What MC for $1,000-$2,000?

>> I have no beef with DENON, but the AC-2 is still WAY better sounding even in my tone arm.<<

Aboslutely. The AC-2 is at least a serviceable dynamic match to your SME III. The 103R is not.

>>The DENON is quiet (conical stylus tracks way less of the record surface), however. And the bass was always nice. It just lacks clarity and dynamics in the midrange and open extension on top.<<

The 103R is guaranteed to lack clarity and dynamics, and sound dull on top in a very low mass tonearm. Don't use it that way.

>>I liked my old 103D....I was hoping that the "improved" 103r would narrow the gap. I think with what I have heard now, I'd say that the stock 103r is WORSE than a stock 103D.<<

The 103R is an improvement on the plain 103, primarily as a materials and build quality evolution. The earlier 103D was however a *design* evolution from the 103. It was product of an R&D spur for lower mass tonearms taking hold during the '70s, which began with the 103S and culminated with the 103D. Some might say this evolutionary stub ended with the 103M, the last of the high-compliance 103s, but it was different in enough ways to be its own peculiarity. In any case, the 103D is in the realm of latitude to be usable with your arm and sound good. And overall, those of us deeply familiar with it consider the 103D superior to the 103R by a significant margin. A 103R *is not* as good as a 103D, nor should it be perceived as an intended improvement over 103D.

>>I sure do not hear, or agree with the statement that the 103r, "perform better than expected" on low mass arms..I think you can agree with that.<<

That audioasylum poster is knowledgeable and experienced. His reference to 103R usability with "lower mass" tonearms isn't the same as saying "low mass," as in your 5g eff mass SME III. You have to understand his context is posting into a group populated by many who contend you need a minimum 20g eff mass tonearm to properly use a 103/103R. Ed is making the point that there's more latitude than that. It will work with a 12g Rega arm, for example, but that's medium mass. Your 5g SME is too far out of range to be included in Ed's reference.

>>So I have yet to hear a PEEP about what to do other than fan boy the 103r or make it work. I don't WANT to "make" the 103r work.<<

I've given you two specific suggestions that will work well in your arm, and give you the essential assets of your AC-2 and Denon tone density: the higher compliance Denon DL-304 and DL-S1. The DL-S1 plays in the bigs. You might also try an Ortofon Cadenza Black. If you get open-minded about upgrading your tonearm to at least a medium mass, modern-bearings device, ala a Rega RB1000 or similar, the 47 Labs MC Bee should nail the sound you seek - just not in your SME III.

Phil

Who knew that more than 35 years later, Ivor Tiefenbrun's sales shtick would still rule the analog world? I've never found that the turntable is more important than the cartridge, and I've long known that toe-tapping or "following the tune" has absolutely nothing to do with audio quality. Perhaps never in the history of marketing has such an insipid claim had a longer life. But the man did build a nice turntable.

-Bob

Couldn't agree with you more on that "following the tune" BS!!!

I'm no fan of Linn tables. Nor is "toe tapping" any sort of serious sonic parameter in my book. But my experience is that Ivor got the order of precedence right.

The functions of a table and arm are to (a) spin the LP at a precise velocity despite constantly varying loads; (b) provide a mobile yet stable, suitably mass-matched platform for the cartridge; (c) manage stray resonance energies coming from the cartridge; and (d) isolate the cartridge from external resonances. These tasks are fiendishly difficult. Performing them well is not inexpensive and the inadequacies of a cheap table/arm will compromise the performance of any cartridge. Even worse, the more revealing the cartridge the more noticeable the inadequacies of a rig become.

I've owned 6-7 inexpensive rigs and two pretty good ones ($6K/$11K). I've tried 18-20 cartridges, from $75 MMs to LOMC's costing up to $8K.

Without exception, the good table/arm with any cheap cartridge hugely outperformed any cheap table/arm with a good cartridge. So I'm with Audiofeil and 213cobra.

I'm with what my AC-2 does on my SME III, it kicks butt on Quatro Wood signature II's!. And probably with a 50-50 set-up, even.

Sure, a pefect set-up is nice, but then again, why on earth do we listen to records with the turntable in the same darn room! You shake, so does the tone arm, and it is defenseless against that. I'd say that that out weights about ANYTHING that the record grove is doing to the inertia in the tone arm or visa versa. A tone arm is designed to stabilize what the stulus is doing in the groove. It sure wasn't made to defeat the kind of bass the Quatros put out. And in light of this, the SME III with the AC-2 sounds crisp and tight (it shouldn't!) somehow.

I've looked at tone arms and that is a messy situation. I can blindly "buy" a tonearm, but you can't "shop" for the right tonearms as there is precious little data to support what they are intended to run well based on their mass and adjustment ranges. Some Sweet spot (there is indeed one) on cartridge weight and compliance would be nice. But nope, just useless data relative to what arm to match with what cartridge. Why should you have to guru shop for a tonearm? The operational data is certainly there, somewhere. it should be easier to find. I can't even tell SME III is really meant to do, and with what.

For now, I'll keep my Ariston RD II s and SME III and set my sights on more compliant cartridges.