Just fitted a DL-103......... WOW!

[Trackside]

My first MC cart and now I know what all the fuss is about Replaced an AT110E on my Systemdek IIX900/RB300/V-LPS which was sounding fine with a replacement 115E stylus upgrade last month but I'm going to be using this rig for vinyl archiving to digital and I was sure I'd always have that nagging feeling I was not realy doing it justice with that cart. I know it's going to take a few days to run in but my initial reaction is a big, smooth open sound with more extension in the bass and treble.

[MR F]

Congrats, glad you like it. Wouldn't trade mine for the world.

[A.Wayne]

Hello,

What phono pre are you using , any issues with noise or gain ..?

Regards,

[Trackside]

Musical Fidelity V-LPS. No increase in noisefloor as measured using Adobe Audition. Output Level at 1khz 3db down on the AT115E through the MM section but that was always slightly 'hot' in otherwords no issues whatsoever. Tracks way better than the AT115E as well - will pass all but the torture test final band on the HFN test record and the AT115E barley passed the easy ones without excessive VTF. 12 hours in now and sounding even better!

[MR F]

You think it's good now, just wait until you add a better pre or SUT to the mix

[A.Wayne]

Was about to get into an DL110 for my AR Table , might now spring for a 103 and give the MC Sound a twirl ...


Regards

[AudioSoul]

I don't know what arm you have on your AR but a DL-103 takes at least a medium mass arm, preferably a high mass arm as that is what they were designed for....

[Alec124c41]

The DL-110 is very nice, but a DL-301 II is better. It has higher compliance than the 103, a finer stylus, and a solidly made body. Love mine.

Cheers,
Alec

[A.Wayne]

I don't know what arm you have on your AR but a DL-103 takes at least a medium mass arm, preferably a high mass arm as that is what they were designed for....

Standard arm , so I'm borderline and a 301 Is more than I want to spend for this table .....

[pivot]

Standard arm , so I'm borderline and a 301 Is more than I want to spend for this table .....

Which AR do you have?

The orignal arm on the XA/XB is too light for 103 and might be marginal for a DL 110 but I have not tried it.

Later AR used variations of the Jelco 250 ST which should be a good match for 110/301.

DL 110 is a very nice cartridge and a bargain.

[A.Wayne]

ES-1

[Trackside]

Just an update on my original post. Loaded the headshell with a 4g coin attached with blutack. Not sure if I can hear any magical sonic benefits as yet but the lateral resonance test on the HFN test record indicates it has dropped the resonance a couple of hz to 10 hz. Even at around 12 hz with no mass loading it would seem to be not to have any problematic compliance mismatching as so often stated. I'll see how it goes once properly broken in as the downside of this mass loading is extra mass on the CW which unbalances the Systemdek's subchassis which requires mass loading on the opposite side in order to keep the suspension evenly loaded to prevent lateral instability. Still amazed at the sound though.....

[bauzace50]

@ Trackside,

Your testimonial is valued! Thanks. Sharing a bit of empirical exploration into getting the Low Frequency Resonance close to 10 Hz (with non-conclusive results):

-FIRST SCENARIO: Dynavector 17D3 on the SME 309 tonearm.

Its low-frequency sound on music was somewhat soft. Little energy. The LF Resonant Point came in at a high 14 Hz on my SME 309 tonearm, so this seemed a likely area for experimentation.

Sure enough, adding weight to the headshell lowered the resonant point to 11 Hz, and the low-frequency sound on music attained a convincing weight and impact. Perfect results, in my book.

-SECOND SCENARIO: Denon DL-103R on the SME 309 tonearm.

The LF resonance point comes in at 12.+ Hertz. Adding 6 grams to the headshell has little effect on lowering the Resonant Point, close to 11 Hz. And adding 3 more grams (total of 9 additional grams!) did NOT lower the LF Resonance any more. But the extra 3 grams had a very bad effect. Now the bass seems murky, has no impact, and the combination is somewhat unstable, with some oscillation visible. (Of course, the tracking force was adjusted to 2.5 grams in each case!).

Now I use NO added weight with the DL-103R and it sounds the best to me, in comparison with the different stages of added headshell weight.

Clearly non-scientific observations, which suggest unpredictable results. My experiences with these two cartridges lead me to conclude that lowering the LF Resonance closer to 10 Hz will give unpredictable results, and have to be judged case by case.

Some unknown variables seem to be at work here, but I CERTAINLY prefer my 103R WITHOUT the added headshell weights on my tonearm.

Regards,
b50

[Ldg]

......The LF resonance point comes in at 12.+ Hertz. Adding 6 grams to the headshell has little effect on lowering the Resonant Point, close to 11 Hz. And adding 3 more grams (total of 9 additional grams!) did NOT to lower the LF Resonance any more. But the extra 3 grams had a very bad effect.

Hmmmm.......something's wrong with the test, b_50.

As legend clearly states : "You can't defy the laws of physics, cap'n"........