2 x DL-103's - why do they sound so different?

[yabadaba]

So, I recently got myself a Technics SL1200 MK5 and decided to fit one of my DL-103 carts. I set it up as follows:

Jelco HS25 headshell
3.5mm wooden shim
Technics Baerwald alignment (using Vinyl Engine arc protractor)
Auxiliary counterweight
Herbie's 4mm mat

Sounds pretty good, but not as full-bodied and warm as I remembered and also brighter, too. As I happen to have 2 x DL-103's (one serial number apart) I thought I'd try the other one and set this up as follows (both with VTF at 2.5g and arm level)

Technics stock headshell
6mm rubber shim (made from a new exhaust strap - quite hard rubber)
Technics overhang gauge alignment
Auxiliary counterweight
Herbie's 4mm mat

Really surprised, as sounds much nicer....well to my preference anyway. A richer, more full-bodied sound with weightier bass and the high end a little smoother, though nicely detailed at the same time.

I'm really not sure why the distinct difference in sound here and, if anything, I would have expected the results to be the reverse of what they are. I did try and calculate what 'effective' tonearm mass I ended up with but can't recall the figures I came too, though I know the Jelco setup was only about 1g heavier. I chose to leave the additional 4g headshell weight off the Technics headshell, as that would have left it exceeding the Jelco setup weight by 2 to 3g's.

So, I'm wondering why I'm getting these results...any thoughts? Thanks, David.

[Marco]

So, I recently got myself a Technics SL1200 MK5 and decided to fit one of my DL-103 carts. I set it up as follows:

Jelco HS25 headshell
3.5mm wooden shim
Technics Baerwald alignment (using Vinyl Engine arc protractor)
Auxiliary counterweight
Herbie's 4mm mat

Sounds pretty good, but not as full-bodied and warm as I remembered and also brighter, too. As I happen to have 2 x DL-103's (one serial number apart) I thought I'd try the other one and set this up as follows (both with VTF at 2.5g and arm level)

Technics stock headshell
6mm rubber shim (made from a new exhaust strap - quite hard rubber)
Technics overhang gauge alignment
Auxiliary counterweight
Herbie's 4mm mat

Really surprised, as sounds much nicer....well to my preference anyway. A richer, more full-bodied sound with weightier bass and the high end a little smoother, though nicely detailed at the same time.

I'm really not sure why the distinct difference in sound here and, if anything, I would have expected the results to be the reverse of what they are. I did try and calculate what 'effective' tonearm mass I ended up with but can't recall the figures I came too, though I know the Jelco setup was only about 1g heavier. I chose to leave the additional 4g headshell weight off the Technics headshell, as that would have left it exceeding the Jelco setup weight by 2 to 3g's.

So, I'm wondering why I'm getting these results...any thoughts? Thanks, David.

Hi David,

As highlighted, the difference in sound you've experienced is likely to be alignment related. In my experience, Stevenson geometry (which the Technics overhang gauge conforms to) suits the Technics arm better, and hence optimises the sound of the partnering cartridge.

Now try one of your DL103s, mounted in the Jelco headshell (which should be better than the Technics one), aligned using your Technics overhang gauge. Theoretically, as the Jelco is heavier and less resonant, that should produce the best sound, then start adding some more mass to the headshell (using shims, heavier bolts, even some Blu-Tac), until you reach a figure of around 16g, which is where the 103 starts to 'sing'.

Hope that helps:)

Marco.

[yabadaba]

Hi Marco, thanks for your reply. I’m going to try as you suggest....I take it you are referring to the combined headshell/cartridge weight when you talk about it getting better when you reach 16g and beyond.

[Marco]

No, just the headshell. The 103 *needs* (and indeed loves) plenty of mass, in order to perform optimally.

Marco.

[yabadaba]

Okay, I will experiment, though I only just managed to get the arm to its balance point with the auxiliary counterweight on the Technics arm, so not sure how far I will be able to go in adding weight to the headshell. The fact that the cartridge mounting point will move back a few mm's as I switch from Baerwald to Stevenson will help though.

[Barry]

The difference, as Marco has pointed out, is due to the two arm/cartridge alignments you have used. The alignment prescription is determined by the arm geometry chosen by the manufacturer.

As with many Japanese arms the geometry chosen and hence the alignment prescription usually follows Stevenson's method, or similar. In the case of the Technics 1200 arm, the two null-radii are at 58.8 and 113.5mm, which will be correctly achieved using the Technics alignment protractor.

[yabadaba]

I've now aligned both DL103's using the Technics overhang gauge and they appear very very close to the Stevenson alignment when I check with a Stevenson protractor. Also, both are now fitted with the (c.3g) rubber shims and I have measured weights as follow.....

Jelco h/s (12.1g) + shim/fastenings (4.855g) + DL103 (8.5g) = 25.455g (so 16.955g without the cartridge)
Technics h/s (7.5g) + shim/fastenings (4.742g) +DL103 (8.5g) = 20.742g (so 12.242g without the cartridge)

If it makes a difference, I've also had a go at calculating the resonant frequencies, using a dynamic compliance figure (at 10hz) of 11cu for the DL103. Entering a tonearm effective mass figure of 12g for the Technics headshell setup this calculates to c.10hz and then with a tonearm effective mass of 16.6g for the Jelco setup (adding the difference in headshell weight), I get c.9hz.

As regards what I'm hearing, the cartridge in the Jelco headshell now sounds much better than it did before when I was using the lighter wooden shim and Baerwald alignment. But. it's too late here now for me to compare between the two at any decent volume, so I don't know if this is now the best sounding of the two implementations....I guess it should be....and I will resume and find out tomorrow! By the way, I wonder whether the shim material (all other things being equal) has much influence on the sound?

[Barry]

Rubber would seem to be a strange material to use as a shim. Is it a 'hard' rubber - how much does the shim compress when the fastenings are tightened? I would use lead as a shim material.

[yabadaba]

Rubber would seem to be a strange material to use as a shim. Is it a 'hard' rubber - how much does the shim compress when the fastenings are tightened? I would use lead as a shim material.

Hi, yes it is a hard rubber and compresses only a very little. I was looking for something to use that was around 5-6mm thickness and this was to hand, plus it was very easy to cut to shape.

I wonder if this is this one of those 'audiophile' scenarios where the obvious isolation that rubber offers is a positive (as it might be for turntable feet or mats), or is this a case where the tonearm and cartridge should be rigidly attached and 'acting as one'? I'm really not sure, but I'm quite a critical listener and I don't detect any obvious negative effects.

I do have a 5mm 'real racing carbon' shim on the way so will see if I can compare....though the time it will take to switch between shims will make a confident A:B comparison difficult.

[Spectral Morn]

The ultimate alignment would be to get a Mint Tractor from Yip specifically for the arms and turntables in question. But its a pain in the ass to do, requires powerful magnifiers and takes ages to complete. Once done :eek: it sounds amazing. First I set it up with a VDH cart, second time with a Denon 103, which is still fitted to it today.

My experiences here - http://www.adventuresinhifiaudio.com/05/12/2010/the-mint-lp-best-tractor-making-cartridge-alignment-accurate/

I have a Smart Tractor as well, but as of yet I haven't used it to set up anything on a Technics.

My experiences here - http://www.adventuresinhifiaudio.com/14/07/2017/acoustical-systems-smart-tractor-and-the-amg-giro-revisited/

[karma67]

I agree, a mint protractor is very good, I’m just about to buy another one for my arm.

[Barry]

In the absence of a manufacturer's alignment protractor, do what I do: look up the two null-radii for the arm in question on vinylengine.com and mark these on an aftermarket protractor. If the two null-radii markings are correct to within 0.25mm, the overhang will be correct to within 0.1mm and the angular offset correct to within 0.1 degree.

[yabadaba]

The Technics overhang gauge appears accurately made and I found that using it carefully produces a very near spot on Stevenson alignment, as verified by a protractor I downloaded from Vinyl Engine. I can't see more tweaking with different alignments reaping any real sonic dividends. After all...and as far as I understand it.....these different alignments are basically just different compromises (albeit good ones), as there is no single alignment that is optimal across the full toneram arc.

Moving slightly off-topic, it's been interesting to compare the DL103's on my SL1200 to the Nagaoka MP110 on my Rega Planar 3. They both sound good, but distinctly different too, with the DL103 seeming to separate the different instruments more and providing a more realistic top end, where cymbals have a crisp metallic edge to them, which I must assume is more accurate. The Nagaoka produces what I initially thought was a weightier sound with a more bass thump and a smoother (more rolled off?) treble, but I do wonder whether this is really just a more compressed sound. After further listening I noted that the DL103 is producing just as much bass weight, but the instruments producing that bass seem to have more of their own space, whereas with the Nagaoka the different sounds/instruments are somewhat less separated. I would assume the DL103 is presenting the music more accurately here...though the MP110 does sound 'nice' though.

[Barry]

Re. 'tweaking' the alignment, as I said all arms are designed to conform to a particular tracking error minimisation prescription. There are three commonly recognised minimisation schemes: Baerwald (also known as Loefgen A); Loefgren (also known as Loefgren B) and Stevenson.

The manufacturer of your arm has chosen a Stevenson-like scheme and designed the arm to have a particular overhang and offset angle to achieve this. As a result the two null-radii, at which the tangential tracking error is zero, are at 58.8mm and 113.5mm. An arm designed to follow the Stevenson scheme would have the two null-radii at 60.3mm and 117.0mm. As can be seen the two sets of figures are close, but not identical. This is why in setting up the arm and cartridge using the Technics gauge, you find it conforms closely to the Stevenson alignment.

There maybe two reasons for this: either Technics miscalculated the geometry, or for reasons best known to them they decided to move the null points. But whatever the reason, it is best that you use the Technics gauge.

[cjm123]

Hi chaps,

I had a similar experience when I replaced an Elys 2 on my Rega P3 2000 with another new Elys 2. So the same deck and arm and same set up but the sound was chalk and cheese. The 1st Elys 2 sounded big bold and dynamic and the replacement dull and flat. I put it down to sample variation.

Good luck sorting out your DL103!

Chris

[tlscapital]

So, I recently got myself a Technics SL1200 MK5 and decided to fit one of my DL-103 carts. I set it up as follows:

Jelco HS25 headshell
3.5mm wooden shim
Technics Baerwald alignment (using Vinyl Engine arc protractor)
Auxiliary counterweight
Herbie's 4mm mat

Sounds pretty good, but not as full-bodied and warm as I remembered and also brighter, too. As I happen to have 2 x DL-103's (one serial number apart) I thought I'd try the other one and set this up as follows (both with VTF at 2.5g and arm level)

Technics stock headshell
6mm rubber shim (made from a new exhaust strap - quite hard rubber)
Technics overhang gauge alignment
Auxiliary counterweight
Herbie's 4mm mat

Really surprised, as sounds much nicer....well to my preference anyway. A richer, more full-bodied sound with weightier bass and the high end a little smoother, though nicely detailed at the same time.

I'm really not sure why the distinct difference in sound here and, if anything, I would have expected the results to be the reverse of what they are. I did try and calculate what 'effective' tonearm mass I ended up with but can't recall the figures I came too, though I know the Jelco setup was only about 1g heavier. I chose to leave the additional 4g headshell weight off the Technics headshell, as that would have left it exceeding the Jelco setup weight by 2 to 3g's.

So, I'm wondering why I'm getting these results...any thoughts? Thanks, David.

Wood shim have to be of the dense kind. Add mas to the headshell with metal weight shims if you have any. The DL-103 is low compliant and enjoys higher tonearm bearing inertia. The "rubber" shim is nothing I would go for. Those DL-103 are large conical nude stylus and so overhang is not that critical. If they had some mileage on them, they should indeed benefit from the same respective overhang as previously. And is the VTA readjusted as well ?

[Barry]

Since the Denon 103 uses a spherical tipped stylus, the VTA is not critical.

Whereas achieving the correct overhang is important regardless of the cartridge being monophonic or not. The theory of cartridge/arm geometry to minimise tracking distortion was developed in the '30s, long before the advent of stereo.

[tlscapital]

Since the Denon 13 uses a spherical tipped stylus, the VTA is not critical.

With my DL-102, another beast of it's own but with the same cantilever and stylus, and my unforgiving loud, clear, deep and neutral amplification, I can tell you that I have find the VTA adjustment to be crucial as is the VTF. Just my experience of it.

[karma67]

Since the Denon 13 uses a spherical tipped stylus, the VTA is not critical.

+1,

[yabadaba]

I’m always careful with VTA, or indeed SRA. Currently the DL103’s are setup with headshell / top of cartridge level when on record surface, at first by eye and then confirmed with a small spirit level. With my Nagaoka in the Rega, I have used a digital microscope and measured SRA and have it very close to 92 degrees with one 2mm shim under the tonearm.

I find the Nagaoka particularly sensitive to VTA, with a clearly discernible change in frequency response as it is adjusted. The effect appears much less with the Denon’s, hence why I satisfied myself with only confirming cartridge body is parallel. One of the reasons I’m using headshell shims with the Denon’s is because without them the tonearm appears slightly tail down even when adjusted to its lowest setting.