What tonearm is recommended for the denon 103r

Looking at your system, I agree with most everything that's been said above, other than the fact that you can't always go by the numbers in terms of predicting the appropriate effective mass for a tonearm/cartridge combo.

Having said that, I'd start by adding mass to the headshell of your Graham. Blu-tack a nickel to the top of the headshell and re-set the tracking force.

I need to recuse myself from the tonearm recommendation game because I sell one that I really like.

This topic continually resurfaces, and there's a thread on m forum on the subject (comments from Dan_Ed amongst others). There are quite a few link-backs to comments made here on Audiogon about the DL-103 as well.

Look over here: http://www.galibierdesign.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=17

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

I'd like to follow up on my earlier post re: the DL103R and the 2.2. This combo did work well and even better with the added mass of the headshell weight. Compliments to the Graham for being able to adjust for this with ease.

If it had so happened that I was down to the DL103R as being the last MC cart available to me, and I happened to just have the 2.2, it would have been just fine. No complaints with that pairing.

I just think it's an odd partnership due to the different costs involved. For instance if someone were thinking of the DL103 in terms of an arm/cart upgrade of their more or less entry level vinyl rig, the Graham tonearm wouldn't be on that map. Too expensive. On the other hand, if one is already at hand, then that's different.

Also Viridian points out something important. Lots of folks look at the spec sheet that comes with the Denon. All of it in Japanese language. And we see this:
xxxxx 5x10-6 cm/dyne (100hz xxxxx) The x's are in place of Japanese figures.

Many have assumed that this text means that the compliance figure of 5x10-6 cm/dyne means a compliance of 5. Wow, that's a really stiff cantilever, right!?

It's not really. It means that the reading is taken at 100 hz rather than the more usual 8 - 12 hz that we test for using test records while observing cantilever shake.

Like I noted above, with the headshell weight on the Graham I got a lateral arm/cart resonance to happen at 10 hz using the hfnrr test record. This would indicate a very different compliance figure than 5. All it means is that the Denon published measurement is taken using a different test procedure and even more importantly that the cartridge --can be partnered-- with quite a few medium to high mass tonearms that are out there.

Currently I've got one on an arm with a rated effective mass of 16g. With this arm (Zeta) the arm/cart resonance happens at 10hz. That's pretty well in the zone for this cartridge and it sounds great. Dynamic, detailed and slammy. Just right for the TD124, I think.

-Steve

Also, keep in mind that in the compliance equation:

Res Freq = 1 / [ 2* pi * sqrt (M*C) ]

Mass and compliance affect the outcome by their square root, so 16g does not have 1.6 time the effect of 10g on the resonant frequency.

We're talking about fine tuning in this discussion and not of orders of magnitude. Of course, people participating in this thread are looking for small but significant effects.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

What I've noticed in mass tuning a rega tonearm for the DL103-R is that in order to gain a full point hz reduction (1 hz) in arm/cart res I had to increase mass at the headshell by 7.5g. Which is approximately 68% of the arms original effective mass rating.

I expect that this could be roughly applied to any tonearm. If you want to lower the arm/cart resonant frequency by 1 full hz it takes the tonearm's rated effective mass plus the addition of 68% of that rated mass in additional weight over the headshell. Sound about right?

Incidentally I ended up adding an another 25g of weight to the counterweight (an Expressimo) in order to balance the the arm.

Results were easy to hear. The DL-103R sounded more liquid with warmer mids, better defined details/inner-details and frequency extension. It was an obvious improvement and told me what I needed to know about the DL-103R. It needs more than a medium mass tonearm to work its best.

link to article: http://www.theanalogdept.com/dl_rb.htm

-Steve