DL103SA VS. SL1200: How I won the battle and lived happy (for a while)

Hello chaps,
time to spend my 2 cent of the wisdom I reached fighting hard when I had to fit my Denon DL 103 SA to the stock tonearm of my Technics SL 1210 M5G.
Well, now sit down, get a cup of tea or coffee, or a pint of beer, and relax. I'm telling the long story... long.

Introduction
I read of many people simply sticking a DL 103 into their tonearm and then crying the DL 103 is a very bad cartridge. Aware of that, I invested many hours of searching, reading, asking, trying and retrying, during the last 6 months, to be sure to have the best from this piece of Hi-Fi history.
And now I'm sharing with you exactly the whole path of my journey.

Of course what follows is not a new Gospel, but just the whole story of *my* starting point, *my* route, *my* arrival point.
My only wish: I hope this will be useful to someone else, maybe as a new starting point.

I had to keep the theory very simple, so don't complain. But if any of you find something wrong or not completely correct, please let me now, so I can amend it.

Section 1: The Theory

1. Some theory about resonance
Every solid body in nature has its own resonance frequency. So, if a body 'A' is in a quiet state and a body 'B' is vibrating at level of the resonance frequency of 'A', well, 'A' starts vibrating by itself.

The record we are playing outputs a wide range of frequencies, starting from the very low frequencies produced by the wobbling at the vinyl surface, up to the higher ones contained into the musical signal. Because of this, we have to take care about the correct set-up of cartridge+tonearm system, or else our system could start adding unwanted sounds to our music.

The good news is that we can play around to tune the resonance frequency of our cartridge+tonearm system to fit it into a (tight) range of frequencies that will not be disturbed by any "active" signal coming out the vinyl surface or music .
(Complete and scientific infos about resonance here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance)

Such range of frequencies is: from 8 Hz to 12 Hz

Some people say we can start from 7 Hz, other say we can go up to 15Hz.
Well, the truth is in the meddle, so we stick between 8 and 12.

2. Some theory about Dynamic Compliance
With Dymanic Compliance of a cartridge we talk about the ability, of the cartridge itself, to absorb the very low frequencies produced by a warped or not centered vinyl, without trasferring them to the tonearm. "Dynamic" states that the measure was get with the cartridge playing a record.
A low compliance cartridge *must* match a meddle/high mass tonearm, which has the ability to absorb such low frequencies instead of the cartridge.
All the cartridges of DL 103 series are low compliance and the stock tonearm of SL 1200 is a medium mass. That's way is a good "marriage".

(sorry guys, no good reference about this. If someone has, please let me know)


3. Some math about resonance
First, lets fix this 3 points:
* "Weight" is not the same as "Mass", but...
* SL 1200's tonearm Mass = 12 gr including the stock headshell
* Denon DL 103 dynamic compliance = 5x10-6 cm/dyne @100 Hz

Then some convention:
'W' = Weight
'M' = Mass
'C' = dynamic Compliance at 10 Hz
'FR' = Frequency of Resonance
'BTM' = Bare Tonearm Mass

We cannot directly modify the tonearm mass, but we have the chance of doing it with the cartridge+headshell sub-system.

Anyway, before to start buying (or building) stuff like new headshells, spacers, bolts or whatever, better to predict the resulting FR with some calculations.

There's a simple formula to calculate the FR of a cartridge+tonearm system:

FR = 1000/(6.28 * SQRT( M * C))
where SQRT() = square root

This is the formula Vinylengine uses to calculate the FR with its online calculator.

Easy? well, actually not.

A. "Weight" is not the same as "Mass", but...
Mass is the weight of a moving body. If the SL 1200 tonearm has a Mass=12 gr and the cartridge has a Weight= 9.7 GR, that means that... you couldn't just add cartridge W the tonearm M to have a new, total M.
"But..."
But we'll do anyway, since we cannot do otherwise.
This is an important point. I read around a lot of people fighting about this, but the formula above still produces a useful value, even though is not 100% correct.

(Complete and scientific infos about 'Mass' here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass)


Now lets talk about our items.

B. SL 1200's tonearm Mass = 12 gr including the stock headshell
This is another important point. I read some people believing that the mass of removable headshell tonearm refers to the bare tonearm only. That's no true. Our tonearm with M=12 GR includes the headshell.

C. Denon DL 103 dynamic compliance = 5x10-6 cm/dyne @100 Hz
This is the last and most frequent error around (Vinylengine does it too, even if actually warns you about)
We do need the Compliance value at 10 Hz, not at 100 Hz.
But there is a way out. I learned a very complex formula to translate the 100 Hz down to 10 Hz but we don't need it.
Simply we can multiply the 100 Hz value with the costant 1.8, and we'll get what we need, and this is true for every brand or model of cartridge.
Anyway the right value for this costant, for the DL103SA, is 1.75, but this doesn't actually affects the final result.

Now time is come to apply the above theory.

4.The math practice
To full understand the formula
FR = 1000/(6.28 * SQRT( M * C))
we'll do some real life example.

Our HW with their relevant attributes
1. Stock tonearm, M=12 GR (including headshell)
2. Stock headshell, W=7.5 GR
4. New headshell, W=12 GR
5. Nuts & Bolts, W=2 GR
5. Spare weight, W=4 GR
6. Cartridge, W=10 GR, C= 5@100Hz

Our goal is to calculate the FR of each combination of headshell/cartridge with or without the spare weight

First calculate the C @ 10 Hz: 5 * 1.8 = C = 9
Then calculate the the BTM, subtracting W of the Stock Headshell = 12 - 7.5 = BTM = 4.5 (again, this is not teorically correct, but is still useful)

So:
Assembly 1:
BTM + Stock Headshell + Nuts&Bolts + Cartridge: M = 24
FR = 1000/(6.28 * SQRT( 24 * 9)) = 11 (exactly 10,834)

Assembly 2:
BTM + Stock Headshell + Nuts&Bolts + Cartridge + Spare Weight: M = 28
FR = 1000/(6.28 * SQRT( 28 * 9)) = 10 (exactly 10,03) )

Assembly 3:
BTM + New Headshell + Nuts&Bolts + Cartridge: M = 28,5
FR = 1000/(6.28 * SQRT( 32,5 * 9)) = 10 (exactly 9,942)

Assembly 4:
BTM + New Headshell + Nuts&Bolts + Cartridge + Spare Weight: M = 32,5
FR = 1000/(6.28 * SQRT( 32,5 * 9)) = 9 (exactly 9,310)

We've done.

You can download here my very simple Excel spreadsheet to do some calculations by yourself:
FR_Calculator

Ok, but are these calculations are correct? And more important, are they useful. We discuss about this later.


Section 2: The DIY Practice

1. Staring points
Now is the time to choose which of the above Assembly is the best sounding one.
But first let's think a little:
* All the 4 Assembly outputs a FR falling into the range 8-12 (Assembly 2 & 3 are equivalent).
* Theorycally speaking the lighter Assembly impresses a lower "Momentum" to the tonearm, so should be preferred.(1)
* There is a wide shared opinion around stating the DL 103 needs an high mass toneram to perform at its best.

(1) I'm not bothering you with more theory, but the "momentum" and the "inertia" of the resulting cartridge+tonearm system is an important stuff.
More weight we add at cartridge, more and more we have to add at the tonearm end. And that's no good since the cantilver of the cartridge (the thin rod where the stylus is fixed in) trying to move the tonearm, starts to fold itself.

So:
* Assembly 1 is mathetically the best,
* the 3 should be the suggested one for the DL 103 SA,
* the 2/3 ... could be the right ones choice, philosophically speaking, since they are in the middle :-).

Let's do this way: let's try all of the options we have. Or we'll live forever in doubt (we are hi-fi lovers, and as such we hate doubts)

2. The Headshells
First, my own, straight, plain, honest, opinion about headshells
* I don't believe that the material of the headshell does any difference in sound.
So we are not going to state that an aluminium headshell (tha stock one) is worst than a magnesium headshell.
Other parameters make the difference: the weight, the wires, the quality of bajonet contact, the ability of tuning the azimuth.

I will not talk about the SL 1200 Headshell, since each and everyone of you knows it very well.

I have a vintage Nagaoka MG-704 headshell :
http://www.boxedspace.com/public3/DL...ka_01_Body.JPGHTTP://www.boxedspace.com/public3/DL...a_02_Wires.JPG
HTTP://www.boxedspace.com/public3/DL...Fingerlift.JPG

It's wonderfully well made:
* Magnesium's body
* Cu99.99% Litz wires
* adjustable Azimuth
* thick golden contact at bajonet

It's vintage one and we cannot find it anymore, but the good news is the the Sumiko HS-12 is about the same.

We can get the Sumiko HS-12 Headshell from Analogue Seduction online store:
http://www.analogueseduction.net/pro...adshell_SUM-HS


3. Some DIY: the Spacers
Everybody knows the DL 103 cartridge series have a lower profile than the minimum accepted by VTA regulator of the SL 1200
Infact the DL 103 is 15 mm high, and the SL 1200's VTA start working from a 17 mm. But just believe me, 2 mm more is not enough.

So we need a spacer.
We could buy a spacer, but we don't.
The idea behind this is: we need a very light spacer, because we need the basic Assemblies to be very light, or else we cannot add weight and see what happens

Just grab a piece of acrylic:
HTTP://www.boxedspace.com/public3/DL...01_Acrylic.JPG

The above was as divider of a small container case for screws. It was about 1.6 mm thick, and very easy to work with.
Acrycilc is amagnetic (...of course) and is a good vibrations' absorber.

I made 2 spacer:
HTTP://www.boxedspace.com/public3/DL...ers_02_WIP.JPG

I used a cutter to cut them and a Dremel drill to do the holes. Finally, I used some 300 grit sandpaper to smooth the surfaces.
I used the DL 103 SA as footprint, so the final size of the spacers is 2.3 x 1.6 x 3.4 mm.
To obtain the 3.4 mm height I simply glued togheter 2 piece of acrycilic, with some cyanacrylic glue.

I made 2, one plain and one with a fingerlift

The final weight is very light:
HTTP://www.boxedspace.com/public3/DL...s_03_Plain.JPGHTTP://www.boxedspace.com/public3/DL...ngerlift34.JPG

Actually the spacer with the fingerlift I finally used is 5.5 mm thick:
HTTP://www.boxedspace.com/public3/DL...ngerlift55.JPG


4. Some DIY: the Counter-weight
Now with have to deal with a secondary but still important issue: the tonearm additional counterweight.
All the Assembly are too heavy for the basic, rotative, counterweight only, so:
* for Assembly 1, just use the stock additional counter-weight of 10 GR
* for the Assembly 2/3 we need a counterweight of about 31 - 33 GR
* for the Assembly 4 we need a counterweight of about 36 - 38 GR

Were do we get this additional counterweights? Simple, we just do them by ourself
This is a very easy task, just buy a bolt with 4 mm diameter and 2.5 mm lenght and some big and heavy washers
Optionally you can use a nut to fix the assembly.

I made mine with
* brass bolt & nut
* amagnetic steel big washers
* small nylon washers & heat shrink for vibrations dumping
HTTP://www.boxedspace.com/public3/DL...rWeight_01.JPGHTTP://www.boxedspace.com/public3/DL...rWeight_02.JPG
HTTP://www.boxedspace.com/public3/DL...rWeight_03.JPGHTTP://www.boxedspace.com/public3/DL...rWeight_04.JPG
HTTP://www.boxedspace.com/public3/DL...rWeight_05.JPGHTTP://www.boxedspace.com/public3/DL...rWeight_06.JPG


Important thing to remember is the final weight:
* for the assemblies 2 and 3 it should be around 31 - 33 GR
* for the assembly 4 it should be around 36 - 38 GR
HTTP://www.boxedspace.com/public3/DL...rWeight_07.JPG

In place (not bad, isn't it?):
HTTP://www.boxedspace.com/public3/DL...rWeight_08.JPG

As final thought, I have to say the this solution is not to be considered optimal. If we don't plain to swap very often the cartridge/headshell Assemblies (because we have more cartridges), is better we get a serious counterweight, just like the ones made by Speedy Steve.
http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6216

5. Bolts & Nuts
"Ommygod, Bolts & Nuts drive me nuts". This was the worst part of the game. Why in the hell Denon doesn't ships longer bolts with the DL 103 ???
Let's do some calculations:

* the Nagaoka Headeshell (and the Sumiko, too) thickness= 2 mm.
* the stock fingerlift thickness= 1.5 mm (Sumiko should be 2 mm)
* the spacer thickness= 3.4 mm
* DL103SA passing holes lenght= 8 mm
* upper washers for bolts= .5 mm (about)
* bolts height: 1,5

Total is 17 mm

So we need a bolts of 18 mm minimum !

After a long time wasted trying to find bolts like that, finally I get here, at Transfiaudio ebay store:
http://shop.ebay.co.uk/transfiaudio/...1&_from=&_ipg=

He offers two kits, one standard and one with lighter bolts. I got both and used the lighter.

Anyway, since my personal need was a spacer of 5.5 mm, I used the 20 mm bolts.
HTTP://www.boxedspace.com/public3/DL...ltsNuts_01.JPG

6. Headshell weight
Well this was the easier.
We have more options:
* using the stock SL1200 headshell weight of 3 GR
* DIY with some metallic
* glueing togheter a couple of pennies or dollarcents or eurocents (1 eurocent W=2.2 GR)
* buying it

We'll fix our weight to the headshell with some blu-tac or double-sided tape.
By my test the optimal headshell weight is 4 or 5 GR. No less, no more.

Once in my life I've been lucky. I have a spacer of 4.2 GR (I quite don't remember were it comes from)
I covered it with some black tape and fixed to the headshell with some double-sided tape:
HTTP://www.boxedspace.com/public3/DL...lWeight_01.JPG

Why I simply didn't use the headshell weight as spacer?
Well, I wanted to deeply understand the differences in sound with and without the additionl 4 GR, without redoing the Assembly each time.
But if you trust my results, you can use the additional cartridge weight as a spacer, it's an optiomal thing.

7. All togheter, now
Let's assemble.

I'm not showing any picture of Assembly 1 & 2, since I didn't take any picture.
-
Her Majesty, the Denon DL 103 SA
HTTP://www.boxedspace.com/public3/DL...DL103SA_01.JPG

The Assembly 3
HTTP://www.boxedspace.com/public3/DL..._Assembly3.JPG

The Assembly 4
HTTP://www.boxedspace.com/public3/DL..._Assembly4.JPG

Section 3: The Sound

1.Comparing the Assemblies
What? load of words about boring work and so little about the funny sound?
Well, that's the way it is. I'm not wasting time telling you a tale you can read everywhere.

* Assembly 1: Stock toneram + Stock Headshell + Cartridge, no headshell weight, Mass = 24, Calculated FR= 11
Let's forget about. Were is the sound? Flat basses, weak meddles e very far trebles. Soundstage is... well is not.

* Assembly 2: Stock toneram + Stock Headshell + Cartridge + Headshell weight, Mass = 28, Calculated FR= 10
Much better. But still this is not the sound I expected from DL103SA.

* Assembly 3: Stock toneram + Nagaoka Headshell + Cartridge, no headshell weight, Mass = 28.5, Calculated FR= 10
I heard this sound before. It's the same of assembly 4. Not exactly, there's a (very very) slight improvement on meddle frequencies and a more clean soundstage. Ah, the Nagaoka has much better wires. That's should be the reason.

* Assembly 4, Stock toneram + Nagaoka Headshell + Cartridge + Headshell weight, Mass = 32.5, Calculated FR= 9
Just one word: W-O-W !!!
(so far, this is best sounding thing I heard in my life)

Section 4: Measures

Finished? No, not yet.

We have still to verify if the calculated FR is correct, since we understood very well one fact:
assembling a cartridge+headshell+tonearm system *IS NOT* a simple mathematical affair.
Too many variables out out of our control:
* we had to sum Mass and Weight
* we had to do lots of roundings
And again: what if we didn't know *at all* the C of the Cartridge or the M of tonearm?

But to measure the FR we need same expensive equipment...
We are lucky, since exists this wonderful tool:
http://www.thecartridgeman.com/hfn_test_record.htm

This record can help us in tuning the Azimuth, the Bias, verify the tracking ability and...
measure the FR, too !!!

So, let's measure the FR of our candidate Assembly 4.
We have two tracks on the record:
* one producing the odd frequencies from 25 to 5 Hz, through lateral oscillations of the groove
* one producing the even frequencies from 16 to 6 Hz, through vertical oscillations of the groove.
Funny thing is that you can see very clearly, with your own eyes, how the cantilever woobles, and at same time hear the distortion of the sound.

The applied VTF was = 2.6 GR

Our Assembly 3 (calculated FR=10):
with the odd track
* start wobbling at 11 Hz
* stop wobbling at 9 Hz
(at 7 hz was completely quiet)

with the even track
* wobbles very bad at 10 Hz

Our Assembly 4 (calculated FR=9):
with the odd track
* wobbles very bad at 9 Hz

with the even track
* wobbles just a little at 10 Hz

What the meaning of the above results?

Well, the meaning is:
Assembly 3 has a FR somewhere between 9 and 11 Hz, with a peak at 10 Hz
Assembly 4 has a FR somewhere between 9 and 10 Hz, with a peak more near 9 Hz

So was the calculation accurate?
Yes, it was, completely,

And, since we learned the FR acts in a range of frequencies, we feel better about some approximations we did in our calculations.

That's all, folks, enjoy ;)

Very interesting Giovanni, even to a non-Techie :) Thank you for taking the time to write this up.

The thing is though, that the techie has a lower mass and rather more resonant arm tube than its ancestors (1200mk1, SL1300 - 1800) and although the arm-cartridge resonance itself isn't a huge issue, colouration in the arm tube *is* in my opinion the main issue I think.

Also, the Kenwood KD750 tonearm I have in bits had a very sophisticated counterweight decoupling, having a tie-wire as well as a rubber coupling, the two measurably reducing the amplitude (amount) of this resonance. My Dual 701 uses a sprung counterweight tuned to the deck's suspension...

I'm sure the Jelco 750's success isn't just the mass, but as much the arm's resonant behaviour - perhaps...

That Nagaoka shell looks much the same as mine, only mine doesn't have the azimuth adjustment.

Well Marco has stated quite clearly , even after extensive modifying the Techie isn't quite up to getting the best from a 103 and the 750 does the bis , but some seem to be getting good results all the same .

A solid headshell does seem to absorb or prevent too much upsetting the arm tube.

Hi Chris,

Quote:

---

Well Marco has stated quite clearly , even after extensive modifying the Techie isn't quite up to getting the best from a 103 and the 750 does the bis , but some seem to be getting good results all the same .

---

As you know, when I had the stock arm fitted to my 1210, it was pretty much as modified as you could get, with internal Cardas wiring, fluid damping and custom-made heavyweight brass counterweight balance, and it was used with a selection of top quality high-mass headshells, with various 103s.

However, in the end the 'peaky' nature of the armtube's resonance modes, which translated into a somewhat 'shouty' quality with vocals, and a tendency to lose the plot when the going got tough with certain 'difficult' highly modulated recordings, made me realise that I'd taken the arm as far as it could go with a moving coil cartridge.

Installing the Jelco resulted in a significant 'tidying up' of the sound, adding more refinement overall and the removal of that 'shouty' quality, along with the stock arm's tendency to make everything sound brightly lit and reproduce music with a lack of texture and tonal variation. I suspect that the weakest part of the stock arm is the rather resonant armtube. The bearings in the Jelco I suspect are also of higher quality, and the sonic effect of both of those factors is significant.

That's not to say though that a suitably modified stock Technics tonearm isn't a very good performer - it is (I'd still take it any day ahead of a 'blandsville' RB250/300), but it has its limits.

Ciao Giovanni,

You've done a great job with modifying the stock arm.

Top marks for taking into account the minutiae of details which ensure the sonic optimisation of the DL-103 (it looks like you've been paying attention to my scribbles here ;)) and for writing such a superb and highly informative article in a language which isn't your native tongue.... For that you have my greatest respect :youtheman:

Enjoy the music and the fruits of your labours! :cool:

Marco.

Thanks everybody for appreciating my work, I'm really really happy for that.
I'm just giving back to the community, in just one "story", what the community gave me in bits and pieces. No more no less ;)

And sure 90% of what I learned is coming out AOS.

Dave, Chris & Marco,
my report was not about demostrating how good is the DL 103 SA fitted on a SL 1200 stock tonearm. My goal was to illustrate, step by step, a "methodological approach" on how to fit an X cardtridge to an Y tonearm, through a "case study". But I'm sure that is clear enough.

I started analyzing Marco's very first suggestion "17 GR of headshell" (do you remember, Marco?), and preceeded trying to give that suggestion a scientifical meaning & a verifying method. In the very end, I *demostrated* Marco suggestion was right.

About the stock tonearm. I'm aware this is not the best tonearm for my TT, I learned that on AOS. But meanwhile I'm having lot of fun trying to take it the upper limit.

One of the very next improvements to my TT will be changing the tonearm. What will be the next? I really don't know, my only needs is the replaceable headsehll. Right now I'm reading *carefully* what Marco says about the Jelco, Chris about SME 309, and so on. My deep wish is to install a 12'' when it will possible, but I need *your* experiences and *your* suggestions. In other words, I cannot go on by myself, without your help.

Thank you all, thanks to AOS.

Hi Marco

Thanks for that ' l would say that's spot on and yes l would sooner have it over some other overrated efforts kicking around .


Giovanni a 12'' might be a step too far for the 1200 ,though it can be done l believe Vantage audio have fitted a 12'' Jelco .

I personally think stick with a 9'' and its a choice between the Jelco SA750 and the 309, or if you have the extra cash SME can supply a series IV with removable headshell .

If you must have 12" then i would seriously consider ditching the 1200 and getting an SP10 mk2 .

Chris,
BTW, the SME 309 has the replaceable heashell, too, hasn't it?
-
Anyway, I'm enjoying my DL103SA+SL1200 tonearm combo. Compared to my DL 160, the improvement I achieved was proportional to the price difference, and that's enough, so far.

Life is (or should be) long, if I get the perfect TT today, what I will do tomorrow? ;)

Yes of course ' but SME seem to offer a detachable headshell on any arm they make , you just have to ask and it can be done ' of course many would say why on a series V ? .

If you want it they will do it , i have to say i am looking forward to changing from my 160 , but it will have to wait till next year as i am skint at the moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chris@panteg

Yes of course ' but SME seem to offer a detachable headshell on any arm they make , you just have to ask and it can be done ' of course many would say why on a series V ? .

If you want it they will do it , i have to say i am looking forward to changing from my 160 , but it will have to wait till next year as i am skint at the moment.

---

Uhm... which is the SM309 tonearm mass, anyway? I can't find that.

So my final question is:
the DL 103 SA fits, mechanically speaking, the SME 309 ?
Has anyone around ever tested that combo?

Thank you

Ahh yes ' Ralph (rem) uses a modded 103 with his 309 , i think you need to add a spacer/weight to get the correct mass .

The Jelco appears to be the better arm for your 103sa though giovanni .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chris@panteg

Ahh yes ' Ralph (rem) uses a modded 103 with his 309 , i think you need to add a spacer/weight to get the correct mass .

The Jelco appears to be the better arm for your 103sa though giovanni .

---

uhm... uhm...
my inexperience takes me to this new Q:
If get an higher compliance cart like the DL-304, is the Jelco still ok?
Thank you again

Hi Giovanni

The 103 I normally use is the Zu modified version which weighs in at a substantial 14g and poses no problems in the 309, however I have also used (and am using at the moment while the Zu awaits an ESCo retip) a standard 103 with no problems whatsoever.

It's all to easy to get bogged down in numbers when it comes to cartridge/arm matching, what matters is what works not why it works and to this end I'm sure the 103SA would be equally happy in either the Jelco or SME.

However, given all the effort you have been to and the results you getting why change the arm at all?

Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by REM

Hi Giovanni

It's all to easy to get bogged down in numbers when it comes to cartridge/arm matching, what matters is what works not why it works and to this end I'm sure the 103SA would be equally happy in either the Jelco or SME.

---

Hi Ralph,
ok, once it works, you are happy and go on listenenig to your music, without caring of numbers or whatever. But what, if it doesn't work ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by REM

Hi Giovanni
However, given all the effort you have been to and the results you getting why change the arm at all?

---

Yeah, this is a *THE* Q I made myself, too. I guess it depends on one's personality and life-style. I just like to spend some of my rest time to try and improve my Hi-Fi and I enjoy doing that one step at time. But, again, there's no real reason to do that.

Hi Giovanni,

Quote:

---

Uhm... which is the SM309 tonearm mass, anyway? I can't find that.

---

I think the effective mass of the 309 is around 10.5-11g, so it's certainly not a high-mass tonearm. It'll definitely need plenty of added mass on the headshell to work properly with a DL-103SA, but aside from that, it should make for a decent combination.

Quote:

---

So my final question is:
the DL 103 SA fits, mechanically speaking, the SME 309 ?
Has anyone around ever tested that combo?

---

To be brutally honest, I wouldn't choose any modern SME arm to use with a DL-103, as in my opinion they work best on classic 'S'-shaped tonearms with detachable headshells, where one can then use something really high-mass, (such as the Ortofon or FR headshell I use), without the need for spacers.

I'm not a fan of using spacers, unless absolutely necessary, as they alter the resonant behaviour of the headshell (and arm). It's far better, in my experience, to have, say, a 17.5g headshell designed that way in the first place, than a 10g one 'modified' with a 7.5g spacer, if you see my meaning.....

The important question I'd ask you is if the DL-103SA is going to be your cartridge of choice for some time, and if it is, then you should buy a Jelco SA-750, as that's the best modern tonearm for any DL-103.

If, however, you're intending to use other cartridges in the near future, then the SME would be more flexible in that respect. A DL-304, for example, would work better on the 309 than on the Jelco.

Basically, it boils down to what your future intentions are, cartridge-wise :cool:

Marco.

Hi Marco,
I'm just collecting knowledge to evaluate pros & cons of each option.

So you say:
* low compliance cartridge -> JELCO 750D
* middle/high compliance cartridge -> SME 309
Right?
That makes sense to me, too. And, yes, I can stick with DL 103 for a long while.

Jelco was my first idea, but, TBH, there's one thing I just don't like of Jelco: the way of adjusting the VTA is not easy like the stock or the SME tonearm.

Ok, I have to add an external VTA adjuster.

Hi Giovanni,

Yes, you've got it :)

Quote:

---

Jelco was my first idea, but, TBH, there's one thing I just don't like of Jelco: the way of adjusting the VTA is not easy like the stock or the SME tonearm.

---

Agreed, but it's not like you're having to adjust VTA all the time, or are using multiple cartridges. Set it once correctly, lock it in place, and forget about it! ;)

For me, the Allen key arm height adjustment is not that bad. And remember, I have to adjust VTA regularly when going from the SPU to the 103 or the M3D....... I don't find it a big deal.

Quote:

---

Ok, I have to add an external VTA adjuster.

---

I'm not sure if, sonically, that's a good idea. Best speak to Shuggie (Hugo) about that, as I believe he's fitted one to his SA-750.

Marco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

........... For me, the Allen key arm height adjustment is not that bad. And remember, I have to adjust VTA regularly when going from the SPU to the 103 or the M3D....... I don't find it a big deal.



I'm not sure if, sonically, that's a good idea. Best speak to Shuggie (Hugo) about that, as I believe he's fitted one to his SA-750.

Marco.

---

I am having a custom arm mounting collar made for the Jelco, to resolve the vertical rocking problem. The main difference over the stock collar is a bit of extra height, so that the grub screw presses on the arm pillar in a better place (eg not at the very top of the collar); also the grub screw itself is much bigger so it should be possible to just 'nip' the thing tight without boring into the soft metal of the arm pillar.

Marco, it seems to me the Jelco hasn't any graduate reference on the pillar for the VTA (I mean same printed or engraved notch), so how do you know the exact VTA you're setting (or re-setting)? are you using a bubble level or your own eyes?

Shuggie, this seems to be interesting stuff. Any picture or any past thread about that ?

Mike New proposed his own solution, but it's complicated to me send some pieces of my TT to him to modifying them.

Thank you


EDIT: never mind Shuggie, I found it: http://theartofsound.net/forum/showt...?t=5633&page=1

Quote:

---

Marco, it seems to me the Jelco hasn't any graduate reference on the pillar for the VTA (I mean same printed or engraved notch), so how do you know the exact VTA you're setting (or re-setting)? are you using a bubble level or your own eyes?

---

The pillar, when loosened, simply goes up and down. I then nip it up when (yes, by eye) the arm looks bang on level with the record surface. Final adjustment though is always by ear, where I will then fiddle around for sometime making minute adjustments, before getting the VTA spot on, sonically, using various test records.

There's not much point in having engraved notches on the arm pillar, or whatever, if the 'sweet spot', for optimal VTA, falls somewhere in between! ;)

Marco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

The pillar, when loosened, simply goes up and down. I then nip it up when (yes, by eye) the arm looks bang on level with the record surface. Final adjustment though is always by ear, where I will then fiddle around for sometime making minute adjustments, before getting the VTA spot on, sonically, using various test records.

There's not much point in having engraved notches on the arm pillar, or whatever, if the 'sweet spot' for VTA, where the sound clicks into place, falls somewhere in between! ;)

Marco.

---

Ok Marco, I agree.
Anyway a VTA adjuster can be added at a later time (just read the Ralph's thread about VTAF and about the issue of coupling/decoupling the tonearm).

Back to topic, the Jelco SA 750 has a 20 GR mass. So you didn't to add any additional weight to the Jelco headshel, din't you?

Last Q: the Jelco above on the SL 1200 needs the straight or the 90 degrees connector?

Thank you

Quote:

---

Back to topic, the Jelco SA 750 has a 20 GR mass. So you didn't to add any additional weight to the Jelco headshel, din't you?

---

I know on Dave C's site it states that the effective mass for the SA 750 is 20g, but with respect to Dave, I think he's miscalculated it. It's more like 14 or 15g, the same as the Ortofon TA-100 (which is near identical to the SA 750) :)

I don't use the Jelco headshell when I'm using the 103, as it's too light - that's where the 17.5g Ortofon LH-9000 comes in:


http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/1674/hslh9000.png

Quote:

---

Last Q: the Jelco above on the SL 1200 needs the straight or the 90 degrees connector?

---

It's been a while since I looked under there, but I'm pretty sure it's the 90° one.

Marco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

I know on Dave C's site it states the effective mass for the SA 750 is 20g, but with respect to Dave, I think he's miscalculated it. It's more like 14 or 15g, the same as the Ortofon TA-100 (which is near identical to the SA 750) :)

I don't use the Jelco headshell when I'm using the 103, as it's too light - that's where the 17.5g Ortofon LH-9000 comes in:

---

I get the 20 gr from here (look down at comments section)
http://www.vinylengine.com/library/jelco/sa-750d.shtml

Anyway, 5 GR more on headshell lower the FR from 9.3 to 8.7, so the FR it's still into the suggested range.


http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/1674/hslh9000.png

Always the best for you, Marco :eyebrows:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

It's been a while since I looked under there, but I'm pretty sure it's the 90° one.

Marco.

---

Ok, thanks

'Scuse me for wading in here, but I should say that IMO, the 309 is a very stable customer and the 103 shouldn't be a problem tbh.

The 304 is rather more highly compliant and prefers lighter SME's (M2-9) or Rega RB series tonearms (probably the lighter Jelco as well). It's a bit expensive now though for what's on offer and I think a Sumiko BPS, high output mc or not, might comfortably see it off...

It wouldn't hurt to ask SME if they might make a high-mass headshell for the 309, together with a heavier counterweight should one be needed. My own view is that a 103SA would probably be fine in the 309 just as it is, because the tonearm is so well behaved when compared to all the s shaped detachable types, which probably need all the extra mass to tune the resonances down as far as possible - the 103 series isn't actually hugely low in compliance when measured, whetever the subjective results may suggest..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gdg

Marco, it seems to me the Jelco hasn't any graduate reference on the pillar for the VTA (I mean same printed or engraved notch), so how do you know the exact VTA you're setting (or re-setting)? are you using a bubble level or your own eyes?

Shuggie, this seems to be interesting stuff. Any picture or any past thread about that ?

Mike New proposed his own solution, but it's complicated to me send some pieces of my TT to him to modifying them.

Thank you


EDIT: never mind Shuggie, I found it: http://theartofsound.net/forum/showt...?t=5633&page=1

---

That VTAF didn't quite work out for me - perhaps because a MC cartridge needs a more direct energy connection between the arm and chassis. I shall revisit it sometime to check, though as it's some time since I last used it.

In theory, adjusting the VTA on the Jelco is easy, and the up and down bit is easy. If you use a headshell spirit level, you'll very soon see the azimuth errors that result from the arm pillar not being truly vertical. My new collar should solve that - it's inspired by the Linn Ittok collar, which although too big, does nevertheless secure the Jelco's arm pillar properly vertical, although the mounting distance is then wrong if used with a Linn armboard.

It will be a while before my modified Jelco mounting collar is ready. If it works out, then having additional ones made up (in aircraft grade aluminium) will be straightforward, but I don't know what the cost might be. If there is interest here, I'll post updates and pictures as I am able to do so.

Quote:

---

I get the 20 gr from here (look down at comments section)

---

I'm really not sure that figure is accurate, but anyway......

Quote:

---

Always the best for you, Marco

---

Well if you're going to do a job, do it right! ;)

Hi Dave,

I cannot dispute what you're saying, technically, about the 309 but let's just say that, despite this, instinct from extensive experience of using the 103 suggests it's not likely to be the best match. The 103 really does need plenty of mass to perform optimally, I feel, in any circumstances.

If someone wants to try it on a 309, though, I don't mind being proven wrong!!

However, I like the idea of SME making a bespoke headshell - that would definitely work! :)

Marco.

Hi Hugo,

Quote:

---

It will be a while before my modified Jelco mounting collar is ready. If it works out, then having additional ones made up (in aircraft grade aluminium) will be straightforward, but I don't know what the cost might be. If there is interest here, I'll post updates and pictures as I am able to do so.

---

Please do, as I for one would be very interested in this. If it works well, we'll do a proper feature of it on the forum, which I'm sure will result in a few sales :)

Marco.