Well, I'll be doggone... a Denon DL-103 DOES work well on a Dual 1019

[beatcomber]

Conventional wisdom says that a Denon DL-103 needs a massive arm to deliver the goods. Anything less than 20 grams of effective mass will produce shrill, forward, bass-lite performance from a DL-103.

Just for schitts and giggles, I decided to mount my DL-103 (the original version) on my Dual 1019. The 1019 is said to have a low-mass arm, supposedly designed to work best with high-compliance Shure cartridges.

Well, I'll be doggone... the DL-103 sounds just dandy on the 1019.

Now, I guess I should mention that I am increasing the mass of the arm by using a 3-gram metal cartridge plate, and I'm also using a Pat's Audio 3D-printed VTA shim, which adds some mass. I also have the counterweight extending pretty far back, to get the arm to balance. I will probably tack a metal washer or two to the counterweight, to allow the center of gravity to move closer to the pivot (and add more mass).

But dang... the DL-103 works on a Dual 1019!

 

[Gary Francks]

I once used an Ortofon MC10 Super on a Dual CS504, another supposedly mismatch and it sounded wonderfull!
Back in the day when you buy the Ortofon for £65!

Sometimes rules are there to be broken.

 

[ejman]

Yup, I have three sleds for my Dual 1019 one with a Denon DL 103, one with an Audio Technica AT440 mla, and one with a Shure M91 ED with a Jico SAS stylus. That tonearm works and tracks just fine with all three even though these cartridges have vastly different stylus shapes and weights. I do use a 4 mm cork mat to adjust VTA instead of the sled wedges. I think that the tonearm of the 1019 is vastly underestimated being so short. The one PITA with it is the sled system however as it usually requires a lot of futzing to be hum free. It would have been wonderful if Dual had adopted the standard SME type mount for straight tonearms such as this one https://www.crutchfield.com/p_057HS3/Audio-Technica-AT-HS3.html instead of their crazy scheme.

 

[DavidTT]

I've mounted very heavy modified cartridges on my U-Turn Orbit tonearm, and actually added small tungsten plugs, with 3m double-sided tape, to the counterweight to get the arm to balance. I was quite surprised how good they all sounded. From flyweights like the Ortofon OMs, to a very heavy paradox pulse Shure sc35c with heavy tracking OEM stylus, to longhorned and potted Grado Blue, all tracked and sounded good in that tonearm.

I no longer worry about arm mass, compliance matching and other phono orthodoxies as much as I did previously.

 

[marcmorin]

mounted one on an XA a couple weeks ago, stock headshell, rewired and damped tube which may have upped the EM a little. clocked in at 8-10hz on the shure era IV test album, tracking at 2.5gr. sounded pretty decent. Not sure they are as low compliance as stated

 

[ripblade]

mounted one on an XA a couple weeks ago, stock headshell, rewired and damped tube which may have upped the EM a little. clocked in at 8-10hz on the shure era IV test album, tracking at 2.5gr. sounded pretty decent. Not sure they are as low compliance as stated

I've been saying this for years. A wood bodied 103r, well broken in, on a Mission 774 arm (5.5g) produced resonance measured at 10hz or lower. That's about where it's supposed to be, isn't it? True, the arm uses a damping trough for damping resonance, but it alters Q behavior more than frequency.

There's also another vintage ULM that features a DL103 in the setup manual. Black Widow, I think...