Correct, the B1 buffer reduces the output impedance of the BHL phono preamp from approx 3Kohm (from memory) to approx 200ohm (if you use 200ohm output resisters in the B1 stage). The buffer sites between the output of the BHL phono circuit and the input to my preamplifier.
If your preamplifier or amplifier downstream of the BHL phone pre has an input impedance of 50K or more, I wouldn't worry about adding the B1 buffer stage. In my case I have a TVC preamp with varying input impedance that likes to be driven from a low output impedance source, so the B1 makes a big difference (better dynamics, more warmth, better defined & deeper bass).
If your preamplifier or amplifier downstream of the BHL phone pre has an input impedance of 50K or more, I wouldn't worry about adding the B1 buffer stage. In my case I have a TVC preamp with varying input impedance that likes to be driven from a low output impedance source, so the B1 makes a big difference (better dynamics, more warmth, better defined & deeper bass).
Hi,
Yes they are interchangeable and yes the Blue is significantly better.
The nude elliptical is usually the best sounding model in an Ortofon
range, out of the box. However the nude FL lasts significantly longer
and maintains its performance over its life better, but usually sounds
no better than the nude elliptical out of the box, often a touch bright.
I can't really comment on the top model tips, and the above is
a generalisation of my experience with Ortofons over the years.
I really liked the 510 and 520, the latter has an ease at the treble
end the 510 simply can't do, but the 510 was great budget cartridge.
rgds, sreten.
I made two changes to my Boozehound Labs JFET preamp today. Firstly I moved the Lundahl LL9206 step up transformers into the preamp chassis, rather than in a separate box that required an extra set of interconnects etc. I also replaced the dual MC7818 regs (one for BHL PCB, one for B1 buffer) with a single ultra low noise 20V reg from ebay (ULN-RD78A Ultra Low Noise Regulator 3.3V~30V Output Suitable for Digital Audio | eBay).
I should have made one change at a time and listened to the effect of each, but due to a lack of time (1yo daughter having a snooze) I made both changes at the same time before plugging the preamp back into my system.
The reduction in both mains hum and low level hiss is dramatic. I suspect that moving the transformers into the preamp chassis and shortening the connections from the transformer secondary to BHL gain stage made the big difference to hum levels. I couldn't say whether this also reduced the level of hiss, but I'd hoped the better reg would have this effect. However it's happened, I'm happy.
I should have made one change at a time and listened to the effect of each, but due to a lack of time (1yo daughter having a snooze) I made both changes at the same time before plugging the preamp back into my system.
The reduction in both mains hum and low level hiss is dramatic. I suspect that moving the transformers into the preamp chassis and shortening the connections from the transformer secondary to BHL gain stage made the big difference to hum levels. I couldn't say whether this also reduced the level of hiss, but I'd hoped the better reg would have this effect. However it's happened, I'm happy.
I love the dl-103. if you adjust in well with your phono stage, its hard to beat at any price, so ive heard. As for the OP seeing a big difference. Of course, the source is almost as important as the speakers and definitely makes a bigger difference then amps.
I think it goes like (in order of importance)
speakers
source
amps
I would not try to get a better cart OP, maybe look at a better phono stage, the dl 103 is good enough!
Thorsten Loesch recommended it to me and ive been happy with it and never bothered upgrading it.
here's a quote of Thorsten:
''The DL-103 is about as much of bargain in Analogue as they come''
I think it goes like (in order of importance)
speakers
source
amps
I would not try to get a better cart OP, maybe look at a better phono stage, the dl 103 is good enough!
Thorsten Loesch recommended it to me and ive been happy with it and never bothered upgrading it.
here's a quote of Thorsten:
''The DL-103 is about as much of bargain in Analogue as they come''
Last edited:
Agree most of the time a DL110 will better a stock box 103...
For most setups i can say the 103 is bettered by a DL110, unless one is very adept in cartridge /TT setup and has a very good/flexable Phono pre , they are better off with a DL110.
A modded 103 is a different animal ...
Last edited:
I've not tried the DL110, but know that my DL103R went from nice to great sounding in my system after a bit of tweaking.
I'd read that the DL103R worked best with a high mass arm, but was stuck with my 11.5g Linn Ittock LVII. After doing the sums I ended up with 2x UK 1p coins attached to the top of my headshell with tiny spots of superglue to prevent movement. This added 2x 3.56g raising my effective tonearm mass to 18.62g (plus 8.5g cartridge). With this additional mass I could just dial in the required 2.5g tracking weight with the stock ittock weight at the furthest position from the bearing.
I started off using the MC input on my Clearaudio Smart Phono but quickly added Partridge 977 step up transformers which allowed me to use the MM input. The Partridge SUTs sounded noticeably less grainy than the MC stage of the Clearaudio preamp. After living happily with this setup for a while I upgraded to Lundahl LL9206 SUTs that seemed to resolve an extra octave at both ends. The Partridges are very nice but clearly mid heavy in comparison to the Lundahls. I can imagine the Partridges being preferable in bright systems.
The latest change was to upgrade the preamp to the customised Boozehound JFET phono with B1 buffer output. As described above I made significant improvements today bringing the Lundahl transformers into the chassis and upgrading the preamp voltage reg.
I'm sure all cartridges benefit from tweaking, and couldn't say if a system tuned around a DL110 would perform better than one tuned around the DL103R. I can say that the DL103R, LL9206, BHL JFET phono & B1 are superb to my ears.
I'd read that the DL103R worked best with a high mass arm, but was stuck with my 11.5g Linn Ittock LVII. After doing the sums I ended up with 2x UK 1p coins attached to the top of my headshell with tiny spots of superglue to prevent movement. This added 2x 3.56g raising my effective tonearm mass to 18.62g (plus 8.5g cartridge). With this additional mass I could just dial in the required 2.5g tracking weight with the stock ittock weight at the furthest position from the bearing.
I started off using the MC input on my Clearaudio Smart Phono but quickly added Partridge 977 step up transformers which allowed me to use the MM input. The Partridge SUTs sounded noticeably less grainy than the MC stage of the Clearaudio preamp. After living happily with this setup for a while I upgraded to Lundahl LL9206 SUTs that seemed to resolve an extra octave at both ends. The Partridges are very nice but clearly mid heavy in comparison to the Lundahls. I can imagine the Partridges being preferable in bright systems.
The latest change was to upgrade the preamp to the customised Boozehound JFET phono with B1 buffer output. As described above I made significant improvements today bringing the Lundahl transformers into the chassis and upgrading the preamp voltage reg.
I'm sure all cartridges benefit from tweaking, and couldn't say if a system tuned around a DL110 would perform better than one tuned around the DL103R. I can say that the DL103R, LL9206, BHL JFET phono & B1 are superb to my ears.
That's what I'm using as well, but I want my mod to be easily reversible and not cause other unintended resonances. My thinking now is use a polymer-tungsten composite sleeve at the joint between headshell and arm wand, and have it tightened with screws for easy removal when I change cartridges.
Have you checked the fundamental resonant frequency?
Hi Sy, I haven't measured the actual resonant frequency but did the calculations a while ago and contented myself that 2x 1p coins above the cartridge (end of the arm) got me safely into the optimal range. I'm often guilty of going for the quick fix to test a principle, then neglecting to revisit if I like the outcome 
To measure, would I measure the output on a scope with a test tone record? I'm sure I've not fully optimised at this point.
To measure, would I measure the output on a scope with a test tone record? I'm sure I've not fully optimised at this point.
I am using a stock REGA Planer-II, though I added a "Silent platform and platter" the arm is stock! I am thinking RB250 at the least and maybe $ permitting, something better/different! In my quest for Audio Nirvana, I do not want to exceed any one component's qualities past their performance margin! Remaining with the same arm and 're-wiring, would it gain significant performance? I do have a 'NIB' NOS Thorens tone-arm from the project series, better? Waste of time? And, is adding weight to the arm/head-shell going to gain the (Mass) one may need?
Francis
Francis
Hi,
The original R200 arm is very underrated by snobs,
and is fact one of the best at any price detachable
SME headshell type arms available, a bargain used.
It doesn't do low mass, but will take an SME to
the cleaners with something like an Ortofon SPU.
rgds, sreten.
Remove the outrigger weight and its arm,
it causes far more problems than it fixes.
The original R200 arm is very underrated by snobs,
and is fact one of the best at any price detachable
SME headshell type arms available, a bargain used.
It doesn't do low mass, but will take an SME to
the cleaners with something like an Ortofon SPU.
rgds, sreten.
Remove the outrigger weight and its arm,
it causes far more problems than it fixes.
Last edited:
Interesting post about
Speakers
Amp
Turntable and the order of importance. I believe it's probably true but
There are so maNy different inputs to the equation. I change this, but then what about that?
Be reAlly nice to have a truelly objective method to measure pleasure. There isn't, is there?
Funny how what u make sounds amazing!, for a while.
I guess the recipe for happiness is keep buying or making new things!
Works for me
Speakers
Amp
Turntable and the order of importance. I believe it's probably true but
There are so maNy different inputs to the equation. I change this, but then what about that?
Be reAlly nice to have a truelly objective method to measure pleasure. There isn't, is there?
Funny how what u make sounds amazing!, for a while.
I guess the recipe for happiness is keep buying or making new things!
Works for me
Hi,
The outrigger arm and weight statically balance the arm
across the pivots moreorless and I've yet to see a proper
description of how to set it to do that, though I know how.
Simple fact is if the deck is level (clue to how to set it)
it makes no difference in its intended purpose, but it is
a classic resonant system (weight on a bar) that will
reduce the performance of the arm sonically.
rgds, sreten.
Conversely old arms that have no bias is not strictly true.
If the CofG is offset, bias can be set well by subtle tilting.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.