View Full Version : Headshell heaven with a 1981-vintage DL-103U
For some time [many years now, actually], I've been looking for a fully NOS Denon DL-103U, from 1981, which is essentially a DL-103 mounted in a custom-made Denon headshell, designed to optimise the performance (and looks) of the cartridge.
The other day, much to my delight, I found one:
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/912/7yq8GG.jpg
Close-up of headshell:
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/661/0rLXCc.jpg
And from another angle:
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/538/YZssrR.jpg
In terms of housing the cartridge, the dimensions of the headshell have been designed to fit the DL-103 as neatly as possible, supporting it optimally at all angles, and also allowing sufficient space for neatly arranging the headshell wires:
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/661/tQ1LcW.jpg
I think the whole shebang looks rather sexy, and should be wonderful on the end of my Ortofon tonearm. Nice, proper man-sized finger lift, too! :)
Most importantly, and this is a theory I've wanted to test for a while, I've always wondered if the design (under the hood, as it were) of the DL-103 has changed in recent times, and by that I mean the materials used in the generator and magnet assembly, specifically if current varieties still use Alnico magnets, which I've always considered as contributing significantly to the traditional sound of a DL-103.
Now, of course, short of dismantling the whole thing, which I'm not equipped or prepared to do, I can't prove that one way or the other. However, I can directly compare this 1981 version, side by side in the same system with a 'modern' DL-103, purchased in the last year and mounted in a separate detachable headshell, and see if there is any fundamentally obvious difference in their sonic presentation.
So, folks, stand by for a full report on that (once the cartridge and headshell lands from Japan), together with some updated pics of my turntable, DL103U fitted, and positioned on its new solid-maple wallshelf! :cool:
Marco.
PaulStewart
29-08-2015, 10:48
Looks fabulous mate, I loved those back in the day, really looking forward to hearing your report.
topoxforddoc
29-08-2015, 12:02
Looking very cool! Like it.
walpurgis
29-08-2015, 12:12
That's rather nice Marco, very smart.
As for whether the DL-103 has changed over the years. I bought my first about 35 years ago and from recollection (possibly rose tinted :)), it sounded better than the modern example I had a year or two back. The old one was definitely better finished, with a very smart body moulding in comparison the the recent ones I've seen. I think the body seems thinner on new ones too.
Cheers, Guys. I'm rather chuffed to have landed one, as they're rarer than hen's teeth...! :eek: However, they're about the best thing there is to get a 103 singing.
As for whether the DL-103 has changed over the years. I bought my first about 35 years ago and from recollection (possibly rose tinted :)), it sounded better than the modern example I had a year or two back. The old one was definitely better finished, with a very smart body moulding in comparison the the recent ones I've seen. I think the body seems thinner on new ones too.
That's also essentially what I've been discovering. Don't get me wrong, the 'new' ones still sound great, but there's something lacking to my ears in comparison, and it's in the bass and midrange area, where the current ones seem to miss out on the 'heft', power and authority, and beguiling 'midrange liquidity', of how I remember 103s sounding in the 80s.
Like you say, it could well be down to nostalgia, but if in recent years Denon have, say, moved from using Alnicos to rare-earth magnets, in order to cut costs, that in my experience (along with what you've observed) would help explain what appears to be a slight step-change in sound.
It may have happened when Denon merged with Marantz in 2002: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%26M_Holdings Perhaps quality went a bit downhill then? Before then, the company was Denon Nippon Columbia Co Ltd, and had strong connections with the music and film industries.
I'm confident that if I'm right, I'll be able to hear any noticeable differences in repeated A/B/A comparisons (with all other variables the same), over say, the course of a week, so it should be interesting! :cool:
Marco.
Nice find Marco,
But I wouldn't get too excited - the DL103U was a packaging of the DL103 cartridge with Denon's own headshell, just as the DL103T was the 103 cartridge packaged with a Denon SUT.
Whether the headshell supplied was designed to be an optimal match with the cartridge is moot. The headshell differs from that supplied with other Denon arms (even the professional arms Denon made for broadcast use), and apart from aesthetics, I would be surprised if the cartridge performed any better than it would in, say, the Fidelity Research S/3 (20.6g) or S/4 headshell (14.6g) or even the magnesium ADC LMG headshell. However I will be interested in your findings, especially if you can try it in your FR S/3 shell for comparison. Do you know the mass of the Denon headshell?
Alnico magnets do not cost more than the rare earth types, in fact it is more likely to be the opposite. Rare earth magnets are more powerful (that is, have a greater energy density (B-H product per gram)) than cobalt types, so a smaller and hence lighter magnet can be used.
It is of course quite possible that the quality of the Denon cartridges declined after the acquisition of Denon by Marantz; sadly a phenomenon not exclusive to Denon. :(
Hi Barry,
Cheers! :)
But I wouldn't get too excited - the DL103U was a packaging of the DL103 cartridge with Denon's own headshell, just as the DL103T was the 103 cartridge packaged with a Denon SUT.
Yup, I'm fully aware of that.
However, it's still a rather rare thing and was introduced during the 'heyday' of vinyl replay, when 'accessories' and quirky things like that used to be housed inside glass display cabinets (often behind the counter) in proper hi-fi shops. As you well know, such shops used to sell, and indeed demonstrate, an array of different cartridges. Yes, those were the days all right, sadly now gone.... :(
That was where I first saw a DL103U (in The Music Room in Glasgow, circa 1982), and since then I've always wanted one!
Whether the headshell supplied was designed to be an optimal match with the cartridge is moot. The headshell differs from that supplied with other Denon arms (even the professional arms Denon made for broadcast use)...
Well, the main difference is that what I've got is a proper solid-magnesium headshell, so nice and inert and, most importantly, low-resonance, unlike the flimsy lightweight aluminium ones you're referring to which, IMO, acted more as 'afterthought' on the lovely arms you've mentioned ;)
My view is that the 'U' was better engineered and constructed than any other Denon headshell, and that that will have an impact on the performance of the partnering DL-103.
...and apart from aesthetics, I would be surprised if the cartridge performed any better than it would in, say, the Fidelity Research S/3 (20.6g) or S/4 headshell (14.6g) or even the magnesium ADC LMG headshell. However I will be interested in your findings, especially if you can try it in your FR S/3 shell for comparison.
Well, it's interesting you should mention that, as I was going to use my S/3 for the forthcoming cartridge comparison! I'll certainly let you know how I get on.
Do you know the mass of the Denon headshell?
10.5g, although after listening to it 'as is', I shall likely be adding a bit more mass, as is in keeping with established thinking on DL-103s.
Alnico magnets do not cost more than the rare earth types, in fact it is more likely to be the opposite.
Interesting; I thought it was more the other way round.
Alnico magnets are usually the more desirable amongst aficionados (for their unique sound quality), certainly for example, when it comes to vintage Tannoy DC speakers. Also, in Tannoy's current Prestige range, the difference between going from Turnberrys to Kensington SEs, which are nearly double the price, is that the latter use Alnico magnets and Pepperpot tweeters.
That would be a rather strange thing for a company to do, such as Tannoy, if Alnico magnets weren't considered as being superior, and also were actually more expensive? :scratch:
It is of course quite possible that the quality of the Denon cartridges declined after the acquisition of Denon by Marantz; sadly a phenomenon not exclusive to Denon.
Indeed, and if sonically that proves to be the case, after I've carried out my comparison and reported it here, I can see prices going up on DL-103s 'of a certain vintage'... Serial numbers will be getting severely scrutinised! :eyebrows:
Marco.
The Black Adder
29-08-2015, 15:40
Oooh..!! Very nice.
I'll have a listen at that when I come over. :)
No worries, dude. Best to have our sesh when it arrives, and also my new T/T wall shelf is up. I should have both in the next couple of weeks :)
Marco.
Hi Barry,
Cheers! :)
Interesting; I thought it was more the other way round.
Certainly, Alnico magnets are usually the more desirable amongst aficionados (for their unique sound quality), certainly for example, when it comes to vintage Tannoy DC speakers. Also, in Tannoy's current Prestige range, the difference between going from Turnberrys to Kensington SEs, which are nearly double the price, is that the latter use Alnico magnets and Pepperpot tweeters.
That would be a rather strange thing for a company to do, such as Tannoy, would it not, if Alnico magnets weren't considered as being superior? :scratch:
Suspect it is the machining of the 'pepperpot' in the magnet that is the reason for the increased cost. Permanent magnets are brittle, machining them damages their magnetism, so they have to be re-magnetised afterwards. Rare earth magnets are incredibly brittle, far more so than alnico types, that I would be surprised if the pepperpot could be drilled in them. Maybe that is why Tannoy have returned to using alnico magnets. Rare earth types would have to be cast into the required shape, and I imagine no magnet manufacturer (such as the German company Vakuumschmeltz) would be prepared to do so for comparatively small quantities. (It took SME a very long time to find someone willing to cast the magnesium arm tubes in limited numbers.)
Agree with you about the 'good old days' when proper (and professional) audio dealers had the cartridges in a nice glass display case and would only sell you a pair of speakers after you had given them a home audition. They would take time to sit down with you, ask about your listening habits, your tastes in music, where the speakers would be situated and after advising you and demonstrating suitable items of kit, would usually deliver and install the kit for you.
Sadly those days have gone, they went with the coming of 'brown box marketing' and the discount warehouse selling of the '70s. :(
Fair enough, that could indeed be the reason, as far as Tannoy today are concerned. I still think that Alnicos sound best though, all else being equal :)
Marco.
I'm still looking for a good match for my DL-110, currently sitting in a Sumiko headshell.
A Denon headshell would seem a sensible choice no?
I'm still looking for a good match for my DL-110, currently sitting in a Sumiko headshell.
A Denon headshell would seem a sensible choice no?
The 110 responds well to a hard wood shell Rich as does the 160
Sure, Rich, but also something such as an Audio Technica MG-10, which is what I'm using with the Denon DL-S1, fitted to my Techy, you raved about at the last Nebo! ;)
Marco.
Haselsh1
29-08-2015, 16:42
OK so not wanting to divert the thread more responding to Barry's comment about the brown box brigade from the 70's, but we used to have a really damn fine hi-fi dealer here in Grimsby called Mander's Hi-Fi (I have no connection) who would seriously go out of their way to make sure your requirements were fully met. I make no excuse for mentioning them by name because I was always very happy to deal with them to the sum of many hundreds of pounds but just lately they have gone into white goods in a big way because to be honest, I don't think they can compete with the likes that Barry mentions. I don't know what the answer is but there has to be one. So, apologies and let's get back on track.
walpurgis
29-08-2015, 17:23
Fair enough, that could indeed be the reason, as far as Tannoy today are concerned. I still think that Alnicos sound best though, all else being equal :)
Marco.
I would have agreed until fairly recently, but the ceramic magnet duals I run currently sound every bit as good as any of the best Alnico variants I've owned.
Fair enough, mate. I may also agree if I heard them. I can only comment on my experience so far, which indicates that Alnicos have a 'musicality' and tone all of their own :)
The Alnicos in my vintage SPU-G/T also make it sound superior, to my ears, than the rare-earth magnets used in the (one down from flagship) current Royal GM MKII, which I sold. In short, it seems to be that anytime Alnicos are in the equation, it results in what I perceive to be a truly superb sound!
What'll be interesting is if that's also what I think of the 'vintage 103', in comparison with its younger brother..... We shall see! :cool:
Marco.
walpurgis
29-08-2015, 17:51
Alnico s rule man
One of the earlier debates about this revolved around the Lowther PM6 drivers, when they introduced the ceramic version. I owned both Alnico and ceramic and to be honest heard no difference.
I guess, like anything else, it depends on how it's implemented :)
Marco.
Here are some facts: http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?3845-Basics-amp-General-Permanent-Magnets.
As far as I'm concerned a magnetic field is a magnetic field, how it is created should not make any difference.
In my experience it does, though. Perhaps you're not looking at it in the right way? I don't know. That's when applying some lateral thinking can often be beneficial.
It's simply too much a coincidence that I love all sorts of kit which features the use of Alnico magnets, especially when Ortofon's top SPU (as it was when I bought it) sounded distinctly inferior to me than my vintage one does, whilst the former sported rare-earth magnets and (on paper) a much superior stylus, and so technically, should've trounced the 'golden oldie'.
Also look at Grant's vintage Telefunken speakers, which sound stunning, and also use Alnicos....Too many 'convenient coincidences', Barry.
'Facts' only exist as such until new information arrives that requires them to be revised and updated...And as we know, measurements only ever tell part of the story, so it could be simply that, in this instance, 'facts' haven't yet caught up with the results of people's valid experiences, which call into question certain aspects of the true validity of said 'facts', in relation to how Alnico magnets 'behave' in an audio sense [in audio applications] ;)
If you do some research on the Internet, you'll find many other enthusiasts who consider Alnicos 'special', which are revered for their unique sound (when applied to hi-fi), in the way many other items are revered that seem to be better than most of what is used in audio equipment today.
Anyway, I guess that we'll simply have to agree to disagree on this one. I'll ask Anthony if he can come up with a plausible technical explanation as to why he also considers Alnico magnets sonically superior to others :)
Marco.
Here's a thing... What if, when I compare my 1981 DL-103 against a 2014 version, and consider the former as being significantly sonically superior? I'm not just talking here about subtle differences.
That *shouldn't* be the case, but it could happen. The question is, if it does, what do you think would be the likely mechanism for causing that sonic superiority? It's not going to be a slightly thinner outer shell, or something minor like that, that's for sure.
And let's not forget the 'facts' state that, on paper, both cartridges are identical... ;)
Marco.
Nice!
This would look the business on my DP-2000 TT and AT-1005 arm and no doubt sound great pumped through my HA-500
Guy
PaulStewart
30-08-2015, 08:41
Here are some facts: http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?3845-Basics-amp-General-Permanent-Magnets.
As far as I'm concerned a magnetic field is a magnetic field, how it is created should not make any difference.
Have to disagree Barry, back in the late seventies, we did a lot of research of rare earth magnets, as did other manufacturers, as of course smaller and lighter had advantages. Sony used Samarium Cobalt for the original Walkman headphones, tiny by comparison to what was around, highly efficient and dynamic and very light. At JVC we used it in the MC1 and 2 cartridges and, notably in the Zero5 ribbon tweeter,which is were my research was aimed. Versions of that fairy amazing tweeter made with alnico, were larger snd heavier, but did not saturate as much as the smaller SC version. Alnico seems to handle magnetic saturation better, in my experience than smaller and lighter rare earth equivalents.
I think this is why alnico gives a better sound quality/performance than rare earths, it's not just about saturation, but also how that saturation is handled. Like much in audio recording and reproduction, it's down to how energy is controlled. Having said that, some rare earths do perform as well as alnico in this respect, but are too expensive to use in speakers. I will be very interested in Marco's evaluation of the vintage vs. new 103
I think this is why alnico gives a better sound quality/performance than rare earths, it's not just about saturation, but also how that saturation is handled.
Interesting, Paul. There could be something in that. As you know, I'm not a technical person, but I *know* what I can fundamentally hear, and usually have pretty reliable senses when it comes to identifying the subtleties in audio reproduction.
Sometimes, for those of an engineering/scientific bent (and I don't include you in this), there is a tendency for thinking too much in terms of 'black and white', such as with, no disrespect to Barry, his assertion that 'a magnetic field is a magnetic field'. Sometimes in audio, one has to look beyond the 'obvious', to that which is less obvious, in order to find the true answers :)
Yes, I shall certainly keep you posted, in due course, as to my findings when I assess both cartridges.
Marco.
Here's a thing... What if, when I compare my 1981 DL-103 against a 2014 version, and consider the former as being significantly sonically superior? I'm not just talking here about subtle differences.
That *shouldn't* be the case, but it could happen. The question is, if it does, what do you think would be the likely mechanism for causing that sonic superiority? It's not going to be a slightly thinner outer shell, or something minor like that, that's for sure.
And let's not forget the 'facts' state that, on paper, both cartridges are identical... ;)
I also have a 1979 Denon 103 to compare against the newer ones and in my case
, my old one sounds better.
That's interesting, King, and bodes well for my own forthcoming comparisons :)
In support of Alnicos sounding different (and more sonically desirable), this guy Rajiv is in tune with my views: http://www.hifivision.com/av-lounge/52195-alnico-neo-ferrite-magnets-sound-different.html
To my ear, field-coils, Alnico, and neodymium magnets are all noticeably better than ceramic magnets - for lack of a better word, they have a "fresher", more vivid, more colorful sound. The field coils sound a bit quieter, more understated, while the Alnicos have a more vivid, more colorful sound. Neo sounds partway to the duller sound of ceramic, while having a fair amount of Alnico's vividness.
Yup, and it's that "vividness" (I'd call it 'dynamic alacrity') and colour [but not coloration, which is different - I'd call it 'life'], which I love with Alnicos. I'd also add into the equation traits such as 'power and authority', especially in the low-bass registers, all of which are lacking, to some degree, to my ears, with other types of magnets.
Also, if guitar pick-ups, using different magnet materials, can sound notably different, as outlined here: https://www.watfordvalves.com/products.asp?ID=4&man=49
...then surely the same must apply in high-end audio applications, if not necessarily to the same 'colourfully described' degree!
Marco.
Interesting thread! In the past I recall, on three separate occasions, thinking 'wow, that sounds really very, very good' when listening to a speaker or cartridge for the first time, only to later read up and find there was an alnico magnet involved.
More recently, I just bought a nice old 'alnico' SPU GE on this forum. TBH, I was expecting it to be a bit lush compared to the modern ones, and probably a bit dull and rounded due to it being well used and worn. However, I was pleasantly surprised by its lovely dynamics and sheer 'life'. So impressed, in fact, that I've just bought another today, this time the GTE. :D
Hi Peter,
Interesting thread! In the past I recall, on three separate occasions, thinking 'wow, that sounds really very, very good' when listening to a speaker or cartridge for the first time, only to later read up and find there was an alnico magnet involved.
Ditto (with bells on). What you've just written also reflects my personal experience.
More recently, I just bought a nice old 'alnico' SPU GE on this forum. TBH, I was expecting it to be a bit lush compared to the modern ones, and probably a bit dull and rounded due to it being well used and worn. However, I was pleasantly surprised by its lovely dynamics and sheer 'life'. So impressed, in fact, that I've just bought another today, this time the GTE. :D
Lol! I found the exact same thing when I moved from using a brand new SPU Royal GM MKII, as good as it was, to a 1956 vintage SPU-G/T. Dull or a bit lush the latter is not! In fact, I remember Barry commenting that he was rather shocked at how dynamic it sounded when he heard mine for the first time :)
It never ceases to amaze me how so much old gear is automatically labelled by folk as being 'dull and lush', out of sheer ignorance, when often the very opposite is true! IME, some of the best vintage gear, when they got it right, is still very hard to beat today. The key is to judge it in the right context! Unfortunately, not many people can be arsed putting in the required effort, and so form opinions based on flawed evaluation conditions.
I think the responses here show that there is definitely something in the notion of Alnicos having a rather desirable and 'special' sound. The question is, technically, why is that so? :hmm:
Marco.
The 110 responds well to a hard wood shell Rich as does the 160
Sure, Rich, but also something such as an Audio Technica MG-10, which is what I'm using with the Denon DL-S1, fitted to my Techy, you raved about at the last Nebo! ;)
Marco.
Thanks guys.
I did try it in my MG-10 and didn't like that at all. With my at440mla however it is excellent.
Maybe I'll try a wooden one as Grant suggests.
Haselsh1
30-08-2015, 14:07
A magnetic field is a magnetic field is a magnetic field... absolutely correct but there is magnetic field stability to take into account as those people at CERN proved.
In my experience it does, though. Perhaps you're not looking at it in the right way? I don't know. That's when applying some lateral thinking can often be beneficial.
It's simply too much a coincidence that I love all sorts of kit which features the use of Alnico magnets, especially when Ortofon's top SPU (as it was when I bought it) sounded distinctly inferior to me than my vintage one does, whilst the former sported rare-earth magnets and (on paper) a much superior stylus, and so technically, should've trounced the 'golden oldie'.
Also look at Grant's vintage Telefunken speakers, which sound stunning, and also use Alnicos....Too many 'convenient coincidences', Barry.
'Facts' only exist as such until new information arrives that requires them to be revised and updated...And as we know, measurements only ever tell part of the story, so it could be simply that, in this instance, 'facts' haven't yet caught up with the results of people's valid experiences, which call into question certain aspects of the true validity of said 'facts', in relation to how Alnico magnets 'behave' in an audio sense [in audio applications] ;)
If you do some research on the Internet, you'll find many other enthusiasts who consider Alnicos 'special', which are revered for their unique sound (when applied to hi-fi), in the way many other items are revered that seem to be better than most of what is used in audio equipment today.
Anyway, I guess that we'll simply have to agree to disagree on this one. I'll ask Anthony if he can come up with a plausible technical explanation as to why he also considers Alnico magnets sonically superior to others :)
Marco.
I'm not disputing that some listeners can distinguish between Alnico magnets and rare-earth magnets, and prefer the 'sound' of those devices using Alnico magnets.
My question, which I'm not expecting you to answer, is how does the source of this static magnetic field cause the 'sound' to change? Do audio systems change their sound when the mains supply is changed from that generated from burning coal to that generated by nuclear power?
Haselsh1
30-08-2015, 14:22
I'm not disputing that some listeners can distinguish between Alnico magnets and rare-earth magnets, and prefer the 'sound' of those devices using Alnico magnets.
My question, which I'm not expecting you to answer, is how does the source of this static magnetic field cause the 'sound' to change? Do audio systems change their sound when the mains supply is changed from that generated from burning coal to that generated by nuclear power?
There are many people out there from a scientific background who claim that to hear a difference between copper cables is simple bullshit however that cable has been drawn out. Loudspeaker or interconnect, there is simply no difference. If that is indeed true, how the hell can a magnetic field affect sound quality and tonal quality. I seriously have my doubts but alas, I have no answers.
Have to disagree Barry, back in the late seventies, we did a lot of research of rare earth magnets, as did other manufacturers, as of course smaller and lighter had advantages. Sony used Samarium Cobalt for the original Walkman headphones, tiny by comparison to what was around, highly efficient and dynamic and very light. At JVC we used it in the MC1 and 2 cartridges and, notably in the Zero5 ribbon tweeter,which is were my research was aimed. Versions of that fairy amazing tweeter made with alnico, were larger snd heavier, but did not saturate as much as the smaller SC version. Alnico seems to handle magnetic saturation better, in my experience than smaller and lighter rare earth equivalents.
I think this is why alnico gives a better sound quality/performance than rare earths, it's not just about saturation, but also how that saturation is handled. Like much in audio recording and reproduction, it's down to how energy is controlled. Having said that, some rare earths do perform as well as alnico in this respect, but are too expensive to use in speakers. I will be very interested in Marco's evaluation of the vintage vs. new 103
Interesting observation Paul, but what I don't understand is the phrase "handle magnetic saturation better". I thought permanent magnets were saturated so as to provide maximum field strength (remenance) and make it difficult for them to become de-magnetised.
But it does seem that the general consensus is that devices employing alnico magnets sound better than those employing rare-earth magnets and the latter sound better than those employing ceramic (ferrite) magnets. I'm not disputing these findings, but being of a curious nature, I wonder why.
Same here, although at the end of the day I employ a rather simple philosophy, and that is if it sounds better, it *is* better. So worry not, and just enjoy the better sound! :)
My question, which I'm not expecting you to answer, is how does the source of this static magnetic field cause the 'sound' to change? Do audio systems change their sound when the mains supply is changed from that generated from burning coal to that generated by nuclear power?
Haven't tried that one yet, but leave it with me! ;)
Marco.
Ok, some good news and bad news....
First of all, when the seller was testing the cartridge on his meter (as he thought he should do on a cartridge that old), prior to shipping, he discovered that it only had output on one channel. He also tested it playing a record, unfortunately with the same result.
I do, however, admire his diligence and exemplary level of service....! All I can presume is that something must've perished or dropped out internally with age, as can sometimes happen with these things.
Drats... :doh:
However, he offered me an excellent deal on a minty-mint (limited edition) NOS Denon DL-103C1, which I have accepted. This is from 1991, so still well within the desirable production era of Nippon Columbia Co Ltd, before (I suspect) things went a little 'tits up', quality-wise, in 2002, after Denon's merger with Marantz.
It's actually a far better cartridge:
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/537/xIRZKM.jpg
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/538/FH6pt5.jpg
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/911/uwj4jG.jpg
This is a truly lovely thing. It has a carbon-composite body, almost identical to that used on the DL-103GL, and vastly superior to the plastic shell of the stock 103. It also has "Class 1" LC-OFC internal copper wiring, which is said to be the highest-grade copper, maximising signal integrity more than the LC-OFC wiring used in a 103R.
At 0.25mV, it's also lower output than the stock 103, which of course means fewer coil turns (less wire) and, one would assume, a more detailed sound.
He also chucked in some NOS (1980s) Audio Technica AT609 solid-silver headshell leads, for my inconvenience:
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/913/LFkRbm.jpg
So I couldn't be more delighted! :yay:
Only thing is that my intended comparisons between 'old and new' 103s have gone for a burton, as now there are too many different variables. The 103-C1 should sound significantly better, however, for reasons outlined above.
Anyway, I have a sexy new headshell, cartridge and headshell leads on the way... I guess that the 'bad news' wasn't so bad after all! :cool:
Marco.
walpurgis
31-08-2015, 14:22
That's a shame and yet that's good Marco! :D
I wonder if he blew the Denon himself by using a meter on it. It's not unheard of for the fine lead out wires from the windings to fuse if a meter is used, even on that tiny amount of current.
Possibly, Geoff. However, I certainly don't feel I've 'lost out' over it! ;)
Marco.
So you're going to have a DL-103C1 in the sameDenon headshell as would have come with the DL-103U? Looks interesting Marco - I will belooking forward to hearing your findings and comparison with your DS1 (?).
Cheers
Barry
Hi Barry,
Yup, the same headshell as pictured earlier (103U), but now with the DL-103C1 cartridge (shown above). Should be a rather nice combo! :cool:
Marco.
Na .. it'll be rubbish ... unless, of course, it has alnico in it somewhere :D
Continuity testing a 14 ohm, fine wire coil was a seriously stupid thing to do, BTW.
Lol... If it's pish, do you want it? :eyebrows:
Perhaps it was a daft thing to do, but maybe the cartridge was faulty even before he tested it? I can't really criticise the guy for being thorough. The last thing I'd have wanted is to receive a faulty cartridge either way.
Marco.
Na .. it'll be rubbish ... unless, of course, it has alnico in it somewhere :D
Continuity testing a 14 ohm, fine wire coil was a seriously stupid thing to do, BTW.
If an analogue meter was used, yes - but if a digital meter was used the current would be a lot less: I have checked the coils of my EMT cartridge (24 ohm) using a digital multimeter without problem.
If one is simply interested in testing for continuity (rather than measuring the actual value), then a current limiting resistor of a couple of a few 100kOhm can be used in series.
That looks very interesting Marco!
And i wonder if the exterior is not the exact same as for my higly appreciated SA. Seems the material differs slightly though, as the SA has fibre glass reinforced resin of some kind.
Looking forward to reading up on your impressions!
/Mike
Both are very similar, Mike. The 'C1' has a carbon-composite body, and the 'SA' a glass-fibre composite one. Other than that (and the colour), both cartridges are identical, in terms of spec, so I've essentially got an SA on the cheap! :eyebrows:
I always did regret disposing of mine.
Marco.
Well, folks, they've landed safely! The package has slipped through customs too, and come direct to me, which is what I find happens when you're willing to wait a little longer and don't use 'fancy-dancy' expedited shipping... :yay:
Both cartridge and headshell look 'as new', as if they came out of the factory yesterday. Awesome! Ok, now to set up the whole shebang and do some listening... Full report (with pics) later :cool:
Marco.
Ok, as you can gather by the time of this post, I've been up having a late-night listening session, and it's now into the early morning, so something must be right, I suppose? :eyebrows: Damn right, it's all sounding rather tasty indeed!
I must spend a few moments praising the phenomenal 'SME-standards' of engineering quality present on the '103U' headshell... It's brushed solid-magnesium finish, and amazingly smooth and tactile feel is simply superb, making it a joy to use, especially with its chunky 'man-sized' finger lift, which ably facilitates safe and accurate hand-cueing, providing that you have a suitably steady hand.
Hopefully, when I take some pictures later I'll be able to capture just how sexy it looks, on the end of my Ortofon tonearm! :)
So how does its combination with the 'C1' cartridge sound?
It's light now, and I really should be getting some sleep, so I'll keep it brief until I have more chance to go into proper detail. However, what's rather obvious to me is that the 'C1' is in a different league altogether from any DL-103 I've used, including a more modern 'SA' that I enjoyed using very much two years ago.
The bass authority and power in the lower-registers, along with its near-Decca like explicitness and midrange clarity, is beguiling, as is its sense of musical control and 'flow'. In that respect, reminding me very much of my SPU-G/T, as the 'C1' exhibits the same 'unflappability' and tracking stability, when the going gets tough with 'difficult' material, such as demanding large-scale crescendos, during my favourite pieces of classical music.
However, the way it beautifully layers recorded music with a silky richness, but not in a sense of being in any way overblown, and the filigree detailing this cartridge teases out of musical mixes, is extremely addictive. However, it's that commanding authority and ability to 'carry a tune', as well as its rhythmic adroitness, that sets it apart from any other 103 I've used, and that in many ways takes me back to that 'sound' I had in my head, from my early days of using DL-103s in the 1980s, and which I've found missing somewhat with current production ones, that is extremely satisfying.
Of course there are too many variables in the equation now to say for sure whether the superb sound I'm hearing is attributed to any 'vintage superiority', in terms of the materials used in the design of the 'C1', or what the influence is of the partnering, beautifully constructed, headshell, but let's just say that what I'm hearing is suitably 'special' enough to indicate that something is fundamentally different with the 'C1' in comparison with the results I've achieved to date with any other DL-103.
Ok, it's bo-bo time... With any luck my new HiFi Racks Podium turntable wall-shelf (with matching isolation plinth) will arrive later, so I'll hopefully be able to take some pics of that and the T/T in situ, fitted with the DL-103C1 and headshell. More later, but until then.... :goodnight:
Marco.
So, to summarise ... it's quite nice, and will probably do the job :D
Aye, x10, lol! :eyebrows:
Marco.
Ok, I've just spent the afternoon doing some fine-tuning, which as you guys know, with T/Ts and cartridges, can make all the difference, just by finding that sweet spot where the sound 'clicks into focus', and as usual, that effort has paid off! :)
First of all, I swapped the stock (thin and rather cheap) stock headshell leads, which came with the cartridge, for the solid-silver AT-609 lead wire, which the seller kindly gave me for my earlier inconvenience. Whenever I do this job it never ceases to amaze me how much difference a couple of inches of wire makes... :eek:
Before the swap, although to all intents and purposes the sound was excellent, there was a slight grainy quality to the upper-treble and a somewhat opaque tinge to vocals. The bass also wasn't quite as taut as it should be. However, that's all gone now, and the sound is really crystal-clear and 'focussed', allowing me now to really appreciate what this cartridge can do.
Next, I added some further damping, and a touch more mass to the headshell, by fitting an Isokinetik graphite cartridge stabiliser:
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/903/ielB5O.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/p3ielB5Oj)
Some blurb on what this little chap is designed to do:
HDG or High Density Graphite carbon.
The graphite material, which is formed of microscopic spheres, has a high capacity for dissipation of vibration and is excellent at dampening vibration.
Unwanted vibrations have the most deleterious effect within the music reproduction chain, Graphite absorbs mechanical vibration and reduces much of this vibration form entering the Hi Fi system.
I've used these devices before, always to good effect, and this time it was no different. The stabiliser weighs 1.8g, so including the longer (and thus heavier) allen bolts I had to use, in order to thread them through the cartridge body and the stabiliser itself, and the stock weight of the headshell (10.5g), I've now achieved 13.5g of mass, which for the moment seems satisfactory, although I may add a touch more later.
However, the effect of fitting the stabiliser has certainly been beneficial, sonically.
Beforehand, I could detect a slightly 'shouty' quality on highly modulated material, making vocals a touch too 'forced' and spotlit, which from experience I could tell was due to the 103 not having sufficient mass applied to perform optimally. That is now gone, and not only that, the sound has opened up a touch and become more 'widescreen', with increased 'air and space' around voices and instruments and greater overall 'focus' - an effect that I attribute to the introduction of the cartridge stabiliser, reducing distortion, as a result of less vibration muddying the music signal.
Lastly, I've increased VTF from 2.6g, to 2.65g, with bias set at 2.5g, which has given the sound a little more overall solidity.
Anyway, the cumulative effect of all of the above has really got the 'C1' singing. I'm enjoying every minute of listening to it, and has now become a valuable addition to my (growing) Denon cartridge collection :cool:
Marco.
Nice write up Marco. I have my eye on one of those graphite thingies myself.
They're ridiculously expensive for what they are, Grant (probably due to being made in such tiny quantities), and of course anything that's bespoke-built for hi-fi purposes, unfortunately carries a price premium... However they definitely do what it says on the tin!
Highly recommended :)
Marco.
A link, if anyone is interested: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/ISOKINETIK-GRAPHITE-CARTRIDGE-STABILISER-FOR-ALL-TONEARMS-A-MUST-HAVE-UPGRADE-/171336377021
Marco.
I've also treated myself to one of these record weights, which is due to arrive tomorrow. I thought it would go well with my Nagaoka crystal glass mat, plus it's got a handy bit for removing fluff from your stylus:
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/537/Z5wv4e.jpg
:cool:
Marco.
Bluebeat13
10-09-2015, 07:06
Carpet?!
Lol - I know it looks a bit like that, but I would hope it's much softer! I'll let you know when it arrives later today :)
Marco.
'Ere you go! 3mm graphite sheet..... ;)
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/like/301731982087?adgroupid=&hlpht=true&hlpv=2&rlsatarget=&ul_ref=http%253A%252F%252Frover.ebay.com%252Frover %252F1%252F710-134428-41853-0%252F2%253Fipn%253Dicep%2526icep_id%253D67%2526mt id%253D1673%2526kwid%253D1%2526crlp%253D5060020458 6_563391%2526icep_item_id%253D301731982087%2526ite mid%253D301731982087%2526icep_meta_categ_id%253D14 339%2526icep_etrs%253DN%2526icep_epid%253D-999%2526icep_ctlg%253D-999%2526icep_cond%253DNew%2526targetid%253D7595144 8986%2526rlsatarget%253D%2526rpc%253D0.16%2526rpc_ upld_id%253D54864%2526device%253Dt%2526icep_msku_f lag%253Dn%2526icep_cbt%253Dn%2526adtype%253Dpla%25 26loc%253D%2526poi%253D%2526campaignid%253D%2526ad groupid%253D%2526gclid%253DCL-inIzK7McCFQsTGwod_T4PYw%2526srcrot%253D710-134428-41853-0%2526rvr_id%253D895340431115&adtype=pla&ff3=1&lpid=122&poi=&ul_noapp=true&limghlpsr=true&device=t&chn=ps&campaignid=&crdt=0&ff12=67&ff11=ICEP3.0.0-L&ff14=122&viphx=1&ops=true&ff13=80
Yes, and now you can machine it to an immaculate finish, and then into something that can be used for the intended purpose! I live quite near some Welsh slate mines, Neal. Next time I'm passing, I'll grab a bit for a tenner and you can turn it into a turntable plinth for me!! ;)
Anyway, the Nagaoka record weight arrived, and it's a truly beautifully made thing, as I find with all Nagaoka products. Plus, they always represent such excellent value for money, as indeed do their fantastic cartridges :)
Marco.
I'll sharpen me chisel and get the hammer out then :D
Quality! :eyebrows:
Marco.
First of the turntable itself, showing it in its current state, with MN ETP platter and Nagaoka glass mat [note our ginger tomcat, Emrys, to the right]:
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/540/Ty73gn.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/f0Ty73gnj)
Next, the DL-103C1 inside 103U headshell:
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/909/92Baak.jpg
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/910/YUrzvN.jpg
And one showing more of the Ortofon arm (and Nagaoka RC-401 record weight), plus a bit of my new T/T wall shelf (temporarily propped up against the wall):
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/540/UsaJ3R.jpg
Very pleased with this new headshell and cartridge. It has the bonus of also having a different musical presentation from my other cartridges - and one which is extremely addictive! :cool:
Marco.
Nice headshell. How different is it to your other Denon?
The headshell's a belter, Grant. The long finger-lift makes it a piece of piss to hand-cue records, and the whole shebang feels nice and tactile to use. If you look closely, you'll also see the graphite stabiliser... :)
As for the C1, in comparison with the DL-S1.... If you're familiar with the sonic presentation of Denon MCs, the C1 sounds like a stock 103, but with much better midrange 'attack', projection, clarity and bass extension. It still 'boogies like a bastard', as does the stock model, but just to a more grin-inducing degree.
The DL-S1 is an altogether more subtle and sophisticated performer, majoring on filigree detail retrieval and an extremely finessed overall sound, but one that still has an infectious musicality and oozes 'soul'. The DL-S1 ticks all the usual high-end boxes, for an MC cartridge, except the one marked 'price tag': essentially it's a £500 cartridge that sounds like a £3k one!
I kid you not...
Marco.
RobbieGong
12-09-2015, 22:10
First of the turntable itself, showing it in its current state, with MN ETP platter and Nagaoka glass mat [note our ginger tomcat, Emrys, to the right]:
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/540/Ty73gn.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/f0Ty73gnj)
Next, the DL-103C1 inside 103U headshell:
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/909/92Baak.jpg
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/910/YUrzvN.jpg
And one showing more of the Ortofon arm (and Nagaoka RC-401 record weight), plus a bit of my new T/T wall shelf (temporarily propped up against the wall):
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/540/UsaJ3R.jpg
Very pleased with this new headshell and cartridge. It has the bonus of also having a different musical presentation from my other cartridges - and one which is extremely addictive! :cool:
Marco.
Is the silver piece on the right, under the dial numbers the vta adjust ? If so a nice touch and similar to the one on my Micro Seiki arm.
Yup, Robert. Remember that the arm is made by Jelco, so essentially Japanese with an Ortofon badge :)
It's a fabulous arm for bringing the best out in low-compliance MC cartridges, such as DL-103s and SPUs.
Marco.
RobbieGong
12-09-2015, 22:19
Yup, Robert. Remember that the arm is made by Jelco, so essentially Japanese with an Ortofon badge :)
It's a fabulous arm for bringing the best out in low-compliance MC cartridges, such as DL-103s and SPUs.
Marco.
Nice one. I think the high quality 'S' arms like your Ortofon and the Micro Seikis' really suit the Techie with the bonus of sounding better than the 'S' stock arm and retaining on the fly vta adjust too - it's a win win :)
Defo... That's why I use them: it's called 'synergy' :)
Micro-Seikis are super too, as are tonearms from Audiocraft. Also, if you can find a nice minty Denon broadcast arm (most of the 'DA' range), those are also fab, when used on a Techy!
Marco.
Just a small update... I'm really liking the sonic/musical effect of my recently purchased Nagaoka RC-401 record weight. It weighs less than 200g, but just enough to ensure that records are firmly planted onto the Nagaoka crystal glass mat, preventing any slippage. It's beautifully made too, feels lovely to hold, and as such is a joy to use.
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/537/SNRI1x.jpg
Music seems to sound crisper, cleaner, and has a lovely 'relaxed musicality', making for long and pleasurable listening sessions! The little (super-fine/soft) felt pad is also handy for removing any fluff from your stylus. As such, I would thoroughly recommend this weight, especially for those using a Nagaoka crystal glass mat, as both work superbly well together. At £34.99, the RC-401 is also a veritable bargain! :)
Furthermore, I've removed the rather thick and bulky silver allen-bolts, securing the Denon DL-103C1 to the 103U headshell (see earlier picture), as I disliked the look of them, and instead have fitted these black cartridge mounting screws from Nagaoka:
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/911/YuKPMr.jpg
These are thinner and lighter than the allen bolts I was using before, and being black, blend really well into the colour of the cartridge, rendering themselves almost invisible, which I much prefer. Curiously, the sound also seems to have improved, resulting in a little more detail being wrung from the grooves. Not sure why that would be, but hey, it would be churlish to complain. :cool:
I guess I'm turning into somewhat of a Nagaoka fanboy! Anyway, off now to spin a couple of more tunes before bed....
Marco.
As a lover/collector of rare vintage Denon detachable headshells, I've been after one of these for a while, so when I noticed one for sale, I had to have it:
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/673/4CjxzO.jpg http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/537/hj0SKW.jpg
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/661/FoEcmV.jpg http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/912/T6i833.jpg
A rather nice looking little thing, I think :)
At 14g, it's heavier than the '103U' magnesium headshell, but still perfect for a DL-103. This one is made from very rigid aluminium alloy, and comes with high-quality 6N lead wire. I intend to try the DL-103C1 cartridge in it, and see if sounds better or not than it does on the '103U'.
Also, I may have a DL-103M cartridge arriving at some point soon (IMO, the 'holy grail' of DL-103s, see here [also picture below]: http://www.audioinvest.no/denon/products/ca_103m.htm), and so either the '103U' or PCL-300 headshell will be reserved for it.
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/661/yHK8Ei.jpg
Anyway, more toys to play with! :cool:
Marco.
Now that headshell does look the biz!
The DL-103M is new to me, so I'll read the link.
Apropos headshells, you have a PM. :)
Lol - cheers, mate. I'm slowly building a nice collection of them :)
The DL-103M is a corker. It has the best attributes of every DL-103 variant, rolled into one!
Marco.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.