Jump to content

Denon DL-301 MC Cartrige Advice


Guest hwnt

Recommended Posts

Hi,

I have a Denon DP-33F Turntable i have a fully upgraded ME25 Pre with MC Phono stage and want to know if a DL-301 MC Cartridge is any good for this setup?

I dont have the specs of the ME but he cartridge performs best on 300ohm load and with a low mass arm apparently.

Can anyone please let me know if this cart will be good in my system for i have come across one at a price im happy with..

 

Thanks

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Best info I can find for the tonearm says effective mass is 15 gm which is fine for a DL-301.

This is not low mass but medium mass. 

I used one for some years on a Michell Tecnoarm (medium mass) and never felt that it needed a lower mass arm. 

The compliance of the cartridge is only medium and it does not require a low mass arm.

I also never found use for any loading in excess of 220 ohm and 100 ohm should be OK as well.

I have no idea of the loading of the ME phono stage, perhaps ask Trevor at Rage audio, although I might suspect that 100 ohms would be the most likely default load if it does not haver load plug sockets on the back panel.

I do not know where you got your info on the DL-301 but it runs counter to my experience with this cartridge.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



24 minutes ago, wen said:

@andyr what arm is low mass?

 

My Magnepan 'Unitrac' is low mass - eff weight is 7g.  That is low!  :)  So best used with high compliance MMs.

 

My Duc 'Univector' is 23g eff weight - that is high!  So it needs a low compliance MC.

 

In terms of a general rule, I would suggest eff weights of:

  • 7 to, say, 12gm ... are low
  • 12 to, say, 18gm ... is medium, and
  • 19 to 23gm is high.

 

Andy

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, jakeyb77 said:

 

 

Not sure what you're trying to say with the ME blurb, Jake, but I can't help feeling that what might've been the case for LOMC carts in the 70s (re. loading) is not the case today.  Also, the way I see it ... trumpeting the fact that the ME phono stage follows the RIAA curve to within 1% (exceptional! :thumb: ) - but saying that the stock 500 ohm loading for MC carts "does an excellent job for the vast majority of LOMC carts" - doesn't mesh!

 

If you go to all that effort for a very accurate RIAA response ... why not allow loading to be tailored to the optimum for whatever cart you're using?

 

Andy

 

Edited by andyr
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jakeyb77
23 minutes ago, andyr said:

 

Not sure what you're trying to say with the ME blurb, Jake, but I can't help feeling that what might've been the case for LOMC carts in the 70s (re. loading) is not the case today.  Also, the way I see it ... trumpeting the fact that the ME phono stage follows the RIAA curve to within 1% (exceptional! :thumb: ) - but saying that the stock 500 ohm loading for MC carts "does an excellent job for the vast majority of LOMC carts" - doesn't mesh!

 

If you go to all that effort for a very accurate RIAA response ... why not allow loading to be tailored to the optimum for whatever cart you're using?

 

Andy

 

I was only leading the OP to the answers to the ME questions they posed. 

The MC board in the ME can be adjusted for personal preferences from discussions I’ve had with Ron. 

Trevor seems to imply that the selective loading for LOMC carts isn’t that necessary due to the limited variance applicable. This may or may not be everyone’s opinion. 

Anyway as you said it’s probably best the person talk to @Zaphod Beeblebrox

I was just pointing them in the direction... ?

 

 

***I’ve only used the ME MC board on two AT carts that are very similar double moving coil carts so can’t comment on the ability to handle many carts but I think others said it was capable in the thread I attached. If you’ve found it lacking in that area then you’ll have to post your findings. 

Edited by jakeyb77
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Had several of these cartridges in the past and think they are excellent value on the second hand market. Has been mounted in various medium compliance arms in the past and I now repot them in Paradox Pulse aluminium bodies which takes them to a whole new level. Currently running in arm no.2 (10in Jelco 750D ) on the main TT. Can't comment on load as I use a current, not voltage mode phono stage.

Edited by PicoWattson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, jakeyb77 said:

 

***I’ve only used the ME MC board on two AT carts that are very similar double moving coil carts so can’t comment on the ability to handle many carts but I think others said it was capable in the thread I attached. If you’ve found it lacking in that area then you’ll have to post your findings.

 

 

Having never owned - or even listened to - an ME phono stage, I have no 'findings' about its ability to handle (the loading on) many carts.

 

But I have assisted quite a few people to get a better sound from their carts by loading it optimally; you cannot do this if all the phono stage offers is a fixed value - such as:

  • (assumption!) 500 ohms in the case of the ME
  • or 470 ohms in the case of a MM phono stage, preceded by a 1:10 SUT.

My own experience (and that of my customers) has been completely different to ZB's, if he really is of the opinion that "selective loading for LOMC carts isn’t that necessary due to the limited variance applicable".

 

Andy

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jakeyb77
20 minutes ago, andyr said:

 

Having never owned - or even listened to - an ME phono stage, I have no 'findings' about its ability to handle (the loading on) many carts.

 

But I have assisted quite a few people to get a better sound from their carts by loading it optimally; you cannot do this if all the phono stage offers is a fixed value - such as:

  • (assumption!) 500 ohms in the case of the ME
  • or 470 ohms in the case of a MM phono stage, preceded by a 1:10 SUT.

My own experience (and that of my customers) has been completely different to ZB's, if he really is of the opinion that "selective loading for LOMC carts isn’t that necessary due to the limited variance applicable".

 

Andy

 

A few things and I say these in the spirit of being honest as you are; 

1. You state that you have no experience  of using any ME products so you cannot post any findings, but you have posted a generalisation. 

2. You quote me but attribute that to ZB. I’m not entirely sure what his words would be. Again I merely pointed the OP to someone that has more experience with the MC board than me. Also pointing out that there is a LOT of praise for the ME board online. 

3. You recently offered me to use your “Muse”. Of course I was appreciative and did some research. Once finding some people that had used it or heard it I asked them their opinion. I won’t post the results as I’m not saying this to fight or upset you. Just to point out that differing people look for different things in their equipment. 

 

For me, I posted my enjoyment of the ME MC board.. I’m also honest in the fact I just bought a Musical Surroundings phono stage with adjustable levels and will let you know what my findings are. I previously had a few stages with adjustments and noticed bugger all difference other than between 100ohm and 1000. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jakeyb77 said:

 

For me, I posted my enjoyment of the ME MC board.. I’m also honest in the fact I just bought a Musical Surroundings phono stage with adjustable levels and will let you know what my findings are. I previously had a few stages with adjustments and noticed bugger all difference other than between 100ohm and 1000. 

 

 

NP, Jake.  :thumb:

 

I will be most interested to hear the results of your findings with your MS.

 

Andy

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...
To Top