Denon 103 vs 103r opinions - Sonic Differences

I would have to agree with Dover that a retip with a more exotic stylus will have a bigger effect than the body mod. However, together with the aluminium body it makes the 103R a formidable option. And for little cost, especially for those who already own a 103R.

There are big gains in focus - especially on-centre where the stock cartridge isn't great. Transparency of the soundstage and clarity of instruments in depth (also mediocre in the stock cartridge) are massively improved along with resolution of space and ambiance. Height (especially at the sides) and the 'unhinging' of instruments from the speakers is far more convincing. Everything sounds more realistic (to me) and difficult instruments like piano and trumpet surprisingly so. Cymbals, bells, vibes, distinctions between similar voices...tracking performance....the list goes on.
Plus the 103R magic that provides the tone, texture and feel to make the music convincing.
Top feeders won't be satisfied, but its a good deal IMO.

Of course setup is more critical, but that is true of any cartridge with a line contact stylus profile.

How does the retipped 103R compare with a stock OC9ML II or III?

Bpoletti, the OC9 has a reasonable bottom and top end but is threadbare through the midrange, the Denon is much more musical to my ears. ( Both cartridges used in Sota Star/ET2 ).

Bpoletti, I haven't tried the OC9 ML II or III but I have compared the AT33 PTG-II to my retipped 103R. The comparison was done with two separate wands on my Phantom arm and current setup.
While the AT33 sounded competent enough, it didn't present music with the dimension and involvement of the Denon. I also thought it was less transparent - certainly less realism to the reproduction (for me).
Mechanically the cartridges are quite different, the AT cartridges are lighter and have higher compliance. It's possible they may suit a lighter arm or different setup better.