Denon DL 103 modifications and re-body questions thread

Chakster, The DL103 is the particular pet cartridge, especially among US aficionados, for those who dream of getting a lot for a little.  (Who doesn't dream of that?)  You can find endless threads on Vinyl Asylum devoted to the DL103 and 103R, many of which discuss these various aftermarket bodies for the cartridge. (In fact, lohanimal ought to do a search on VA.)  On VA you can find extravagant claims for the wonderfulness of the DL103. So, I think that's why it gets a lot of attention. 

Moreover, there is some justification for the notion that the DL103 might be a "bargain".  Big companies, like Denon and Audio Technica, can often produce a better cartridge at a lower cost, compared to the smaller companies that specialize in the high end.  However, to be clear, I am not one of its disciples.

Interesting discussion.  High impedance circuits are more susceptible to noise caused by oscillation, I do know that.  I would not have thought that the difference in Z between an MM "circuit" and a LOMC one would make much difference to noise generation.

Rob, Mitch Cotter or any other guru can write a book on the subject, but in the end we all have to use our ears.  If he came down in favor of SUTs, then one can cite other "authorities" of similar stature who come down on the other side. Anyway, I was more talking about "noise" in response to Dover's assertion.

Dover, You wrote, "Moving coils generated more current and less voltage than MM's. Higher current from cartridge to 1st amplifying device means better noise rejection. Basic physics."

I agree with you on the issue of SUT vs active gain stage; I prefer the latter (not sure I mentioned that explicitly in my first post, but the message seems to have gotten across). I am well aware of the V/I difference between MM and MC cartridges, but I am not aware of any "basic physics" that would suggest that MC cartridges innately have a lower noise floor based on their ability to produce current, compared to MM types. In order for the listener to sense the noise, the phono stage has to be driven by the cartridge.  (Obviously, you know that.) Almost all the phono stages that provide sufficient gain for LOMC cartridges are voltage-driven. Ergo, where is the advantage for the MC cartridge in terms of its capacity to make current?  There are a very few "current-driven" phono stages designed exclusively for LOMCs with very low internal resistance.  Perhaps if one is using one of those phono stages, the LOMC would have a noise advantage.  But of course, those few phono stages absolutely cannot be driven properly by MM cartridges in the first place.  I may be missing your point, so feel free to rebut.

Lohanimal, It sounds like you are not scraping up the money to mod your DL103R.  In which case, since you're just having fun, I say have at it.   If it were I, I would go for a wood body and a new cantilever/stylus. I have an ancient DL103 with no cantilever or stylus.  I bought it new probably in the 70s.  Every once in a while I think maybe I should send it off for repair, but.....nah.  I've got other more interesting broken cartridges that I would repair first.

I agree with Chakster and Glen.  And Rob, please explain why an MC cartridge would per se have a lower "noise floor" than an MM cartridge.  I can't think of a justification for that generalization.  In fact, the facts might suggest that the opposite is the case.  It certainly would be if you use an active gain stage (rather than a SUT) to amplify the output of an MC.