Denon 103r ????

Phil,

I'm sure you know this....it gets repeated ad nauseam on this and other forums....but Denon specs their cartridge compliances at 100Hz - not the 10Hz typical of most manufacturers. The 103R has a compliance at 10Hz of around 9cm/dyne - maybe more - which means it tracks and behaves quite well in typical medium mass arms. The low mass SME is probably a stretch though.
You can see this from Denon's own compliance vs frequency graph.
You can also verify this empirically using a test record.

For the record, I think the 103R sounds great - especially in a Uwe wooden shell. I'm running mine in a Graham Phantom II which has an effective mass of around 14gm (according to Bob Graham) and the Uwe shell takes the 103R's weight up to 11.73gm - it sounds superb IMO.

I wonder if the 103R's reported superior sonics in heavier arms has more to do with damping the cartridges inherent resonances than fundamental compliance matching(?).

I just swapped out the Ortofon A90 for the Uwe 103R and the latter holds up well. It can't match all the strengths of the A90 - but I bet it would surprise people by what it can do....and it has its own charms.

System Details

"The 103R has a compliance at 10Hz of around 9cm/dyne - maybe more - which means it tracks and behaves quite well in typical medium mass arms."

That would explain why it seems to work quite well on my Linn Basik tonearm. I know when I bought the 103R I was not totally convinced that my tonearm was a good match, but once I heard the results there has been little doubt. I'm sure I could do better in regards to matching cart and tonearm, but it is a non-issue for me because the results currently are splendid.

>>I'm sure you know this....it gets repeated ad nauseam on this and other forums....but Denon specs their cartridge compliances at 100Hz - not the 10Hz typical of most manufacturers. The 103R has a compliance at 10Hz of around 9cm/dyne - maybe more - which means it tracks and behaves quite well in typical medium mass arms. The low mass SME is probably a stretch though.<<

Yes, if you read back far enough in this thread, you'll see I pointed this out. I figure its equivalent 10 Hz compliance to be 9. The 103R is usuable in medium mass tonearms, a point I've also made before, but when used in something like a Rega, it benefits from adding mass at the headshell or in the form of a re-body. That cartridge sounds good in a 12g medium mass arm, but it sounds better with a little more. Hence, if used with the right counterweight, the 14g total weight Zu103 mod is beneficial to application in a Rega. But medium mass is a far cry from the 5g SME III. That is not a match.

>>I wonder if the 103R's reported superior sonics in heavier arms has more to do with damping the cartridges inherent resonances than fundamental compliance matching(?).<<

Well, that may be part of it, but a compliance rating normalized to 9 is going to do well dynamically in a 20g tonearm, plain and simple.

The higher compliance 103D and M do well in medium to medium-low mass arms. I use a stock 103R in medium mass tonearms sometimes, but it does deliver more tonal density and dynamic intensity in my 18-20g tonearms.

The Uwe body is a legitimate modification.

Phil

"Stylus Rake Angle (SRA) is commonly referenced relative to the true vertical position of the stylus, with straight up and down being *zero* degrees, not 90 degrees."

No, it isn't. Geometry class is still in session. A vertical line is 90 degrees (Right angle). A horizontal line is zero degrees. 90-92 degrees is the window, I agree but not 0 to 2 degrees.

"For a conical stylus, SRA isn't critical."

True, it's a ball. Not to mention, tracking angle error is also, on paper, better, too. I just wish the concept "sounded" good. I'm not hearing that. It sound consistently veiled and harsh to less so but still cloudy.

"…which is the angle of the cantilever relative to the record's surface"

No, it isn't. It is the CONTACT point of the stylus to the record surface drawn to the PIVOT point of the tone arm. A line is extended straight down to the record surface and then outward to the stylus again. This forms a 90-degree right triangle to the record surface. The VTA is the angle at the stylus tip end, and is somewhere between 15-20 degrees.

"Every line contact stylus.."
Oh, who said "every". I'll take a ninety percent improved field of choice over a very FEW conical styli that track light enough to offset the minimal contact surface. Show me your math on this one. Again, this is simple static’s and geometry at work. Sure, If I mistrack we are talking apples to oranges. I'm talking how the car behaves on the road, not in the ditch.

"rather than disparage other cartridges you don't understand?..."

So far I am not so sure who understands what. A cheap moving coil cartridge is not going to have the design effort that a better product has. Materials not withstanding, it's got so much effort built in. I understand this product plenty. The low compliance is but just ONE of the negatives thrown onto this product that in my listening, leave it inferior to the old 103D on ANY tonearm. It is what it is, nothing disparaging about that except the illusion that this thing is beyond "your" reproach. Glad you like to stop your listening there. You're saving a lot of money.

"103's holistic tone..."

You're kidding, right" I never knew Linda Rhonstadt was supposed to have been singing inside a felt box..my bad on that. But, the world is a "better" place through rose colored glasses. Reality bites, doesn't it? At least the 103D was a good kind of haze, the 103r runs you into things trying to hear through the fog. It REMOVES the music. That's bad. So, no, the 103r is doing the deconstructing. Any arm and against better products "clearly" show this. Are you really saying more focused and stable sound over a 103R is now "wrong"? A conical stylus is far removed from the cutter heads geometry. It is a simplistic approach to a cheap product.

I don't know how many cartridges are out there over $380.00 bucks, but we better save the world from them right away, or is it that you can't seem to accept the colored glasses on your head that seem to wrap around your ears? It's OK to like the sound, but to say it is the be all to end all is absurd, and say we who want better are "disparaging" a product you seem to take way too personal.

I'll listen to the Ruby 3 no different than the 103r. It has to equal or eclipse my AC-2. If it doesn't I'll work till I get there. Remember, you all take thses products to be your children. No, it's all impersonel manufactured product. To think otherwise is to limit your options going forward.

FWIW, (and yes I know this is not an indicator of sound quality) I just tested the resonant frequencies, lateral and vertical, for the Uwe 103R in my 14gm effective mass Phantom II.
Test record was the HFN&RR, which has a low frequency sweep with a 1kHz pilot - with frequency callouts every couple of Hz.

Lateral resonance was fairly low at 7-8Hz and vertical resonance was about 9Hz.

Increasing the arm's effective mass would theoretically lower these resonant points further - not necessarily desirable IMO, as they are already on the lower side of ideal.

Of course there may be other benefits to higher mass, but I don't think it would have much to do with fundamental resonance.

Sound wise the Uwe 103R sounds fabulous in the Phantom II - significantly better than the somewhat lower effective mass Graham 1.5T. But is that because the Phantom has slightly higher mass, or because it's a better tonearm? I suspect the latter.