Denon 103r ????

I know the post is old but the Paradox Pulse R loaded at 400 to 700 ohms, do not use SUT's will out perform most anything out there, period.

"goose bumps"

I'll vouch that the 103R is quite capable of that on a regular basis.

Tony,

I've had a few static issues with my 103R recently - never had this problem with any cartridge before (including the 103R). I wondered if the insulating properties of the wood body (along with dry winter spell) was adding to the problem. In my case using the Zerostat and and antistatic brush alleviated the issue.

I haven't found the 103R that sensitive to VTA changes - about level (using the Phantom micropoise level) seems to work best for me...and I re-adjust this for different record thicknesses - a 2 second job with the Phantom's level. I don't go crazy over this adjustment with the Denon though.

I have found the Denon sensitive to azimuth - the cartridge can go from good to great with a small change in this parameter.

I don't recall having any break-in issues with my 103R - it sounded really nice straight out of the box - it just got better with improved setup (and Uwe mod etc).

Agree it's very satisfying when a relatively cheap cartridge delivers the musical goods....Enjoy your 103R!

I am amused reading this post. 80% of what was written was emotional nonsense. Has anyone participating in this post actually designed and built phono cartridges? I doubt it. A novice in this hobby reading this post would likely think he would need to use a dust buster to vacuum up the vinyl shavings on his record after playing it with a Denon cartridge. Stylus shapes, just as cartridge designs are as varied as the marketing guys that dream up the ads for them. In the end, various types of cartridges play great music through both tube and transistor amplifiers, using belt drive, rim drive or direct drive turntables. Every design solution has it's advantages and disadvantages.
I decided to try the Denon 103R this past winter when my old Koetsu died. I was curious to see how these inexpensive cartridges performed based on all the raves by people in these posts. I find it isn't bad, but has not been without it's challenges. It is true this cartridge does not work well with a low mass tonearm like my SME309. I had to buy a 4gm mass from England, made for the SME/Denon combo to get the System Fn right. I also find it touchy regarding static charge. I have to be very careful to make sure my records are neutralized through both washing and using my Zerostat. The Denon required some adjustments to VTA, I found, as it progressed through break-in. It got very edgy after about 40 hours, but raising the back of the tonearm (less VTA) righted things. After 3 VTA adjustments over the break-in period it now sounds pretty good. It is no Koetsu, but I find it musical and enjoyable. It tracks as good as any cartridge that I have ever had. I just finished playing Dreamboat Annie by Heart. I have a London pressing, which, if you can find one grab it. This pressing, from 1976 is very quiet and of course, dynamic. I was getting goose bumps from this album. I love it when that happens, and it didn't take a $3000 cartridge to do it!

06-20-10: Rower30

........So far, the stock 103R is the WORST MC cartridge I've listened to and owned, even in the "right" tonearm. Oh it was better in a heavier arm, but I don't care about "better". I need it to sound "right". My old Denon 103D, and my AC-2 are much better sounding. Now, I have Benz Micro Ruby III that absolutely is superb even over my Accuphase AC-2, this, in my SME series III arm.

I'm sorry you guys, but you seem to have married this product and are now unaware of it's significant faults.

It's a while since I used the 'stock' 103R, but I don't recall it being anywhere near as bad as you say - something is surely wrong with the setup.

I installed the Uwe ebony 103R directly after the Ortofon A90 (in the Graham Phantom).....sure it couldn't match the strengths of the A90, but my imediate impression was "this thing has no right to sound this good!".

I'll be buying another 103R in the near future and trying it with a Uwe Panzerholtz body.

...mismatched and improper conditions...

No, I auditioned the Denon 103r is a heavier arm designed for MC cart, and the results were basically the same on Quatro's…poor midrange and higher end openness.

...Cutting head is not the playing head....
No kidding!! And the groove it leaves behind is NOT well received by conical styli. No amount of holistic garbage can replace what it leaves behind when it tries to extract information it can't respond to. Want to try a 103R with a long contact area stylus? Sure you do! It sounds MUCH better! Send your "superior " 103r off to sound smith and get back a $1,500 cartridge instead! Hey, but its a 103R right? WRONG! Why it might be more like a Benz Micro Ruby III for $1750.00!

Compliance isn't an issue? Yes, it is indeed an issue. It's crappy when the mechanics are crappy, all to meet some other objective that tries to overcome it for the price (and doesn't).

..."The damping and suspension have been dramatically re-engineered for greater compliance (now it is 8) and superior damping, resulting in much faster impulse response and recovery...." http://www.sound-smith.com/denon/index.html

The conical stylus is a throwback to cheap manufacture, and is designed to a price point and like you said...back in 1962 or so.

So far, the stock 103R is the WORST MC cartridge I've listened to and owned, even in the "right" tonearm. Oh it was better in a heavier arm, but I don't care about "better". I need it to sound "right". My old Denon 103D, and my AC-2 are much better sounding. Now, I have Benz Micro Ruby III that absolutely is superb even over my Accuphase AC-2, this, in my SME series III arm.

I'm sorry you guys, but you seem to have married this product and are now unaware of it's significant faults. About everyone else is, and they change, change, change, it till it MAYBE competes with something that was sold with a better design out of the box. I've moved on, and am happy I did. My current set-up sounds better than a $4,700.00 Wilson Benesch table, cartridge and tone arm. Would the Ruby III be better in THAT tone arm? Why yes, it would. A man's got to know the equipment's limitation. But the Ruby III simply walks away form my AC-2 and the 103r isn't even in the hunt... on even the "right" arm. There was no set-up problems, either. Oh it went from awful to better, but the AC-2 and Ruby III simply, and easily, moved out and away.

1.0 The 103D works VERY well in my SME III arm.
2.0 The AC-2 works VERY well in my SME III arm.
3.0 The 103R is TERRIBLE in a SME III arm (never said it wasn't terrible).
4.0 The 103R sound veiled and poor in the Wilson Benesch turntable - Full Circle Turntable/ACT 0.5 Tonearm.
5.0 The Benz Micro Ruby III work VERY well in my SME III arm.

So I'm sorry to hurt your feeling, but I'm more than well aware of what the 103r sound like, and the limitations in my set-up, and the limitations of the 103r in the closer to right set-up. All this clap-trap is just that.

Also, you can "pretend" that a zero slope is a vertical verses horizontal line if you want to. Count me out on that. As a matter of fact, Michael Fremer, who writes for ANALOG CORNER for STEREOPHILE would like to be counted out, too.

You can count me out on your Static’s lessons, too. A conical abject next to a flat surface produces a theoretical infinite PSI pressures unless, the plastic record violently warps out of the way. Same as a line contact, but a line contact has MUCH more contact area to start with. The trade-off on a conical styli are steep. So, they toss that little bugger the minute you PAY them to. Now your good deal product is creeping up tp where the really good stuff already is. Look at the magnified images of styli in record grooves sometime. The shape is the pressure All things being the same. You seem intent on pushing your strange agenda that the 103R is better only in that some other aspect of the alternatives set-up is wrong (stylii pressure, VTA ETC) to keep it looking better. Why? No one here is comparing WRONG set ups with superior product to the right set-up using inferior ones. At least I hope not. So stop throwing out Chaff to confuse everyone.

I don't think any one here counts dollars as "sound" advice, either. I agree with you there. Expensive stuff can be terrible, too. I count the sound period. The 103r sounds bad, I looked at arms and tables (Full Circle Turntable/ACT 0.5 Tonearm.). It still sounded bad in that set-up. A Benz ruby III for WAY less money in my current Ariston and SME III sounds wonderful. Case closed.

06-17-10: Thekong
Have to agree with 213cobra that the 103R is one fine cartridge. I have compared it with some much more expensive cartridges, like the VDH Colibri Platinum and the Ortofon A90, in my system. Is the 103R as good as the other cartridges? No, it is not! But in a proper set-up, I really don’t feel deprived, or have any intense urge to switch back to the other cartridges, when I listen to the Denon. It is that good!

Agreed, the Denon's faults are revolve more around deficiencies at the extremes and some shortcomings in imaging/soundstaging. It still sounds very good in these latter regards but very convincing in tone and texture - it sounds surprising good at midband detail too.

Have to agree with 213cobra that the 103R is one fine cartridge. I have compared it with some much more expensive cartridges, like the VDH Colibri Platinum and the Ortofon A90, in my system. Is the 103R as good as the other cartridges? No, it is not! But in a proper set-up, I really don’t feel deprived, or have any intense urge to switch back to the other cartridges, when I listen to the Denon. It is that good!

>>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..."

>>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

>>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

FWIW, (and yes I know this is not an indicator of sound quality) I just tested the resonant frequencies, lateral and vertical, for the Uwe 103R in my 14gm effective mass Phantom II.
Test record was the HFN&RR, which has a low frequency sweep with a 1kHz pilot - with frequency callouts every couple of Hz.

Lateral resonance was fairly low at 7-8Hz and vertical resonance was about 9Hz.

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.

Of course there may be other benefits to higher mass, but I don't think it would have much to do with fundamental resonance.

Sound wise the Uwe 103R sounds fabulous in the Phantom II - significantly better than the somewhat lower effective mass Graham 1.5T. But is that because the Phantom has slightly higher mass, or because it's a better tonearm? I suspect the latter.

"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."

No, it isn't. Geometry class is still in session. A vertical line is 90 degrees (Right angle). A horizontal line is zero degrees. 90-92 degrees is the window, I agree but not 0 to 2 degrees.

"For a conical stylus, SRA isn't critical."

True, it's a ball. Not to mention, tracking angle error is also, on paper, better, too. I just wish the concept "sounded" good. I'm not hearing that. It sound consistently veiled and harsh to less so but still cloudy.

"…which is the angle of the cantilever relative to the record's surface"

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. A line is extended straight down to the record surface and then outward to the stylus again. This forms a 90-degree right triangle to the record surface. The VTA is the angle at the stylus tip end, and is somewhere between 15-20 degrees.

"Every line contact stylus.."
Oh, who said "every". 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.

"rather than disparage other cartridges you don't understand?..."

So far I am not so sure who understands what. A cheap moving coil cartridge is not going to have the design effort that a better product has. Materials not withstanding, it's got so much effort built in. I understand this product plenty. 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 on ANY tonearm. It is what it is, nothing disparaging about that except the illusion that this thing is beyond "your" reproach. Glad you like to stop your listening there. You're saving a lot of money.

"103's holistic tone..."

You're kidding, right" I never knew Linda Rhonstadt was supposed to have been singing inside a felt box..my bad on that. But, the world is a "better" place through rose colored glasses. Reality bites, doesn't it? At least the 103D was a good kind of haze, the 103r runs you into things trying to hear through the fog. It REMOVES the music. That's bad. So, no, the 103r is doing the deconstructing. Any arm and against better products "clearly" show this. Are you really saying more focused and stable sound over a 103R is now "wrong"? A conical stylus is far removed from the cutter heads geometry. It is a simplistic approach to a cheap product.

I don't know how many cartridges are out there over $380.00 bucks, but we better save the world from them right away, or is it that you can't seem to accept the colored glasses on your head that seem to wrap around your ears? It's OK to like the sound, 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.

I'll listen to the Ruby 3 no different than the 103r. It has to equal or eclipse my AC-2. If it doesn't I'll work till I get there. Remember, you all take thses products to be your children. No, it's all impersonel manufactured product. To think otherwise is to limit your options going forward.

>>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

"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."

That would explain why it seems to work quite well on my Linn Basik tonearm. I know when I bought the 103R I was not totally convinced that my tonearm was a good match, but once I heard the results there has been little doubt. I'm sure I could do better in regards to matching cart and tonearm, but it is a non-issue for me because the results currently are splendid.

Mine sounds great!

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.
You can see this from Denon's own compliance vs frequency graph.
You can also verify this empirically using a test record.

For the record, I think the 103R sounds great - especially in a Uwe wooden shell. I'm running mine in a Graham Phantom II which has an effective mass of around 14gm (according to Bob Graham) and the Uwe shell takes the 103R's weight up to 11.73gm - it sounds superb IMO.

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(?).

I just swapped out the Ortofon A90 for the Uwe 103R and the latter holds up well. It can't match all the strengths of the A90 - but I bet it would surprise people by what it can do....and it has its own charms.

System Details

>> 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

When a stylus can't track the groove due to the shape, it is creating distortion. No way around it. A ROUND stylus won't FIT a high frequency record groove. It creates it's own sound at that point. It's a round peg in a square hole thing. A SMALL contact are ALWAYS creates MORE dange to a recoed than a line contact stulus that had both more area on the record wall (dustributed pressure) and a shape that more properly emulates the cutting head that made the record. Add to that, thye track lighter simple puts the conical stulus where it is, in the bottom of the performance heap.

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.

A record is cut at a cutter angle of about 92 degrees, no less than 90 to remove the cuttings in the original master. A stylus sounds the best when it is matching this angle give or take a degree or so. The so called VTA is meaningless, and can only be measure AFTER you set the stylus rack angle. 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.

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. The 103R is less compliant than the 103D. I used a 103D and it works much better in my arm, at least it was listenable.

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.

Class "B" with a SME III is easy to do with a 15cm/Dyne compliant stulus of similar mass. I have that in the AC-2 right now and it sounds terrific compared to ANY other MC in high-end arms and well away from a 103r.

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?

Roght now, I'm going to match a high compliance, 15cm/Dyne, Benz Micro Ruby III to my arm AFTER I listen to my Quatro woods using my AC-2 as a reference. The two are a dead match on weight, compliance and stylus shape and, the AC-2 has no issue with tracking at 2.0 grams. 1812 cannon shots and all it gets the job done. I expect that the Ruby III will be well into the QUALITY I'm after as it is. I can get a new factory warranty on a re-tip for under two grand. Thank goodness for "new" models clearing out the old. My AC-2 is over thirty years old and being "outdated" never changed it's sound quality.

The Soundsmith The Voice Ebony is a good choice, but I can not audition that product.

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.

>>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

Mine sounds fantastic. Not strident at all, in fact quite the opposite.

Go figure?

"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."

No, even a well set-up 103R is soft on top. A conical stylus can only do so much. It simply doesn't fit the groove too well. 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. 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! Is that open high frequency "sound" though? Been there heard it. It gets to be OK with a good, and that's it. The AC-2 works very well (not extremely well) in my SME series III.

Why on earth the silly defense of an admittedly inferior product to the older 103D in overall performance? This product confuses me. OK, they made the thing a nail as everyone went high mass. Does that make it better? Give it a rest, the 103r is mediocer at best in sound quality. It has "value" but I'm more interested in getting to at least "class B" quality sound. I would not put the 103r I heard in that spot. Changing the stylus and complinace on a 103R IS NOT the same product anymore, so I won't go there.

>>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

Well, I never could get the 103R to get to really good on my Quatros. Over time, and several records, it always tended to sound slightly closed-in on the midrange and blurry. I switched out to the Accuphase AC-2 I had, and it was WAY better on definition and clarity.

I think that the conical stylus and low low compliance just won't let it happen on my set-up (SME III arm) and is generally better at the low-end based on the shape of the grooves in the record. Yes, the 103R can be better on a heavier arm, but the balance of the cartridge will always bias the low-end...by design.

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

Adjust your VTA to a lower setting (drop the back of the tone arm down) removes the bright edgy sound from the DL103R sound.

With the tome arm too high, you get a bright and thin strident sound with no bass definition at all. Imaging is poor, too. Adjust the cartridge right, and it is one smooth operator. I love mine.

Raul, I would be happy to take that 103 youv'e been holding on to all these years off of your hands.... my 103 is off to soundsmith, my 103r nuded is playing now... I consulted a witch doctor, and after sacrificing a few chickens, have exorcised the stridency out of it (for the most part) Bottom line, I was perfectly happy with the stock 103, heard how much 'better' the 103r was... and yes, it is 'better' in many ways, but also 'worse' in some. I pine for a plain ol' unmodded 103... let me know if you still have it, and don't want it, cheers Harv

Pedrillo,sorry to change the subject,but what happened with your interest with the RS-1's?

Kenyonbm,
The tweaks can be seen in my virtual system posted here.
Take a look at the tonearm, you will see a straw and a tiny canister. Inside each one is leadshot and some wire and tiny nails. Wire and nails is in there to resonate and then the leadshot dampens it. Not sure if that is really happening but I do know the added weight helps the cartridge since it is low comlpiance.
Hope this helps.
Again this is an amazing cartridge, looking forward to my next upgrade(cartridge).

Thanks Pedrillo, your enthusiasm come through clearly.

What I was asking is if you could describe and summarize what modifications, adjustments, equipment, magic spells etc. lead to your results.

Ken

Ken,
I am still new to this hobby, but I will try to describe in words as best as I can what I am hearing.
Basically I am hearing into the recording as though I am right there where the musicians recorded. I hear the air so to speak, or the space that the recording took place at.
The percussions especially sound life-like. I get that sound of the stick hitting the skin of the drum sounding real clear and fast that whack you get when its live. The reason I am so enthusiastic is I rarely hear that in a stereo system! I think my tweaks to the tonearm may contribute to that nice sound I am hearing, but I am only guessing. I will eventually get a second arm and another 103r and compare. The second arm will be the 12" vpi arm.
Any suggestions. I am by no means claiming any technical excellence here, just experimenting, hoping some day to better understand the mechanics of turntables arms and cartridges.
I'm sorry if my description fell short of expectation, I think after more time in this hobby will make me better at conveying in words what I am hearing.

Pedrillo, would you please summarize the steps you took to achieve the results that please you so much?

Thanks, Ken

Mingles...I replaced a Grado Sonata with a Benz and can tell you that the Sonata in contrast is tan/brown in color, grainy, harsh, and fuzzy. When you upgrade to a better cartridge, you will hear what I'm talking about...there is always room for improvement

The 103r is for real. I am wondering what will trump my 103r when I upgrade, boy that will take a bite out of my wallet.
Still most highly recommend the 103r, but consider tweaking the arm as that worked for me.

I read Romy's rants..... Ummm, a wee bit scary methinks! I had the same problem with the r.... I added mass to the arm , did the twl mod, and stuch a sliver of ebony between the cart and arm, torqued it down, and i can honestly say, I won't be considering another cartridge for quite some time, period.

The 103r is an over achiever for sure. Can't believe what it is doing. Just incredible sound coming out of my system now. How do I describe it? Organic, pleasant, lively, 3-dimensional, crisp, and ....... nice. Why would I change now?

Mingles,
I left the K & K on 100r setting and it sounds excellent. If you are considering the K & K I would encourage it, it is an incredible phono. I stopped looking for a phono stage and may not start searching for a new phono for a very long time!!

Pedrillo, a K&K is definitely in my future, but the tax man will delay its arrival for a few months ;~}

What are you loading your 103R at? Have you tried 14 ohms?

Mingles,
Glad to see you're happy!
As I am too, I can't believe how good this cartridge is, I REALLY think I done.
Except for line conditioner I will not be buying anything for a long long long long long time. Well maybe one other thing the 103r by Zu.

I got the brass plate mounted on my 103 and I hear a different cartridge. The brittleness in the top end has disappeared. The bottom end also seems tighter and better defined. Vocals and stringed instruments are more present and realistic. Stevie Nicks voice on Dreams (Fleetwood Mac Rumours) is stunning. In the past, it's felt congested and edgy on my system. That's gone now.

I sandwiched a thin piece of shrink wrap tubing between the brass plate and the tonearm. Some folks have recommended this as a means to damp. I was extra careful aligning the cartridge. The exposed cantilever makes it easy, but I wanted to make sure I got it right. I added weights to the RB300 bearing joint (Twl's tweak). And I used the weight adjustment on the Tecnoweight to set the tracking force (2.5g) rather than the spring-loaded knob on the RB300. It's probably a combination of all these things that are creating the improvement, but the end result is wonderful. The cartridge is more enjoyable and less fatiguing than I ever remember it. An ebony body will come at some point, but I'd like to settle in with this new arrangement for a while.

You're not going to get that shimmer. The soft top end where you hear it but it is not reaching is what it is.

Now it becomes the case where cymbols have more weight, have the right splash and metal tone, but do not extend and shimmer. It never sounds wrong to me but I do know that with better damping etc that the topend clarifies and extends but 'shimmer' has not become part of the equation.

Since I just received the K&K and am still tweeking the denon 103r I am only saying with limited time, that the K&K sounds sweeter, projects the music forward a bit in between the speakers, but also has excellent soundstage I am hearing things well beyond the back wall, it is more inviting so- it makes me want to stay longer and continue listening, it also sounds a bit softer in treble range in a way but yet still reveals details in the treble range, though I could also have said that it some how chops off at the extremes(high) but not sure if that's what it is doing- I mean it's pleasant but it makes me yearn a bit for that shimmering sound but maybe that's just an emotional thing and a hint wanting more or spoiledness from my end.
Oh and at the other end the bass is absolutely beautiful, it is full sounding and keys are distinguishable and no cut off of low frequencies as far as I can see for now.
In the end I have to say that it works for me with the denon 103r and of course everything downstream which is to me lucky that I happen to have the right things in the right places.
I will be picking up other cartridges and tonearms as finances allow, then I will know if the K&K is the top dog in this wide price range of under $2500.
I really should mention too that I haven't even begun to compare the speaker wires(have 4 to choose from) and interconnects(don't have much choice now) just yet.

Pedrillo, I want to hear more about your K&K experience. How does it differ from the JLTI and 834P? What tubes are you using?

What load are you using for the 103R?

.

No going back now.

.

Just thought I would post: I got the 103r to sing!!
Maybe it needed to break in?
Maybe I am losing my hearing huh?
It does sound amazing.
I should mention I switched the phono stage to the newly arrived K & K. And that made a difference for sure!!

IT WILL Mingles TRUST me it WILL, DELIVER, just make sure your ready for what it'll deliver.....

Thanks Gadfly. I appreciate the info. I have a plate on order. :~}

I also contacted Uwe. The wood body is 100 euros (US$150 delivered) which is a bit more than I thought it would be, but if it delivers as much as everyone says, then it's worth the cost.

.

Yes you can and i used super glue. the thing I learned about super glue is that it has a strong bond if you try to pull 'away' but if you twist, that is where super glue will let go.

Scarey though. I put a drop of super glue and ran that for a while. I had to set the plate down, hold the back of the cartridge and just exert pressure and it freed. I had to push though.

Is it possible to remove the cartridge from Al's brass plate without damaging it? I'd like to try the plate first, then move on to the wood body.

.

yeah.
I have the wood body on my 103 and plan to use the brass place anumber1 sells for the R.

http://home.comcast.net/%7Eomaille/anumber1/brass.html

I think I will fasten a small, 2mm, piece of wood to the brass to change the tone a bit.

.

I performed surgery on a standard 103. I'll keep my 103R for comparison until I decide to do the same thing.

A std DL103R is not even close as good as a wood body DL103. I suggest you buy two bodies. You'll want to do the DL103R a few seconds after you hear the wood body DL103.

Another option is to run the cart nude. I believe Anumber sells brass plates that you can epoxy the nude DL onto and mount. I have not tried that, but a few that have tried says it sound quite good also.

Regards
Paul