Denon DL-103 -- Was it a mistake?


I recently purchased a Denon DL-103 for my Clearaudio Emotion/Satisfy Tonearm combo. I thought it might end up sounded ok, but I'm starting to think it was not a good match. I've only put about 10 hours on it so far, so perhaps it will still smooth out a bit. But the bass seems to get muddy very easily. Can I do some things to improve the sound here?

Thanks
jwglista
Goatwuss:

Sorry for being a bit vague. I was just curious what the rest of your system was like (phono pre, etc.).

I haven't really decided if I want to sell the Denon or not, just because I'd like to install it on another TT some day to hear how it sounds in a proper setup. I'm curious as to what specifically makes the Cambridge 640p a bad match to the DL-103, since loading is usually set at 100 ohms for this cart, and that's what the 640p provides.

Good to know you are enjoying yours. I know my Paradigm speakers with the aluminum dome tweeters can be very unforgiving on bright recordings and bright sounding equipment, so that did not help the DL-103 out at all in my incorrectly-matched setup.

I too hope to get better results with the Ortofon. I will definitely report back here once I've got things settled in.
Post removed 
Regarding loading the DL-103, my experience tells me it needs to be higher
than 100 ohms. The matching Denon SUTs load it at 470 ohms (at least my
AU-320 does). I now have an Aesthetix Rhea that permits on-the-fly loading
changes via the remote (yeah, the ultimate couch potato phonostage) and it
sounds best to me at 500 ohms. Too "scrawny" at 100 ohms, IME.
I agree... to a point... Dopogue

I tried several loadings with the DL-103 in my system - I still couldn't get it to sound "right" though, especially in the midrange. I did, however, find the best match at 500 ohms, as well.

My current Dynavector 20XL (microline edition) is so much more musical than the DL-103 was. I'd take the 10X5 or, as Jwglista did, the Ortofon 2m carts, over the DL-103 any day.

One thing that did impress the hell out of me was the Denon's ability to track inner grooves with it's conical stylus. It's the only conical I've ever heard that can do it convincingly and inner-groove-distortion is a pet-peave of mine. It tracked the inner groove almost as well as my 20XL, which is impressive.
03-10-09: Viridian
Second, the 640P was a bad match with the 103 in my system. The brightness at the top of the Denon's midrange not matching well with the upper midrange brightness of the 640P.
Boy, I'll second that. I had a persistent low level midrange glare in my rig that I'd learned to live with, figuring it was the combination of a Technics DD turntable, the AT150MLX, or both.

Then I decided to plug the turntable's interconnects directly into the phono stage in my Onkyo integrated amp and the glare disappeared. In its place was a new wealth of low level detail translating into lushness, warmth, the bloom and decay of notes, both within the instruments and in the venues in which they were recorded.

I don't think the 640P is up to the task. It may take a better phono stage plus a step-up device optimized for the DL-103 to bring out the Denon's best.

This Denon AU-300 LC MC may not be the last word in stepup devices, but it's a match for the DL-103, and it has Denon's economy of scale going for it. You still need a phono stage, but only an MM one.