DP-62L Cartridge Compatibility

[wrenchone]

I have a Denon DP-62L TT I'm going to try and bring up in the near future. It came with the straight arm. I've heard this arm is relatively light, and should be used with a high-compliance cartridge. True? I also have a new DL-160 high output moving coil cartridge. Would this one be too stiff to use with the straight arm? If so, are there any measures that can be taken (say, extra mass added to the arm) that would make it more compatible? What sorts of arms are good matches for a DL-160, for that matter?

[BaMorin]

Originally Posted by wrenchone

I have a Denon DP-62L TT I'm going to try and bring up in the near future. It came with the straight arm. I've heard this arm is relatively light, and should be used with a high-compliance cartridge. True? I also have a new DL-160 high output moving coil cartridge. Would this one be too stiff to use with the straight arm? If so, are there any measures that can be taken (say, extra mass added to the arm) that would make it more compatible? What sorts of arms are good matches for a DL-160, for that matter?

It doesn't matter the shape of the arm.....S, J, or straight. The 160 cart might be a bit stiff on it. If so, you can always add some mass to the arm until you can get the resonate level in around the 10hz level. pretty nice DD table BTW

[sreten]

Hi,

Yes it will work and no it won't be too "stiff", not stiff enough is the usual
problem. In this case IMO adding extra mass is pointless, it will be fine.

rgds, sreten.

[wrenchone]

Any suggestions for load resistor for the DL-160?

[vinylkid58]

Cartridge Database lists 47k as load imp.

jeff

[woodturner-fran]

I have the DL110 and while the compatibility is listed as 47K, I remember somewhere seeing that 10k was the actual optimum. Damned if I can find teh reference to that though - and I've looked a few times!

It was on some kind of explanatory site for cartridge loading, talked about how all manufacturers said 47k for MM carts, but when you actually did measurements and calculations, the actual optimum was often different. The example used was the 160 or 110.


Sorry about teasing you with this info!

[sreten]

Hi,

Some reckon 10k suits the DL160 better, the DL110 AFAIK is fine with 47k.

rgds, sreten.

[wrenchone]

I think I remember some folks in the Simplistic RIAA preamp thread fooling around with values as low as 1k. At any rate, it looks like it'll be worthwhile socketing the load resistors on my RIAA preamps for awhile until I get something worked out. I'm currently using 16k2 for my Grado Gold, and that appears to be working ok. Contacts extracted from a machined contact wire wrap socket work admirably for this purpose.

[BaMorin]

Originally Posted by wrenchone

I think I remember some folks in the Simplistic RIAA preamp thread fooling around with values as low as 1k. At any rate, it looks like it'll be worthwhile socketing the load resistors on my RIAA preamps for awhile until I get something worked out. I'm currently using 16k2 for my Grado Gold, and that appears to be working ok. Contacts extracted from a machined contact wire wrap socket work admirably for this purpose.

16K sounds a bit low in load for a Grado of stock configuration. My thoughts would be that the highs are too rolled off. If it does sound balanced there, might be an issue futher down the chain of rising frequency response. Adding a low-out stylus assembly to a high out Grado body does require lowering the load to the range you have. 12-22k range.
(low out stylus assemebly would be Z2, MCZ, TLZ for 1.5mv motors. high-out motors are found in the prestige, black through gold series, 4-5mv range)

Hope this helps
Marc

[wrenchone]

Simulations show a nasty ultrasonic peak in the response with typical cable capacitance and 47k. 16k damps this out. I don't notice any excessive roll-off of the high frequencies. When I work out some other issues. I'll dig out my test record and do some sweeps with a digital scope.