Denon 103r ????

>>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.

>> 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.<<

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. The zero point is at true vertical as it is expressed relative to true vertical within the record groove, not stylus position realtive to the horizontal surface of the record. You'll want about +1 degree (forward) tilt of the diamond relative to zero (true vertical). With a pinpoint light and a sharp eye you can eyeball it for the vast majority of your records. Beyond that, you'd drive yourself crazy trying to optimize SRA for lowest IM distortion on each and every side of every record you play. Believe me, you have other problems.

For a conical stylus, SRA isn't critical. Some might say it's non-existent. You can just pay attention to VTA (which is the angle of the cantilever relative to the record's surface). For an eccentric stylus shape there is an specified ideal SRA. It's both easier to set by the naked eye than one might imagine, and yet difficult to control its consistency in practical record playing.

>>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.<<

Every line contact stylus shape will not track with lower PSI than every conical stylus. It depends on shapes and sizes under comparison. Some might, some won't. But compression of the vinyl isn't the prime factor in record wear. Far more damaging and common is stylus chatter in the groove, and the consequences of chatter are generally more deleterious to the LP groove than same occuring with a conical stylus.

>>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.<<

Yes, it was me who had to bring this to your attention earlier.

>>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.<<

We'd love to know specifics, because all your other commentary has been detailed regarding your experience using a low compliance 103R in a mismatched low mass arm.

>>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? <<

Because many have heard the AC2 and similar design cartridges in properly matched tonearms and have nevertheless achieved better results from a 103R in an appropriately-matched tonearm. The AC2 sounds good in the right arm. Why don't you just keep listening to it rather than disparage other cartridges you don't understand?

>>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.<<

Your AC2 or even Benz can be improved through re-body. It can be changed (one may or may not like the change) through re-tip to a different diamond shape, re-cantilevered to a different material, recalibrated for compliance, etc. This is true for any cartridge. They're just transducers, susceptible to alteration, educated or otherwise. The 103R represents a combination of known and consciously-chosen compromises. It makes an excellent case for itself right out of the box, if properly implemented. There are higher-resolving cartridges that are much less musical and unable to match the 103's holistic tone. But some people are attracted to a more dissected and deconstructed sound, essentially disintegrated details. Just depends on what you think is important to your sense of fidelity. Good luck with that Benz Ruby.

Phil

Mine sounds great!

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