ifi Zen Phono Review (phono stage)

[mike70]

I actually did take a peak and you’re right, the craftmanship is amazing even at twice the price. I will try to get some pictures up later if I find some time.


I am not sure how this theory came about and if it is true. The Ortofon Club mkII which is specifically designed for this type of arms comes in at 18.5gr (the cartridge is the headshell too). This is how much I found the [headshell + DL-103 + tightening screws] to be after weighing. I think most confusions arise from the fact that Denon reports compliance at 100 Hz to be 5 x 10-6 cm/dyne. At 10Hz this is more like 12 x 10-6 cm/dyne.

Are you sure dynamic compliance at 10hz is 12? ... That is 2.4 x higher than 5 cm/dyne ... normally 1.7 - 2.0 times is used. With 9 - 10 cm/dyne is almost in the "red zone" for a medium mass tonearm.

If you don't see "woofer pumping" must be reasonable, but ... check it out. Maybe you're using a subsonic filter.

 

[Thorsten Loesch]

I've been in the fence about the 103 for the following reasons:

- conical stylus

If you understand how records are cut, that is a big plus. Line contact, micro-ridge etc. stylii only work audiophile LP's cut on Lathes without tracing simulators, digital delays etc. that are common staple for commercial LP's even now (and are often cut from digital masters since the 70's).

Lifespan (retip is expensive, so with a conical stylus the price / hour is greater)

That is a trueism. Don't lump in the 103, which was designed in 1969 for professional use. Stylus life was maximised by orienting the stylus crystal structure.

IGD (not the best stylus for the last tracks)
- compliance

Not sure what that means.

I think it doesn't go well with a medium mass tonearm, unless you use a heavy headshell and an auxiliary counterweight with more mass ... complicated.

Well, every Technics 1200/1210 I had included everything.

The DL-103 and Technics SL-10/1200/1210 are highly specified, precise tolerance professional tools, designed evidence based for optimum function. No Audiophile Malarkey.

If that's not what you want, look elsewhere.

Thor

 

[Thorsten Loesch]

If you don't see "woofer pumping" must be reasonable,

This in not related to compliance, but the result of non-flat records. The Zen Phono has a button that stops woofer pumping without emasculating the bass. I suggest to use it, I would, which is why I put it in.

Thor

 

[mike70]

Not sure what that means

Conical are the stylus with less contact with the grooves ... so inner groove distortion can happen more easily.

 

[Baudrillard_J]

Are you sure dynamic compliance at 10hz is 12?

The DL-103 manual comes with a full frequency (4Hz - 20KHz) graph of the cartridge’s mechanical impedance which is force over velocity (f/v). Although there is a method of converting it to compliance which is displacement over force (x/f) I cannot readily go through it as it is not my area of expertise. If someone here is more versed in modal analysis, I am sharing the graph for their reference so they can perform the conversion.

In the absence of sound scientific analysis, I went with a measurement quoted on vinyl engine. Someone actually measured the compliance of the DL-103 at 10Hz and came out with 12 x 10 cm-6 cm/dyne at 10 Hz. I don’t know if this forum permits outside links but if you search on vinyl engine for “DL-103 compliance at 10Hz” you should be able to find it.

Regarding “woofer pumping” if I understand the phenomenon you refer to, with the minimal auditioning I have put this cartridge through at low to moderate volumes so far, I’ve had no issues with oscillations or resonanse at the very low frequencies. I have not used the subsonic filter yet or to put it more correctly, I have used it on records that didn’t need it and thus heard no improvement but at the same time I also did not detect deterioration of the low frequencies.

 

[mike70]

This in not related to compliance, but the result of non-flat records. The Zen Phono has a button that stops woofer pumping without emasculating the bass. I suggest to use it, I would, which is why I put it in.

Thor

I have slightly warped records that generates woofer pumping with bad compliance cartridges ... And not in other way.
I think the resonance frequency with a bad compliance cartridge have some interference.

 

[Thorsten Loesch]

Conical are the stylus with less contact with the grooves ... so inner groove distortion can happen more easily.

This is not what geometry suggests, it actually is an urban myth, IMNSHO.

And don't forget, most records are cut with huge levels of H2 as predistortion to cancel the so called tracing distortion. And these "tracing compensators" are on all lathes since the late 60's and assume spherical stylii.

Thor

 

[mike70]

This is not what geometry suggests, it actually is an urban myth, IMNSHO.

And don't forget, most records are cut with huge levels of H2 as predistortion to cancel the so called tracing distortion. And these "tracing compensators" are on all lathes since the late 60's and assume spherical stylii.

Thor

Technical information available from many sources says that ... conical have a 2 point contact ... that's why elliptical cut was created.

Far from urban myth ... unless I really ignore something I never read / finded before.

 

[thewas]

And don't forget, most records are cut with huge levels of H2 as predistortion to cancel the so called tracing distortion. And these "tracing compensators" are on all lathes since the late 60's and assume spherical stylii.

Interesting, do you have some links/literature which refer to it?

 

[morillon]

even if the standart 103 is the cheapest mc.. don't forget that giving within "max" 300h.. so it changes the situation a bit.

;-)

 

[Thorsten Loesch]

Technical information available from many sources says that ... conical have a 2 point contact ... that's why elliptical cut was created.

Far from urban myth ... unless I really ignore something I never read / finded before.

I had an Article from Luigi "Reto" Andreoli showing a lot of tech info from Decca that fails to support this.

He added a lot additional material to support this further. I then considered and redid what I could from the Math and geometry and found myself agreeing.

The Magazin was pretty underground, swiss, in German. Hifi Scene.

As result I ended up with 3 Arm/Cartridge Combo's as follows:

Ortofon 9" Arm & SPU-T with a mild elliptical stylus for pre-1970's pressings

SME 3009 II with DL-103 (Arm modified) for most commercial 1970-1990 pressings

Rega 250 Arm Origin Live modified / Reson Etile with Gieger line contact stylus (later Supex 900 rebuild by Soundsmith, microridge stylus & Ruby cantilever) for Audiophile Pressings, special alignments for minimum tracking error in inner groves

So in effect I was using an "Era appropriate" Studio Pickup/Arm combo for commercial recordings and an "audiophile" Arm/Cartridge combo.

Over time this got tiresome and I kept the SME/DL-103 as "best all around".

Thor

 

[Thorsten Loesch]

Interesting, do you have some links/literature which refer to it?

It is very obscure now.

From the late 60's to early 90's Neumann Lathes were the industry standard (even the eastern block used them, hence I know them quite well). A ready reference is here:

https://www.inner-magazines.com/audiophilia/david-gegen-goliath/

"In 1968, Neumann developed a technique (Tracing Simulator) to minimize distortion due to the geometric differences between the cutting cartridge/stylus, and the stylus to be used for reproducing the record. Neumann also developed the infamous DMM (Direct Metal Mastering) technology, where copper foil was used as the master disc.

Over the years, Neumann designed several “mass-produced” cutting lathes starting from the AM131 model from 1932 and ending via several models (c. 1 per decade) to the VMS-82 model in 1982. All Neumann cutting lathes resemble each other, but on their mutual superiority experts debate. The same applies to the most important part of the lathe: the cutting head: SX 45, SX 68, SX 74 and SX 84."

The Tracing simulator was standard on all Neumann Lathes since the late 60's and many in field units saw upgrades. It allowed louder cuts. It's a well known feature, ask any cutting engineer.

What "Audiophile" cut's usually do is to remove the 14 Bit 48kHz digital delay and automated groove spacing control (yes, all LP's cut on late Neumann Lathes are "digital", don't tell anti-digital people) and the tracing simulator from the signal path.

Unlike the late Neumann Lathes that in effect needed an "Operator" and did most things by itself and was quite tolerant of source material, audiophile cut's need a "Master" level cutting engineer with decades of experience on non-automated Lathes.

If you play audiophile LP's with a DL-103 it will sound excellent, but an Audiophile Arm/Cartridge with line contact stylus will be a bit better. If you play a commercial pressing from the 70's - 90's with a DL-103 it will sound great (because the LP was made to be played with such pickups), whereas the audiophile Arm/Cartridge combo will make the records sound bad. It is often argued that is because the "superior" combo reveals source problems, when the reverse is true.

Recordings before the late 60's (if you have any recordings/pressings that old) tend to sound best with a mild elliptical stylus, very similar with a 103 and often quite bad with a line contact stylus.

Thor

 

[thewas]

It is very obscure now.

From the late 60's to early 90's Neumann Lathes were the industry standard (even the eastern block used them, hence I know them quite well). A ready reference is here:

https://www.inner-magazines.com/audiophilia/david-gegen-goliath/

"In 1968, Neumann developed a technique (Tracing Simulator) to minimize distortion due to the geometric differences between the cutting cartridge/stylus, and the stylus to be used for reproducing the record. Neumann also developed the infamous DMM (Direct Metal Mastering) technology, where copper foil was used as the master disc.

Over the years, Neumann designed several “mass-produced” cutting lathes starting from the AM131 model from 1932 and ending via several models (c. 1 per decade) to the VMS-82 model in 1982. All Neumann cutting lathes resemble each other, but on their mutual superiority experts debate. The same applies to the most important part of the lathe: the cutting head: SX 45, SX 68, SX 74 and SX 84."

The Tracing simulator was standard on all Neumann Lathes since the late 60's and many in field units saw upgrades. It allowed louder cuts. It's a well known feature, ask any cutting engineer.

Thank you, shame though there seems to be no more details found in the WWW about that Tracing Simulator?

 

[Thorsten Loesch]

Thank you, shame though there seems to be no more details found in the WWW about that Tracing Simulator?

Seems Neumann was quite secretive of details.

LP Cutting, these days TBH is a niche of aiche of a niche and the heydays of LP cutting are nearly 4 decades in the past. Even guys who were young then and were generally not allowed lathe operation when older more senior operators were available are turning into old geezers with poor memory.

You can look here and get more input:

The Secret Society of Lathe Trolls

A forum devoted to record-cutting deviants, renegades, professionals & experimenters.

www.lathetrolls.com

Thor

 

[mike70]

I will add what I finded, on one of the biggest vinyl factory ... and proves the "newer" methods of lathe cutting. They indeed use high digital tech to simulate the cutting groove before the lathe process but if the master is an analog tape they apply the parameters to the analog tape ... even surely the major part of the master sources is digital today (I personally don't care about it).

So, is true that newer editions have real high tech to analyze the tracing results (sorry romantic boys of old editions, the new ones can be very, very good).

But I don't find anything to support that older editions have been maded / sound better with conical stylus.

http://www.gzvinyl.com/Manufacturing/Mastering/New-mastering-system.aspx

 

[Thorsten Loesch]

But I don't find anything to support that older editions have been maded / sound better with conical stylus.

You will also not find much evidence for the use of Elliptical Filters that blend the LF to Mono in the lathe and the use of automatic control of groove spacing, but they all were employed widely. You will also not find much explicit evidence that LP's were cut using RIAA EQ, it was a given.

Tracing simulators assume a spherical stylus. All of them. And as said, Neumann commercialised them in the late 1960s and in effect had a monopoly on lathes at the time and going forward.

Assume that if Neumann had it, it was part of their lathes, it after all created reasons for LP Makers to upgrade and they did make cutting in the late 80's a fairly undemanding job, as far as the operator was concerned.

Thor

 

[mike70]

But ... even you cut the groove thinking about a conical stylus ... if you have a "better contact" stylus ... it must be better anyway.

I understand that conical wouldn't be bad because the groove is "treated" for that ... but one thing isn't opposed to the other.

 

[AaronJ]

I scratched the DL-103 itch recently and was actually able to come to the above conclusions on my own. The DL-103 sounds about the same sonically as the Shure V15V-MR on pretty much any used record, but with less (sometimes much less) background noise. Where some records would play VG- with the Shure they play strong VG or better with the Denon. Best example I have is a 1971 UK Philips pressing of Lucifer’s Friend self titled album. The Shure plays with a TON of surface noise. I picked this record up for 20 bucks and have always wanted to love it even after getting a NM- Billingsgate copy. The Denon crushes the Shure on surface noise and plays it VG+.

The Shure is definitely the better cart on modern records. Late 70’s and newer I go with the Shure. Anything older and the Denon is the way to go.

I don’t have an iFi phono stage though so I unfortunately can’t comment on the compatibility. But if the above discussion is any indication that the DL-103 will work with it then I can give it my endorsement.

 

[Baudrillard_J]

Basically, there have been many assumptions over the years involved in the process of lacquer cutting.

Advanced styli (shibata, line, etc.) require precise alignment to work properly. Thus to properly track a record with an advanced profile stylus, detailed knownledge of cutting angle, etc. at lacquer cutting is required to properly align the cartridge for playback, especially for older records when things where not as standardized as they are today.

In this regard conicals require the least amount of setting up and will replay optimaly for the widest possible set of lathe cutting conditions. That is with a conical, one can replay a wide array of records, being cut with different compromises/assumptions without the need to re-adjust, re-align for each record. And that is probably why a broadcasting cartridge like the DL-103 uses a spherical, it will succesfully reproduce any record with the least amount of tampering (including worn out records).

Now opinions vary on this but “lathetrolls” seems to not be able to agree if a conical or an elliptical will produce the least amount of damage to an acetate. However, as pointed out earlier, conicals will accentuate the Inter Groove Distortion.

With regards to the assumption in production of a spherical playback stylus because it is the most widely used stylus and because it is the most susceptible to the “pinch effect” most records are cut with that in mind (pg.157):

“A signal which is equal and in phase on the tape recording is fed to the two coils so as to produce a wiggly lateral cut of constant depth (though a spherical replay stylus will ‘see’ a groove that narrows as the groove curves away from the net direction of movement, and will therefore rise and fall in the groove at twice the recorded frequency – the so-called pinch effect). Vertical modulation recorded in the 45/45 system is the out-of- phase or stereo difference information.”

Now that doesn’t mean that audiophile cuts don’t exist that do away with many of the “assumptions/compromises” in mastering that also assume replay with advanced styli. But probably not the majority of mass-produced records out there.

 

[mike70]

I scratched the DL-103 itch recently and was actually able to come to the above conclusions on my own. The DL-103 sounds about the same sonically as the Shure V15V-MR on pretty much any used record, but with less (sometimes much less) background noise. Where some records would play VG- with the Shure they play strong VG or better with the Denon. Best example I have is a 1971 UK Philips pressing of Lucifer’s Friend self titled album. The Shure plays with a TON of surface noise. I picked this record up for 20 bucks and have always wanted to love it even after getting a NM- Billingsgate copy. The Denon crushes the Shure on surface noise and plays it VG+.

The Shure is definitely the better cart on modern records. Late 70’s and newer I go with the Shure. Anything older and the Denon is the way to go.

I don’t have an iFi phono stage though so I unfortunately can’t comment on the compatibility. But if the above discussion is any indication that the DL-103 will work with it then I can give it my endorsement.

what you said don´t surprise me ... a better contact stylus going deeper in the groove will get more noise if the record is dirty or already damaged with the dirt.
i mean, it is totally natural and not because the DL103 is "better".
you can try a cheap AT VM95C (conical) and check what happens with noise compared to the shure.