The Great Denon DL103 Debate...

[Marco]

How about getting his phono stage to work first in any capacity!

Marco.

[anthonyTD]

How about getting his phono stage to work first in any capacity!

Marco.

how rude,,,
it is working, he just needs a ceramic cartridge!!!

[Marco]

Never mind a ceramic cartridge - he just needs ANY cartridge! Not to mention, a turntable, oh and some records... I guess those would come in handy

Marco.

[anthonyTD]

Never mind a ceramic cartridge - he just needs ANY cartridge! Not to mention, a turntable, oh and some records... I guess those would come in handy

Marco.

good point!
i think you should lend him your turntable and a couple of your depeche mode albums, he can practice his sctratching technics,go on, it'l be alright that ole denon is as "Tough As Titanium" ...

[Marco]

Hehehe... I just LOVE Noel Keywood, but I couldn't manage him whole, all at once

Marco.

[anthonyTD]

ANYWAY,
we've had our bit of leg pulling, its back to the guys who have something constructive to say on this thread.
anthony,TD.

[Marco]

Indeed. I'm just waiting patiently for David to offer me his pearls of wisdom

Marco.

[pure sound]

Listened to a 103R today on a Luxman PD555 with a 'weighted' Wilson Benesch arm via 3 different transformers. Certainly better than the 103 as I recall it but still not as secure on strings & big piano chords as I'd like. It is preferable to many of the rather clinical & anodyne sounding modern cartridges that can be bought but while its fuller & fruitier balance is quite attractive it does lack for precision in the bass & some finesse elsewhere. It glosses over some things too. I'm sure there'd be mileage in improving the structural integrity of the bodyshell but the magnet circuit probably needs to be mounted in something more substantial too.

Of course that starts to cost & isn't what these cartridges are really about.

[Marco]

Nice one, Guy. I'm glad you've heard one now on two decent systems

I can't comment on what you heard though because I've never listened to a 103R in that context.

When you say "weighted", do you know how much exactly? You're talking ideally 20g on the headshell for optimum performance. This is what I've got now with the Fidelity Research S/5. If it was anything less than that there would still have been some evidence of the coarseness you referred to earlier, probably manifesting itself this time as the lack of "security" you mentioned with some types of music.

Also VTF is optimal when set at 2.7g, not the 2.5g that many people use.

It is preferable to many of the rather clinical & anodyne sounding modern cartridges that can be bought...

I agree, and it's precisely what I don't like about the majority of modern cartridges - they just lack 'soul' and make records sound as sterile as some CDs. If I wanted that type of presentation I'd have bought one of the many 'high-end' CD players on the market now and forgot about vinyl altogether.

...but while its fuller & fruitier balance is quite attractive it does lack for precision in the bass & some finesse elsewhere. It glosses over some things too.

The above weaknesses are addressed by optimally matched transformers and the use of a high quality valve MM stage (like your P10 ). I'm not sure which type of transformers were used when you heard the 103R today but I've yet to hear any better than the Haufe ones in the Auditorium 23 SUT. Achieving the optimal loading value for cartridges is often underestimated and absolutely crucial for the full potential of the 103 to be realised - it really does open out the sound quite remarkably at both ends of the frequency range. The A23 is particularly good at making the 103's top end sound sweeter, more extended, and adding overall finesse. Unless optimally matched transformers are used you will only hear a fraction of its true potential, of course the same is also true of any other cartridge.

That's one of the reasons why using transformers with MC cartridges gives better performance than with active MC stages (that and much lower noise) because one can apply a specific ideal loading value to a cartridge, which normally falls out with the range of the selectable dip switches used on most commercial active designs, or indeed those that only offer the one setting! There simply isn't enough flexibility available on your average commercial active phono stage to 'tune' cartridge loading and optimise it accordingly, as the 'sweet spot' invariably falls somewhere in between the available settings. Most people using such designs will probably find that the setting they've applied is perhaps only delivering 80% of their cartridge's full potential! As far as the 103 is concerned, those who have judged it using an active phono stage, or the wrong transformer, will quite simply not have heard it properly.

I'm sure there'd be mileage in improving the structural integrity of the bodyshell but the magnet circuit probably needs to be mounted in something more substantial too.

I'm not sure about the mounting of the magnet circuit, but the 103SA has a glass fibre composite epoxy shell and 6N OFC wiring, also used in the 103R. I'm sure that part of the leap in performance I noticed changing from the 'R' or 'Pro' to the SA was due to the improved resonance characteristics and structural integrity of the SA's superior quality shell. Furthermore, the SA's are made to closer tolerances in critical areas of the circuit, so this is what makes it better than any other DL-103 currently on the market. I've also heard the ZU-modified version of the 103, which is excellent, but in my opinion the SA is better still and *the* one to have.

Of course that starts to cost & isn't what these cartridges are really about.

I know where you're coming from but I don't necessarily agree. I see the 103 more as an enthusiasts device than a 'cheap and cheerful' cartridge for the masses, and therefore ripe for tweaking and optimising to extract the most from it. But, as you rightly say, that costs. However, in my opinion, the likes of the 103SA when properly partnered and set-up is as good or if not better than any cartridge I've heard at around £2k. The SA is only £445, and it doesn't cost over £1500 to optimise it. I've heard Lyras and Dynavectors at that sort of price which don't have anything like the same musical qualities.

It's just a pity that most modern MC cartridges now don't have that lovely 'tone' and harmonic richness the classic ones had. Most MC cartridges these days are voiced in a way which prioritises analysis and detail retrieval at the expense of 'musicality' and a more 'luxurious' tonal balance which IMO is more faithful to the sound of real voices and instruments. I think cartridge manufacturers nowadays have lost their way somewhere. When you hear how good the Ortofon SL-15 is, for example, it makes you wonder why they moved from that type of sound to what their current models produce, which is almost the complete antithesis.

Do you have any idea what the catalyst was for the significant 'tonal shift' between how the best classic MC cartridges sounded and the di rigeur presentation favoured by most manufacturers nowadays? Surely with the technology available now one could have the best of both worlds, instead of some of the 'chrome-plated', soulless, anaemic sounding crap foisted upon us?

Marco.

[bong]

Also VTF is optimal when set at 2.7g, not the 2.5g that many people use.

interesting comment. i'll be sure to give it a try later to see if 2.7 is indeed optimal. does this apply to the other 103s that you've heard as well?