridge I like most in my system is not a MC or MM but a stain gauge cartridge, the Technics EPS- 460C, I seldom play it, like the EPC-205 MK4, as there is no spare stylus available any more.
Oh boy - you got 2 of them???? I don't think there is much between the Mk3 and the Mk4 - they are both outstanding. Sadly, when I picked up a new one recently, with less than 100 hours on it I reckon - but had been in storage for over 20 years, the suspension had perished. I have it with a Jico stylus in, which is good - really good - more detailed, better with surface noise - but just doesn't have the old magic. Strain guage are not the only "exotic" type. There are variable capacitance cartridges from vintage Japan too.
Oh boy - you got 2 of them???? I don't think there is much between the Mk3 and the Mk4 - they are both outstanding. Sadly, when I picked up a new one recently, with less than 100 hours on it I reckon - but had been in storage for over 20 years, the suspension had perished. I have it with a Jico stylus in, which is good - really good - more detailed, better with surface noise - but just doesn't have the old magic. Strain guage are not the only "exotic" type. There are variable capacitance cartridges from vintage Japan too.
I'm hopefully going to be hearing Andy's Mk4 on Saturday along with his ZU 103.
We'll be using my Technics SL-1200 with Micro Seiki tonearm (the cart comes with it's own headshell) and will be using my Quad 34 Pre with modded MM phono card, I've also got a Quad MC card which I can use for the Denon but Andy is bringing his own MC phono amp.
Can't wait:cool:
Reading through this debate sent me straight to hifi anxiety hell.
I'm running an alloy bodied 103, in an Orsonic 101b headshell, all sitting on a Jelco 750L 12" arm.
Am I overboard on weight here ? It sounds really good, but effective mass is substantial for this combo I reckon.
Tracking perfect at 2.6 g.
Opinions ?
Hi Mikkel,
Been busy with the NEBO 5 bake-off, which was being held yesterday in Hartlepool, in the UK….
First of all, if it sounds really good, then why worry? That’s the bottom line… However, if it were my system, I’d be inclined to use a lighter headshell, as the original Denon 12” arms used in broadcast studios had fairly light headshells (9-10g), so that’s what I’d fit. The bulk of the required effective mass, for a DL-103, was achieved with the extra length of the 12” arm.
Try going back to the stock Jelco headshell, supplied with your 750L, and see what happens, or if you like retro, and fancy treating yourself, try this: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Denon-Turntable-Headshell-Vintage-Original-/151537087030?pt=Vintage_Electronics_R2&hash=item2348507236
Essentially, you can tell when you’re overdoing the mass because the sound becomes somewhat ‘thick' and opaque sounding, with a plodding bass. At that point, back off the mass a bit and it should produce a lighter, airier and faster sound. There are no ‘set rules’ here, however - it’s all about experimenting! :)
Marco.
Oh boy - you got 2 of them???? I don't think there is much between the Mk3 and the Mk4 - they are both outstanding. Sadly, when I picked up a new one recently, with less than 100 hours on it I reckon - but had been in storage for over 20 years, the suspension had perished. I have it with a Jico stylus in, which is good - really good - more detailed, better with surface noise - but just doesn't have the old magic. Strain guage are not the only "exotic" type. There are variable capacitance cartridges from vintage Japan too.
Actually, I have three of them - 1 EPC-205 mk3, 1 P205 mk3 and I P205 mk4. Fortunately, the suspension is OK on them. Despite the stylus on the P205 mk3 is a bit worn out, it still works.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Denon-Turn...item2348507236
It looks like a Denon PLC 5 headshell which weighs 6 grams. The ADC head shell is heavier at 7.6 grams.
Item has been removed or is unavailable……
Marco.
Riislingen
12-01-2015, 12:19
I thought one of the Denon fans (Marco) would have jumped on this one. I was thinking of adding a couple of (fairly long) posts about Marco's link to Denon tuning tips. As I noted on the Thorens TD160 thread, I visited Funks factory on Friday, and there was a Denon 103 with a ripped out cantilever on an SME 309 arm, and I relayed those bits of this thread to Arthur, who with a twinkle in his eye told me, as my old maths teacher always had to - "show your workings". "My workings" might help you understand the answer to the question.
The short answer is "I doubt it". I don't have time to go googling for the information, but if you can supply the data, I don't mind doing the sums. So - critically - what is the compliance of the cartridge you have, and at what frequency (since its Japanese it will probably be at 100Hz, which is usually crudely taken to be 1.75 times that figure at 10Hz)? The 103's seem mostly to be 5cu, although several seem to be 12 or 13. What is the mass of the cartridge (on the scales). What is the quoted effective mass of the Jelco arm? What is the actual mass of the Jelco headshell (I am assuming that is included in the quoted arm effective mass). Finally, what is the actual mass (weigh it on the scales) of the Orsonic, and any fixings.
If your cartridge is one of the 5cu ones (say about 9cu at 10Hz), it is really hard to imagine you are over mass. Even at a whopping 40g total effective mass (including cartridge) you should still have a resonant frequency of about 8Hz. (Interestingly HiFi News measured the dynamic compliance of the 103R at 13cu lateral and 8cu vertical - so "about 9" is probably a good working figure.
I am in 2 minds about "doing my homework - show your workings". I have actually posted about this stuff before, and could easily see folk getting bored. Equally, I always hated it when someone told me to "check the archive" on another forum, every time I asked about something someone discussed years ago. If anyones interested I'll explain my "Arthur knows how to blutak a coin to a headshell" comment properly. And for a bonus, in a separate post, why decoupling and damping may not be the only solution to "problem" high energy from a low compliance cartridge.
Thanks Richard!
I can do the resonance frequency calculation using one of the webcalculators for sure. The anxiety stems from changing headshells, custom cartridge bodies etc.
The effective mas of the stock 750L have been debated widely and quoted at everyting from 20-26g´s. it appears. I´ve found this: http://audiosensibility.com/blog/faqs/what-is-the-effective-mass-of-the-jelco-750-tonearms/
Which frankly doesn´t make much sense to me, as in "with and without cartridge at a specified weight".
The standard headshell is quoted to be pretty close to 12 gr. the replacement Orsonic is 16g. As for the cartridge it´s equally around 12 gr. total. Fitting bits would be 1-2g´s I guess.
Compliance is indeed following Japanese standards and quoted 5@100Hz
I pussled by the very low effective mass of the stock 750L - which would suggest I could potentially add more mass.
Riislingen
12-01-2015, 12:24
Hi Mikkel,
Been busy with the NEBO 5 bake-off, which was being held yesterday in Hartlepool, in the UK….
First of all, if it sounds really good, then why worry? That’s the bottom line… However, if it were my system, I’d be inclined to use a lighter headshell, as the original Denon 12” arms used in broadcast studios had fairly light headshells (9-10g), so that’s what I’d fit. The bulk of the required effective mass, for a DL-103, was achieved with the extra length of the 12” arm.
Try going back the stock Jelco headshell, supplied with your 750L, and see what happens, or if you like retro, and fancy treating yourself, try this: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Denon-Turntable-Headshell-Vintage-Original-/151537087030?pt=Vintage_Electronics_R2&hash=item2348507236
Essentially, you can tell when you’re overdoing the mass because the sound becomes somewhat ‘thick' and opaque sounding, with a plodding bass. At that point, back off the mass a bit and it should produce a lighter, airier and faster sound. There are no ‘set rules’ here, however - it’s all about experimenting! :)
Marco.
Hi Marco,
Thanks for the input, absolutely solid advise.
I´ll do a bit of experimenting with a couple of lighter headshells. Ordered a set of Soundsmith headshell screws with different weight to tune it back and forth a bit.
Oldpinkman
12-01-2015, 13:41
Thanks Richard!
I can do the resonance frequency calculation using one of the webcalculators for sure. The anxiety stems from changing headshells, custom cartridge bodies etc.
The effective mas of the stock 750L have been debated widely and quoted at everyting from 20-26g´s. it appears. I´ve found this: http://audiosensibility.com/blog/faqs/what-is-the-effective-mass-of-the-jelco-750-tonearms/
Which frankly doesn´t make much sense to me, as in "with and without cartridge at a specified weight".
The standard headshell is quoted to be pretty close to 12 gr. the replacement Orsonic is 16g. As for the cartridge it´s equally around 12 gr. total. Fitting bits would be 1-2g´s I guess.
Compliance is indeed following Japanese standards and quoted 5@100Hz
I pussled by the very low effective mass of the stock 750L - which would suggest I could potentially add more mass.
There were 2 "tuning" issues in Marcos link. There is good science behind both. One was decoupling / damping to deal with the unwanted high energy levels. This will be a purely subjective trial and error "fettle". The other was mass matching. This is a bit more precise. The issue is that the cartridge / arm are a system - basically a mass and a spring. As such, that system will have a fundamental resonance at which it will be excited - that is to say only a small amount of energy will be needed to make it vibrate at that frequency. We don't want that. So we want to try to set that frequency where it won't get any / much energy to excite it. If the frequency is above 20Hz then music on the record might set it off (a low organ note could be 20Hz). If the frequency is as low as 2 Hz a record warp could set it off (33rpm, is 0.5Hz roughly) and there are other factors like footfall up to about 6 Hz. So for safety we try for more than 6 (I prefer more than 8) and less than 15Hz. The compliance is given, we need to tune the frequency with the effective mass. Sound shouldnt really change in that range, in terms of pure effective mass (or pure resonant frequency) - it may change because of how you achieve that mass (ie materials used) but the mass itself relates to the system resonance
"With and without cartridge", is just adding 6.5g to without to get with. The arm, with its headshell has an effective mass of 11g. To do the calculations you need to add the mass of the cartridge. 6.5g would be a typical value, which is why Jelco also quote a mass with a typical cartridge (6.6g) at 18g. (They are not exactly the same because mass and effective mass are not the same thing, so they must be making an assumption about the mass distribution of the cartridge) The 103 has a mass of 8.5g. So, in standard form your Jelco and cartridge will have an effective mass of 11+8.5 is about 20gm. Dynamic compliance at 10Hz is about 8cu probably. That puts the resonant frequency at about 13Hz - near perfect.
It's hard to see how the standard headshell can weigh 12g if the arm with headshell is 11g. Googling a bit - it seems a lot of people get muddled like you and take the effective mass as being about 18g (the "with cartridge" figure). Chances are, since the tubes are very similar, the mass without the headshell will be similar to the Technics 1200 arm at about 4.5gm. So the standard headshell about 6.5gm. If you've got one you could put it on some scales to see. Again you could weigh the cartridge and confirm Denons value of 8.5g.
Assuming arm 4.5, new headshell 16g, cartridge 8.5g and compliance 8cu you have a resonance of about 10.5 which would normally still be though of as "ideal".
If the Denon compliance is as low as 5cu (the 100Hz value) then the resonance is about 13Hz. All of those should be good. None of these figures will be precise. Effective mass is not mass. It is the mass "seen by" the cartridge. We could get all technical about moments of inertia, but the important point to bear in mind is that mass at the effective length (the stylus) is pure effective mass. As you get closer to the pivot actual mass will be greater than effective mass. Obviously, not all of the headshells mass on the scales is at the stylus. Most of it is a couple of inches closer to the pivot at the joint. Think of a seesaw (oh bugger - I'm "showing my workings"). Take a seesaw in a childrens playground, and fix a spring under one seat and to the ground. If you push the seat down a few inches and let go, it will bounce at a frequency. Lets say we set our spring compliance so that frequency is 5Hz - 5 times a second. About as fast as we can count. If we put a 30kg child on the seat, and another child on the opposite seat to balance it (keep the VTF constant), then when we bounce the seesaw it will bounce more slowly. Maybe at 2 Hz. Can you visualise that? But if we move those children so that they are sitting right next to the pivot in the middle, then the frequency will be back up closer to 5Hz - lets say 4.5Hz. The actual mass of the children hasn't changed. They each weigh 30Kg (the only one that matters is the one on the side with the spring). But 30Kg placed right over the spring is "seen" by the spring as greater than 30Kg placed further away by the pivot.
This is why my friend Arthur sets the tracking weight on his arms with a weight which travels from near the pivot (for 0.25 tracking force) to near the cartridge (for 3gm tracking force). As the tracking force is increased, so is the arms effective mass. Generally cartridges which need a high tracking force have low compliance and need higher effective mass. The funk arms have a variable effective mass - it varies with tracking force.
If a cartridge is very stiff (low compliance) like the Denon - then the effective mass is further increased by putting a weight on the headshell - which on these arms is a thin bar right over the stylus (usually). A 10gm weight is quite physically small - but very effective when it is placed at the "effective length" - over the stylus. With a 10gm weight on the headshell, and the tracking force at 3gm the effective mass of the arm is probably about 25gm.
At Pink Triangle, when we needed to increase the effective mass of an arm to try a cartridge, we would fix a weight to the headshell with blu-tak. A £1 coin weighs 10gm. Hence my comment "Arthur knows how to blu-tak a coin to a headshell". Of course, depending on the arm you may need to add mass to the counterweight. you can do this with a coin and some blutak, but hold it on with a rubber band, and make sure that when the correct tracking force is set, the coin is on the bottom of the counterweight (definitely not to one side). I used the mission 774 quite a lot - and that had additional circular weight collars you could add to the counterweight
Riislingen
12-01-2015, 19:01
Thanks Richard.
Something Odd about that Jelco number.
I had the original headshell on the weight, and it's weighing in at barely 10g with two headshell leads missing.
With that in mind, the overall mass of the arm has got to be more I presume.
Substituting the Headshell adds 6g, adding the alloy body to the cartridge takes the cart up to approximately 12g as well.
Oldpinkman
12-01-2015, 21:37
There may be something odd. Manufacturer quoted figures can't always be trusted. But I think you are confusing mass with effective mass. Since I always need my hand held for the maths, lets just say its complicated** . (Tonearm effective mass can be expressed as the moment of inertia about the pivot divided by the effective length of the tonearm squared) It is easier to measure it than calculate it, and you do that with a test record and a cartridge of known compliance. However, as stated before, mass near to the stylus will have greater influence than mass nearer the pivot. Most of the arm without the headshell will have limited influence on effective mass. The headshells actual mass is mostly concentrated at the joint - which is the bit of the headshell nearest the pivot point. If the actual mass of the arm tube (put on a set of scales) is say 8gm and the headshell mass is 8gm the effective mass of a 9inch arm and headshell together will be much less than 16gm.
** the easy bit is to remember that to ADD effective mass, if you add it at the stylus position you can treat actual mass as effective mass - ie it keeps the sums simple.
I was deliberately approximate in my resonances, masses and compliance - because I know these numbers will not be precise, and quoting a resonance to 2 decimal places would give a false precision. Say the effective mass is 6gm higher than the figures we used - even at the higher compliance of 8cu the resonance is only about 9.5 - still a comfortable figure. At 5cu it would be 12Hz. If we stick with 8cu as our best guess of the dynamic compliance (vertical and horizontal) of the Denon, then to get into a red flag area under 8Hz we need the total effective mass to be 50g.
Still unlikely to be a worry :)
I measured the 103 with a test record and recorded it onto a computer, timing the track up to the onset of oscillation and looking at the recording on the computer it worked out to be 9cu...
Oldpinkman
13-01-2015, 08:16
I measured the 103 with a test record and recorded it onto a computer, timing the track up to the onset of oscillation and looking at the recording on the computer it worked out to be 9cu...
Thanks Neal - that fits with what I found quickly on the web and means 8 (or 9) cu is a good basis for the sums. A total effective mass (including cartridge and fixings) of between 15gm and 50gm should therefore be "safe" for the mechanical system resonance. Say 20g to 40g ideally.
Of course, that doesn't account for Denon specialist tuning tips such as Marcos. In principle, it should not be the effective mass which is changing the sound, within that range, although the things used to change it (like changing headshells, and adding headshell weights) might change the sound - because they potentially affect that other factor where I didn't show my workings - namely the "bad" effects of high levels of energy fed into the arm.
I am not quite sure how I would follow Marcos tip of "overdoing the mass" making the sound thick, and "back off the mass a bit for a lighter airier sound". You can do it with coins and blu-tak (5p weighs 4gm, 10p 6gm, £1 10gm) - but I didn't get the impression Marco was using that method. If you do it by trying a heavier headshell, then a lighter one, you are obviously changing things other than just the effective mass.
It's not like tracking force which you can dial in and out.
The high energy produced by the cartridge means it is indeed likely to be very responsive to de-coupling / damping tuning treatments in most arms with poor tube resonances. Of course, if your arm doesn't have any nasty resonances, it doesn't really matter if it is being excited by high energy levels, unless you are talking about arms with unsuitable bearings - but the energy is unlikely to cause bearing chatter issues in most modern arms considered for the job. The issue with high energy levels will be the resonance excitation. (A Pink Triangle / FXR should be a great combo for this - because the FXR has no resonance peaks above 3db, good bearings, and a rigid path to the aerolam asymetric sub-chassis which acts as a sink and radiator for the energy passed to it.) So no damping / decoupling required. As noted before - the problem with decoupling (Making the connections nice and loose) is that you lose tracing accuracy. Music relies on the stylus being moved relative to the cartridge generators down to 0.1 micron sensitivity. Ideally the cartridge body needs to be held absolutely rigid, relative to the stylus in the groove. If it is moving (at the extreme, think of decoupling with a gel block between cartridge and headshell) then it loses precision, focus, definition.
Ultimatley experience trumps theory. Like Marco, I found the 103 likes mass however it's applied. The cart does seem to impart energy into the arm and Ive never got it to work in Regas or Linn arms. I had moderate success with a 309 and GH242 more so the latter I'm guessing down to it being a unipivot. It works really well with the Acos arm on my PL71 and the arm on my KD550 but not the OEM arm my KD990 which is much happier with the higher compliance 103D.
Hi Richard,
Of course, that doesn't account for Denon specialist tuning tips such as Marcos. In principle, it should not be the effective mass which is changing the sound, within that range, although the things used to change it (like changing headshells, and adding headshell weights) might change the sound - because they potentially affect that other factor where I didn't show my workings - namely the "bad" effects of high levels of energy fed into the arm.
I am not quite sure how I would follow Marcos tip of "overdoing the mass" making the sound thick, and "back off the mass a bit for a lighter airier sound". You can do it with coins and blu-tak (5p weighs 4gm, 10p 6gm, £1 10gm) - but I didn't get the impression Marco was using that method. If you do it by trying a heavier headshell, then a lighter one, you are obviously changing things other than just the effective mass.
Indeed, however you’re underestimating the (some would say ‘lunatic’, lol) amount of experimenting I’ve done in this area… When ‘tuning’ mass to optimise the DL-103, I’ve experimented with using lighter and heavier headshells of the same type, and thus that are otherwise identical in terms of construction - and even had multiple 103s fitted to them! This is one of the benefits of using a tonearm with a detachable headshell :eyebrows:
Therefore, in order to experiment with the effects of mass, and for all other variables to remain the same, all I did was swap from one headshell to another, and then analyse the difference, which is precisely how I discovered the sonic effects I’ve outlined (and which you’ve quoted).
(A Pink Triangle / FXR should be a great combo for this - because the FXR has no resonance peaks above 3db, good bearings, and a rigid path to the aerolam asymetric sub-chassis which acts as a sink and radiator for the energy passed to it.) So no damping / decoupling required.
Well, I haven’t heard a DL-103 fitted to an FXR, so I wouldn’t know, but as your comments about the sound, which you reported earlier in the thread, bear no resemblance whatsoever to what I get from the same cartridge here, I’d have to question the extent, and indeed efficacy of the ‘103 optimisation’, present in the set-up at the time you listened…
One would indeed also have to ask if the DL-103/FXR combo you heard featured the required added mass to the headshell of the FXR, or was is simply just bolted on, as with any other cartridge?
As noted before - the problem with decoupling (Making the connections nice and loose) is that you lose tracing accuracy. Music relies on the stylus being moved relative to the cartridge generators down to 0.1 micron sensitivity. Ideally the cartridge body needs to be held absolutely rigid, relative to the stylus in the groove. If it is moving (at the extreme, think of decoupling with a gel block between cartridge and headshell) then it loses precision, focus, definition.
Yes, but again that’s a general point, and not necessarily related to sonically optimising a DL-103, which as we know, apart from what is considered as ‘best practice’, technically, needs a different form of thinking, compared with today's ‘accepted norm', in order to get the most from it.
When you’re listening to a turntable, you’re listening to the cumulative sonic effect of its constituent parts; essentially everything should behave in sympathy, as a system, and so focusing on one area of that system, and claiming that there is only ‘one true path’, as it were (as you’ve done above), fails to take into consideration the influence of other key parts of the system, and how important overall synergy is to the system’s effectiveness.
After all, Arthur designs his turntables as ‘complete systems’ - they’re not simply a collection of disparate parts… Great thought goes into every aspect of their design, and how the assembled components work together in unison, in order that his design goals are achieved - and so it is when optimally partnering a DL-103.
It also needs to be part of the right system. In that respect, one simply cannot strap a DL-103 onto any tonearm or turntable, even ones which are claimed as being technically, ‘optimally designed’ (such as an FXR), and automatically expect it to perform to its full potential. That simply won’t happen unless the overall system is right. *That* is the key! :)
In my extensive experience, such a system equates to the use of a top-notch idler or direct-drive T/T, a high-quality detachable headshell tonearm, of suitably high mass, and a quality MM valve phono stage (103s love valves, as they refine its mellifluous midrange qualities), used with either a top-notch SUT or MC head amp. Only then is the appropriate synergy achieved, and thus, IMO, when one will hear a DL-103 at its best.
Marco.
Oldpinkman
13-01-2015, 11:14
Hi Richard,
Yes, but again that’s a general point, and not necessarily related to sonically optimising a DL-103, which as we know, apart from what is considered as ‘best practice’, technically, needs a different form of thinking, compared with today's ‘accepted norm', in order to get the most from it.
Marco.
There was lots there Marco. I wouldn't contest that you have an enormous amount of experience, and don't doubt you can tune and produce effects that you like to get a Denon sounding right for you. Maybe one day you'll get to demonstrate that to me, and maybe I'll like it too
But the comment above is a bit trickier to agree with. Perhaps an analogy with a painting would work. You can of course ignore rules about perspective, and golden rule and other "conventions" and produce great works of art that are abstract and pleasing to the eye and the soul. But that doesn't mean they are an accurate copy. Great art of course is not about photorealism. And maybe that's why your forum is the "Art of Sound". The goal is something pleasing and attractive - not a direct reproduction of the original music.
That a cartridge makes music by generating an electric signal is not generalising. It is therefore relevant to a DL103. That it generates that electricity as a result of the movement of the stylus RELATIVE to the cartridge body, is not generalising. It doesn't matter whether you hold the cartridge still and wiggle the stylus, or hold the stylus still and wiggle the cartridge, that is what makes a sound. If they both move together - no sound is generated (like when you move the stylus and cartridge from rest to over the record to cue it. The stylus is moving, but it is not moving RELATIVE to the cartridge body, so no sound is made). So if your "optimisation" allows the cartridge body to move by microscopic amounts whilst the record is playing - you may optimise the sound you like to hear, but you won't get an accurate reproduction of all that was there on the record in the first place.
So "optimisation" is of the sound you like to hear. Not the sound that was recorded to be listened to. It's about achieving a pleasing effect - not getting an accurate copy. Attractive sound, not High Fidelity. I find I lose too much that is important to me, when I lose information that was on the record, or add unwanted information caused by unwanted movement of a decoupled cartridge body.
But the comment above is a bit trickier to agree with. Perhaps an analogy with a painting would work. You can of course ignore rules about perspective, and golden rule and other "conventions" and produce great works of art that are abstract and pleasing to the eye and the soul. But that doesn't mean they are an accurate copy. Great art of course is not about photorealism. And maybe that's why your forum is the "Art of Sound". The goal is something pleasing and attractive - not a direct reproduction of the original music.
Lol - not at all, amigo… NOTHING could be further from the truth!! :nono: :nono: :nono:
Have you actually read the ‘Our Ethos’ section of the forum, particularly from post #5 onwards: http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?17-The-basics-of-Ethos
The reason why this forum is called ‘The Art of Sound’ is simply because I (along with the other original founders) believe that there is as much ‘art’ to reproducing recorded music realistically, as there is science. That’s it, plain and simple.
Therefore, just as a talented artist uses a brush and canvas (the latter if its an oil painting) to produce his or her work, so does a discerning audio enthusiast use his or her ears and experience to create their 'art’, in the form of an audio system that has been ‘voiced’ (through judicious equipment and ancillary choices) to faithfully reproduce, as closely as possible, the sound of real instruments and voices.
Essentially, it’s about getting the ‘recipe’ right, rather like a top chef, when creating an award-winning dish - and some dishes capture the REAL taste of their ingredients more than others... ;)
It’s absolutely NOT about creating something that is 'pleasing to the ears’ (eye or soul), but fundamentally unreal/inaccurate, as that would go against not only the whole ethos AoS was founded upon, but EVERYTHING I believe in. However, sometimes in order to achieve the above, one has to ‘think outside of the box’ and apply a methodology, which may go against current ‘best practice’ (as we’re all on a continual learning curve in this game) - and *that* is exactly what others and I have done, when using a DL-103, as I’m by far the only person to have benefited from adopting that approach.
So if your "optimisation" allows the cartridge body to move by microscopic amounts whilst the record is playing - you may optimise the sound you like to hear, but you won't get an accurate reproduction of all that was there on the record in the first place.
So "optimisation" is of the sound you like to hear. Not the sound that was recorded to be listened to. It's about achieving a pleasing effect - not getting an accurate copy. Attractive sound, not High Fidelity. I find I lose too much that is important to me, when I lose information that was on the record, or add unwanted information caused by unwanted movement of a decoupled cartridge body.
I’m not going to dispute the physics (although I’d argue that the behaviour of the 103, when optimised in the way I’ve described, using a high-mass detachable headshell tonearm, is not as bad as you've outlined - or certainly the impact on music reproduced isn’t, which is confirmed when listening), but as usual in audio, everything, to some degree, is a compromise.
Quite simply, fitting a DL-103 to a tonearm that it’s fundamentally not designed to work with (such as an FXR, or any other modern tonearm with similar design principles, as I’m not singling out the FXR), no matter how ‘well designed’ they are in other important aspects, is as much of a compromise as fitting one to a detachable headshell tonearm, whose impact on the behaviour of the cartridge is (arguably) physically sub-optimal, but every other aspect of its design isn’t.
In short, it is my opinion that a DL-103, when partnered (as outlined above) will perform more optimally, sonically, than when fitted to ANY tonearm or turntable system designed via modern concepts. Please understand that this discussion is NOT about ‘the most accurate way to reproduce music contained on vinyl records’, but rather how best to get a 103 to ‘sing’. The two, however, aren’t necessary mutually exclusive.
Like you say, perhaps at some point I’ll get to demonstrate that to you (and in that respect we really should meet up), as for me, these types of sessions are all about mutual learning, and the possibility of discovering that what we had previously considered as ‘fact’, may indeed not be. Intransigence, unfortunately, can often hinder that process :)
Marco.
belloire
13-01-2015, 13:52
it's probably just me, but the way i see it the best way to get a 103 or 103r to sing is to take it off the arm and put a decent cart on.
had both, liked neither.
it's probably just me, but the way i see it the best way to get a 103 or 103r to sing is to take it off the arm and put a decent cart on.
:lolsign:
Very good, Darren!
had both, liked neither.
Yes, but as I said earlier to Clive, and without wishing to sound like a broken record, in which context (or contexts) have you heard a 103, and thus concluded that you didn’t like it?
I ask simply because the DL-103 is one of the fussiest cartridges in existence to get to ‘sing’!
Marco.
Good point and one of the main reasons i did not go there. though sure if done right and plenty have attested to this it can sound superb. Me i'll settle for lower order carts:)
belloire
13-01-2015, 14:19
thing is, why bother with something so fussy when there are so many much more unfussy carts about. i realise the 103 range is 'low end kit' in the general scheme of things, but something like an ortofon quintet red is less than a 103r new and works a treat, without having to spend an age either getting the right arm, or modifying an arm to suit (as arm makers know what they are doing....)
i've got a 2nd hand benz ace sl coming for my PT Export. wipes the floor with either cart in every context i've heard it in.
i'd go as far as to say i hated the 103, just awful.
freefallrob
13-01-2015, 14:42
I must admit to never having heard a 103, I've no idea how I've managed to avoid it all this time;).
walpurgis
13-01-2015, 14:44
it's probably just me, but the way i see it the best way to get a 103 or 103r to sing is to take it off the arm and put a decent cart on.
had both, liked neither.
He He, it's usually me who says rude things about the 103 (and being told off). :D
(I quite like the R though)
walpurgis
13-01-2015, 14:57
I must admit to never having heard a 103, I've no idea how I've managed to avoid it all this time;).
I've had a few. I won't need to again.
Being realistic. In standard form the DL-103 really has no competition at the price. Let's face it what half decent sounding low output MCs worth listening to are there for the money. And yes, I'll admit the 103 is worth listening to. It does nothing unpleasant and does some things rather well. Very tight and punchy bottom, nice mid and a generally musical character.
The Barbarian
13-01-2015, 15:35
Never ever been a MC Fan tbh.. Don't get me wrong they sound nice & all that but ive always been a low mass arm/High compliance MM/MI fanboy..
Spectral Morn
13-01-2015, 15:38
Never ever been a MC Fan tbh.. Don't get me wrong they sound nice & all that but ive always been a low mass arm/High compliance MM/MI fanboy..
Welcome back Andre :D
Regards Neil
Spectral Morn
13-01-2015, 15:55
I have only ever used MCs since upgrading from a Goldring 1042 to a high out put Goldring Erocia to a van Den Hul MC10, rest is history I owned and own Lyra's, Benz, Ortofon, Van Den Hul, and I think of all of them the Benz are the ones I like the most.
Older Lyra's are pretty fussy to use, best sound I ever managed with a Lydian or Clavis was valve MM stage fed via a The Head step up transformer. Not sure about more modern Lyras.
I have never felt any desire to go back to MMs because even the very best lack - imho/e - the finesse of the best MCs, if optimally used and some are a bugger to get right as no doubt are some MMs but for me the pluses out weigh the minuses. I think though that the mentality among some, I got great results with A and B on C should always translate to other arm, cart TT combinations doing the same is poor thinking, each set up needs to be optimised, for everything to sing, just as it does with a certain problem child MC cart......
Re the Denon well most reviews damn with faint praise or say its at best lower second division or upper third division and that was the general consensus among many for years but quiet a few, including Marco have sung and sing its praises so I had ago and guess what, use it in the right way and its a lot of fun, very musical but use it the wrong way and its meh. Do I think its a giant killer? No, not really - I much prefer my dearer MCs but it is very good value for the money and I enjoy using it, in the way Marco and others suggest one can get the best out of it. So there you go.
Regards Neil
walpurgis
13-01-2015, 16:02
What are you using currently Neil?
Spectral Morn
13-01-2015, 16:11
What are you using currently Neil?
Benz Glider on one deck, VDH Frog Gold on another and the Denon DL103 on another. I also have an older Ortofon MC7500 that I quiet like too, though it probably needs re tipped by now.
Regards Neil
walpurgis
13-01-2015, 16:14
Ah. The only one of those I have experience of is the 103. Mind you I have used probably hundreds of other MCs etc.
Spectral Morn
13-01-2015, 16:23
Ah. The only one of those I have experience of is the 103. Mind you I have used probably hundreds of other MCs etc.
When I was working in the trade, during analogues tail end golden period, I heard and installed many, Briars, Kiseki, Koetsu, Miltek, Decca, all types of Ortofon, Audio Technica, Sumiko, I could go on and many I have forgotten, lots of fun. The shop back then in the early 90s had on permanent demo, Michell, Alphason, Manticore, Voyd, Pink Triangle, Oracle, Ariston, Revolver, Oxford, Basis, and lots more. My favourite time period when I was an audio consultant. When I went back to it in the early 2000's and left in 2008 (well it left me) it was less interesting, less fun re the type and flavour of products on sale compared to my early days.
Maybe though that was because it was all new first time round, with so much to explore and the 2000 period had less surprises and genuine exciting discoveries/products.
Regards Neil
thing is, why bother with something so fussy when there are so many much more unfussy carts about.
I see you’ve rather neatly avoided my question……. The problem is that folk make their minds up rather too quickly about what they THINK that they like and don’t like, and have the tendency to be obstinate - and that applies to hi-fi as much as anything else in life.
For example, certain friends have visited us for a meal, for the first time, who *think* that they don’t like the taste of certain green vegetables. Then, after tasting them cooked properly, served drizzled in melted butter, with fresh herbs sprinkled on top (as opposed to the ‘boiled to death and just left there’ way that they grew up with them), they then confess to loving them, and so eat them on every subsequent visit.
Can you see how that principle might also apply to the 103? ;)
Why bother with one? Well, because when you get a 103 ‘singing’ in the right system, it does things musically that no modern cartridges I’ve heard can replicate, including the Benz, although that may do other things better. Therefore, if you really like the sound of 103, when everything is in its favour, then nothing else will do. Simples :)
It’s like saying, here, have Ford Mondeo - it’s a great car, when what you really want is a Morris Minor...!
i realise the 103 range is 'low end kit' in the general scheme of things…
The only ‘low end’ thing about a 103 is its price (and the plastic housing it uses).
...but something like an ortofon quintet red is less than a 103r new and works a treat, without having to spend an age either getting the right arm, or modifying an arm to suit (as arm makers know what they are doing....)
Well, tonearm designers know what they’re doing within certain limitations. When it comes to the DL-103, as it harks from a bygone era where the ‘laws of hi-fi’ were rather different to what they are today, quite simply, there is no substitute for experience - and not all tonearm designers have the necessary experience that enables them to sonically optimise a 103.
i'd go as far as to say i hated the 103, just awful.
Do you hate Brussels sprouts, too? ;)
Marco.
Welcome back Andre :D
+1 :hifive: :yesbruv:
Marco.
walpurgis
13-01-2015, 16:40
When I was working in the trade, during analogues tail end golden period, I heard and installed many, Briars, Kiseki, Koetsu, Miltek, Decca, all types of Ortofon, Audio Technica, Sumiko, I could go on and many I have forgotten, lots of fun. The shop back then in the early 90s had on permanent demo, Michell, Alphason, Manticore, Voyd, Pink Triangle, Oracle, Ariston, Revolver, Oxford, Basis, and lots more. My favourite time period when I was an audio consultant. When I went back to it in the early 2000's and left in 2008 (well it left me) it was less interesting re the type and flavour of products on sale compared to my early days.
Regards Neil
I have to say that my favourite period for Hi-Fi is maybe slightly earlier. I really like the stuff from the late sixties through to early eighties.
As we were talking MCs, there one model I never got to try from back then and that was the Micro Seiki MC-4100 series low output models from around 1970. I gather they were rather nice and I'd still like to try one.
Dave the bass
13-01-2015, 16:46
Do you hate Brussels Sprouts, too? ;)
Marco.
No!... but then again I'm a Southern Hippy Veggie!
Been reading through this thread but still can't find an amount of Mass to add to a stock Arm in a bog standard SL1210 if I wanted to (and I do!) fettle in a 103 or 103R.
Mind you, Mr Old Pink Man's post about Mass (headshell/arm, not religious!) has helped a lot and I now realise I need to make small spacer to get the headshell up higher so so I can get the VTA down a bit as the Cartridge is low in height and I run out of adjustment just as the arm tube starts to level out in // with the record surface.
Any idea of weight I should be aiming for to start with? I have a small sheet of Brass plate and some Aluminum too and I'm good with a file :)
Cheers,
DTB
crikey what a difference! if just poured melted butter and herbs over my cartridge and boy is is singing now! thanks for the tip. :)
Spectral Morn
13-01-2015, 16:49
I have to say that my favourite period for Hi-Fi is maybe slightly earlier. I really like the stuff from the late sixties through to early eighties.
As we were talking MCs, there one model I never got to try from back then and that was the Micro Seiki MC-4100 series low output models from around 1970. I gather they were rather nice and I'd still like to try one.
I was at Art Collage when I ended up working there, first as a Saturday Boy but later on as full time staff. I was into music in a big way at the time late 80's but via a Pansonic music centre (Fidelity before that) but it was CD that sparked my interest in quality HiFi and led me to the shop I ended up working in.... and as they say the rest is history.
I caught sight of and heard vintage stuff when they were sold S/H or traded in via the shop but I missed out on older quality gear first time round. I wish I had been around interested then but as a young teenager I wasn't. I was very young in 1970.
Regards Neil
belloire
13-01-2015, 16:50
no intention to 'avoid' your question. it seems highly likely i've not heard a 103 in it's most specific, magnificent arrangement, as it's so rare. nor am i likely to, as i don't know anybody who is prepared to put the time, effort and money (for extra bodies etc) into it. also, i'm assuming from your 'THINK' comment that you believe i can't think for myself? i'm not capable of changing based on listening.... this is a little harsh as you don't know me at all.
i would however be interested to know/hear what these things 'no modern cart' can produce (i'm making a fairly safe, i think, assumption you've heard more than a couple here....) again, bottom line is what does it do that makes all the bother and hard work worthwhile.
and i love sprouts, though when covered in butter and herbs, it's not exactly sprouts you're tasting is it........
bottom line is, in it's most basic form, on my 1210/jelco 750d i'd rather have a 2m blue than a 103!
Oldpinkman
13-01-2015, 17:10
thing is, why bother with something so fussy when there are so many much more unfussy carts about. i realise the 103 range is 'low end kit' in the general scheme of things, but something like an ortofon quintet red is less than a 103r new and works a treat, without having to spend an age either getting the right arm, or modifying an arm to suit (as arm makers know what they are doing....)
i've got a 2nd hand benz ace sl coming for my PT Export. wipes the floor with either cart in every context i've heard it in.
i'd go as far as to say i hated the 103, just awful.
How nice to see another Pink Triangle user on the forum. It gets shocking lonely at times. Although positively hermit-like trying to share experiences about the arms I use now.
And I agree about the fussy. Maybe if you are an inveterate dabbler for whom the interest is fiddling with bits of kit instead of listening to the music then there is a challenge to be had. I have one cartridge on one arm on one turntable. I'm not interested in owning a fleet. And whilst I daresay Geoffs point was fair - what do you expect for £200. It was OK - far from horrible - but typical of all I don't like in so many of the moving coils I have heard before. As noted , way back on this thread, I have been a long term moving coil avoider - not just the DL103. And now I am discovering the delights of good moving coils (The Dynavector is fairly low compliance). That leads me back to the original point I was making that I think is relevant to the OP
Don't feel you have to get a moving coil just to join the club. Don't look for the lowest expense route into a moving coil for the sake of having a moving coil (and then go to endless extremes trying to tame it into something "special") A good cartridge is a good cartridge. It doesn't have to be moving coil to be good. I would still use the U205 Mk3 or Mk4 if I could get one in decent nick, although I have to say the Dynavector is at least as good (but 5 times the price!!!) :)
And whilst I agree with Marco that system synergy is the key - and everything needs to work together, that doesn't mean your system has to start with a DL103 and work up from there, just because it is decent value and a valid low output moving coil at bargain prices. There are other routes to building a great record player. I am pursuing my own.;)
no intention to 'avoid' your question. it seems highly likely i've not heard a 103 in it's most specific, magnificent arrangement, as it's so rare. nor am i likely to, as i don't know anybody who is prepared to put the time, effort and money (for extra bodies etc) into it. also, i'm assuming from your 'THINK' comment that you believe i can't think for myself? i'm not capable of changing based on listening.... this is a little harsh as you don't know me at all.
I accept your first point (although the sarcasm was unnecessary), but the last bit is absolutely not what I was getting at.…
The point of my green vegetable/Brussels sprouts analogy was to highlight the fact that people often change their minds about what they like and dislike, once they’ve experienced whatever it is in a different context. Therefore, it is possible that if you heard a 103 in a different context from what you’ve been used to (one which allowed you to hear the cartridge properly), that you might actually like it.
That, of course, may not happen, but it’s not outside the boundaries of possibility! ;)
i would however be interested to know/hear what these things 'no modern cart' can produce (i'm making a fairly safe, i think, assumption you've heard more than a couple here....) again, bottom line is what does it do that makes all the bother and hard work worthwhile.
Well, you’re in Leeds, which is only about an hour and a half from me, so why don’t you pop down for a listen? Then you can make up your own mind about the 103. You’d be most welcome, Darren :cool:
and i love sprouts, though when covered in butter and herbs, it's not exactly sprouts you're tasting is it……..
Of course you are, if the butter and herbs are added subtly (which is what good home-cooking is all about), the former merely drizzled on lightly, then it will enhance the flavour of the sprouts (particularly if you criss-cross the tops with a knife, as the butter then soaks into the grooves cut, and oozes out when the sprouts are eaten) - that is providing you like the taste of butter and also the herbs used. In our case, that's usually parsley.
One thing I hate even more than boring sounding hi-fi, is bland tasting food! :)
Marco.
belloire
13-01-2015, 17:17
only just got the export Richard as i've been off belt drives for a while. it's a really lovely thing though, gloss black, with a black sumiko mmt on it. looks and sounds excellent :)
and i love the version of sprouts we seem to deem as 'christmas only' , with bacon and chestnust. YUM!
I agree, so are you coming down for a listen, then? :)
Marco.
No!... but then again I'm a Southern Hippy Veggie!
Been reading through this thread but still can't find an amount of Mass to add to a stock Arm in a bog standard SL1210 if I wanted to (and I do!) fettle in a 103 or 103R.
Mind you, Mr Old Pink Man's post about Mass (headshell/arm, not religious!) has helped a lot and I now realise I need to make small spacer to get the headshell up higher so so I can get the VTA down a bit as the Cartridge is low in height and I run out of adjustment just as the arm tube starts to level out in // with the record surface.
Any idea of weight I should be aiming for to start with? I have a small sheet of Brass plate and some Aluminum too and I'm good with a file :)
Hi Dave,
Sorry, just seen this! Aim for around 17-18g of headshell mass (including the standard weight of your current headshell), and you won’t be far out :)
Yup, you defo need to add a spacer, as you can’t get the Technics arm low enough, with a DL-103, in order to optimise VTA.
Marco.
crikey what a difference! if just poured melted butter and herbs over my cartridge and boy is is singing now! thanks for the tip. :)
:lol: :lol:
Well, you can’t say that on AoS you never get any useful tips! :D
Marco.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.