I hope you are talking about a DL103D, because a standard DL103 is WAY too stiff for a VPI arm. |
Pboutin, the standard DL103 has a compliance rating of 5cu, which is very stiff in the suspension, and actually is the stiffest cartridge in the world, that I know of. The DL103D is a different compliance rating, I think it is 15cu, and is more of a medium compliance cartridge.
The interaction of the cartridge compliance and the tonearm is a fairly important one, which relates to the energy fed into the tonearm by the cartridge suspension as it plays the record. Low compliance(stiff) cartridges feed much more energy into the arm than medium or high compliance ones do. This energy can "push" the arm around, in a microscopic way, and influence the effectiveness of the information retrieval from the grooves. The mass of the tonearm should be selected according to the compliance of the cartridge. This is particularly critical in the horizontal mass component of the arm. Also, in a unipivot, the azimuth may also be affected by this, and be in a constantly changing condition when playing a low compliance cartridge.
In general, I recommend that unipivots be used with medium or higher compliance cartridges, although there are a few unipivots that have some design features that mitigate this somewhat. Arms like the Graham 2.2 have stabilizers which keep the arm a little more stable than other unipivots.
I personally think that the standard DL103 cartridge is much too stiff for a JMW arm, and although it will play the music, I don't think that the best possible performance will be attained with this configuration. I'd recommend a high quality gimbal-bearing tonearm for the DL103. The "ol fashioned" DL103 Art talks about could be either the 103D or the 103, but I think he is referring to the 103D. That is a much better match for the JMW than the standard 103 is. |
I think the Helikon or Celebration would be better choices than the Dynavector XX-2H. They are a little higher in compliance(12cu), and will put the arm under less stress than the (10cu) Dynavector. Call me crazy, but I still don't think that unipivots handle low compliance cartridges well at all. I know, I know, others think that you can just slap any cartridge on any arm, and everything will be just peachy. Sorry, but I don't agree. |
I would agree with the dog and pick up truck statement. Unfortunately, the JMW arm is not in the high-mass category. Oh, it might be high-mass compared to a Black Widow tonearm, but not in the broader sense. An arm(JMW) that is around 11 grams effective mass, is a medium mass arm. Heavy arms start around 12 grams effective mass, and higher, and the higher ones are more suitable for a very very low compliance cartridge like the DL103. I did some checking on the ideal combined mass of a DL103 and tonearm, and it comes to about 21.5 grams. Since the cartridge itself is about 8.5 grams, that would make a tonearm of about 13 grams optimal for this cartridge.
Now I don't say that a lighter arm couldn't handle it, but it would lose some of the dynamics and bass and detail in the process, from being overdriven by the cartridge.
Also, I would venture to say that since the JMW is a unipivot, it will have azimuth changes during play with this cartridge. It is unavoidable with this combination of ultra-low compliance and unipivot design. It's going to rock and roll.
I have owned and used a number of these Denon cartridges, including the DL103 and DL103R, and am very familiar with their needs, and my viewpoint is not strictly theoretical. I used them on arms that were 11 grams, and ones that were almost 12 grams, and the cartridge was clearly overdriving both of those arms. And they were gimbal-bearing type arms, which give far better stablity, and at least don't change azimuth during play. This led to my development of a tonearm mod, that was required in order to get the proper result from my use of this cartridge, with my available tonearms.
Suffice it to say that I am in disagreement with Art Dudley and his findings.
In the end, if you like what you are using, that is all that matters. I have had this discussion with many JMW owners over the past 2 years. This subject always comes up. It is very difficult for me to be as diplomatic as I'd like, and still tell the truth. I try to help, but people don't want to hear what I have to say. |
It has come to my attention that there are some new optional "outriggers" that have become available for the JMW tonearms. Apparently, this is Harry's "fix" for helping the tonearm to handle low compliance cartridges. If you are planning on using anything below 15cu, then I'd heartily recommend the purchase and use of these outriggers on the JMW tonearms. |
Melm, when you learn something about tonearm design, let me know. Then we might be able to have a productive discussion.
FYI, I HAVE used a DL103 on many different tonearms, but only an idiot would even try one on a JMW. If you think that this is not a problem, maybe you should try talking to Harry about it. Do you think Harry would introduce a set of optional outriggers to handle cartridges of low compliance, if they weren't needed? He says that the outriggers are needed for even cartridges of 9cu like the Shelter and Koetsu. He doesn't even try to mention the 103 at 5cu.
My only comment to your(and Art's) use of a 103 on a JMW is, that you don't know what a 103 sounds like when it is in a proper arm for it, or you would not have made statements as you did. Just because it makes sound doesn't mean it is good in the arm. It is people like you, who will throw any cartridge into any arm, and hope it sounds right, that makes getting into analog needlessly difficult and problematic for beginners. I think the JMW is a fine arm with the right cartridges. Unfortunately for you and Art, the 103 is NOT the right cartridge.
The JMW is neither the correct mass, nor stable enough for a 103, and that is a plain fact.
I see this very commonly, especially with JMW users. They think that just because they bought an expensive nice arm, that it can be used "willy-nilly" with any cartridge, without any concern for matching. Well, I'm sorry, but that is not the way it works.
Like I said, try spending about 30 years learning about this subject, and maybe we can talk then. |
Melm, go ahead and use the combo. I don't care. The person asked about it, I told him what I thought.
I do realize what this is all about though. I've read the other posts regarding this on the other forum(AA), and your panties are in a wad because you didn't like what I said about the JMW arm. Too bad. I stand by what I said, and it is correct, regardless of your rantings and ravings to the contrary. I know that you came over here from AA for the express purpose of picking a fight with me over this. Just because you are in love with VPI, doesn't mean that it works ideally with every cartridge known to man. I reviewed your posts over there, and the vast majority of them read exactly like a VPI salesman.
But, if you think it does work well with a 103, then by all means, you can use it. I notice that none of the other tonearm brand users get their noses out of joint when somebody mentions a cartridge that doesn't match them well. They all realize that nothing is perfect for everything. But JMW users seem to be overly sensitive about this, and often take the opinion that this(JMW) is some kind of perfect arm that defies all known laws of physics. It's not, and it doesn't. It has good and bad points just like any other arm.
BTW, the smaller outriggers are not needed to be large because the inertia increases by a square of the distance from the pivot. Conversely, even a relatively larger mass at a point close to the pivot will have less effect. This is well demonstrated by the fact that the outriggers were added for the stated purpose. I'm certain Harry is aware of the math, and that is the reason for the size of the outriggers.
Your personal attacks on me are getting tiresome. If you wanted to make your point about disagreeing with me on the matchup, you've made your point. You are entitled to it, as am I. If you want to start some kind of personal vendetta against me because I didn't bow down at the VPI JMW altar, then we have something else to deal with altogether. |
Rauliruegas, thank you for your comments. My contention is that many unipivot tonearms show evidence of instability in the azimuth plane, when cartridges which feed large amounts of energy into the tonearm are used. This is less problematic when medium compliance cartridges(which feed lower amounts of energy into the arm) are used. This is why I recommend what I do. I agree that this is a tonearm design related issue, and many unipivot tonearm makers are showing a trend towards stabilizing features on their arms. I'd say that this is directly related to this issue. All tonearm types have their deficiencies, and this is one that happens to many unipivots, with certain cartridge types.
However, I do accept that many people find these matchups to be listenable in their systems. When making recommendations, I try to show people things to consider when they make their choices. I am in no way trying to tell them what they must do. They can do as they please. But it would be remiss to ignore the things that commonly happen with these combinations. So, I make my recommendations from my experience, and the experience of others that I know, and hope to help them in their quest for better sound. In my experience, tonearm stability considerations(in all planes) are as important for the cartridge matching as the mass/resonance is, when high-energy low compliance cartridges enter the equation.
Not everyone would agree with me, but that is my opinion. |
