Denon 103r ????

>>Well, I never could get the 103R to get to really good on my Quatros.<<

Your speakers are irrelevant here. Your tonearm/cartridge match was the problem.

>>I think that the....low low compliance just won't let it happen on my set-up (SME III arm)<<

This is absolutely true. I didn't include your reference to the conical stylus because that's not a factor at all in your observation. The relatively low compliance 103R will not perform even close to its capabilities in your 5 grams effective mass tonearm.

>>...Yes, the 103R can be better on a heavier arm...<<

Make that "will."

>>but the balance of the cartridge will always bias the low-end...by design.<<

This is nonsense. There's no reason one cannot get linear sound and an extended top end from a properly set-up 103R, installed in a tonearm well-matched to its dynamic requirements.

>>What I need to do, is find a comparable compliance MC that has the timber of my AC-2. But, where to start?<<

No. If you get another cartridge with compliance comparable to the 103R, you will again have a gross mismatch between cartridge and tonearm and once again you will malign a perfectly good cartridge by some other maker. Your SME III tonearm requires a distinctly non-comparable compliance, in its case high. Where to start is a much higher compliance and excellent Denon DL-304 or DL-S1. Or just keep listening to your AC-2. The other path to take is to accept the compliance of the 103R and replace your SME III with a tonearm appropriate to that specific Denon.

Phil

>>No, even a well set-up 103R is soft on top.<<

I'm sorry, it's not. But a well-set-up 130R won't sound strident. Maybe you like strident.

>>A conical stylus can only do so much. It simply doesn't fit the groove too well.<<

Have you ever listened to an Ortofon SPU Classic GM with its spherical diamond? Neither it nor the 103/103R are intrinsically "soft" on the top end if matched to proper tonearms, and properly loaded and amplified.

>>Not to mention the higher stylus pressure conical stylus generate on the groove wall where they do hit. The small contact area has a high PSI so that and 2 grams tracking force is much harder on a record than at first glance against a more modern long contact area stylus.<<

A conical stylus' lbs/square inch pressure at tracking force can be lower than with an eccentric diamond shape at lower tracking force. Moreover, if tracking force is set too low, causing stylus chatter in the groove, a conical stylus will be less damaging to groove walls in such a situation.

>>Sure, I can set it to a too high stylus tracking angle like 94 degrees and the distortion will peel the paint off the walls!<<

94 degrees? You're not making sense. Anyway, you do not have to run an elevated VTA to get a conical stylus to track unless something else is radically wrong.

>>The AC-2 works very well (not extremely well) in my SME series III.<<

It's still a mystery why you'd want to run seriously suboptimal cartridges for your tonearm. I've given you alternatives. If you're committed to the SME III, why not get a cart that is "extremely well" matched?

>>Why on earth the silly defense of an admittedly inferior product to the older 103D in overall performance?<<

The 103D hasn't been made for many years. The 103R is current and the market for it deserves to understand it's capabilities and operation accurately.

>>This product confuses me. OK, they made the thing a nail as everyone went high mass.<<

You have it wrong. The 103 has been made since 1962, as a broadcast cartridge, when all tonearms were realitively high mass. The 103 has been a low compliance cartridge from the beginning. The 103R doesn't stray from that. 103S/D/M are the higher compliance aberrations designed when everyone went low mass 35 years ago, for 15 years.

>>Does that make it better? Give it a rest, the 103r is mediocer at best in sound quality.<<

Low, medium, high compliance are not measures of cartridge quality. There are excellent designs with each design characteristic. You can get good sound from any. But matching a low compliance cartridge to a low mass tonearm is guaranteed to yield mediocre sound from both instruments working together.

>>It has "value" but I'm more interested in getting to at least "class B" quality sound.<<

Then you really have to change out your SME III arm for reasons other than low mass. As a tonearm it was never capable of "Class B" sound; certainly not in today's terms.

>>I would not put the 103r I heard in that spot.<<

How could you know? You listened to it in an inappropriate tonearm.

>>Changing the stylus and complinace on a 103R IS NOT the same product anymore, so I won't go there.<<

Agreed, but the motor design has desirable attributes, and ironically, a ruby cantilever, suspension change and a line contact stylus will get it sounding more like what you're asking for. Try a Denon DL-S1. Also, there's a mint Micro-Acoustics MA3002 electret condenser cartridge listed here. That's a perfect match for your SME III and it's fast, open, detailed, extended. Have at it.

Phil

>> People are clearly misunderstanding what VTA even is, and how it achieves the proper stulus rake angle. I have to question your set-ups if you don't realize this.<<

Stylus Rake Angle (SRA) is commonly referenced relative to the true vertical position of the stylus, with straight up and down being *zero* degrees, not 90 degrees. The zero point is at true vertical as it is expressed relative to true vertical within the record groove, not stylus position realtive to the horizontal surface of the record. You'll want about +1 degree (forward) tilt of the diamond relative to zero (true vertical). With a pinpoint light and a sharp eye you can eyeball it for the vast majority of your records. Beyond that, you'd drive yourself crazy trying to optimize SRA for lowest IM distortion on each and every side of every record you play. Believe me, you have other problems.

For a conical stylus, SRA isn't critical. Some might say it's non-existent. You can just pay attention to VTA (which is the angle of the cantilever relative to the record's surface). For an eccentric stylus shape there is an specified ideal SRA. It's both easier to set by the naked eye than one might imagine, and yet difficult to control its consistency in practical record playing.

>>No, the physics of PSI relating to the geometry has not changed. A line contact stylus as much more area contacting the groove than a conical. No way around that. Show me your math. I'm not talking about mistracking, either. The contact patch is in theory, infinitely small if a round object is placed against a flat plate. A line contact stylus EXPANDS this by geometry, not force. A conical stylus literally shoves the groove into submission, it has to.<<

Every line contact stylus shape will not track with lower PSI than every conical stylus. It depends on shapes and sizes under comparison. Some might, some won't. But compression of the vinyl isn't the prime factor in record wear. Far more damaging and common is stylus chatter in the groove, and the consequences of chatter are generally more deleterious to the LP groove than same occuring with a conical stylus.

>>No, the 103D was much higher compliance than the 103R, by about double. A 103R is 5 cm/Dyne, the 103D was around 12 cm/Dyne.<<

Yes, it was me who had to bring this to your attention earlier.

>>I've heard the 103r set-up on a heavier arm. The sound quality I refer to is indeed the 103r, not some other product (thank God for that). So no, I did NOT hear it in an inappropriate arm.<<

We'd love to know specifics, because all your other commentary has been detailed regarding your experience using a low compliance 103R in a mismatched low mass arm.

>>I find it real funny that people defend this cartride in a race it clearly losses. Just about anything that you do to it improves the sound. Remove the body, change the stylus, change the compliance, ETC. I really have to ask, if it's so darn good, why does anything done mechanically make it "SO" much better? <<

Because many have heard the AC2 and similar design cartridges in properly matched tonearms and have nevertheless achieved better results from a 103R in an appropriately-matched tonearm. The AC2 sounds good in the right arm. Why don't you just keep listening to it rather than disparage other cartridges you don't understand?

>>The 103r has serious limitations and people need to be aware of them, even with a high mass arm. It is what it is. paid for physical changes NOT being what it is. They are not free.<<

Your AC2 or even Benz can be improved through re-body. It can be changed (one may or may not like the change) through re-tip to a different diamond shape, re-cantilevered to a different material, recalibrated for compliance, etc. This is true for any cartridge. They're just transducers, susceptible to alteration, educated or otherwise. The 103R represents a combination of known and consciously-chosen compromises. It makes an excellent case for itself right out of the box, if properly implemented. There are higher-resolving cartridges that are much less musical and unable to match the 103's holistic tone. But some people are attracted to a more dissected and deconstructed sound, essentially disintegrated details. Just depends on what you think is important to your sense of fidelity. Good luck with that Benz Ruby.

Phil

>>I'm sure you know this....it gets repeated ad nauseam on this and other forums....but Denon specs their cartridge compliances at 100Hz - not the 10Hz typical of most manufacturers. The 103R has a compliance at 10Hz of around 9cm/dyne - maybe more - which means it tracks and behaves quite well in typical medium mass arms. The low mass SME is probably a stretch though.<<

Yes, if you read back far enough in this thread, you'll see I pointed this out. I figure its equivalent 10 Hz compliance to be 9. The 103R is usuable in medium mass tonearms, a point I've also made before, but when used in something like a Rega, it benefits from adding mass at the headshell or in the form of a re-body. That cartridge sounds good in a 12g medium mass arm, but it sounds better with a little more. Hence, if used with the right counterweight, the 14g total weight Zu103 mod is beneficial to application in a Rega. But medium mass is a far cry from the 5g SME III. That is not a match.

>>I wonder if the 103R's reported superior sonics in heavier arms has more to do with damping the cartridges inherent resonances than fundamental compliance matching(?).<<

Well, that may be part of it, but a compliance rating normalized to 9 is going to do well dynamically in a 20g tonearm, plain and simple.

The higher compliance 103D and M do well in medium to medium-low mass arms. I use a stock 103R in medium mass tonearms sometimes, but it does deliver more tonal density and dynamic intensity in my 18-20g tonearms.

The Uwe body is a legitimate modification.

Phil

>>Geometry class is still in session.<<

Perhaps so, but that's not how SRA is referenced. It's not relative to the plane of the record surface. It's referenced relative to deviation from a true vertical line, said vertical line being 0.

>> I just wish the concept "sounded" good. I'm not hearing that. It sound consistently veiled and harsh to less so but still cloudy. <<

Yes, but this is because you used that cartridge in a too-light tonearm for that suspension to properly work against. Nothing about a conical stylus necessitates a vieled sound, and certainly not harsh. Harshness from a 103R is a sure sign something is wrong with your set-up.

>>No, it isn't. It is the CONTACT point of the stylus to the record surface drawn to the PIVOT point of the tone arm.<<

Well, technically, yes. But for practical purposes of simply differentiating VTA from SRA, the cantilever essentially defines the same.

>> I'll take a ninety percent improved field of choice over a very FEW conical styli that track light enough to offset the minimal contact surface. Show me your math on this one. Again, this is simple static’s and geometry at work. Sure, If I mistrack we are talking apples to oranges. I'm talking how the car behaves on the road, not in the ditch.<<

Since most record wear is not caused by vinyl compression derived from PSI differences at proper tracking force, it is the dysfunction of stylus chatter that should concern you. An Ortofon SPU properly set up for 3 - 4g VTF won't compromise your records. But a line contact rattling in the groove due to improper setup or too-low VTA will wreak havoc in the groove. PSI isn't the worry.

>>A cheap moving coil cartridge is not going to have the design effort that a better product has.<<

The only reason the 103R is cheap by today's standards is that it's basic architecture has been in production since 1962. Every cost was long ago amortized. Denon could easily put it in an exotic body and give it a more exotic cantilever and stylus, but hasn't. In part because they have put enough development into the 103 for it to be outstanding as-is. For more "design effort" they have the DL-S1, which easily competes with cartridges triple its price from smaller organizations.

>>The low compliance is but just ONE of the negatives thrown onto this product that in my listening, leave it inferior to the old 103D<<

As Ronald Reagan said, "There you go again." Low compliance isn't a negative. It's just a trait that demands proper matching to an appropriate tonearm. It's qualitatively neutral.

>>leave it inferior to the old 103D on ANY tonearm<<

No, sorry. If you put a 103D in an arm too heavy for its compliance, it will deteriorate as badly in different ways as a 103R does in a tonearm too light for it.

>>Glad you like to stop your listening there. You're saving a lot of money. <<

I don't. I listen to Zu103, 103R, 103D, 103M, 103FL, 305, plus Ortofon SPU Silver Meister and SPU Synergy, plus Signet TK9LC. And there'll be more.

>>You're kidding, right" I never knew Linda Rhonstadt was supposed to have been singing inside a felt box..my bad on that.<<

Well, she will if you put the cartridge in the wrong tonearm and further screw up the set-up.

>>At least the 103D was a good kind of haze, the 103r runs you into things trying to hear through the fog.<<

If your 103D has haze, then you have problems setting up TWO cartridges.

>>A conical stylus is far removed from the cutter heads geometry. It is a simplistic approach to a cheap product.<<

The cutting head is not the playing head. Many cartridge designers that try to get close to the shape and alignment of the cutting head produce awful sounding cartridges. There's nothing wrong with a conical stylus if it's part of a holistic design. All these transducers are imperfect. The designer must balance many attributes.

>>but to say it is the be all to end all is absurd, and say we who want better are "disparaging" a product you seem to take way too personal.<<

Look, the Denon is just one of many cartridges I've owned or own now. In fact, I had an AC-2 back when it was new and in production. Way back. I have cartridges more than 10X the cost of the 103R. I just prefer to see a good product represented properly. You can have your opinion of the sound, but when that's derived from listening to a cartridge under seriously mismatched and improper conditions, then your opinion isn't informed or actionable. I don't defend the 103 because it's inexpensive. But this cartridge, when properly installed, set-up and co-existing with the right amplification, can allow many music lovers of modest means to enjoy true high-end sound from their vinyl at an accessible price, or allow the better funded audiophile to shift resources into more expensive and excellent tonearm, table, signal amplification, etc., knowing that the source signal will be more than good enough to allow the analog chain to produce lively, realistic, toneful music. That you didn't get that result is understandable, given the errors in selection of associated gear.

The AC2 is a fine cartridge. If you are unwilling to change tonearms, you should enjoy it.

Phil

>>Increasing the arm's effective mass would theoretically lower these resonant points further - not necessarily desirable IMO, as they are already on the lower side of ideal.<<

Correct. But the Uwe body makes the whole cartridge much heavier than stock, so you've effectively raised the effective mass of the tonearm oving system above its nominal 14g eff mass rating, so you're listening to the 103R suspension and motor in a "heavier" tonearm already.

Can't say without being there. But a stock 103R in a 20g tonearm has given me resonance points no lower than what you cite. There may be other factors. But I'd expect a Uwe body 103R to sound beautiful in a Phantom II. In any case, 14g is better than the Rega's 12, for this cartridge, and it can sound good enough in the Rega.

Phil

>>But a line contact rattling in the groove due to improper setup or too-low VTA will wreak havoc in the groove.<<

No edit function here after posting. I meant to type, "...or too-low VTF..."