Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Best budget cartridge: Shure M97XE, Ortofon OM10/OMB10, Denon DL-110/160, or AT440ML?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Best budget cartridge: Shure M97XE, Ortofon OM10/OMB10, Denon DL-110/160, or AT440ML? - Page 3

post #31 of 54
9/18/08 at 5:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by searchenabler View Post
It is used on many decks in the 3-6k range and I really wanted to see some comparisons to popular benchmarks like the RB300 to see if the Satisfy has excellent measured performance to match it's 'perceived' quality. Well, at least I'll be able to see the RB300 vs. that old high end EPA-100 arm when you dig up the review for me. I was hoping the EPA-100 arm has great performance, because if so, I thought it would be interesting to get a SL1200MKII and slap an EPA-100 on it. I like the idea of having the high end Technics arm on the SL1200.

It is a shame they havn't measured the Clearaudio Satisfy. They have reviewed the Marantz deck which sports a varient of this but not in much detail unfortunately. I'm not sure how long that design has been around so I may still turn it up going further back.

If memory serves the EPA-100 was reference standard when it came out in I think 1977(?) and the only really rated higher mass Japanese arms of that time were the Ikeda designs. By the time the EPA-500 came to be reviewed in the early '80s the sands had shifted and there were many more medium mass high rigity contenders like the single cast titanium Alphason HR-100s, Syrinx, Ittok and Zeta.
The EPA-500 was more akin to the SME series III in conception with modular Titanium Nitride removable arm tube, variable mass, silicon damping etc. It was a bit too clever for it's own good and trying to be all things to all men.
The Rega RB300 came along and swept all before it at the bottom of the market with a revolutionary design and prompted companies like SME to completely re-think their concept towards medium mass and maximum rigity.
By the time the SME V came along the Japanese had practically left the market.

So in many ways the Technics arms are period pieces like the SME3009, which obviously still have a lot of fans. Anyway I'll dig out the plots asap. Thanks for the hosting offer btw.
Reply
post #32 of 54
9/18/08 at 5:49pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by searchenabler View Post
Personally, I would pick the Denon DL-110 or DL-160, just because it's so incredibly well crafted and neutral in response. Is their anything else at this level of performance for this price?

That being said, it sounds as if, from your description, that your speakers won't do such a fine cartridge justice. Also, I would get better speakers before investing in things like dedicated pre-amps, amps and the like. If you are willing to do any basic modifications involving some cutting of wood, etc.; I can recommend inexpensive commercial loudspeakers that have great drivers and crossovers, but poor(resonant) cabinets, as do most speakers. With some cabinet modifications, the SQ can be vastly improved on the cheap.

Chris
Thanks, Chris. Yeah, I'm definitely interested in the inexpensive speakers that you referenced. What did you have in mind, and what would the cabinet mods involve?
Reply
post #33 of 54
9/18/08 at 6:09pm
i friend of mine has a technics sl1900. which cartridge fits best?
the classic denon?
Reply
post #34 of 54
9/18/08 at 6:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by steelglam View Post
Thanks, Chris. Yeah, I'm definitely interested in the inexpensive speakers that you referenced. What did you have in mind, and what would the cabinet mods involve?
Since this is going way off topic(speakers discussion in a phono cart. thread?), please PM me.

Chris
Reply
post #35 of 54
9/19/08 at 11:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by 19lexicon78 View Post
i friend of mine has a technics sl1900. which cartridge fits best?
the classic denon?
Yes I'd go for on of the Denons. William Thakker in Germany is cheapest.
Reply
post #36 of 54
9/21/08 at 1:28pm
which denon
does the 103 fit. or is this one too expensive for the sl1900.
btw, bought a telefunken m15A. very very good condition. so, when i have new LP's, i'll record them on tape.
Reply
post #37 of 54
9/21/08 at 1:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 19lexicon78 View Post
which denon
does the 103 fit. or is this one too expensive for the sl1900.
btw, bought a telefunken m15A. very very good condition. so, when i have new LP's, i'll record them on tape.
The Denon 103 is a good match for the tonearm. This is a low output moving coil design though which requires more gain than a standard phono preamp.
Reply
post #38 of 54
9/21/08 at 3:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 19lexicon78 View Post
which denon
does the 103 fit. or is this one too expensive for the sl1900.
btw, bought a telefunken m15A. very very good condition. so, when i have new LP's, i'll record them on tape.
While the 103 may work fine, I don't see a justified reason to use more than a Denon DL-110. It seems the 103 usually costs almost 2x what the DL-110 does. Due to it's incredible linearity and tracking, the 110 is pretty much the perfect information extraction tool if your objective is neutral/accurate extraction of data from the vinyl. Also, since it's a high output MC, you don't need to acquire a standard MC amp, which is needed only for low output moving coils, but instead, use the more common/standard MM type pre-amp.

I have yet to find a reason to use my Virtuoso Wood by Clearaudio over my Denon DL-110, despite the Virtuoso costing $875, and I have been searcing/looking for real evidence(not just low value audiophile babble). I'm not convinced that the only real difference is frequency response - in which case my near ruler-flat 110 is my preference.

Chris
Reply
post #39 of 54
9/21/08 at 5:13pm
this denon dl-110 seems to be highly thought of, would it suit a debut iii? my taste is a neutral/accurate representation of the music.
Reply
post #40 of 54
9/21/08 at 10:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by searchenabler View Post
While the 103 may work fine, I don't see a justified reason to use more than a Denon DL-110. It seems the 103 usually costs almost 2x what the DL-110 does. Due to it's incredible linearity and tracking, the 110 is pretty much the perfect information extraction tool if your objective is neutral/accurate extraction of data from the vinyl. Also, since it's a high output MC, you don't need to acquire a standard MC amp, which is needed only for low output moving coils, but instead, use the more common/standard MM type pre-amp.

I have yet to find a reason to use my Virtuoso Wood by Clearaudio over my Denon DL-110, despite the Virtuoso costing $875, and I have been searcing/looking for real evidence(not just low value audiophile babble). I'm not convinced that the only real difference is frequency response - in which case my near ruler-flat 110 is my preference.

Chris
William Thakker carries the DL-110 for $129 and the DL-103 for $169.50. The price difference isn't exactly huge and may be worth the extra for those with the proper phono preamp.
Reply
post #41 of 54
9/22/08 at 1:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ian atpr View Post
this denon dl-110 seems to be highly thought of, would it suit a debut iii? my taste is a neutral/accurate representation of the music.
I'm not sure, but I think the Pro-Ject Debut III has a very low mass tone arm, which would push the cartridge-arm system resonance up to an unfavorable resonant frequency range. But I am not entirely sure of the Debut arm - please verify that it's compatible with the 110's compliance. The Rega RB300 and the Technics stock arm are both moderate mass arms that make good a combination with the DL-110.

-Chris
Reply
post #42 of 54
9/22/08 at 9:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by searchenabler View Post
While the 103 may work fine, I don't see a justified reason to use more than a Denon DL-110. It seems the 103 usually costs almost 2x what the DL-110 does. Due to it's incredible linearity and tracking, the 110 is pretty much the perfect information extraction tool if your objective is neutral/accurate extraction of data from the vinyl. Also, since it's a high output MC, you don't need to acquire a standard MC amp, which is needed only for low output moving coils, but instead, use the more common/standard MM type pre-amp.
The 103 isn't actually that much more expensive than the 110/160 in Europe for some reason, but I'd hardly describe it as neutral or accurate

It has a big romantic sound which particularly shines on rock music having great rhythmical ability and it's no slouch on Classical either offering lovely timbre and still managing to sound detailed but not in the forensic sense of some more modern moving coils. It just gets on with playing the tune without bothering too much about analysing how it's put together. It's a cart you'll either love or hate.

On a vintage deck like the Technics 1900 I think it would be great and it's a perfect mechanical match as are all the Denons.

The 103 is a real analogue man's device, if you catch my drift, a perfect remedy for boring overly clinical sounding modern Hi-Fi.
Reply
post #43 of 54
9/22/08 at 9:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by memepool View Post
The 103 isn't actually that much more expensive than the 110/160 in Europe for some reason, but I'd hardly describe it as neutral or accurate

It has a big romantic sound which particularly shines on rock music having great rhythmical ability and it's no slouch on Classical either offering lovely timbre and still managing to sound detailed but not in the forensic sense of some more modern moving coils. It just gets on with playing the tune without bothering too much about analysing how it's put together. It's a cart you'll either love or hate.

On a vintage deck like the Technics 1900 I think it would be great and it's a perfect mechanical match as are all the Denons.

The 103 is a real analogue man's device, if you catch my drift, a perfect remedy for boring overly clinical sounding modern Hi-Fi.
Sounds like I would hate it. When I want romantic coloration, I'll dial it in on a setting on my DSP crossover system. I don't like the curve being fixed into the cartridge(or any other hardware)!

BTW, did you find the EPA-100 measurements?

Chris
Reply
post #44 of 54
9/22/08 at 10:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by searchenabler View Post
Sounds like I would hate it. When I want romantic coloration, I'll dial it in on a setting on my DSP crossover system
It's pretty compromised in many ways since it's a 1960s design with a big crude conical rock on the end of it but at the same time it's really musically satisfying in some contexts. The analysis curve that comes with it actaully measures almost completely flat upto 20khz with a slight dip in the mids.

I got hold of one recently for my Vestax project and have been running it in. There is an old Bach Concerto Grosso and Suites recording by David and Igor Oistrach on DG, which I have, that sounded pretty poor on my more expensive MC carts and then it just somehow came together on the Denon.

So perhaps sometimes modern moving coils can show you too much insight into an old recording to the degree where it mars enjoyment of the performance?


Sadly I didn't find comparable plots of the EPA-100 as at that stage (1977) Hi-Fi Choice seemed to just be printing quite crude bar graphs showing the resonant peaks only without actually giving you the whole curve.
I did however find a nice analysis of the EPA-500 and all the Technics motorboards around in 1980 so I'll upload this later today. It should probably be a new thread don't you think?
Reply
post #45 of 54
9/22/08 at 2:20pm
thanks for the reply's
i'll tell him about the 103.
is the 103 optimal for every technics eg 1200?
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Best budget cartridge: Shure M97XE, Ortofon OM10/OMB10, Denon DL-110/160, or AT440ML?