Denon 103R

[andrea_n]

A Denon 103R cartridge be good for jazz music?
in particular for the original press years 50's/60's
Thanks
Andrea

[steve195527]

while I am not a member of the 103 fan club I would think it would be fine,but perhaps the original non-supped up standard 103 may be better with the spherical stylus on older pressings?what Arm are you going to be using it in,the 103 series need an heavy arm(in general) to work at their best,the old 103d didn't

[andrea_n]

Linn Ekos

[steve195527]

Linn Ekos

effective mass is 11.5g that may be a little low for perfect results,you can buy things to add mass,fit between headshell and cartridge but not sure if Ekos would balnce out with one of those added,have used a few versions of 103 inc the r in my Ittok without adding mass,sounded ok but like I said I'm not a member of the 103 fan club,I much prefer the 304

[Ldg]

A Denon 103R cartridge be good for jazz music?
in particular for the original press years 50's/60's

Yes. Personally there's something authentic (and good !) sounding about some 50s/60s programme material played using a spherical stylus. After all, that was how it was intended to be played, and how mastering was monitored. DL103 dates from 1962 - current IIRC, and was a broadcast cartridge. Both the 103 & 103r have spherical tips, BTW. IMO, that's not nearly as much of an audible compromise as popular opinion might suggest.

I keep a quality conical/spherical TT setup seperately for the purpose, and some recordings simply sound right on it, to me.

[steve195527]

A Denon 103R cartridge be good for jazz music?
in particular for the original press years 50's/60's

Yes. Personally there's something authentic (and good !) sounding about some 50s/60s programme material played using a spherical stylus. After all, that was how it was intended to be played, and how mastering was monitored. DL103 dates from 1962 - current IIRC, and was a broadcast cartridge. Both the 103 & 103r have spherical tips, BTW. IMO, that's not nearly as much of an audible compromise as popular opinion might suggest.

I keep a quality conical/spherical TT setup seperately for the purpose, and some recordings simply sound right on it, to me.

thought all the "non supped" up 103's bar the 103d(no longer available) had spherical styli? meant don't go for any of the ones being sold with ruby cantilevers/fancy stylus shapes as I think they would prob exaggerate any wear on discs,I have a 103r and to be honest the 304 knocks it into a cocked hat(in my opinion) on all types of music

[Ldg]

Personally, I don't experience a 'knock into a cocked hat' difference once one gets into this territory. And it's not as though one can run the DL103 and DL304 in the same config to compare. Same arm is impossible, for example. No doubt, they're both very fine, and a bit different, and it's horses for courses as I see it.

But fact remains that a lot of quality programme material was mastered with the intention of being replayed on spherical styli. Monitored that way, even. And, though the difference is subtle, to my ear it's sometimes 'right'. So I keep a TT permanently set up for this. If I could only keep one setup, it would be a tough choice, and some days I might go for the spherical. Wouldn't be a disaster either way. The choice is a nice thing, and I end up playing about 10% or so of my collection that way, probably. Sometimes more, in phases.

[bauzace50]

Hi,

I am conducting a very protracted, and unduly extended comparison between my DL-103R and my DL-160. They are, admittedly two fish of a different kettle, but can have SOME pertinence in the "conical versus elliptical" scenario.

From the relatively few comparisons yet registered in this little project, I tend to advance a "yet-to-be-corroborated-feeling" that the two specific styli involved between these two cartridges do not show convincing argument for, or against, superiority of one over the other.

It probably is a personal judgment depending on the beholder. And the elliptical stylus on the DL-160 is quite a performing beauty, mind you. (But so is the conical one on the DL-103R ). It is extremely difficult to demonstrate defining audible differences, and I may run out of energy before digging up conclusive examples.

Regards,
bauzace50

[steve195527]

Personally, I don't experience a 'knock into a cocked hat' difference once one gets into this territory. And it's not as though one can run the DL103 and DL304 in the same config to compare. Same arm is impossible, for example. No doubt, they're both very fine, and a bit different, and it's horses for courses as I see it.

But fact remains that a lot of quality programme material was mastered with the intention of being replayed on spherical styli. Monitored that way, even. And, though the difference is subtle, to my ear it's sometimes 'right'. So I keep a TT permanently set up for this. If I could only keep one setup, it would be a tough choice, and some days I might go for the spherical. Wouldn't be a disaster either way. The choice is a nice thing, and I end up playing about 10% or so of my collection that way, probably. Sometimes more, in phases.

the treble and mid of the 304 is far better(in my opinion) than the 103 assuming both used in arms that match them and don't even mention tracking:-the 103 needs about 2.5 gms to track anything like decently the 304 will track anything at 1.3 I don't think you can say any material is mastered to suit a certain stylus profiles,most engineers don't consider the equipment the final record will be played on,all they consider is the final sound on the tape,some do consider the "audience" or "type of music" but that's mainly to do with compression to make some things sound louder,pop/disco music

[Trackside]

One person's 'far better' is anothers subtle difference. Tracking force is no measure of a cartridges quality as it's a function of the suspension compliance so saying the 304 is better as it needs less force than the 304 is just misleading or misunderstood.

[AudioSoul]

If someone wants refinement in a MC cart. the DL-103 series is not the one. I have a 103R and I love it for the qualities it has (an organic rightness to the music) I chose it for that reason not for refinement. Everything has it's trade offs.

[Trackside]

103R and 304 are significantly more expensive models and it's not really fair to compare them to the plain 103.

[Ldg]

... I don't think you can say any material is mastered to suit a certain stylus profiles,most engineers don't consider the equipment the final record will be played on....

It just follows naturally from whatever was contemporary when the vinyl was mastered. What else could that programme material have been monitored on ? And of course mastering engineers care about what it sounds like, and implicitly, what it is to be listened on. And contemporary assumptions applied, they didn't have a time machine !

[Hanuman]

It just follows naturally from whatever was contemporary when the vinyl was mastered. What else could that programme material have been monitored on ? And of course mastering engineers care about what it sounds like, and implicitly, what it is to be listened on. And contemporary assumptions applied, they didn't have a time machine !

This is a debate akin to the authentic-versus-modern instruments arguments in classical music. There's a validity, for sure, in maintaining contemporary playback methods for particular eras, in a preservationist sense but there's equal validity in using technological developments since the original to improve the retrieval and reproduction. I think mastering engineers understand this - I've read Stan Ricker explaining how improvements in tape playback head technology through the 1980s meant that modern half-speed re-cuts can certainly sound better than even the tapes did back in the the day and he didn't seem to think this was a bad thing.