Fair enough, at the end of the day you hear what you hear... Just two points I'd make:
1) Have you heard a re-bodied one with the combination of a valve MM phono stage and MC head amp (not an SUT)? This also presumes use of the right arm, headshell and turntable, as discussed.
2) I'm wondering how much your specific tastes in music is a contributory factor to your relative dissatisfaction with the 103?
In my experience, it is fundamentally NOT the best cartridge for playing classical music, particularly the stuff you're into, and is much more at home banging out a meaty rock or dance bassline, which the 'bouncy'/rhythmic characteristics of its weighty bass delivery makes come alive, especially with 80s electronic pop on 12" singles.
It's also great at reproducing classic jazz albums, on the likes of Blue Note, as its rich, vibrant midrange makes the likes of sax and trumpet come alive.
For me, conical-tipped cartridges aren't best suited at reproducing the subtleties of classical music, especially at ends of sides, where that big fat tip often shows its limitations... You really need a nice fine-line stylus, and a cartridge with better high-frequency response/more subtlety and finesse, to make the most of classical music recordings.
Therefore, perhaps that's a significant reason why, despite trying your best, you simply can't get on with a 103?
There's no doubt that production variability is an issue, as I've heard good ones and bad ones, where the only variable was the batch number/year of production, so I'll buy that, and of course the plastic shell is a major hindrance, in terms of the ability of the cartridge to release its full potential.I'm not quite in agreement that economies of scale are the sole reason for cheapness - I suspect there's also high tolerance for production variability, and while the flexible body is certainly an issue, even fixing that never quite did the trick for me. There's something more holding it back, a combination of design limitations and materials I think.
However, in my view, the quality of the stylus (and its assembly), magnets, coils suspension, etc, is top-notch, and I'm very confident it would cost much more if made by, say, Lyra, Dynavector, or someone else of that ilk. There's always a price to pay for the 'right badge'!
Audio Technica, for me, come under a similar category to Denon, in that the massive size of the respective companies (and their level of expertise), allows them to produce 'giant-killing' cartridges at prices that smaller, more 'specialist' Jap manufacturers simply couldn't do, for a variety of reasons. Look at the AT-33PTG, for instance...
What was it new at one point - £300? Yet it performed as well, and in some areas better, than some 'posher' MCs at more than three times the price!
And it's similar with Denon, and the DL-103. Therefore for me, the know-how of such huge companies and the respective economies of scale is largely responsible for the fact that the DL-103 only costs £250. It certainly doesn't sound like a £250 cartridge in the right set-up/system!
I would agree with that. There's a reason why no DL-103 Denon has ever produced has been fitted with a fine-line stylus or ruby cantilever.... Fit such to one and you'll 'improve' certain areas of its sound, but subsequently ruin others, particularly what it's best at!I would never encourage people to splash out on expensive retipping or rebody work because in my view a 'designed from scratch' higher performance cartridge is always going to perform more coherently and consistently than the phono equivalent of a home-modified Ford Escort with aftermarket wide bore exhaust and go faster stripes. The versions improved by Denon themselves are better - but even so you still hit its limitations.
As such, the only mod I'd do to a 103 is replace the plastic shell with something better, which strangely enough (ahem) Denon do will all their improved versions, simply because they know it works.
Marco.