LONDON Decca, Tzar DST and similar cartridges

Art Dudley talks about the Decca cartridge in the December Stereophile (I would provide a link, if only I knew how!). His review is of an older model, and the current London's are considerably improved, from the entry-level Super Gold to the Reference. They all put out 5mV, needing no more than 40dB or so of gain, and are best loaded with 15k to 22k Ohms resistance and 220pF capacitance (which electrically damps the design's high-frequency resonance). George Couness provides a 15k Ohm input on his Zesto phono amp specifically for the Decca/London!

As halcro, I too dislike unipivots, though they are recommended for the Londons by their maker. The cartridge has no suspension to speak of, so some form of damping is found beneficial by many users. Whether the chosen arm does or does not offer damping, it had better have a very stiff arm tube and chatter-free bearings, as the Londons put a LOT of mechanical energy into the arm. As Warren Gregoire told me, any arm that's good with a contemporary mc will be fine for the London.

I prefer the cartridge to all others by such a large degree (again, as halcro said, it is by far the most alive---I like the old Gordon Holt term "immediate"---sounding design I've heard), that I picked not just my arm to best suit it, by my turntable as well. The Townshend Rock could have been designed specifically for the cartridge, as it provides mechanical damping right at the source---the headshell. A side benefit is that the Rock's "outrigger" hardware adds 11 grams mass to the cartridge's 6 grams, aiding in balancing the arm and achieving a good resonant frequency, which is tricky---the cartridge's compliance in the lateral and vertical planes differ considerably.    

The only table that is of particular appropriateness for the Decca/London is the Townshend, because of the damping trough endemic to it. One thing to be aware of is that because of the cartridge's unshielded magnets, Decca/Londons can not be used on a ferrous platter, like the one on the original version of the Thorens TD-124, though the aluminum plattered Mk.2 is fine.

As for arms for the cartridge, Ken Kessler (a long-time Decca enthusiast) is happy with the SME V, others with the Well Tempered, and the Zeta is an old favorite. Geoffrey Owen of Helius Designs in the U.K. has a fair amount of experience mating his arms with the cartridges (Robert Levi has his Reference mounted on a Helius Omega Standard), and the Kuzma's seem like they should be a good match (nice stiff tube and excellent bearings), though I haven't heard one way or the other. Art Dudley thought the Rega 300 was good enough for the Decca Maroon (spherical stylus) he just reviewed, but the cartridge deserves better. In fact, the best you can afford, just like any other great cartridge!

Some other arms people have found to work well with Deccas and Londons: The Arm by David Fletcher (designer of the original SOTA table); Mission Mechanic (a U.K. arm similar to The Arm); Fidelity Research FR-64/66; Keith Monks (a somewhat rare U.K arm---I've never seen one for sale); Eminent Technology or other air bearing straight tracker (Kuzma perhaps?); Decca International (no surprise there, ay?! It's a unipivot, though).

The long-held common wisdom was the design liked a damped unipivot arm, which London still recommends. I really dislike them ergonomically, however (the left-to-right-"floppiness". Plus, I'm not convinced highly modulated grooves are not capable of rocking the cartridge and hence rotating the arm tube about it's center, if you see what I mean).

The other belief was that the arm should be of higher than rather lower mass, for those who, unlike halcro, believe in getting the arm/cartridge resonance to around 10-12 Hz. After discussing the matter with Robert Levi (he recommends an arm with a lower "moment of inertia", i.e. mass), I entered the mass figure of the London Reference and Rock outrigger hardware (17.5g total) into the arm/cartridge resonant frequency calculator on The Vinyl Engine site, and was surprised by the results. Any arm is going to be a compromise, as the lateral and vertical compliances of the cartridge differ (15 and 10, respectively). Straight tracking air bearing arms have different moving mass figures, but I'm not sure if it's in the right direction (lateral versus vertical), or the opposite. The calculator suggested an arm with rather low moving mass for the 17.5g figure, like 8-10g, to achieve the 10-12 HZ figure.

Whether or not one is concerned with achieving any certain resonant frequency figure, a stiff self-damped arm tube (Geoffrey Owen claims his Helius arms are self-damped by means of their differential mass design) or externally applied damping is highly advisable, and all cartridges benefit from good bearings, none more so than the Decca/London. The massive amount of mechanical energy the cartridge passes down the arm tube and into those bearings is really going to put them to the test!

I'll give it a shot, k. The five current Londons---the Maroon, Gold, Super Gold, Jubilee, and Reference, all share the same identical internal design and structure (how could it be otherwise?---it's what makes a London a London!), but differ in the quality of the materials used to make them, and in their assembly tolerances. The internal wire and coils in the Reference, for instance, are of a higher grade than in the lesser models, and the magnets are of the more expensive rare earth variety. The stylus profiles differ amongst models as well, the Maroon being Spherical, the Gold Elliptical, the Super Gold and Jubilee Extended Fine Line, and the Reference Ultra Low Mass Fine Line. Other than that, the difference between models is in the housing the internal guts are installed in.

The Maroon, Gold, and Super Gold share the same stamped tin housing of the Deccas of the 70's, along with the old Decca mounting bracket, a real pos! The bracket is a somewhat flexible red block of molded plastic, the top of which is bolted to the head shell. The cartridge slides onto the bracket, the electrical signal from the cartridge passing through electrical contacts in the bracket to pins on it's rear for your arm wires. It's a terrible mounting and connection design, but you don't have to put up with it. London offers the Decapod, an aluminum block which replaces the bracket, and is installed as the top of the cartridge at the London factory. DO NOT BUY A LONDON CARTRIDGE WITHOUT THE DECAPOD!

As for the tin housing, Decca users have long applied various substances onto it's exterior in an attempt to lessen the resonances it exhibits; modeling clay, Blu Tack, Sorbothane, etc. Even with the resonances of the housing addressed, the cartridge is somewhat microphonic, one reason the Townshend Rock turntable is a favorite with Decca/London enthusiasts---the Rock's damping system eliminates that microphony remarkably effectively, making it a non-issue.

The Jubilee was developed to address the issue of the sonic consequences of the tin metal housing. It's more solid, less resonant/microphonic structure allows more of the Decca design's potential to be realized, and is considered by some (Warren Gregoire, for one) to offer more of an upgrade from the Maroon, Gold, and Super Gold, than the Reference does to it. The Jubilee's housing eliminates the need for the Decapod as well, having threaded mounting holes in it's top surface, and the normal cartridge pin design.

The Reference really brings the Decca design into the 21st Century. A very stylish machined aluminum body/housing, like other top cartridges. Superior parts and assembly tolerances, hand built by John Wright, the designer of the Reference, and owner of London.

So which London to get? As always, it's a question of system balance, the most effective allocation of your Hi-Fi Dollars/Pounds (in honour of the Britishness of Decca/London ;-), and, most importantly, of course, the other parts of your record player. There is no point in spending the extra money for the Reference if your pick-up arm won't allow it's superiority to the Jubilee to be heard. The great thing is, no matter which London you choose, it will have the Decca/London sound, unlike any other cartridge!  

Good points, halcro. True, the Decca/London does not have the delicacy in high frequencies of a great moving coil. As with every link in one's Hi-Fi chain, priorities must be chosen, as no one product is better than all others in every way. For me, the main failing in reproduced music is in it's sounding "canned"---a pale, lifeless, soft, thin, diffused, anemic copy of a colorful, vivid, energetic, explosive, full-bodied, whole, original. The Decca/London, for all it's faults, just makes the sound of the instruments and voices contained in the grooves of an LP sound more like their real-life selves than does any other cartridge I've heard. And, perhaps more importantly, the manner in which those instruments are being played and those lyrics being sung. The D/L is a very "physical" transducer, the force with which the bow of a cello or double bass is pulled across the instruments strings being heard and felt (Yo Yo Ma attacks his cello, non unlike how Keith Moon did his drumkit!). How hard a drummer is smacking a drumhead with his sticks can be felt (important to me---I'm a drummer), but so too can the faint sound of ghost notes be heard. The D/L does percussion better than any other cartridge I've heard, with an unequalled dynamic capability. The sound of a guitarists plectrum (pick) hitting the strings---very visceral. Then there is that "in the room, right in front of you" characteristic of the D/L sound, something I crave. Some attribute the D/L's "speed" as the reason for it's excellence in all these regards. Others, it's lack of cantilever "haze", etc. All I know is that instruments and voices sound more whole, fleshed-out with more body (it's as if all the frequencies making up the sound and timbre of an instrument or voice reach the ear at the same time, as in a time-aligned loudspeaker), and transients have more "snap". Hope this doesn't come off as sounding gratuitous or over-the-top!

kmccarty---I've been thinking it over, and here's what I suggest: The $5200 price of the Reference is an awful lot to gamble on a sound you have yet to hear. Some have tried a London, and found it to be too "relentless" or brash (who knows if that was a result of the tone arm used not being up to the task, or the proper 15k/220pF loading not being employed), as may you. Even the $3000 of the Jubilee is a lot to gamble on. I think trying the $1200 Super Gold is a good idea; if you like it enough, you could then move up to the Jubilee or Reference if you want. Don't forget to specify the Decapod! By the way, there is a virtual system (Small Attic Retreat) featured in the Audiogon weekly recap that contains a London Gold or Super Gold (they look identical) fitted with the Decapod. The owners name is jtnicolosi, and he has the London on one of his three tables, a Garrard 301 with a 12" arm (the Schick?).

ct0517---We are going to end up with very similar systems, aren't we? I had forgotten about the $12,000 straight tracking London arm. I've never heard from an owner of one, or seen a review. I couldn't use it on my Rock anyway, or afford it!

topoxforddoc---I have a R2R (Revox A-77 Mk.3), but it's a quarter inch/ quarter track. Have some pre-recorded 7" reels (RCA, Mercury), and those I made myself with a pair of omni condenser mics. But I still need my London cartridges (as well as table and arm), 'cause I can't get the Revox to play my LP's ;-).