Denon 103r ????

>>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.<<

Yes, if you read back far enough in this thread, you'll see I pointed this out. I figure its equivalent 10 Hz compliance to be 9. The 103R is usuable in medium mass tonearms, a point I've also made before, but when used in something like a Rega, it benefits from adding mass at the headshell or in the form of a re-body. That cartridge sounds good in a 12g medium mass arm, but it sounds better with a little more. Hence, if used with the right counterweight, the 14g total weight Zu103 mod is beneficial to application in a Rega. But medium mass is a far cry from the 5g SME III. That is not a match.

>>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(?).<<

Well, that may be part of it, but a compliance rating normalized to 9 is going to do well dynamically in a 20g tonearm, plain and simple.

The higher compliance 103D and M do well in medium to medium-low mass arms. I use a stock 103R in medium mass tonearms sometimes, but it does deliver more tonal density and dynamic intensity in my 18-20g tonearms.

The Uwe body is a legitimate modification.

Phil

"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."

No, it isn't. Geometry class is still in session. A vertical line is 90 degrees (Right angle). A horizontal line is zero degrees. 90-92 degrees is the window, I agree but not 0 to 2 degrees.

"For a conical stylus, SRA isn't critical."

True, it's a ball. Not to mention, tracking angle error is also, on paper, better, too. I just wish the concept "sounded" good. I'm not hearing that. It sound consistently veiled and harsh to less so but still cloudy.

"…which is the angle of the cantilever relative to the record's surface"

No, it isn't. It is the CONTACT point of the stylus to the record surface drawn to the PIVOT point of the tone arm. A line is extended straight down to the record surface and then outward to the stylus again. This forms a 90-degree right triangle to the record surface. The VTA is the angle at the stylus tip end, and is somewhere between 15-20 degrees.

"Every line contact stylus.."
Oh, who said "every". I'll take a ninety percent improved field of choice over a very FEW conical styli that track light enough to offset the minimal contact surface. Show me your math on this one. Again, this is simple static’s and geometry at work. Sure, If I mistrack we are talking apples to oranges. I'm talking how the car behaves on the road, not in the ditch.

"rather than disparage other cartridges you don't understand?..."

So far I am not so sure who understands what. A cheap moving coil cartridge is not going to have the design effort that a better product has. Materials not withstanding, it's got so much effort built in. I understand this product plenty. The low compliance is but just ONE of the negatives thrown onto this product that in my listening, leave it inferior to the old 103D on ANY tonearm. It is what it is, nothing disparaging about that except the illusion that this thing is beyond "your" reproach. Glad you like to stop your listening there. You're saving a lot of money.

"103's holistic tone..."

You're kidding, right" I never knew Linda Rhonstadt was supposed to have been singing inside a felt box..my bad on that. But, the world is a "better" place through rose colored glasses. Reality bites, doesn't it? At least the 103D was a good kind of haze, the 103r runs you into things trying to hear through the fog. It REMOVES the music. That's bad. So, no, the 103r is doing the deconstructing. Any arm and against better products "clearly" show this. Are you really saying more focused and stable sound over a 103R is now "wrong"? A conical stylus is far removed from the cutter heads geometry. It is a simplistic approach to a cheap product.

I don't know how many cartridges are out there over $380.00 bucks, but we better save the world from them right away, or is it that you can't seem to accept the colored glasses on your head that seem to wrap around your ears? It's OK to like the sound, but to say it is the be all to end all is absurd, and say we who want better are "disparaging" a product you seem to take way too personal.

I'll listen to the Ruby 3 no different than the 103r. It has to equal or eclipse my AC-2. If it doesn't I'll work till I get there. Remember, you all take thses products to be your children. No, it's all impersonel manufactured product. To think otherwise is to limit your options going forward.

FWIW, (and yes I know this is not an indicator of sound quality) I just tested the resonant frequencies, lateral and vertical, for the Uwe 103R in my 14gm effective mass Phantom II.
Test record was the HFN&RR, which has a low frequency sweep with a 1kHz pilot - with frequency callouts every couple of Hz.

Lateral resonance was fairly low at 7-8Hz and vertical resonance was about 9Hz.

Increasing the arm's effective mass would theoretically lower these resonant points further - not necessarily desirable IMO, as they are already on the lower side of ideal.

Of course there may be other benefits to higher mass, but I don't think it would have much to do with fundamental resonance.

Sound wise the Uwe 103R sounds fabulous in the Phantom II - significantly better than the somewhat lower effective mass Graham 1.5T. But is that because the Phantom has slightly higher mass, or because it's a better tonearm? I suspect the latter.

>>Geometry class is still in session.<<

Perhaps so, but that's not how SRA is referenced. It's not relative to the plane of the record surface. It's referenced relative to deviation from a true vertical line, said vertical line being 0.

>> I just wish the concept "sounded" good. I'm not hearing that. It sound consistently veiled and harsh to less so but still cloudy. <<

Yes, but this is because you used that cartridge in a too-light tonearm for that suspension to properly work against. Nothing about a conical stylus necessitates a vieled sound, and certainly not harsh. Harshness from a 103R is a sure sign something is wrong with your set-up.

>>No, it isn't. It is the CONTACT point of the stylus to the record surface drawn to the PIVOT point of the tone arm.<<

Well, technically, yes. But for practical purposes of simply differentiating VTA from SRA, the cantilever essentially defines the same.

>> I'll take a ninety percent improved field of choice over a very FEW conical styli that track light enough to offset the minimal contact surface. Show me your math on this one. Again, this is simple static’s and geometry at work. Sure, If I mistrack we are talking apples to oranges. I'm talking how the car behaves on the road, not in the ditch.<<

Since most record wear is not caused by vinyl compression derived from PSI differences at proper tracking force, it is the dysfunction of stylus chatter that should concern you. An Ortofon SPU properly set up for 3 - 4g VTF won't compromise your records. But a line contact rattling in the groove due to improper setup or too-low VTA will wreak havoc in the groove. PSI isn't the worry.

>>A cheap moving coil cartridge is not going to have the design effort that a better product has.<<

The only reason the 103R is cheap by today's standards is that it's basic architecture has been in production since 1962. Every cost was long ago amortized. Denon could easily put it in an exotic body and give it a more exotic cantilever and stylus, but hasn't. In part because they have put enough development into the 103 for it to be outstanding as-is. For more "design effort" they have the DL-S1, which easily competes with cartridges triple its price from smaller organizations.

>>The low compliance is but just ONE of the negatives thrown onto this product that in my listening, leave it inferior to the old 103D<<

As Ronald Reagan said, "There you go again." Low compliance isn't a negative. It's just a trait that demands proper matching to an appropriate tonearm. It's qualitatively neutral.

>>leave it inferior to the old 103D on ANY tonearm<<

No, sorry. If you put a 103D in an arm too heavy for its compliance, it will deteriorate as badly in different ways as a 103R does in a tonearm too light for it.

>>Glad you like to stop your listening there. You're saving a lot of money. <<

I don't. I listen to Zu103, 103R, 103D, 103M, 103FL, 305, plus Ortofon SPU Silver Meister and SPU Synergy, plus Signet TK9LC. And there'll be more.

>>You're kidding, right" I never knew Linda Rhonstadt was supposed to have been singing inside a felt box..my bad on that.<<

Well, she will if you put the cartridge in the wrong tonearm and further screw up the set-up.

>>At least the 103D was a good kind of haze, the 103r runs you into things trying to hear through the fog.<<

If your 103D has haze, then you have problems setting up TWO cartridges.

>>A conical stylus is far removed from the cutter heads geometry. It is a simplistic approach to a cheap product.<<

The cutting head is not the playing head. Many cartridge designers that try to get close to the shape and alignment of the cutting head produce awful sounding cartridges. There's nothing wrong with a conical stylus if it's part of a holistic design. All these transducers are imperfect. The designer must balance many attributes.

>>but to say it is the be all to end all is absurd, and say we who want better are "disparaging" a product you seem to take way too personal.<<

Look, the Denon is just one of many cartridges I've owned or own now. In fact, I had an AC-2 back when it was new and in production. Way back. I have cartridges more than 10X the cost of the 103R. I just prefer to see a good product represented properly. You can have your opinion of the sound, but when that's derived from listening to a cartridge under seriously mismatched and improper conditions, then your opinion isn't informed or actionable. I don't defend the 103 because it's inexpensive. But this cartridge, when properly installed, set-up and co-existing with the right amplification, can allow many music lovers of modest means to enjoy true high-end sound from their vinyl at an accessible price, or allow the better funded audiophile to shift resources into more expensive and excellent tonearm, table, signal amplification, etc., knowing that the source signal will be more than good enough to allow the analog chain to produce lively, realistic, toneful music. That you didn't get that result is understandable, given the errors in selection of associated gear.

The AC2 is a fine cartridge. If you are unwilling to change tonearms, you should enjoy it.

Phil

>>Increasing the arm's effective mass would theoretically lower these resonant points further - not necessarily desirable IMO, as they are already on the lower side of ideal.<<

Correct. But the Uwe body makes the whole cartridge much heavier than stock, so you've effectively raised the effective mass of the tonearm oving system above its nominal 14g eff mass rating, so you're listening to the 103R suspension and motor in a "heavier" tonearm already.

Can't say without being there. But a stock 103R in a 20g tonearm has given me resonance points no lower than what you cite. There may be other factors. But I'd expect a Uwe body 103R to sound beautiful in a Phantom II. In any case, 14g is better than the Rega's 12, for this cartridge, and it can sound good enough in the Rega.

Phil