A Trilogy of Trackers

[goatbreath]

I would say for the money compared to other cartridges I have tried..Yes still very much worth the money..I'm just bothered that they stop making them..I've found something I really like...I'm also bothered that I will have the money when my present ones wear out..Once you find a certain level of sound quality you don't want to go back..Every cartridge has quirks,,it depends on what you are willing to put up with..The strange thing about this Kenwood KD7010 turntable I have acquired is that The Shure M97xe doesn't sound badly rolled off on it,,yet the Denon doesn't sound overly bright..I don't understand the voodoo,,but that appears to be the case..My Shure on an SME series 3s sounded totally rolled off..As it did on a Cardas wired Hadcock..

[bauzace50]

Hi,
I was actively looking for a musical example to show the difference between the DL-110 and the DL-103R.

The DL-103R showed its ability to navigate through anything I have without losing any composure. But the DL-110 only showed some harshness on bad grooves. I wanted an instance with music, and found it today.

It is the Chesky reissue of "Symphonie Fantastique", with the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra conducted by Massimo Freccia. RCA produced this originally for Readers Digest. Great version of the symphony, in terms of sound and musical values.

The DL-103R passed the entire record with exemplary clarity, freedom from distortion, continuous stereophonic stage clarity (no image fuzziness anywhere), and NO tonal distortions all the way to the loudest grooves.

The DL-110 showed top clarity and staging on almost all the recording, but lost clarity and became lightly harsh on loud/high violins playing fast/nervous phrases ( on the Fourth and Fifth movements). Also, the DL-110 showed its pretty golden shine on the violin tone, whereas the DL-103R had none of this "character".

Those are the only two little things that separate these two cartridges, with few and distant grooves in between. I could live with both of them. But the DL-103R is just that little bit better, where I could not find any demerit at all. However, I can surely characterise it as slightly dark instead of bright, much to my preference.

Regards,
bauzace50

[dlaloum]

My thinking of your description, is that the DL110 is having trouble tracking the most difficult passages... that hardest bits to track are higher frequencies, and your report seems to imply that the DL110 reproduces slightly more of the higher frequencies than the DL103 (clarity, staging, air).

The DL110 and the DL103 are hugely different in their arm requirements, one being low compliance the other high - might the difference be tracking issues related with one of the two (DL103 in this case) being a better match with your arm? (and therefore not having tracking issues...)

bye for now

David

p.s. ld is currently on a spherical stylus crusade, with the DL103 being "centerfold" for best spherical needle.... Official ld "play-cartridge" of the month?
There does appear to be something to his argument that a GOOD spherical is all that is required... I'm still on the fence.

[bauzace50]

@ David,

I am just calling it as I hear it. The tonearm used in all these instances is the SME 309, and I have not noticed instability using both cartridges. Still, interesting observation of yours.

But, for sure, the conical cartridge has behaved well even while not minding this specific criterion.

One recording I played after the "Fantastique" post above makes it impossible to distinguish between both cartriges: Telarc (digital on vinyl) DG-10043, "Macho Marches" with The Cleveland Symphonic Winds conducted by Frederick Fennell. This is a special record I have been "nursing" since purchasing it in 1980! Hardly play it at all, in order to conserve it, and a very pleasant episode tonight with both cartridges.

Thanks,
b50

[dlaloum]

If LD is right in his current campaign, then the emperor (line contact / eliptical) has no clothes, we have all been duped for years and the Sphericals are all that we require - as long as they are high quality on a really good cantilever ... the DL103 being the best known example.

[bauzace50]

David,
there is ample documentation in test reports which show advantages for ellipticals versus conicals. Especially on test reports around 1963, when the first ellipticals came out in Ortofon SPE, ADC 10/E, Shure V-15. Contemporary test reports showed the improved linearity, wider frequency response, and improved stereo separation of ellipiticals as compared with their conical counterparts. Wish I had not given away my old copies of such reports, and there may be copies in the VE. Just look for 1963 or about.

But my great and reluctant finding is that my DL-103R does not give me signs I would supposedly recognize as caused by conical vs. elliptical! All the records I know "by memory" sound so good to me, that I am not missing the "elliptical effect" from previous cartridges!

And one thing must be cautioned, I may not hear it because of hearing loss at my age. So, I may not be the desirable observer for this criterion.

ON ANOTHER ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ISSUE:

Another theory I have regarding the continued manufacture of the DL-103 line: these units were designed for broadcast use. This imposes a specific demand on treble response and the FM Stereo carrier wave (matrix?).
Broadcasters needed cartridges which would NOT mess up the FM Stereo carrier wave via spurious treble resonances. And DL-103 units have been apparently complying with that expectation since their inception.

The "signature sound" I perceive from my DL-103R is freedom from treble lift and resistance to cantilever breakup (hashy breakup sound). Matter of fact, the other line of Denon cartridges HAVE a (MILD) recognizable treble lift, as I have heard from the DL-110, DL-304, and DL-S1. So, I imagine that Denon designers wish to comply with the broadcast expectations for the DL-103 line. My personal theory, of course.

And, it just so happens that many enthusiasts like this specific signature, seems to me.

Regards,
b50

[bauzace50]

Hi,

Closing Episode, hopefully. Last night I played the entire six LP sides of Verdi's Otello (RCA, Opera Italiana, with Vickers, Gobbi, and Tulio Serafin, conductor). It is a deluxe recording production of this opera, with exemplary sonics. Verdi's grand sounds are served well in this recording, and the goose bimps have not receded, Chef Inspector.

The six sides were carefully washed, and voila, the DL-110 gave a perfect reading! The tones of voices and instruments, the feeling of an ample stage, the feeling of realistic attractive sound were all there: FREE from any and all worries about cartridge shortcomings!

I could live with the DL-110 happily in the "Desert Island" situation, and it is a keeper here. I get the giggles wondering HOW Denon achieved this quality at a price that IS deliciously low.

Thanks,
b50

[Snead]

Oh Gad, with a testimony like the above, it looks like I'll have to spring for "just one more" cart. And here I thought I already had a lifetime supply!

Wonderful isn't it, this record playing business?

[Hepokatti]

Oh boy, do I have to buy DL-110 too now..

I had AT95 which went with a TT I sold, I own a m97xe which I don't like that much. To be honest it was pretty lousy on a RB300, but seems fine - even good - on a biotracer linear.

I want my next purchase to be a DL-103+system.. but based on B50's comments DL-110 doesn't seem at all like a compromise. I'm not looking for compromises right now (unless one's argument is that anything below Transfiguration Orpehus is a compromise), I'm looking for vinyl enjoyment.

On the other hand I'm slightly worried as B50's DL-110 comments hint towards a "hifi" sound, and I'm afraid this will eat the musicality. I want a toe-tapper like the AT95E, with more resolution, stage and less distortion.

[bauzace50]

Hi fellas,

I call it like I hear it. Truly. The DL-103R is less flashy. The DL-110 shows up the top range with more detail, but cannot EVER be called bright. Not by a mile. It is just slightly livelier than the DL-103R. And I truly assert that I am happy with both, despite being able to distinguish which one is playing.

Bear in mind that my preferences tend toward slightly soft treble...but not to the degree of the M97xE, nor the Grado Platinum. And the DL-103R tracks in the Super league, while the DL-110 is merely Generous. ( I truly wonder how Denon could squeeze out so much quality-visual and audible- for such a low price).

Regards ,
b50

PS- you can read MANY users' comments at Amazon, at Needle Doctor, and at http://www.lpgear.com where I got mine.

[KentT]

Exactly what I have been telling people, the Denon DL-103 in the right tonearm tracks darn near anything without harshness or losing composure. Musical as all hell to boot. If you have an old broadcast tonearm, why not own one?

[bauzace50]

Oops,

"This just in", as they say on TV news: The price of the DL-110 in the USA is currently $140.00
But VE member Trackside is reporting approximately twice that price in the United Kingdom. Is that UK price typical for this item?

In light of this , a "value rating" for this model would be different, but "performance rating" would be identical!

Although I would appreciate its performance identically, double the cost would affect a purchasing decision. It would mean "having" versus "not having" (in my case).

Regards,
b50

[dlaloum]

I believe that this is not untypical!!

Australian local pricing for various audio bits are the same sort of situation - double the price - which is why many of us shop internationally... (depending on the component and our perceived need for local support!)

[thommo_work]

Oops,

"This just in", as they say on TV news: The price of the DL-110 in the USA is currently $140.00
But VE member Trackside is reporting approximately twice that price in the United Kingdom. Is that UK price typical for this item?

Yeah

We regularly get an exchange rate of £1=$1 over here (not in our favour).

I was looking at DL110's yesterday off the back of the current threads - cheapest I saw was £130, average was £140. Real life exchange rate currently approx £1 = $1.56 which would equate to approx £90.