Denon DL-103 vs. DL-160?

07-03-08: Tvad
I agree the AT150MLX is a better value because of the replaceable stylus, as long as one likes the sound as much as the Denon. I gave it a try for this exact reason.

In my case, I think I got lucky--the AT150MLX fed into the Cambridge Audio 640p phono stage is an excellent match, especially at the price. I didn't experience the surface noise problem you did; one thing I noticed is that the 640p drops the surface noise compared to what I was running before.

Any chance the extra surface noise you encountered in the AT150MLX vis-a-vis the Benz Micro Ace is a VTA issue? Maybe the arm needs to be lowered a little bit for the AT?

The surface noise was not the issue.

The arm was already at it's lowest possible position.

I'm curious, if one removes the 103 from the stock body and puts it into a different body, how does that affect the formula?

Do you simply weigh the difference of the two bodies and adjust?

James, the compliance remains the same. The weight difference plays a minor role in the final resonant frequency. Plug the numbers in and you'll see.

How do you figure the DL-103 is a better catridge than a DL-106? Aside from the DL-103 being a low output, it's a conical stylus design which is far from ideal, compared to the eliptical design of the DL-160.
I have heard both and the Dl 160 has much better depth and sounstage. You might prefer the Dl-103 if you like a foucused, almost two deminsional sound.
Never have gotten the enthusiasm for expensive conical, heavy trsacking designs, perhaps for shellac discs.