Denon 103r ????

>>Well, I never could get the 103R to get to really good on my Quatros.<<

Your speakers are irrelevant here. Your tonearm/cartridge match was the problem.

>>I think that the....low low compliance just won't let it happen on my set-up (SME III arm)<<

This is absolutely true. I didn't include your reference to the conical stylus because that's not a factor at all in your observation. The relatively low compliance 103R will not perform even close to its capabilities in your 5 grams effective mass tonearm.

>>...Yes, the 103R can be better on a heavier arm...<<

Make that "will."

>>but the balance of the cartridge will always bias the low-end...by design.<<

This is nonsense. There's no reason one cannot get linear sound and an extended top end from a properly set-up 103R, installed in a tonearm well-matched to its dynamic requirements.

>>What I need to do, is find a comparable compliance MC that has the timber of my AC-2. But, where to start?<<

No. If you get another cartridge with compliance comparable to the 103R, you will again have a gross mismatch between cartridge and tonearm and once again you will malign a perfectly good cartridge by some other maker. Your SME III tonearm requires a distinctly non-comparable compliance, in its case high. Where to start is a much higher compliance and excellent Denon DL-304 or DL-S1. Or just keep listening to your AC-2. The other path to take is to accept the compliance of the 103R and replace your SME III with a tonearm appropriate to that specific Denon.

Phil

"This is nonsense. There's no reason one cannot get linear sound and an extended top end from a properly set-up 103R, installed in a tonearm well-matched to its dynamic requirements."

No, even a well set-up 103R is soft on top. A conical stylus can only do so much. It simply doesn't fit the groove too well. Not to mention the higher stylus pressure conical stylus generate on the groove wall where they do hit. The small contact area has a high PSI so that and 2 grams tracking force is much harder on a record than at first glance against a more modern long contact area stylus. Sure, I can set it to a too high stylus tracking angle like 94 degrees and the distortion will peel the paint off the walls! Is that open high frequency "sound" though? Been there heard it. It gets to be OK with a good, and that's it. The AC-2 works very well (not extremely well) in my SME series III.

Why on earth the silly defense of an admittedly inferior product to the older 103D in overall performance? This product confuses me. OK, they made the thing a nail as everyone went high mass. Does that make it better? Give it a rest, the 103r is mediocer at best in sound quality. It has "value" but I'm more interested in getting to at least "class B" quality sound. I would not put the 103r I heard in that spot. Changing the stylus and complinace on a 103R IS NOT the same product anymore, so I won't go there.

Mine sounds fantastic. Not strident at all, in fact quite the opposite.

Go figure?

>>No, even a well set-up 103R is soft on top.<<

I'm sorry, it's not. But a well-set-up 130R won't sound strident. Maybe you like strident.

>>A conical stylus can only do so much. It simply doesn't fit the groove too well.<<

Have you ever listened to an Ortofon SPU Classic GM with its spherical diamond? Neither it nor the 103/103R are intrinsically "soft" on the top end if matched to proper tonearms, and properly loaded and amplified.

>>Not to mention the higher stylus pressure conical stylus generate on the groove wall where they do hit. The small contact area has a high PSI so that and 2 grams tracking force is much harder on a record than at first glance against a more modern long contact area stylus.<<

A conical stylus' lbs/square inch pressure at tracking force can be lower than with an eccentric diamond shape at lower tracking force. Moreover, if tracking force is set too low, causing stylus chatter in the groove, a conical stylus will be less damaging to groove walls in such a situation.

>>Sure, I can set it to a too high stylus tracking angle like 94 degrees and the distortion will peel the paint off the walls!<<

94 degrees? You're not making sense. Anyway, you do not have to run an elevated VTA to get a conical stylus to track unless something else is radically wrong.

>>The AC-2 works very well (not extremely well) in my SME series III.<<

It's still a mystery why you'd want to run seriously suboptimal cartridges for your tonearm. I've given you alternatives. If you're committed to the SME III, why not get a cart that is "extremely well" matched?

>>Why on earth the silly defense of an admittedly inferior product to the older 103D in overall performance?<<

The 103D hasn't been made for many years. The 103R is current and the market for it deserves to understand it's capabilities and operation accurately.

>>This product confuses me. OK, they made the thing a nail as everyone went high mass.<<

You have it wrong. The 103 has been made since 1962, as a broadcast cartridge, when all tonearms were realitively high mass. The 103 has been a low compliance cartridge from the beginning. The 103R doesn't stray from that. 103S/D/M are the higher compliance aberrations designed when everyone went low mass 35 years ago, for 15 years.

>>Does that make it better? Give it a rest, the 103r is mediocer at best in sound quality.<<

Low, medium, high compliance are not measures of cartridge quality. There are excellent designs with each design characteristic. You can get good sound from any. But matching a low compliance cartridge to a low mass tonearm is guaranteed to yield mediocre sound from both instruments working together.

>>It has "value" but I'm more interested in getting to at least "class B" quality sound.<<

Then you really have to change out your SME III arm for reasons other than low mass. As a tonearm it was never capable of "Class B" sound; certainly not in today's terms.

>>I would not put the 103r I heard in that spot.<<

How could you know? You listened to it in an inappropriate tonearm.

>>Changing the stylus and complinace on a 103R IS NOT the same product anymore, so I won't go there.<<

Agreed, but the motor design has desirable attributes, and ironically, a ruby cantilever, suspension change and a line contact stylus will get it sounding more like what you're asking for. Try a Denon DL-S1. Also, there's a mint Micro-Acoustics MA3002 electret condenser cartridge listed here. That's a perfect match for your SME III and it's fast, open, detailed, extended. Have at it.

Phil

When a stylus can't track the groove due to the shape, it is creating distortion. No way around it. A ROUND stylus won't FIT a high frequency record groove. It creates it's own sound at that point. It's a round peg in a square hole thing. A SMALL contact are ALWAYS creates MORE dange to a recoed than a line contact stulus that had both more area on the record wall (dustributed pressure) and a shape that more properly emulates the cutting head that made the record. Add to that, thye track lighter simple puts the conical stulus where it is, in the bottom of the performance heap.

No, the physics of PSI relating to the geometry has not changed. A line contact stylus as much more area contacting the groove than a conical. No way around that. Show me your math. I'm not talking about mistracking, either. The contact patch is in theory, infinitely small if a round object is placed against a flat plate. A line contact stylus EXPANDS this by geometry, not force. A conical stylus literally shoves the groove into submission, it has to.

A record is cut at a cutter angle of about 92 degrees, no less than 90 to remove the cuttings in the original master. A stylus sounds the best when it is matching this angle give or take a degree or so. The so called VTA is meaningless, and can only be measure AFTER you set the stylus rack angle. People are clearly misunderstanding what VTA even is, and how it achieves the proper stulus rake angle. I have to question your set-ups if you don't realize this.

No, the 103D was much higher compliance than the 103R, by about double. A 103R is 5 cm/Dyne, the 103D was around 12 cm/Dyne. The 103R is less compliant than the 103D. I used a 103D and it works much better in my arm, at least it was listenable.

I've heard the 103r set-up on a heavier arm. The sound quality I refer to is indeed the 103r, not some other product (thank God for that). So no, I did NOT hear it in an inappropriate arm.

Class "B" with a SME III is easy to do with a 15cm/Dyne compliant stulus of similar mass. I have that in the AC-2 right now and it sounds terrific compared to ANY other MC in high-end arms and well away from a 103r.

I find it real funny that people defend this cartride in a race it clearly losses. Just about anything that you do to it improves the sound. Remove the body, change the stylus, change the compliance, ETC. I really have to ask, if it's so darn good, why does anything done mechanically make it "SO" much better?

Roght now, I'm going to match a high compliance, 15cm/Dyne, Benz Micro Ruby III to my arm AFTER I listen to my Quatro woods using my AC-2 as a reference. The two are a dead match on weight, compliance and stylus shape and, the AC-2 has no issue with tracking at 2.0 grams. 1812 cannon shots and all it gets the job done. I expect that the Ruby III will be well into the QUALITY I'm after as it is. I can get a new factory warranty on a re-tip for under two grand. Thank goodness for "new" models clearing out the old. My AC-2 is over thirty years old and being "outdated" never changed it's sound quality.

The Soundsmith The Voice Ebony is a good choice, but I can not audition that product.

The 103r has serious limitations and people need to be aware of them, even with a high mass arm. It is what it is. paid for physical changes NOT being what it is. They are not free.