Denon DL-103 vs. DL-160?


Hello...

I have a Technics SL-1210M5G with a Denon DL-160 cartridge and quite happy with the combo, however, I'm itching to try another cartridge. I have read good things about the Denon DL-103 and can acquire one at a relatively reasonable price.

What would I gain or lose switching from the DL-160 to the DL-103? Are there significant differences between the two cartridges aside from output level? I'm interested in the sonics and soundstage.

Thanks and regards,

Jan
jsmoller
Post removed 
The 103 is a better cartridge than the 160, but it's not a good match on that arm. The effective mass of your arm is 12 grams. If you plug the numbers into the formula, you'll find the resonant frequency is 15.5 Hz. 10 Hz is considered ideal, but the usable range is between 8-12 Hz.

resonant freq. = 159 / sqrt [(eff. mass + cart wt. + fastener wt.) * (compliance)]
rf = 159 / sqrt [(12 + 8.5 + 0.5) * 5] = 15.5 Hz

If you're looking for a good cartridge that works with your table, check out the Audio Technica AT150MLX for $249. Here's a recent forum discussing it:

I just went up two notches in resolution
The alternative is to add weight or change the headshell to a heavier one, to get the resonant freq <12hz.
Post removed 
07-02-08: Tvad
The resonance frequency chart on cartridgedb.com for the DL-103 states otherwise. No matter how much weight one adds, the resonant frequency is never close to acceptable.

Perhaps I'm missing something?
Evidently, we all are missing something. The Cartridge Database also states that the DL-103's compliance rating is done at a different frequency (100 Hz) than is typical (10 KHz), which would raise the compliance as typically stated.

In Art Dudley's review of the Zu-103 (which weighs more), he states:
Measured in the Naim Aro, using the excellent Hi-Fi News & Record Review test LP, the Zu DL-103 exhibited a lateral resonant frequency centered at 11Hz, with significant residual jiggling at 9 and 13Hz. In the vertical plane, it went off at about 12Hz. (I didn't measure the cartridge's resonant behavior in the RB300; if anything, given the Rega arm's marginally higher effective mass, those numbers might have been very slightly lower. Which is still fine.) Tracking was acceptably good, but it was apparent while viewing the cartridge head-on during record play that the Zu would have liked a little more antiskating force than the Aro could provide at even its highest setting.

The RB-300 shows a resonant frequency of 14Hz with a cartridge the weight of the Zu-103, and the Naim Aro is a lighter arm still, yet the actual resonant frequencies aren't that extreme.

My conclusion is that you can't take that dynamic compliance figure of 5 too literally.

Still, having just migrated from a Denon DL-160 to an Audio Technica AT150MLX, I think that's a good migration path. The tonal balance of the two cartridges are very similar, and the AT150MLX simply provides more speed, detail, ambience, and image specificity without giving up *anything* to the DL-160.

And once you make the initial purchase, the AT150MLX replacement stylus is the same price as an entire DL-160.