• 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

How do I know if my Turntable arm is compatible with MC LO cartridge such as DL103.

M

MNSLD2

Active Member
I have Technics SL-D2 direct drive semi auto TT. Currently using Shure M97ex cartridge on it. I was thinking of switching to MC cartridge as I have MC/MM pre amp (emotiva xps1). Going from reviews and considering my budget I have narrowed down my option to DL110 or DL103.
I know that DL110 doesn't demand a heavy arm, but DL103 LO does. How do I know if the weight of my TT arm is good enough to handle DL103?
Also, is DL103 better than DL110?
Thanks.
 
Register to hide this ad
Those are good questions.

There seems to be a fair amount of controversy around what tonearms a 103 will work well in. Conventional wisdom says that the 103 works best with a tonearm with a rather high effective mass. I decided to go ahead and try one in an arm with an effective mass of 16.5 grams (considered a "medium mass" tonearm). To me, it works and sounds fine.

The first step for you would probably be finding out what the effective mass of your tonearm is. Here is an AK thread I found that may help you after you have that number:

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/in...or-damper-for-denon-103.754880/#post-10259379

I like both the 103 and the 110. Which one sounds better to you is probably system dependent. The 103 will need either a step-up transformer or a phono pre designed for low output moving coil cartridges. The 110 doesn't have that requirement.

Edit: I see that you have an Emotiva xps1. You might want to look around on the internet and see if others like the 103 with that phono pre.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the input. I found one post on AK with sl d2 and dl103. I have contacted the OP to get know his experience with it. Regarding Emotiva xps1, i still need to do some research. But i hoping that it should work fine as it has adjustable impedance for mc cartridges.
Thanks
 
The DL-103 when introduced in the 1960s was intended as a broadcast cartridge for idler tables with heavy 30gr+ tonearms. For an MC cartridge it's a cheap and adequate performer if you have the right arm for it but no world beater IMO. I tried one on a fairly heavy arm and my other MM and MC cartridges sent the DL-103 packing to a new home. You would be better served with an MM cartridge with your table/tonearm.
 
The Denon DL-103 should be a good match for the tonearm. It needs a medium weight tonearm, and that's what you've got.:thumbsup:

Like many Japanese cartridges, its compliance is stated at 100Hz, not at the more usual 10Hz, and the compliance at 10Hz (tested by a hi-fi magazine as being 13CU) is much higher than many people think from a cursory glance at Denon's supplied specs. That's what confuses so many people.

If you really want to know, buy a test record with resonant frequency tests, and check it in your own tonearm. Among those which check low frequency resonance are the Shure Era IV (TTR110) and Era V (TTR117) test records, which are regularly sold used on Ebay, and the much newer Hi-Fi News and Record Review (HFNRR) test records, which are available new or used . It's very easy to do if you've got reasonable ears and eyes - you can see the tonearm vibrate at its resonance point, and they tell you which frequency it is. Between 8 and 12Hz will allow the cartridge to work well.

Although the HFNRR test records' tones have been recorded digitally and found to be slightly inaccurate in stated frequency, the errors are small enough that they aren't a problem.
 
You need to know the effective mass of your arm and headshell, the compliance of the cartridge and the mass of the cartridge and fasteners too see how the Denon will perform.

I think your arm is 12g and the headshell is 7.5, so 19.5 total.

Source:. https://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=53958

Not sure which Denon 103 you are looking at, but here are some specs:

. https://www.vinylengine.com/cartrid...chi=&stid=&masslo=&masshi=&notes=&prlo=&prhi=

Let's use 9 g for mass and 7.5 for compliance.

Now go to the link below and put 19.5 in for tonearm mass and look for a cartridge with mass/compliance in the Green zone.

https://www.vinylengine.com/cartridge_resonance_evaluator.php?eff_mass=19.5&submit=Submit

Treat this as a general guide, not an absolute. The Denon compliance numbers are specified at 100hz, so multiply by 1.8 or so to estimate the compliance at 10hz which is what the resonance evaluator is based on.

If this is all correct, the Denon should be happy in your Technics.
 
majick47 said:
For an MC cartridge it's a cheap and adequate performer if you have the right arm for it but no world beater IMO
Click to expand...
I agree. I got a 103 NOS and was very excited, having heard so much about it. Put it on a well-suited arm and TT, set the load per spec. Very disappointed. Sold it to a very eager guy and he loved it. Confirmation-bias is a powerful thing.

I also concur with Tnsilver. The DL-110 is superb, and not just "for the price" — just superb. I was really surprised.
 
A lot of people use the DL-103 with their SL-1200s with good results, so I don't see why you can't achieve the same on a SL-D2. Of course they also use heavier headshells and add additional weight to the counterweight.
 
After reading on various forums and blocks, dl110 and sumiko pearl have praised equivocally... i ill rather go with dl110. I wonder with not the best of the systrm that i have for dl103, the sound wont b that different between 103 and 110...?
 
The 301 mk II is the better choice for the Technics arm.

I would add cartridge mass, or use a heavier headshell, and then add the Technics aux counterweight, if I really wanted to use the 103 on the Technics. The difference between "will it work?" and will it work well.

The 110 works great on the Technics in standard config. The 301 is much better sounding than the 110 but requires a SUT or a phono stage with 55-60dB gain.
 
As said you can shoe horn a DL-103 on a Technics table and it will "work" and that's it, the sound is nothing to write home about, I had a DL-103 and was disappointed. I owned the DL-110 and DL-160, both sounded very good on the Technics tables/arms without any shoe horning, without heavier headshells/add on weights etc, or the need for a SUT.
 
I run a modified DL-103 on my SL-1200 MK2, and as mentioned adding weight at the headshell end as well as the counterweight end of the arm is the key to success here. I think the sound from the DL-103 in my setup is right up there with the other cartridges (Grado Green/8MZ, Pickering XV-15/1200E, modded Shure M35x with M97xE VL stylus) I run on this table. No special stuff needed, just a way to add mass to both ends of the arm.

The Technics auxiliary weight is not just for DJ use, it is another tool to add to the versatility of the stock tonearm.
 
bobins08 said:
The 301 mk II is the better choice for the Technics arm.

I would add cartridge mass, or use a heavier headshell, and then add the Technics aux counterweight, if I really wanted to use the 103 on the Technics. The difference between "will it work?" and will it work well.

The 110 works great on the Technics in standard config. The 301 is much better sounding than the 110 but requires a SUT or a phono stage with 55-60dB gain.
Click to expand...

I can concur that has also been my experience with the Denon DL-301mkII on the Technics arm. I can also tell you that it works very well when paired with the Emotiva preamp. Much better in fact than the DL-110. I have not tried the DL-103.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom