Denon DL 103 modifications and re-body questions thread

My experience with the Denon 103 that I had rebuilt by the original Garrott Bros with a composite boron/aluminium cantilever and Weinz Parabolic diamond was positive.
Although the resolution was not as high as my Koetsu Black Goldline, and far removed from my Dynavector Nova 13D & Ikeda Kiwame, the performance was very musical and with the Eminent Technology ET2 (modded) was very coherent. In terms of coherency it betters many more expensive cartridges, but not so much in resolution.
From my recollection the pole layout is responsible for the big wide albeit slightly foreshortened soundstage.   

@lohanimal 

As an adopted 'Essex boy' (those in the UK would understand the joke) I like the idea of adding go faster lines, a turbo, and a big wing to my Ford - I don't expect it to become a Porsche - which I thankfully have ;) (in terms of cartridges that is)  

LOL! I like the idea of modding Lambretta scooter like that too 

P.S. Who fixed yout JVC TT-101? I've asked one JVC repair center in UK, they said they can do that.  

@dover : Thank you for your cogent explanation! My first encounter with a 103 was on a TOTL Denon DD TT with the 307 arm (1976). A Levinson JC-1 clone was used as a pre-preamp. SQ was phenomenal considering that this was a venerable cartridge design (1962) with a spherical stylus! 

Dover, You wrote, "Moving coils generated more current and less voltage than MM's. Higher current from cartridge to 1st amplifying device means better noise rejection. Basic physics."

I agree with you on the issue of SUT vs active gain stage; I prefer the latter (not sure I mentioned that explicitly in my first post, but the message seems to have gotten across). I am well aware of the V/I difference between MM and MC cartridges, but I am not aware of any "basic physics" that would suggest that MC cartridges innately have a lower noise floor based on their ability to produce current, compared to MM types. In order for the listener to sense the noise, the phono stage has to be driven by the cartridge.  (Obviously, you know that.) Almost all the phono stages that provide sufficient gain for LOMC cartridges are voltage-driven. Ergo, where is the advantage for the MC cartridge in terms of its capacity to make current?  There are a very few "current-driven" phono stages designed exclusively for LOMCs with very low internal resistance.  Perhaps if one is using one of those phono stages, the LOMC would have a noise advantage.  But of course, those few phono stages absolutely cannot be driven properly by MM cartridges in the first place.  I may be missing your point, so feel free to rebut.

Lohanimal, It sounds like you are not scraping up the money to mod your DL103R.  In which case, since you're just having fun, I say have at it.   If it were I, I would go for a wood body and a new cantilever/stylus. I have an ancient DL103 with no cantilever or stylus.  I bought it new probably in the 70s.  Every once in a while I think maybe I should send it off for repair, but.....nah.  I've got other more interesting broken cartridges that I would repair first.

@lewm 
Lew,
It's difficult to quantify what translates into what we can hear - but the lower internal impedance of most moving coils would suggest lower susceptibility to picking up extraneous noise.
The real point of my post is that the higher current drive of a LOMC definitely rejects noise better in the transmission through the phono cable. This I can hear and measure - I have buckets of cables that whilst picking up noise when used between MM and phono or SUT to phono, are absolutely dead quiet when used directly between MC's & phono in the same system.
Beyond that it is well to remember that the cartridge/phono cable/phono input is a tuned circuit, and as such anything is possible. A good example is my original modded Marantz 7 can easily amplify MC's from about 0.25mv up, but the Denon 103 produces no sound whatsoever, absolutely nothing. The only cartridge I've had this phenomena with in 30 years. Even with access to an ex NASA radio engineer familiar with tube circuits he is unable to explain that one.