• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

103 S Soundsmith

BillyB

Well-Known Member
I sent it in for a re-tip and decided to upgrade via the Ruby Cantilever......

I finally just got around to do some serious listening and it sounds tremendously detailed and I am enjoying it..........

But what happened to the bass??

My Grado has earth shattering bass in comparison. I am not a big bass head.....but a certain amount is necessary in my opinion.

The base response is poor at best.

It not a mismatch on the table or an adjustment issue that I am aware of.....

Anyone else have any input??
 
Register to hide this ad
I'm very interested in how this conversation goes, as I planned to get my 103R retipped with aluminium rather than ruby because I worry that the stiff suspension doesn't play nice with the harder cantilever.

One thing that helped tighten the bass on my 103r was adding approx 12 grams at the headshell via a combination of SoundSmith scews (which required I nude the cartridge) and a brass plate found on Ebay.
 
I agree, it may need the mass to play against... Many MC's do.

It may take some break-in like 30 hours.

Call Soundsmith and ask. They are good folks and if it is not to your liking, they'll help :)
 
Everything I read about the Denon 103 (well certain models of it at least), tends to indicate that it needs a massy arm to really strut its stuff.

Sounds to me like an arm/cartridge mismatch.
 
103 S is a high compliance cart that is designed to run on a low mass arm. It is currently running on a low mass arm which came with my Denon turntable designed specifically for the 103 S.

I have it adjusted properly with the exception of the azimuth which I will mess around with next........its not a mismatch. I have the original directions indicating the cart gets the best response with the low mass arm.
 
103 S is a high compliance cart that is designed to run on a low mass arm. It is currently running on a low mass arm which came with my Denon turntable designed specifically for the 103 S.

I have it adjusted properly with the exception of the azimuth which I will mess around with next........its not a mismatch. I have the original directions indicating the cart gets the best response with the low mass arm.

From the Ortofon website:

"A phono cartridge with the compliance in the range of 5 to 10 µm/mN is considered as a very low compliance cartridge, a cartridge with the compliance in the range of 10 to 20 µm/mN is moderate compliance cartridge and a cartridge with the compliance value above 35µm/mN is very high compliance cartridge." http://www.ortofon.com/support/cartridgetonearm-resonance-frequency

From the Vinylengine cartridge database:


DL103S
Denon DL103S

review this cartridge
rate/review
1974 $255

Type
moving coil Output Voltage
mV Frequency Response
20Hz - 60kHz Tracking Force
1.8 +/- 0.3g Mass
7.8g
Channel Separation
> 25dB Channel Balance
< 1dB Load Impedance
> 100 ohms Output Impedance
40 ohms
Stylus
Stylus Tip
0.15mm special elliptical Cantilever
special aluminium pipe Dynamic Compliance
8 x10-6cm/Dyne
Static Compliance

Or there's this information:




Denon DL 103 - a true classic mc cartridge

---

Introduced 1962

The Denon DL 103 was developed by Nippon Columbia / Denki Onkyo (Den-on) and the japanese radio and television broadcast corporation NHK in 1962. This “standard” DL 103 is still in production.
Specifications : output 0.3mV, compliance 5cu, internal impedance 40ohms, recommended VTF 2.5 +/- 0.3grams, spherical stylus. The price in 1970 was 16000 Yen.

1974 : DL 103 S – 8cu, elliptical stylus, rec. VTF 1.8 +/- 0.3grams – 27000 Yen.
Otherwise identical.

1977 : DL 103 D – the 70’s top model. 33ohms, 0.25mV, 12cu, elliptical stylus – 35000 Yen.

1978 : DL 103 T – a DL 103 with a step-up transformer in one box – 29000 Yen.

1981 : DL 103 U – a DL 103 mounted in a Denon headshell – 21000 Yen.

1982 : DL 103 Gold – a gold-laquered “standard” DL 103 – issued to celebrate the
20th Anniversary of the DL 103 – 21000 Yen.

1983 : DL 103 M – lightweight aluminium body, output 0.12mV, impedance 40ohms.
Boron cantilever, elliptical stylus, compliance 13cu, VTF 1.4 +/- 0.2grams – 27000 Yen.

1985 : DL 103 LC / 1986 : DL 103 LC II – LCOFC copper coils, 13ohms, output 0.25mV,
spherical stylus, compliance 5cu, VTF 2.5 +/- 0.3grams – 20000 / 21000 Yen.

1989 : DL 103 SL (Special) – 6N 99,9999 Pure Copper, special white housing,
same specs as DL 103 LC / LC II but 14ohms internal impedance – 30000 Yen.

1990 : DL 103 GL (Gold Limited) – special black housing, output 0.25mV, 40ohms, spherical stylus, 5cu, VTF 2.5 +/- 0.3grams, coils 4N High Purity Gold Wire 99.99%, ltd. production of 2000 – 50000 Yen.

1991 : DL 103 C1 – LCOFC coils, special black housing, output 0.25mV, 14ohms, spherical stylus, 5cu,
VTF 2.5 +/- 0.3grams – 32000 Yen.

1993 : DL 103 FL (Fan Limited) – special white housing, output 0.28mV, 30ohms, spherical stylus, 5cu,
VTF 2.5 +/- 0.3grams – 40000 Yen.

1994 : DL 103 R – same specs as DL 103 SL (special), but standard black housing (slightly glossy though) – 28000 Yen. Still in production.

DL 103 Pro – 0.35mV, 38ohms, 6cu, spherical stylus, VTF 2.0 +/- 0.2grams. Modified by Highphonic – 35000 Yen.

In my collection : DL 103 GL, DL 103 S, DL 103 R, DL 103 LCII, DL 103 M, DL 103 D plus a “standard” DL 103 but modified by A.J. van den Hul (clockwise from bottom center).

---



http://www.analogue-classics.com/html/denon_dl_103.html

Or this reference:


http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=vinyl&m=82698

Re: Denon DL103S - bkearns 12:08:31 08/28/01 (0)

In Reply to: Denon DL103S posted by reverendclark on August 28, 2001 at 09:05:32:

The DL-103S has a white ceramic body, square edges, and a red line on the front. I found one last February after an extensive trawl of Akihabara Electric Town in Tokyo. I took this cartridge out of storage last weekend and mounted it on my Thorens TD160/Rega RB250 combination. Initial tests have proved to be very promising.

From my information (admittedly a little sparse), the stylus on both DL-103D, and DL-103S is the same. The DL-103D first appeared in November 1977 (apologies for a previous post of mine which stated 1976). I was told that the DL-103S was introduced for playback of quadraphonic records, which had rear channels encoded with a carrier frequency of 35kHz. According to my data, the DL-103D sold for 35,000 yen compared with 27,000 yen for the DL-103S or DL-103M (The DL-103M is now offered as an exchange for a DL-103S with a worn stylus). So there was quite a difference in price, but I think the DL-103S was introduced later than the DL-103D (not sure about that).

The spec sheet, which came from a Japanese catalogue of electronic products, states “Special Elliptical Stylus” for all of the above models. Perhaps the shank dimensions are different, but 0.07mm x 0.14 mm may well be a standard used by Denon for all of these cartridges. I used to have a DL-301mk II and that had the same stylus as the DL-103M - both with shank dimensions of 0.07mm x 0.14mm.

So I don’t think the DL-103S will give you a different stylus. However, the compliance of the DL-103D is higher than that of the DL-103S. The compliance of the DL-103S is somewhere between that of the DL-103 (low compliance), and the DL-103D (med - high). So it is better suited to heavier arms, such as the Rega.

Best regards

Brian
 
103 S is a high compliance cart that is designed to run on a low mass arm. It is currently running on a low mass arm which came with my Denon turntable designed specifically for the 103 S.

I have it adjusted properly with the exception of the azimuth which I will mess around with next........its not a mismatch. I have the original directions indicating the cart gets the best response with the low mass arm.

That doesn't sound right to me. It's a low compliance cart.
Looks like Theo chimed in above.
 
I sent it in for a re-tip and decided to upgrade via the Ruby Cantilever......

I finally just got around to do some serious listening and it sounds tremendously detailed and I am enjoying it..........

But what happened to the bass??

The bass is probably there but now you have greater high frequency detail with the retip drawing your attention. The difference can be significant between a line contact and elliptical stylus. While not an exact comparison I have a standard 103 (conical) and the mid-level ruby cantilever/line contact stylus retip on my 103R. It is rather dramatic the difference in detail between these carts. Now some of that may be the 103R itself versus the 103 but I have to think the Soundsmith cantilever/stylus is the biggest reason.

I don't know the OP's turntable or arm but my retipped 103R is on an Audio Technica ATP-12T that has a effective mass of 21g using a 9g headshell. I now use a 12g Zupreme head shell yielding an arm mass of about 23g and the combo sounds very nice.
 
I agree with AvFan, adding a heavier headshell, in my case, I used the Orsonic AV-101B at 12 gram was perfect for my 103R (Soundsmith wood body as well)The bass is solid, deep and very well controlled.
 
I'll chime in on this...I have a 103D stock on a stock Technics 1210 M5G and this combo sounds very, very good.

I had a new 103R that I used on a Sota Sapphire w/ Sumiko arm and headshell while I waited on Soundsmith to retip a 103 with the line contact and ruby cantilever. I really liked the 103R and was worried that I had thrown $250.00 at the 103. Not the case, after about 40-50 hours the retipped 103 sounded much and I mean much better than the 103R. More detail, bigger soundstage and the bass is there in spades.

I agree with those that are saying that you have a mismatch with your arm and the cartridge. Preston
 
I sent it in for a re-tip and decided to upgrade via the Ruby Cantilever......

I finally just got around to do some serious listening and it sounds tremendously detailed and I am enjoying it..........

But what happened to the bass??

My Grado has earth shattering bass in comparison. I am not a big bass head.....but a certain amount is necessary in my opinion.

The base response is poor at best.

It not a mismatch on the table or an adjustment issue that I am aware of.....

Anyone else have any input??

Which Grado are you comparing it to regarding bass output?
 
I once bought a 103R that was mounted in an Ebony body made by Uwe, and this cartridge had a bent cantilever. I sent it off to Soundsmith for a level 3 ruby retip. When I got it back I installed it on an arm with 14 grams of effective mass, and gave it a whirl.

I noticed it had great detail, nice layering and imaging, and a low noise floor. But what I noticed was what appeared to be a hole in the mid bass. Fundamental low bass was there, but there certainly was something missing. I never could get that cartridge to be evenly balanced, and I eventually sold it. The new owner loved the cartridge, so perhaps I was just too picky.

This experience has made me wonder if it is a good idea to upgrade a cantilever to a different material than what was stock. Certainly the cartridge must be voiced to have a certain mass and material for the cantilever, so changing it is going to alter the sound, and how does one know if it is for the better, or perhaps it will be worse. It appears your experience may be mirroring what I went through.

Regards
Mister Pig
 
I once bought a 103R that was mounted in an Ebony body made by Uwe, and this cartridge had a bent cantilever. I sent it off to Soundsmith for a level 3 ruby retip. When I got it back I installed it on an arm with 14 grams of effective mass, and gave it a whirl.

I noticed it had great detail, nice layering and imaging, and a low noise floor. But what I noticed was what appeared to be a hole in the mid bass. Fundamental low bass was there, but there certainly was something missing. I never could get that cartridge to be evenly balanced, and I eventually sold it. The new owner loved the cartridge, so perhaps I was just too picky.

This experience has made me wonder if it is a good idea to upgrade a cantilever to a different material than what was stock. Certainly the cartridge must be voiced to have a certain mass and material for the cantilever, so changing it is going to alter the sound, and how does one know if it is for the better, or perhaps it will be worse. It appears your experience may be mirroring what I went through.

Regards
Mister Pig
I wonder what difference it would have made if the arm it had been mounted in had been somewhat higher mass, say in the 18-21g range? That upper bass range is where I've seen some suck-out with an arm just too light for the cart. Not so much so as to exhibit obvious poor function, just enough to cause imbalances.
 
103 S is a high compliance cart that is designed to run on a low mass arm. It is currently running on a low mass arm which came with my Denon turntable designed specifically for the 103 S.


The DL103 is most certainly NOT a high-compliance cartridge. It is a rather LOW compliance cartridge designed to run on at minimum a MED mass arm....better a higher mass arm, but at the very least a medium mass arm.

When I had my DL103, I had it mounted on the stock medium mass arm of my SL-1200 and had no problems at all.
 
I once bought a 103R that was mounted in an Ebony body made by Uwe, and this cartridge had a bent cantilever. I sent it off to Soundsmith for a level 3 ruby retip. When I got it back I installed it on an arm with 14 grams of effective mass, and gave it a whirl.

I noticed it had great detail, nice layering and imaging, and a low noise floor. But what I noticed was what appeared to be a hole in the mid bass. Fundamental low bass was there, but there certainly was something missing. I never could get that cartridge to be evenly balanced, and I eventually sold it. The new owner loved the cartridge, so perhaps I was just too picky.

This experience has made me wonder if it is a good idea to upgrade a cantilever to a different material than what was stock. Certainly the cartridge must be voiced to have a certain mass and material for the cantilever, so changing it is going to alter the sound, and how does one know if it is for the better, or perhaps it will be worse. It appears your experience may be mirroring what I went through.

Regards
Mister Pig

This is my exact issue. I will switch arms and report my findings. However, I think the ruby canteliever fundamentally alters the mid base response for the worse.

Also, I ran this cart on this arm before the retipped and I was not looking for the bass.
 
If the arm is the same as on the SL1200 you want a weight of 23 - 24 g for headshell, screws and cartridge.
You may also need to add 2mm of spacers as the DL103 body is a bit shallow, or it is for the SL1200 anyway.
 
Back
Top Bottom