Denon Turntable Options

[hgholden]

Hi there, after a number of years with the same old system I want to take the next step and dare I say it, upgrade. My turntable is a Denon DP 45F with a DL 110 moving coil. I suspect that the 1.6mV is a bit too high output for the MC side of my Pioneer A400 Amp (yes I know, its old but its good) as there appears to be a bit of very low frequency going though the speakers at medium volume. A number of tests have narrowed the issue down to the phono side of the amp. I did not have this issue when using the standard DL60 that came with the turntable. As this upgrade will take a few years I am starting with the turntable. Therefore I wonder if the collective minds on this forum are able to provide me with options. In the first instance I am thinking of going to a DL 103 (only has an output of about 0.25mV). Once I have this then naturally next step is to upgrade Amp the speakers and then......arghhhhh, but that will all wait. Just trying to wring what I can out of the current system and in the process hope to identify its strengths and weaknesses and act accordingly.

HG

[cheekyboy]

Hi there, after a number of years with the same old system I want to take the next step and dare I say it, upgrade. My turntable is a Denon DP 45F with a DL 110 moving coil. I suspect that the 1.6mV is a bit too high output for the MC side of my Pioneer A400 Amp (yes I know, its old but its good) as there appears to be a bit of very low frequency going though the speakers at medium volume. A number of tests have narrowed the issue down to the phono side of the amp. I did not have this issue when using the standard DL60 that came with the turntable. As this upgrade will take a few years I am starting with the turntable. Therefore I wonder if the collective minds on this forum are able to provide me with options. In the first instance I am thinking of going to a DL 103 (only has an output of about 0.25mV). Once I have this then naturally next step is to upgrade Amp the speakers and then......arghhhhh, but that will all wait. Just trying to wring what I can out of the current system and in the process hope to identify its strengths and weaknesses and act accordingly.

HG

Hi HG, this thread probably belongs in Source Units but that's neither here nor there........the 110 is a brilliant cart but if you want an easy and big improvement, try the DL160. Hopefully Ophool will pick up on this thread or just drop him a PM for a review on the DL103.............I'm sure he'll give you all the feedback you need.

Cheers,

Keith

[2sheds]

Hi there, after a number of years with the same old system I want to take the next step and dare I say it, upgrade. My turntable is a Denon DP 45F with a DL 110 moving coil. I suspect that the 1.6mV is a bit too high output for the MC side of my Pioneer A400 Amp (yes I know, its old but its good) as there appears to be a bit of very low frequency going though the speakers at medium volume. A number of tests have narrowed the issue down to the phono side of the amp. I did not have this issue when using the standard DL60 that came with the turntable. As this upgrade will take a few years I am starting with the turntable. Therefore I wonder if the collective minds on this forum are able to provide me with options. In the first instance I am thinking of going to a DL 103 (only has an output of about 0.25mV). Once I have this then naturally next step is to upgrade Amp the speakers and then......arghhhhh, but that will all wait. Just trying to wring what I can out of the current system and in the process hope to identify its strengths and weaknesses and act accordingly.

HG

HG,

The DL110 is a high output moving coil, and should be used with the A400 phono switched to MM. The MC setting is for low output moving coil cartridges only, like the DL103. In fact the DL110 measures above it's specified output of 1.6mV, at 2.2mV - extremely high for a moving coil. The A400 has a pretty good phono stage and should be a good match for the DL110.

cheers

2sheds

Edited October 4, 2008 by 2sheds

[ophool]

I would second the recommendation to try it through the MM input as a no cost initial option.

I am not familiar with the specifications of the arm fitted to the DP 45 TT but would be suspicious that it may not have sufficient effective mass to control the DL103 which is a much "stiffer" cartridge than either the DL110 or the DL160.

I would also think the DL160 to be a worthwhile upgrade (provided the swapping of inputs resolves the "rumble" problem).

Using a stethoscope on the TT plinth could show if the low frequency is being generated in the phono stage or merely amplified by the increased gain of the MC input.

If it is originating in the table, perhaps changing the platter bearing oil might reduce/eliminate it.

[hgholden]

Hi all, thanks for your responses, changing the input seems to have resolved the frequency issue although I feel as if the sound is not as dynamic.

Ophoo I am interested in your comment that the arm may not have sufficient mass to control the 103. Specifications show that the Denon DP45 tone arm has a stylus force of 1-3g and an acceptable cartridge weight of 4-9g. Is that the sort of info one needs to make a judgement on this? Sounds like the DL 160 is an option though.

Regards

HG

[ophool]

Unfortunately HG - no, that is not sufficient info, I just had a quick look on the tonearm database @ vinylengine and the effective mass of your arm is not listed.

What is to be considered here is the combination of cartridge compliance (relative stiffness of the suspension) and the effective mass of the arm.

In general terms a very compliant cartridge (soft suspension) requires a low mass arm, a medium compliance cartridge a medium mass arm and a low compliance cartridge (the DL103) a heavy arm.

It relates to the resonant frequencies of the tonearm cartridge combination they should lie in the range below 20 Hz and above about 8Hz (below hearing and above record warp).

This directly relates to the ability of the arm to hold the cartridge body relatively still so that stylus movement can be translated into signal rather than waving the whole arm around.

This is determined by the mass of the arm and the inertia exhibited by that mass.

It is possible by mass loading (adding headshell weight) to slightly modify these restrictions and for example run the DL103 on a medium mass arm such as a Rega RB250/300, but does depend on having a sufficiently hefty counterweight to be able to zero balance the whole shebang.

Whilst Werner O of tntaudio used a DL103 on a Technics arm on an SL1200 and reported it as a working combination, my own experiments with that combination indicated otherwise - though on many recordings it was not noticeable and adding a very good active stepup stage (GSP elevator Exp) made it very acceptable for most records it was still an order of magnitude better when fitted to my Tecnoarm with 5gms additional mass on my main TT.

I would expect your arm to be marginally lower in effective mass than the one on the SL1200.

If you decide to try a DL160 I would recommend that you use the supplied 1gm mass plate provided with it.

Re the lessened dynamics, could I enquire as to what mat you use on your TT ?

I have found the Funk Achromat to provide a nice balance of clarity and tone, particularly when used in conjunction with a clamp or puck.

Felt, to my ears, lessens dynamics and heavy rubber sounds rubbery. YMMV

PS - if you really want to give your ears a treat have a look at goldivers FS for a standalone phono stage - a steal at the price and cheekyboy can tell you how good it is.

Edited October 5, 2008 by ophool

[hgholden]

Thanks for your help Ophoo. I did a bit of research and note that the science around tone arm selection and matching the correct cartridge is rather complex. Given all that I will listen to your advice and purchase a DL-160, a new felt mat to replace the standard rubber one, a puck and save up for a phono pre-amp. I note that there is some real good feedback on the net re the DL-160. mmmm, once that is done then its the amp and speakers...arghhhh

cheers

HG

[djb]

OPHOOL

A NOVICE ?

Ihave a rega 250 arm is it high medium or low mass?

[ophool]

djb,

the RB250 is a medium mass arm.

[Steever]

I used to have a 45F myself as a first TT. I changed to a Dynavector made Mission high OP MC cart on mine because I was given it and it was better than the MM that was on the TT when I got it.

Couple of other things I did to mine you might like to try:

I removed the plastic base and hot glued lead fishing weights to the inside to mass load the thing. Obviously making sure that none shorted on the PCB when I fitted the base back on.

I also hard wired a nice interconnect (at the time a Monster IL250 from memory) directly to the PCB once I removed the tacky factory hard wired cables.

Worked well too with improvements in many aspects of the music.