Denon dl-160

[ChairSpud]

That was supposed to be funny?

 

[Brett a]

RE: comparing the Denon DL-160 with an AT440MLa isn't too useful IMO b/c the Denon is a low compliance cartridge and the AT is high. I wouldn't view them as options for the same arm.

I was recently shopping for a cart for my Well Tempered and had to rule out all the Denons within my price range b/c their low compliance would not be a good match for the relatively low mass arm on the WT. I ended up going with Audio Technica.

And to answer to OPs question. Although I've never heard a DL-160, I don't think I've ever read a bad wprd about them (and there's lots written!)

my friend Mike swears by the new MM Ortofon line; the Red and Blue he says are exceptional.

I just mounted a Orto Red for a friend last week. I hooked it up to my own system and found it rather lack-luster and prone to a little inner groove distortion. Although it had decent channel separation, it had no sound stage to speak of. A rather underwhelming experience. (BTW, it was mounted on a Kenwood KD-3070)

I think if someone was looking for a $100 cart, they'd be better off passing over the Red, putting in a bit more and looking at all the offerings at a higher (or lower) price point.

My $0.02, YMMV, etc, etc.....

 

[pirca]

DENON DL-160 van den Hull

A friend in Vinyl Engine, have a DENON DL-160 van den Hull.
I know that this must be with a new "Cantilever" and "Retiped".
It must have really good sound.
Anyone knows more... Where those works are made?

 

[goldwax]

RE: comparing the Denon DL-160 with an AT440MLa isn't too useful IMO b/c the Denon is a low compliance cartridge and the AT is high. I wouldn't view them as options for the same arm.

I use them both on my TP-16MkI arm, which I'm told is medium-weight. Perhaps that's why I can get away with doing that.

Anyway, this thread is letting me know that I finally need to get around to doing some A/B work. Esp. since I've finally got a stylus gauge now!

 

[JimmyNeutron]

A friend in Vinyl Engine, have a DENON DL-160 van den Hull.
I know that this must be with a new "Cantilever" and "Retiped".
It must have really good sound.
Anyone knows more... Where those works are made?

Never heard of a Denon being a "Van Den Hull". If you want to know more about it why don't you just go ask your freind? He should be able to tell you if his 160 has been recantilevered or retipped ( or even if it's real at all), and what it sounds like.

 

[Tromatic]

depending on the heaviness of the tonearm, the DL-110 might work even better, or so I was sort of led to believe. All I can say is that I've been quite pleased with it, on the heavy-ish Pioneer arm of the PL-41.

For some reason, the PL-41 and 160 are a fantastic combination.

 

[pirca]

DL-160 van den Hul

I asked to John and, this is his answer...

Hi Pirca,

I bought it from a gentleman in The Netherlands...a friend of AJ van den Hul in Amsterdam.

I do not think he has any more...these were rather a gift from his friend and he sold them on ebay a couple years ago where I bought them.

It is a very good sounding cartridge....but I do not know if it is THAT much better than a standard DL160 as I have not heard one in comparison.

Regards, John

I think that... ... ...

 

[Bob_in_OKC]

RE: comparing the Denon DL-160 with an AT440MLa isn't too useful IMO b/c the Denon is a low compliance cartridge and the AT is high. I wouldn't view them as options for the same arm.

I'm not all that familiar with the Denon cartridges...certainly not an expert on compliance...but it seems to me low-compliance would be that of the DL-103, while the DL-160 is actually closer to the middle...no? After all, the recommended tracking force for the DL-160 isn't that much different than the AT440MLa, but it's much different than the DL-103.

 

[thedelihaus]

The HOMC DL-160 and DL-110 work well with a medium to medium-light mass arm like the SL-1200.

The Denon 103 or 103R is less compliant, and while they will work with an SL-1200 arm, are pushing it a bit. Better to run them on a higher mass heavier arm like a long SME 3012 or an Empire or other heavy or transcriptor arms. The no longer made 103D was a more compliant version and would be a better match for medium to medium light arms.


The AT 440MLa works well with the SL-1200 arm, but is leaning opposite of the Denon 103/103R as it likes an arm that's on the lower mass side. The SL-1200 medium/low mass arm will work with it but if it were a bit lighter, it'd do even better.

 

[the keester]

I actually liked the DL110 better.

 

[zeplin43]

The DL-160 is a really great cartridge and very affordable. You would need to spend alot more money to exceed its qualities and even then you may never want to. The entire spectrum of sound is well portayed from solid tight bass, well defined mid range and very well tempered high frequencies. Not at all fatiguing to listen too and certainly of high quality both in design, sound and assembly.

Comparing it to the AT-440mla I would say it is more refined and warmer sounding and much easier to align to your arm. The 440mla can be very detailed but requires alot of alignment and break in time to tame its sometimes very accurate but shrill behavior.

Both are extremely nice cartridges but for the money I would buy the DL-160 and not look back. I do own both. :thmbsp:

i fully agree with your opinion.The denon is a fine cart.I also have a 110 that is also excelent especialy for heavy music has a little more midrange.
See this comparison on Various carts incluiding the Denon 160

http://www.diamondcut.com/vforum/att...9&d=1140198990.