I picked up a Denon DL-110 today. Will have it by Saturday.
I have a DL-103R with Soundsmith Ruby cantalever, because I broke the original trying to install an aluminum body.
Also have another 103R with broke cantilever for the same reason. 
Just finsihed the Pearl II this weekend. Not enough gain with 103R.
The 103R output is .25mV. The 110 is 1.6, but some have said the output measures higher, like 2.0 or more. Seems great for the money. We'll see.
Vince
Kevin,
Who does this?
I have two carts that need just this work... a slightly lighter cantilever shoved in making up the diff in mass with the inevitable glue would be peachy keen... probably good enough.
PM if you wish...
The one that I saw had the resonance, as did the "new" product, and it was measured using the computer based hardware/software package for that job. Other carts did not show this at all.
And even if R loading *would* knock the resonance down, the slope was 2nd order or higher, so that wouldn't solve the problem... just saying what was seen.
Kevin, you know the fellow too, local to me...
_-_-bear
Scott,
It may be merely anecdotal and not truly representative but I have yet to hear a spherical cartridge that had the HF "openness" of an eliptical or shibata, or whatever.
Now, that might just be because the fancy stylus is almost always associated with the better suspension and cantilevers and the spherical is almost always the less expensive and heavier aluminum cantilever...
They used to say that the elliptical had less distortion...
_-_-bear
It may be merely anecdotal and not truly representative but I have yet to hear a spherical cartridge that had the HF "openness" of an eliptical or shibata, or whatever.
Now, that might just be because the fancy stylus is almost always associated with the better suspension and cantilevers and the spherical is almost always the less expensive and heavier aluminum cantilever...
They used to say that the elliptical had less distortion...
_-_-bear
If you have the chance read one of the articles, many LP's were predistorted so a spherical stylus tracked "perfectly" and any other would be distorted. The reasons were some complex geometry issues that I have not gotten down into. Thorsten L. posted some very thought provoking information and that author from Italy's stuff is very good too.
Hi Bear,
Yes I know exactly who you are referencing. I've not measured one of these cartridges myself so the information I have heard is second hand (anecdotal) to me. I have inspected several and can attest to the fact that the generator assembly remains stock on these carts. I've never had one of the retip cartridges in my system however and have to admit that the elliptical SPUs blow every DL-103 I've owned/borrowed right out of the water. (Zu DL-103, DL-103D, and DL-103SA)
I've always understood that it really was only RCA and its affiliates that used Dynagroove. (At least here in the USA) I've not found the DL-103 with its spherical stylus the last word in reproduction of old RCA dynagroove recordings and much prefer the "wrong" SPU GM E or Meister Silver subjectively speaking on these recordings.
Undoubtedly I still have a lot to learn, am never entirely sure about what I "know."
Yes I know exactly who you are referencing. I've not measured one of these cartridges myself so the information I have heard is second hand (anecdotal) to me. I have inspected several and can attest to the fact that the generator assembly remains stock on these carts. I've never had one of the retip cartridges in my system however and have to admit that the elliptical SPUs blow every DL-103 I've owned/borrowed right out of the water. (Zu DL-103, DL-103D, and DL-103SA)
I've always understood that it really was only RCA and its affiliates that used Dynagroove. (At least here in the USA) I've not found the DL-103 with its spherical stylus the last word in reproduction of old RCA dynagroove recordings and much prefer the "wrong" SPU GM E or Meister Silver subjectively speaking on these recordings.
Undoubtedly I still have a lot to learn, am never entirely sure about what I "know."
I've always understood that it really was only RCA and its affiliates that used Dynagroove. (At least here in the USA) I've not found the DL-103 with its spherical stylus the last word in reproduction of old RCA dynagroove recordings and much prefer the "wrong" SPU GM E or Meister Silver subjectively speaking on these recordings.
Undoubtedly I still have a lot to learn, am never entirely sure about what I "know."
The "guys" from Europe claimed otherwise, but I don't know either way. As it stands I have never seen a single actual measurement to substantiate any claims of stylus geometry and distortion.
The real original SPU's work with spheric tips like the DL 103, because spheric tips with radius 17 mikrometer for stereo and 25 mikrometers for mono tracks better than any other kind of stylus geometry, when a usual cantilever construction is used, because cantilevers have a different mechanical lay-out than any cutting heads, and thus the spheric tip makes lesser distorsions. Its a much better compromise.
Any other geometry creates more non controlable distorsions , depending on the groove modulation.
Predistorsions or precompensation was used on very many records.
Dr. Shiga from Nippon Columbia showed this clearly around 1961 with his works and measurings. The DL 103 was the result of his works.
Using parallel resistors just damp the cartridge resonanace ( different Q), but the point of resonance is the same.
Repaired MCs having a Fres around 10Khz simply have to much moved mass.
People like this maybe when they begin to get deaf due age, because the sound is brighter.
DL 103 is not the last word, but still very good value and needs heavy arms and low noise prepre or transformer.
Any other geometry creates more non controlable distorsions , depending on the groove modulation.
Predistorsions or precompensation was used on very many records.
Dr. Shiga from Nippon Columbia showed this clearly around 1961 with his works and measurings. The DL 103 was the result of his works.
Using parallel resistors just damp the cartridge resonanace ( different Q), but the point of resonance is the same.
Repaired MCs having a Fres around 10Khz simply have to much moved mass.
People like this maybe when they begin to get deaf due age, because the sound is brighter.
DL 103 is not the last word, but still very good value and needs heavy arms and low noise prepre or transformer.
Groove-T, do I understand you to say that the rebuilds that use apparently smaller, thinner, stiffer cantilevers like boron or ruby are actually *higher mass* than the original seemingly heavy, fat aluminum ones??
It makes sense that the Fres got moved *down* but what the reason is/was seemed unclear to me entirely, as I would have expected that the opposite would happen.
I am thinking perhaps it is the result not of the cantilever, but the bonding agent. In tweeters the bonding agent and amount used to adhere the VC to the diaphragm is quite critical (for example).
Comments?
_-_-bear
It makes sense that the Fres got moved *down* but what the reason is/was seemed unclear to me entirely, as I would have expected that the opposite would happen.
I am thinking perhaps it is the result not of the cantilever, but the bonding agent. In tweeters the bonding agent and amount used to adhere the VC to the diaphragm is quite critical (for example).
Comments?
_-_-bear
Hi bear
Original they used for the DL 103 hollow alu tube cantilevers, made a small hole trough it and pressed the stylus in, thereafter fixed the stylus with a little bit of glue.
This way they had to use very low mass tips and thus the F Res could be tuned around 20 Khz and frequency response was pretty flat with a small rise at the top end.
Alu has good damping properties, making this possible.
Making the cantilever short, give lesser mass, more output, but more distorsions and lesser trackabilty.
Ruby cantilevers are massive and thus not really light. You cannot drill a hole to fix the tip, you must glue it = more mass
To fix a broken cantilever, you must cut it and fill the hollow body with glue = more mass
Now you wanna good trackability, make it longer= more mass
Now you have lesser output , thus stronger magnet or more coil windings, more windings= more mass. Stronger magnets are bigger, thus more strayfield and similar problems with the armatures, holding the the wholes system toghether.
Those kind of cantilevers are always embedded into a another part of alu or similar, which carries the suspension wire, so its not pure Rub y, Boron or whatever.
Then we have lesser damping with super stiff cantilevers. To avoid ringing, you need more damping, this is achieved with the damping rubber, suspension stiffness and also the body of the whole thingie and the coupling to the arm via headshell.
So you see it is very sensible game .
If you turn volume down, usually you can hear your MC playing music.
Very good ones are very silent= nearly no resonances= very low loss of transition.
So its everyones own decision, if he wants to listen whats on the record or which sound the cartridge makes.
I use one with spheric tip, it never has tracking distorsions, has very low sound of itself ( colorations) and pretty good output level. Need a heavy arm.
Original they used for the DL 103 hollow alu tube cantilevers, made a small hole trough it and pressed the stylus in, thereafter fixed the stylus with a little bit of glue.
This way they had to use very low mass tips and thus the F Res could be tuned around 20 Khz and frequency response was pretty flat with a small rise at the top end.
Alu has good damping properties, making this possible.
Making the cantilever short, give lesser mass, more output, but more distorsions and lesser trackabilty.
Ruby cantilevers are massive and thus not really light. You cannot drill a hole to fix the tip, you must glue it = more mass
To fix a broken cantilever, you must cut it and fill the hollow body with glue = more mass
Now you wanna good trackability, make it longer= more mass
Now you have lesser output , thus stronger magnet or more coil windings, more windings= more mass. Stronger magnets are bigger, thus more strayfield and similar problems with the armatures, holding the the wholes system toghether.
Those kind of cantilevers are always embedded into a another part of alu or similar, which carries the suspension wire, so its not pure Rub y, Boron or whatever.
Then we have lesser damping with super stiff cantilevers. To avoid ringing, you need more damping, this is achieved with the damping rubber, suspension stiffness and also the body of the whole thingie and the coupling to the arm via headshell.
So you see it is very sensible game .
If you turn volume down, usually you can hear your MC playing music.
Very good ones are very silent= nearly no resonances= very low loss of transition.
So its everyones own decision, if he wants to listen whats on the record or which sound the cartridge makes.
I use one with spheric tip, it never has tracking distorsions, has very low sound of itself ( colorations) and pretty good output level. Need a heavy arm.
Goove-T, very good.
Otoh, they made SQ cartridges that would track out to 40kHz...
So, do you have any quantitative data on the actual mass/weight of these parts?
(% or ratios would be as good as actual mg numbers I guess...)
Even "filling with glue" you've got a really small amount of material.. I would think with cyanoacrylate glues that the amount needed might be very small... epoxies are heavier things...
So, what you are saying is that the typical repair consists of slicing off the old aluminum (hollow) cantilever (what is such a saw??) and inserting the new cantilever section inside the old tube, adhering with some glue?
And in the case of a new construction cartridge with a solid (ruby/boron/etc.) cantilever the method is the same - insert into a stub?
I don't see why the length of the cantilever would be altered...
I would think that the acoustic "sound" of a cartridge might be more a function off transmission via the body of the cartridge and the mounting of the motor assembly in it, as the suspension is somewhat similar and pretty much a constant in almost all MC designs?
_-_-bear
Otoh, they made SQ cartridges that would track out to 40kHz...
So, do you have any quantitative data on the actual mass/weight of these parts?
(% or ratios would be as good as actual mg numbers I guess...)
Even "filling with glue" you've got a really small amount of material.. I would think with cyanoacrylate glues that the amount needed might be very small... epoxies are heavier things...
So, what you are saying is that the typical repair consists of slicing off the old aluminum (hollow) cantilever (what is such a saw??) and inserting the new cantilever section inside the old tube, adhering with some glue?
And in the case of a new construction cartridge with a solid (ruby/boron/etc.) cantilever the method is the same - insert into a stub?
I don't see why the length of the cantilever would be altered...
I would think that the acoustic "sound" of a cartridge might be more a function off transmission via the body of the cartridge and the mounting of the motor assembly in it, as the suspension is somewhat similar and pretty much a constant in almost all MC designs?
_-_-bear
SQ were MMs with Shibata Tips.
This tipmust be very low mass and the interconnects to the phonostage had to be low capacity to allow the tracking of the carrierfrequency of 40 Khz for the rear channels.
They had also smaller magnets and lesser coil windings to achieve this.
Thats why SQ Cartridges are lower in Output compared with usual MMs.
For tip mass data i have a paper somewhere..., but differences are up to 3 times at least.
have a look at the pics at the beginning, there you can see the stub were the cantilevers are inserted.
The shoed 103 L is low mass cantilever with a drop of glue to hold the tip, this gives a lot of moved mass, the 103 has a pretty fat cantilever with pressed in small tip. just very low amount of glue.
All usual MCs use a stub due the suspension wire and damping rubber. The rubber has the most influence on the sound.
To cut cantilevers you can use a highspeed mini wheel saw, you need cool hands to use it
This tipmust be very low mass and the interconnects to the phonostage had to be low capacity to allow the tracking of the carrierfrequency of 40 Khz for the rear channels.
They had also smaller magnets and lesser coil windings to achieve this.
Thats why SQ Cartridges are lower in Output compared with usual MMs.
For tip mass data i have a paper somewhere..., but differences are up to 3 times at least.
have a look at the pics at the beginning, there you can see the stub were the cantilevers are inserted.
The shoed 103 L is low mass cantilever with a drop of glue to hold the tip, this gives a lot of moved mass, the 103 has a pretty fat cantilever with pressed in small tip. just very low amount of glue.
All usual MCs use a stub due the suspension wire and damping rubber. The rubber has the most influence on the sound.
To cut cantilevers you can use a highspeed mini wheel saw, you need cool hands to use it
I would imagine to cut a delicate cantilever might require a jig of some kind downstream near the coils to do this right. The gross vibration might destroy the delicate wires coming out of the coils. Their incredibly small in diameter
Then what?
What kind of epoxy would you use? It would need to be some Kind of very hard curing mix to transmit these kind of intense signals without loosing detail that a soft epoxy might cause.
Seems like you might have the potential to generate extra resonant peaks if not successfully rigid? Is this ever a concern on rebuilds?
Regards
David
Then what?
What kind of epoxy would you use? It would need to be some Kind of very hard curing mix to transmit these kind of intense signals without loosing detail that a soft epoxy might cause.
Seems like you might have the potential to generate extra resonant peaks if not successfully rigid? Is this ever a concern on rebuilds?
Regards
David
I'd expect that if it wasn't sufficiently rigid that it would create a compliance, probably at higher frequencies... that would decouple one side from the other to some extent. But most standard epoxy is too thick for this job I'd expect. There are a wide range of specialty epoxies, including some for optical work that are very thin, and flow... so probably there is one of choice for this job too. Not to mention UV curable types...
But I am very curious what sort of saw is practical for this... that tube is very very delicate (but of course they had to both manufacture and slice them to begin with...
_-_-bear
But I am very curious what sort of saw is practical for this... that tube is very very delicate (but of course they had to both manufacture and slice them to begin with...
_-_-bear
SQ were MMs with Shibata Tips.
This tipmust be very low mass and the interconnects to the phonostage had to be low capacity to allow the tracking of the carrierfrequency of 40 Khz for the rear channels.
They had also smaller magnets and lesser coil windings to achieve this.
Thats why SQ Cartridges are lower in Output compared with usual MMs.
For tip mass data i have a paper somewhere..., but differences are up to 3 times at least.
have a look at the pics at the beginning, there you can see the stub were the cantilevers are inserted.
The shoed 103 L is low mass cantilever with a drop of glue to hold the tip, this gives a lot of moved mass, the 103 has a pretty fat cantilever with pressed in small tip. just very low amount of glue.
All usual MCs use a stub due the suspension wire and damping rubber. The rubber has the most influence on the sound.
To cut cantilevers you can use a highspeed mini wheel saw, you need cool hands to use it
Still waiting for you to name names .....
SQ were MMs with Shibata Tips.
This tipmust be very low mass and the interconnects to the phonostage had to be low capacity to allow the tracking of the carrierfrequency of 40 Khz for the rear channels.
They had also smaller magnets and lesser coil windings to achieve this.
Thats why SQ Cartridges are lower in Output compared with usual MMs.
<snip>
Did you mean CD-4 which used a carrier system for the rear channels? SQ and QS were matrix based encoding schemes.
FWIW CD-4 capable cartridges included MC types from Denon such as DL-103S and several strain gauge types from Panasonic. JVC as the inventor of CD-4 also had a number of CD-4 cartridges obviously.
A little history/commentary: CD-4
And some interesting tidbits on the JVC decoder which was widely sold under other labels:
CD4: JVC 4DD-5 Disc Demodulator (Decoder)
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.