Denon Dl-103r Any Users Here?

[Hanuman]

Here's the 1/3-octave trace of the DL-103R:



Compared to the DL-103 is does appear to stay slightly flatter above 10K and is more extended beyond 15K. I would say that, looking at these, Denon is clearly sincere in their efforts in optimizing the DL-103R as a premium enhancement of the DL-103.

To put that upper frequency response performance in perspective contrast it with a Lyra Delos / JMW9Sig / Aries 3 combination below (The Delos is sweeter, though and quite a bit more dynamic - it's not all about frequency response):

[OneyedK]

A little post to illustrate that préamps do matter,
some measurements done with Adjust+ (and it's own test record).
Nevermind the crude graph...

103R directly connected to the MF A3, MC input, 100 Ohm load.




103R connected via Lundahl LL1681 into the MF A3, MM input, 168 Ohm load.
(the way my ears like it best)




103R connected via Lundahl LL1681 in the Cambridge Audio 540P (MM), 168 Ohm load.

[bauzace50]

@Oneyedk,

Great! Your three graphs illustrate several things:
-1- the overall tendency in all three cases is a mild linear downward slope starting at the bass end. That is my general subjective impression of the cartridge, namely an accurate timbre with a solid foundation, and a consistently natural treble presence regardless of the recorded program. Neither bright nor flashy, but "all there".

-2- free from upper-midrange droop of many MM's And free from any hint of rolled-off highs.

-3- freedom from peaks and troughs throughout the range, except for the very high treble above 15 KHz. Indicative of a smooth sound free from imposed "character".

-4- very close channel tracking, helpful for a consistent stereo image.

-5- the mild treble instability is above 15 KHz and away from most program material. Likely to be invoked few times and far between (as in the higher overtones of high soprano notes). Probably caused by conical tip tracing, and possibly improved with an elliptical tip.

-6- this might be easily called "broadcast behavior", because it gives consistent, full-range performance which is applicable to all kinds of program, and shows no preference for any portion of the spectrum.

-7- Others?

Thanks, all, for illustrating this cartridge in depth,
bauzace50

[Ldg]

......15 KHz and away from most program material. Likely to be invoked few times and far between (as in the higher overtones of high soprano notes). Probably caused by conical tip tracing, and possibly improved with an elliptical tip.

For interesting context, a soprano high C (C6) has a frequency near 1kHz.....surprising huh ?! 15kHz comfortably covers vocal tone range, and besides, most people's hearing is pretty rolled off or even absent at such frequencies. DL103/103R response extends beyond this range, anyways.

Frequencies above which any conical curvature becomes limiting, are inaudible to the vast majority of us. It's no accident, and quite enlightening that the DL103 spherical performs well. And it challenges many widely held beliefs about extent of advantage in finer minor radius stylus profiles in general.

-6- this might be easily called "broadcast behavior", because it gives consistent, full-range performance which is applicable to all kinds of program, and shows no preference for any portion of the spectrum.

Yup, that's pretty much it !

[Dobs]

@Oneyedk,
-5- the mild treble instability is above 15 KHz and away from most program material. Likely to be invoked few times and far between (as in the higher overtones of high soprano notes). Probably caused by conical tip tracing, and possibly improved with an elliptical tip.

With my extensive experience with the 103R I can confirm you that you are right

[Ldg]

Well, I see no evidence linking any such thing to a conical tip. Fact remains it performs remarkably well, and confounds many myths. Everyone seems to have it in for conicals/sphericals, but the basis for that is weak, even in theory.

There is a firm set expectation that non-conicals should outperform it. But other factors can readily prevent that being realised, and in any event the advantage is slender.

DL-103/r is always what it is, an awkward testimony to the myth of conical disadvantage.

Well, I see no evidence linking any such thing to a conical tip. Fact remains it performs remarkably well, and confounds many myths. Everyone seems to have it in for conicals/sphericals, but the basis for that is weak, even in theory.

There is a firm set expectation that non-conicals should outperform it. But other factors can readily prevent that being realised, and in any event the advantage is slender.

DL-103/r is always what it is, an awkward testimony to the myth of conical disadvantage.

Random element in the latest FR plot is perhaps measurement artifact, I wouldn't be concerned. There are plenty of published result plots for the DL-103 which don't show any such thing. Same for the mid-droop. Even on this thread.

[blakep]

There is a firm set expectation that non-conicals should outperform it. But other factors can readily prevent that being realised, and in any event the advantage is slender.

I've been using 103R's in my setup for the better part of 5 years now with a couple of different phono stages and tonearms. I've used them totally stock, rebodied in wood bodies with the stock stylus, and rebodied in wood bodies with a Soundsmith retip (ruby cantilever and line contact stylus). I also have a 103R in an aluminum body just back from Soundsmith that I will mount shortly.

The 103R is a very good cartridge stock for the money but the body and the stylus are weak points. Improve one and the cartridge becomes very good; improve both and match the cartridge properly to arm and phono stage and it becomes really great.

I'm a bit of an audio cheapskate (recently sold some speaker cables and replaced them cables that retailed at 1/10th of the price that sounded better), so if the Denon with the stock conical was better than the retip, believe me, I'd be happy to live with the stock stylus. It's not even close for me. At this stage, I would never consider running the conical.

IMO, the "advantages realised" are anything but slender. The stock conical is certainly decent, but putting a good line contact on a ruby cantilever on the cartridge reveals both an abundance of information that the conical just misses as well as the fact that the high frequency information retreived by the conical leaves a lot to be desired both in terms of extension and refinement.

Just my opinion based on a lot of listening in my setup.

[Ldg]

Well, if one changes the stylus, cantilever, suspension (and perhaps coil or body), there's really not much left to call a DL103 in my book. That's a magnet then Generally, the cartridge ends up a different beast, and should be considered/compared as such.

Of course the DL103/r might be bettered by many and various cartridges. But by how much is a matter of opinion and taste. And in stock form it has a pedigree and performance which is just awkward to explain and is iconoclastic really. It's myth busting about conical/spherical styli, amongst other things.

Over the years there have been many Denon variants which are radically different beasts too, of course.

Personally, I don't count the modified DL103/DL103R variants as the same beast. Progressively less the more it is modified. Fine in their own way, no reason to doubt. But different.

It's human nature to associate the set of changes with what it's expected to be caused by. But there's always more changed than just the tip, when one scrutinises the more common modifications. So when the conical is blamed, no-one questions. But, being rigorous, the link isn't established. No-one retips with a comparable quality conical on modified cantilevers/suspensions/coils, to my knowledge.

[blakep]

No problem. I ran with only body changes for close to two years before retipping (stylus and cantilever only-no change to suspension) and have been running with the SS line contact stylus now for almost two years so I'm pretty familiar with how the cartridge sounds in various iterations. I didn't even bother to listen to the aluminum body on my spare 103R before shipping it out to Soundsmith-$250 for the retip is a no brainer when you've heard it. Personally, factoring in the extra expense, I could no longer really be happy running the cartridge with the stock stylus.

For me, both those changes (body and stylus/cantilever) elevate the performance of the cartridge significantly. There won't be many with experience in that area that disagree with me. So different, yes, but drastically better while building on the strengths of the original cartridge, which are significant and that is what it is really about. And when you look at the cost effectiveness of taking the cartridge in that direction and the final performance achieved vs. other high end cartridges and their prices, it ends up being a bargain.

But as sphericals/conicals go, the Denon is about as good as it gets, no question.

[Ldg]

Yes, even body-only changes can influence suspension mechanics of course. And cantilever change can be significant in itself, far more so than tip profile IMO. It's not clear to me whether the original suspension is preserved, but with a new cantilever that's somewhat academic as mechanics will be different. I see Soundsmith is promoting a revised suspension, in any event.

I just see these changes as fundamental, and carts modded this way need to be compared with their peers. Which don't resemble the DL-103 much, IMO. Not least, from the price-position point of view. Once one has factored the mod costs in, the price-position peers are in another league, of course.

But as sphericals/conicals go, the Denon is about as good as it gets, no question.

Yes, that is how I see it. And its pedigree, character and performance in original form is the thing of merit. Not just using the chassis as a relatively cheap base for obtaining an alternate, different, and doubtless fine performing product in its own right.

[bauzace50]

Hi,

Your comments on the modifications are quite illuminating. You fellows convince me to try these as funds permit. I fully enjoy the standard "R" as it comes from the factory, and it fascinates to know of its even higher potential.

Thanks for sharing your experiences,
b50

PS: Still and all, there are several roads to Audio Nirvana. I remember fondly the Denon DL-S1 I had for several months, sold in order to raise some needed cash at the time.

The DL-S1 had small-but-significant enhancements over the standard "R". Specifically in tracking ability, lower tracking force requirement, flatter frequency response (instead of the 103's euphonious downward inclination), and that special feeling of "freedom" and relaxed composure. The folks at Denon really know cartridges.

[Ldg]

Hi b_50. Personally, I'd still suggest enjoying the DL103r in stock form until it's worn, or you get bored. It's by no means shabby. After that, I'd weigh up the mod options against other new cartridge options, treating the mod options like any other new cartridge on merit.

There are many cartridges, but only one DL-103 (well, you know what I mean) !

[blakep]

Certainly no problem with using the Denons for 1000 hrs. or so until the conical is done. Having had some experience with the modded Denons, however, I would without hesitation suggest you mod the cartridge, particularly if you have an appropriate high mass arm and quality phono stage.

The modded product has been compared favourably with $5K cartridges and I know of a number of users who have replaced cartridges like the Ortofon Jubilee, Benz Ebony L and Koetsu Rosewood Signature with modded 103's and 103R's. Not likely you are going to buy one of those cartridges for the less than $400 it costs to mod the 103/103R.

[Hanuman]

I've made no secret in other posts of the fact that I regard the cantilever & diamond swap to be a profound upgrade of the stock '103 so it follows that if you have a spent '103 or '103R then the 350-odd dollars for that modification is great value and well worth considering. But, as LD points out, the resultant cartridge is no longer a DL-103 and needs to be evaluated on its own merit.