Question for Denon DL-103R users

[Highwaystar]

Hi All,

 

I decided to enter that slippery slope of trying to get a Denon 103r working with a Technics 1210.

 

There's a lot of information available online about various attempts to get this combination working and many varying opinions but I have a few more questions that I could not find answers for. Hope someone can shed some light.

 

My set up is as follows:

- Technics 1210 deck with KABUSA tonearm damper, external power supply and tonearm rewire 

- EAR 834 P (with MC switch)

- Late 80s Onkyo integrated amplifier

- Bowers & Wilkins CM6 bookshelf speakers

- previously Shure M97XE cart

 

Setup:

- The DL-103R was installed on a standard Technics headshell with a Technics 3 gram spacer/weight giving me a total weight on the scales of about 23 grams (for the headshell + 103R + spacer + bolts).

- VTF set to 2.5g (achieved via additional Technics counterweight)

 

(Ideas closely followed from http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?7086-DL103SA-VS-SL1200-How-I-won-the-battle-and-lived-happy-(for-a-while) )

 

Everything sounds clear and detailed (very impressed in this aspect), no IGD, tracking is great, etc but the sound is VERY thin and trebbly with barely any bass or midrange. 

 

For the users of the Denon DL-103R, is this a sound characteristic of the 103R breaking in (I have only played around 6 hours so far)? Or do I still have some tweaking to attempt? Is there a mismatch with my phono pre?

 

Also considering this AT-LH18 headshell @ 18 grams (highly recommended here http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?550-Headshell-rolling-with-the-SL-1210 )

 

https://eu.audio-technica.com/hifi-phono/hifi-accessories/AT-LH18OCC

 

Thoughts?

 

Thanks

 

 

 

[Telecine]

I don't recall that sort of sound during break in.

 

They like a loading of about 100 ohms. What loading are you using on the EAR 834 P?

[BATMAQN]

What was it like with the Shure?

[Highwaystar]

There are no options to adjust the loading in the EAR 834P. From what I can see find online there are two conflicting values:

 

1. https://www.stereophile.com/content/ear-834p-phono-preamplifier-measurements - claims the impedance measured is 515 ohms

2. https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/ear-834p-impedance - claims confirmation from EAR rep "It's a transformer load, not a resistive load, as the numbers are usually given. Translated to a resistive load, it's about 125 ohms"

 

Regarding the Shure, on the MM setting the sound was full albeit a little muddy. For reference already included 834P manual which as you can see is not very helpful. 

 

Thanks,

Andrew

 

 

834P Manual.pdf

[BATMAQN]

5 minutes ago, Highwaystar said:

Regarding the Shure, on the MM setting the sound was full albeit a little muddy. For reference already included 834P manual which as you can see is not very helpful

That's actually pretty accurate it does have it's fans though depends on the system.

 

Was just trying to determine if the system had body before the 103R

 

 

Edited September 19, 2017 by BATMAQN

[Highwaystar]

1 minute ago, BATMAQN said:

That's actually pretty accurate it does have it's fans though depends on the system.

 

 

I've had the Shure for over 2 years (with one stylus replacement) and have been happy with it but decided it was time to try something else.

 

Detail  from the M97XE to the DL-103R it was like listening to music with ear plugs in and then pulling them out (detail wise) but it's the overall sound with the DL-103R which is troubling me. 

[Guest gmdb]

I've used a few Denons in the past and the 103R in a wooden body is my favourite. The wooden body probably changes things from the get-go, but it never sounded lean - very full and rich, with good detail and transparency.

 

You mention the weight of  the headshell and cart, but what is the weight of the headshell plus the tonearm?  It could be that you need some more weight in the headshell and tonearm combined to better match  the cartridge.  I'll make a suggestion you can use to test this out, but you really, really need to take care with it.   

 

You can add a $2 coin to the top of the headshell - held in place with a small amount of blue tac.  But you must rebalance the arm and dial in the correct tracking force again. If this gets you more "body" in the sound then you probably need a higher mass headshell.  

 

Loading for the 103R is good between 100 to 200 Ohms, so from what has been alreayd said, the loading should be OK. 

 

 

[Highwaystar]

15 hours ago, gmdb said:

I've used a few Denons in the past and the 103R in a wooden body is my favourite. The wooden body probably changes things from the get-go, but it never sounded lean - very full and rich, with good detail and transparency.

 

You mention the weight of  the headshell and cart, but what is the weight of the headshell plus the tonearm?  It could be that you need some more weight in the headshell and tonearm combined to better match  the cartridge.  I'll make a suggestion you can use to test this out, but you really, really need to take care with it.   

 

You can add a $2 coin to the top of the headshell - held in place with a small amount of blue tac.  But you must rebalance the arm and dial in the correct tracking force again. If this gets you more "body" in the sound then you probably need a higher mass headshell.  

 

Loading for the 103R is good between 100 to 200 Ohms, so from what has been alreayd said, the loading should be OK. 

 

 

Thanks. I tried this suggestion last night and the extra weight of the $2 coin definitely helped things a great deal.

 

Looks like I'll need to look into a higher mass headshell. Total weight of headshell plus toneharm is 12 grams.

[Guest gmdb]

Audio Origami actually sent me a weight to add to the fixed headshell for the Denon 103 and 103R.  I just weighed it and it is 7.5 gms, so that takes the effective mass of the tonearm to 19 gms (that excludes the cartridge weight).  I have seen other suggestions that the effective tonearm mass should be at least 16 gms for the 103 and 103R. 

[Graceman]

At present, I run my rebodied 103r with a total headshell+cartridge+spacer, wires and fixing screws coming to 21grams.  It feeds into a 1:10 SUT (Denon AU310) which gives it a loading of 470 ohms and then into a MM phono stage.

 

"VERY thin and trebbly with barely any bass or midrange" is certainly not what I'm hearing and I use NS1000Ms!  The 103r needs a loading greater than 100 ohms for optimum performance.  I currently use a wood body and have used an alloy one in the past.  Both give a full and balanced playback.

 

Easiest way to add headshell mass (other than via bluetac(!) ) is to make a heavier spacer from lead sheet.

 

I've experimented with the total headshell weight up to 29gm but you need additional mass at the counterweight to balance this. 

 

(Tip: a 12mm M8 bolt threaded through a fishing weight screws straight into the rear stub of the arm - this gives an easy way of adding mass to counterbalance a heavier headshell combo.)

[Graceman]

5 minutes ago, gmdb said:

Audio Origami actually sent me a weight to add to the fixed headshell for the Denon 103 and 103R.  I just weighed it and it is 7.5 gms, so that takes the effective mass of the tonearm to 19 gms (that excludes the cartridge weight).  I have seen other suggestions that the effective tonearm mass should be at least 16 gms for the 103 and 103R. 

 

Adding 7.5g to the headshell does not add 7.5gm to the effective mass.  It is a much more complex calculation.  It would probably increase the effective mass to something like 13.  There are pages of discussion on the internet and If I can find the time, I'll post a reference.

[Highwaystar]

56 minutes ago, Graceman said:

At present, I run my rebodied 103r with a total headshell+cartridge+spacer, wires and fixing screws coming to 21grams.  It feeds into a 1:10 SUT (Denon AU310) which gives it a loading of 470 ohms and then into a MM phono stage.

 

"VERY thin and trebbly with barely any bass or midrange" is certainly not what I'm hearing and I use NS1000Ms!  The 103r needs a loading greater than 100 ohms for optimum performance.  I currently use a wood body and have used an alloy one in the past.  Both give a full and balanced playback.

 

Easiest way to add headshell mass (other than via bluetac(!) ) is to make a heavier spacer from lead sheet.

 

I've experimented with the total headshell weight up to 29gm but you need additional mass at the counterweight to balance this. 

 

(Tip: a 12mm M8 bolt threaded through a fishing weight screws straight into the rear stub of the arm - this gives an easy way of adding mass to counterbalance a heavier headshell combo.)

Thanks for the tip. Last night I added a $2 coin to the headshell giving me a total of 26.5gm. It took 4 $2 coins blu tacked together at the end of the counter weight to get enough balance. If I order the Audio Technica LH18 that will give me a total of 30.5gm in the headshell.

 

I'll try the above bolt size with weights - definitely less messy!

[Graceman]

I went to a fishing shop and bought some size 3 and size 5 lead ball weights.  I drilled out the centre hole with a 7mm drill and then inserted the 8mm bolt. It's only lead so it cut its own thread on the way in.  If you use a 20mm M8 bolt (not 10mm as I mentioned earlier), then you have 8mm or so to screw in, and the lid will close without fouling the end of the arm.  I used the size 5 and spun it in my drill against a file to reduce the diameter and make it look more presentable.  The finished article comes in at 35 gm.  This means I can use the standard counterbalance weight and so the tracking weight dial remains accurate.

 

It's easier and more flexible to experiment with cartridge spacers (lead, brass, wood etc) rather than the expense of a new headshell.  The 103 invariably needs a spacer so it kills two birds with one stone.

[Guest gmdb]

1 hour ago, Graceman said:

 

Adding 7.5g to the headshell does not add 7.5gm to the effective mass.  It is a much more complex calculation.  It would probably increase the effective mass to something like 13.  There are pages of discussion on the internet and If I can find the time, I'll post a reference.

Well the Resonance Frequency calculation is more complex, but in that calculation (in one part) the mass of the arm is added to the mass of the cart.  Adding 7.5 g to the head shell could be considered the same as adding 7.5g to the mass of the cart, so either way the extra 7.5 g goes into the calculation. 

[Highwaystar]

On 9/20/2017 at 12:27 PM, Graceman said:

I went to a fishing shop and bought some size 3 and size 5 lead ball weights.  I drilled out the centre hole with a 7mm drill and then inserted the 8mm bolt. It's only lead so it cut its own thread on the way in.  If you use a 20mm M8 bolt (not 10mm as I mentioned earlier), then you have 8mm or so to screw in, and the lid will close without fouling the end of the arm.  I used the size 5 and spun it in my drill against a file to reduce the diameter and make it look more presentable.  The finished article comes in at 35 gm.  This means I can use the standard counterbalance weight and so the tracking weight dial remains accurate.

 

It's easier and more flexible to experiment with cartridge spacers (lead, brass, wood etc) rather than the expense of a new headshell.  The 103 invariably needs a spacer so it kills two birds with one stone.

 

Thanks. Any suggestions/ideas for making spacers?

 

I attempted the lead weight last night. Attempted screwing by hand (do not have a drill or vice) but made a bit of a mess and decided to leave it for now.

 

[Highwaystar]

Hi,

 

Reading further into the specs for the DL-103R, it states:

 

Load Impedance 100 ohms min. (40 ohms when using a transformer).

 

I'm assuming transformer = SUT? In this case it appears I may have a mismatch with my EAR 834P.

 

[Guest gmdb]

14 minutes ago, Highwaystar said:

Hi,

 

Reading further into the specs for the DL-103R, it states:

 

Load Impedance 100 ohms min. (40 ohms when using a transformer).

 

I'm assuming transformer = SUT? In this case it appears I may have a mismatch with my EAR 834P.

 

It's the way the Japanese do their SUT specs.  The loading is the same irrespective of whether you use an SUT or a head amp.  But in Japan of a lot of SUTs have settings on the dials that correspond to the impedance of the cartridge, not the actual loading at that setting.  So if you dial to 40 Ohms on the SUT you will get the loading that the SUT maker decided was a good loading for a cartridge of 40 Ohms internal impedance.  You would need to read the specific SUT manual to find out what the loading actually is.

 

However, Denon do confuse things by providing exactly the same figures for the DL-103.  The 103 has an internal impedance of 40 Ohms but the 103R is only 14 ohms.  Irrespective of using an SUT or head amp a loading of 100 to 200 Ohms should be good for the 103R. 

[Highwaystar]

8 hours ago, gmdb said:

It's the way the Japanese do their SUT specs.  The loading is the same irrespective of whether you use an SUT or a head amp.  But in Japan of a lot of SUTs have settings on the dials that correspond to the impedance of the cartridge, not the actual loading at that setting.  So if you dial to 40 Ohms on the SUT you will get the loading that the SUT maker decided was a good loading for a cartridge of 40 Ohms internal impedance.  You would need to read the specific SUT manual to find out what the loading actually is.

 

However, Denon do confuse things by providing exactly the same figures for the DL-103.  The 103 has an internal impedance of 40 Ohms but the 103R is only 14 ohms.  Irrespective of using an SUT or head amp a loading of 100 to 200 Ohms should be good for the 103R. 

Ok I'm even more confused

 

So I borrowed a EAR MC-3 SUT and it has the following loading options:

 

4Ω (x30), 12Ω (x20) and 40Ω (x10).

 

Does this mean the ideal loading would be 12Ω (ie closet to 14Ω)?

 

My EAR 834P has a MM/MC switch so I'd assume because I'm using the SUT I'd keep it set to the MM setting?

 

Thanks

[ophool]

Yes & Yes

[Guest gmdb]

Rule of thumb is to have the SUT plus MM phono loading the cartridge at 10x the internal impedance of the cartridge. 

 

Most MM phonos have input impedance  of 47,000 Ohms. 

 

The 4 Ohm setting is 30x gain.  So connect to the MM phono this will load at 47,000/(30 x 30) = 53 Ohms. That is more or less the correct setting for a cartridge of 4 Ohm internal impedance.

 

The 12 Ohm setting is 20 x gain.  So 47,000 / (20 x 20) = 117 Ohms - so Yes, on your EAR SUT that will likely be the best setting for the DL103R which has internal impedance of 14 Ohms.

 

40 Ohm (10x) gain will load at 470 Ohms and is would suit other Denon cartridges which have 40 Ohms internal impedance. 

 

However, it is possible that you could prefer the DL103R on another of the settings.  Personal; taste does play a part.

 

 

[Graceman]

If you want some more reading, here is a comparatively easy read about SUTs from one of the acknowledged experts in the field:

 

http://www.rothwellaudioproducts.co.uk/html/mc_step-up_transformers_explai.html

[Highwaystar]

Thank you both for the very helpful and detailed responses. I've read through them in detail and now I understand a lot more. 

 

Having said that though, so far I've tried adding extra weight (up to 31 grams total weight for the headshell + cartridge) which requires approx. 50 grams  on the counter weight and although the harshness slightly eases the high end is still very fatiguing and verging on unpleasant.

 

I'm about 20 hours in playing time now.

 

For a comparison I tried a few albums with the M97XE back on and everything went back to being warm and fuzzy (albeit not as detailed).

 

Wondering if I should cut my loses and see if I can sell the cart while it is still only a week old with low hours and try something more suitable for my setup out of the box or see it out for another 20-40 hours.

 

Would be curious to hear how the 103R sounds on other systems too.

Edited September 23, 2017 by Highwaystar

[Highwaystar]

Or any other suggestions for what could be causing all the harsh treble?

[Guest gmdb]

Well the Denons are spec'ed at 45 K Hz and up, so they have a lot going on at the top end.  If you aren't used to it then it can be a bit dazzling at first. But that doesn't sound like the issue.  I've never heard a Denon that was fatiguing.  On the other hand Audio-Technica's fatigue me all the time (but different ears and all that).  Also 20 hours is probably not enough. 40 or even 100 hours would be better. 

 

I haven't worked on this Technics turntable before but I did work on an Ariston Korean copy (quite a nice turntable BTW) and one of my local customers has a Technics 1200 and is running an older Denon 301 on it (301 not 103).  On both turntables the arm had been dampened.  If yours hasn't been dampened then I think you should try it. 

 

Take off the headshell and buy a piece of heatshrink tubing that has a large enough diameter to fit over the arm and shrink down on it.  Run the heatshrink along the length of the arm and as close to the pivot point so that it won't interfere with anything else.  At the other end make sure it doesn't interfere with the headshell locking nut. Use a heat gun or a hairdryer to seal in down on the arm.  This adds some mass and reduces resonance.  Clear heatshrink doesn't actually look too bad on the arm.  
 

 

[Highwaystar]

I've actually got a KABUSA dampener installed which should be helping.

 

Could it be possible that the cart has a manufacturing defect? Would be a tough one to prove I suppose.

 

Thanks