What MC for $1,000-$2,000?

Rower,

You didn't add enough mass using one of those headshell plates, to put the 103R in its operating range. In fact you wouldn't want to add at the headshell all the mass necessary to load your light tonearm to the effective mass needed for that cartridge.

>>But the reviews are 30:1 that says the 103r is a great deal on most speakers, so I took a gamble that I could fake it till I make it on the set-up. No, not 100% extraction of performance, but 80% or so. Nope, didn't do it. Some is imdeed the 103r, and some is indeed my tonearm.<<

The 103R *is* a great cartridge, period. It's not the only great cartridge, but it's one, and that's apparent on any at least reasonably good speaker. You can't fake its setup, however. Your tonearm is so mismatched to the 103R that you can't get 80% or 60% or even 40% sonic performance the 103R is capable of. The pairing doesn't work for either instrument, regardless of loudspeakers you listen to.

>>The 103R with a 25G weight, large paddle, max mass in the counter balancer, and 2.2 grams tracking force isnt miles away from where the 104r needs to be.<<

This is a misunderstanding of the issues. It *is* miles away. Your SME III has an effective mass of just 5 grams. A Denon 103R just begins to sound good in a 12 grams eff mass Rega tonearm, where even there additional mass at the headshell improves the sound. The 103R is commonly used in tonearms having effective mass in the range of 20 - 25 grams. Your arm isn't even close. The Zu103 modification of the 103 adds 5.5g of mass to the 103/103R total mass, reaching 14g. If you add a gram's worth of bolts, putting THAT 15g block in your tonearm will still leave the combination in borderline operating range. In the SME III, the 103R *will* absolutely sound dull, undynamic and have funky bass.

>>The compliance measurement is interesting as it doesn't seem to be very linear with frequency or how would you get..."It's more like 15 for the AC2 vs. 9 for the 103R. The 103D works out to 21.6 on an apples to apples basis." I'm sure you meabt 1.66 or so, right? or is it that gossly non lineaer? Something is amiss?<<

No, I didn't mean "1.66." The 103/103R have compliance rating of 5 x10-6cm/Dyne at 100 Hz. The AC-2 has a compliance rating of 15 x10-6cm/Dyne at 10 Hz. To reconcile Denon's non-standard 100 Hz rating with Accuphase's standard 10 Hz rating, multiply the Denon spec by 1.8. The 103R normalized compliance spec becomes 9 x10-6cm/Dyne. The higher compliance 103D is normalized to 21.6 x10-6cm/Dyne, which is why you liked the D but not the R.

I have no idea what you mean by "...doesn't seem very linear by frequency..." Again, you have a tonearm with effective mass of just 5 grams. The AC-2 is serviceable but borderline with it. The 103R is wholly mismatched. You haven't listened to an AC-2 vs. 103R comparison. You've listened to a semi-optimal-but-serviceable AC-2/SMEIII pairing compared to a completely non-optimal 103R/SMEIII combination that puts the 103R outside its operating range. I'm only using data to explain sonic results that would have been entirely predictable. None of us in this thread would even suggest you can get good sound out of a 103R with *any* 5 grams effective mass tonearm. This isn't a quality issue about either component. It's a matching issue. That a 103D sounded good in your tonearm is irrelevent to whether a lower compliance 103R will work.

>>So, I took what everyone said, and went where no one said to go;

Soundsmith The Voice Ebony Phono Cartridge
$2,199.00
Compliance: - Select - High Medium
Loading: - Select - 100pf 400pf
$2,199.00$2,199.00 Soundsmith Aida Phono<<

You may or may not like the Soundsmith, but at least you'll be giving it a fair shot by choosing the high compliance option for good matching to your tonearm. Some of us in this thread think you can do much better by not being constrained by your low mass tonearm and its various design compromises that probably seemed like good ideas at the time to SME.

Personally, I would not spend $2,200 on a cartridge for your front-end. Especially not when you can spend just roughly $500 on the excellent Denon DL304 or $1000 on the Denon DLS1, both of which have a normalized compliance rating of about 25 x10-6cm/Dyne, which will work fine in your 5 grams effective mass tonearm.

All that said, the AC-2 is a fine cartridge. I owned both AC-1 and AC-2 back in the 1980s, alongside the Denon 103D. I preferred the 103D overall but the AC cartridges were better in some respects. If you love the AC-2 and are committed to your SME III, send the Accuphase to Soundsmith for a rehab and be happy.

Phil

Constraint is relative. To go with a heavy arm just puts the constraints somewhere else, and my wallet, too, as I'd have to buy two components verses one.

I listened to a well broken-in 103R on a heavy arm, and it was better, but it still had a more opaque midrange sound like music was coming off a flat plate. Highes were noticably not as open, either. I stuck my so-so AC-2 set-up T.table in and the world opened up again. I'm sorry guys, but the 103r is OK, but not much better than the price in my listening. I have no beef with DENON, but the AC-2 is still WAY better sounding even in my tone arm. Sure, it cost more. But we're talking SOUND right now. I can do much better, even with my tone arm, than the 103r...or even my AC-2. I would not settle for the 103R even with a heavier arm!

The DENON is quiet (conical stylus tracks way less of the record surface), however. And the bass was always nice. It just lacks clarity and dynamics in the midrange and open extension on top.

I liked my old 103D mostly because it was running DQ-10's and it's been years since I listened to one. What I do know, is that the AC-2 kicked it out of bed A to B compared on that same system and arm, which is WHY I have the AC-2 today. I was hoping that the "improved" 103r would narrow the gap. I think with what I have heard now, I'd say that the stock 103r is WORSE than a stock 103D. The Quatros are much less forgiving than the DQ-10, too.

"Keep in mind that Denon publishes their dynamic compliance specs relative to 100Hz. The actual compliance at 10Hz would be considerable higher than the spec at 100Hz. Its this little discrepancy that explains why the 103 and 103R perform better than expected in lower mass arms. The actual compliance at 10Hz is something more like 10-11 X 10-6 cm/Dyne for the 103/103R from; http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/vinyl/messages/47/473022.html

My old lit for my 103D shows 12x10-6 cm/Dyne on the 103D @ 100Hz so taking your 1.8 times that is ineed about 21.6 cm / Dyne compared to my Accupase at 15 x 10-6 cm/Dyne. Also, to get 103R's working, most get the conical stylus replaced, too. Even Soundsmith reworks the 103r's stylus and suspension. I sure do not hear, or agree with the statement that the 103r, "perform better than expected" on low mass arms..I think you can agree with that.

So much for the 103D or 103r, I'm wanting better than that, it is out there, and the AC-2 says so even at 15 x 10-6 cm/ Dyne on my arm. THAT I hear everyday.

So I have yet to hear a PEEP about what to do other than fan boy the 103r or make it work. I don't WANT to "make" the 103r work. I've hear it (I have one to sell). If you think that's the end all to your knowledge, fine. I already know that there is better out there if my AC-2 is strutting it stuff like it is. I want to hear about THOSE options!

I am a long time AC2 owner, and understand your objection. The 103r is a good cartridge, needs alot of break-in on the suspension, needs a heavy arm, but brother - it will not sound like the AC2, which sounds alive in comparison.

Looking at the Nakatsuka design family, it starts with your ac2, then onto Monster alpha's, and then the present day Zyx's. Happy hunting.

>> I have no beef with DENON, but the AC-2 is still WAY better sounding even in my tone arm.<<

Aboslutely. The AC-2 is at least a serviceable dynamic match to your SME III. The 103R is not.

>>The DENON is quiet (conical stylus tracks way less of the record surface), however. And the bass was always nice. It just lacks clarity and dynamics in the midrange and open extension on top.<<

The 103R is guaranteed to lack clarity and dynamics, and sound dull on top in a very low mass tonearm. Don't use it that way.

>>I liked my old 103D....I was hoping that the "improved" 103r would narrow the gap. I think with what I have heard now, I'd say that the stock 103r is WORSE than a stock 103D.<<

The 103R is an improvement on the plain 103, primarily as a materials and build quality evolution. The earlier 103D was however a *design* evolution from the 103. It was product of an R&D spur for lower mass tonearms taking hold during the '70s, which began with the 103S and culminated with the 103D. Some might say this evolutionary stub ended with the 103M, the last of the high-compliance 103s, but it was different in enough ways to be its own peculiarity. In any case, the 103D is in the realm of latitude to be usable with your arm and sound good. And overall, those of us deeply familiar with it consider the 103D superior to the 103R by a significant margin. A 103R *is not* as good as a 103D, nor should it be perceived as an intended improvement over 103D.

>>I sure do not hear, or agree with the statement that the 103r, "perform better than expected" on low mass arms..I think you can agree with that.<<

That audioasylum poster is knowledgeable and experienced. His reference to 103R usability with "lower mass" tonearms isn't the same as saying "low mass," as in your 5g eff mass SME III. You have to understand his context is posting into a group populated by many who contend you need a minimum 20g eff mass tonearm to properly use a 103/103R. Ed is making the point that there's more latitude than that. It will work with a 12g Rega arm, for example, but that's medium mass. Your 5g SME is too far out of range to be included in Ed's reference.

>>So I have yet to hear a PEEP about what to do other than fan boy the 103r or make it work. I don't WANT to "make" the 103r work.<<

I've given you two specific suggestions that will work well in your arm, and give you the essential assets of your AC-2 and Denon tone density: the higher compliance Denon DL-304 and DL-S1. The DL-S1 plays in the bigs. You might also try an Ortofon Cadenza Black. If you get open-minded about upgrading your tonearm to at least a medium mass, modern-bearings device, ala a Rega RB1000 or similar, the 47 Labs MC Bee should nail the sound you seek - just not in your SME III.

Phil

Who knew that more than 35 years later, Ivor Tiefenbrun's sales shtick would still rule the analog world? I've never found that the turntable is more important than the cartridge, and I've long known that toe-tapping or "following the tune" has absolutely nothing to do with audio quality. Perhaps never in the history of marketing has such an insipid claim had a longer life. But the man did build a nice turntable.

-Bob