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?

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.