PDA

View Full Version : Being reminded once again of the Decca ‘magic’



Barry
20-07-2010, 19:00
Having been granted a special exeat from the Alan Dowker Blumlein retirement home for distinguished audio components, the Decca cartridge was allowed out for good behaviour. In fact the Grand Inquisitor of Wrexham had requested an audition of a Decca cartridge, so the following notes and observations apply to my sample of the Decca Mk. VI (also known as the Decca ‘Gold’) fitted to a Jelco headshell; supplied by Marco.

However, before I go into the details of installation, operation and audition of the cartridge, it is perhaps useful to describe the background and thinking of the engineers at Decca who designed the Decca cartridges, since these are unlike any other fixed coil dynamic cartridge. And because of that, are unique in the way they are installed and operated.

This report is very lengthy. I would advise readers go and make themselves a pot of coffee, to keep awake!

Background and history

In some respects the Decca cartridges are just like other fixed coil dynamic designs: a varying magnetic flux caused by the motion of the stylus is intercepted by a set of coils which convert the change of flux to an electrical voltage. Deccas could thus be described as variable reluctance (moving iron) cartridges. What makes Deccas unique is the virtual absence of a cantilever. Engineers at Decca’s research department were of the opinion that the modulation of the record groove read by the stylus needs to be converted into an electrical signal as soon as possible, otherwise owing to the less than infinitely rigid cantilever, information would be lost. Decca’s engineers called this undesirable loss ‘cantilever haze’. The operation of the Decca cartridge is best understood with reference to the following diagram:

http://i780.photobucket.com/albums/yy88/barrydhunt/IMG-4.jpg?t=1279650229

The iron cantilever passes through a toroidal magnet and coil, to detect the lateral motion and above that are two coaxial magnet and coil assemblies, to detect vertical motion. Clearly the cantilever has a greater stiffness in the longitudinal mode (as used in this situation) than it has in flexural mode (as used by all other cartridges using a conventional cantilever). Decca called this arrangement ‘positive scanning’. The three coils (two vertical and one lateral) are connected as a sum and difference ‘Y’ configuration - necessitating only three connections. The mechanical arrangement meant that the cartridge was not only sensitive to the lateral ‘side-to-side’ motion of the grove modulation, but also to any ‘fore – aft’ motion as well. This latter motion would be caused by the motion of the record underneath the stylus and would cause the stylus to collapse. To prevent this, a tie back cord is fitted, as shown.

Decca marketed these cartridges as the Decca ffss pickup (ffss stood for full frequency stereophonic sound). It was also referred to a ‘head’, since Decca, like EMI and Ferranti, were of the opinion that the cartridge and arm should be designed as a single entity. This meant that the early pickups could only be fitted to Decca’s own arms. By the time of the Mk. IV edition however, Decca did offer versions that could either be fitted to Decca arms or to arms with the usual ½” screw fixings.

The Decca ffss cartridges were very well received, not only in the UK but in the US as well; with most users commenting on the excellent ‘attack’, dynamics, transparency and on the sense of ‘air’ surrounding the performers.

Despite the performance potential, the Decca design did create problems that were addressed and somewhat ameliorated in the Mk. V and later designs. Owing to the close proximity of both the lateral sensing coil and magnet, problems could be caused with the use of steel platter turntables. At worse, the magnetic attraction to the steel platters in use at that time upset the vertical tracking force. Again the close proximity of the lateral coil meant that stray hum fields from the turntable motor, or elsewhere, would be picked up, and these would be indistinguishable from the modulated field created by the stylus. To reduce these problems Decca improved the magnetic circuit (thereby improving the susceptibility to hum pick up) and employed a new magnetic material (which allowed a reduction in the overall mass of the design). These improvements culminated in the Mk. V design, marketed as the Decca ‘London’ cartridge.

As part of the weight relieving process and to exclude stray hum fields, the Mk. V generator was enclosed in a thin, resonant, metal housing. This, in itself, can cause problems, as does the retention of the three-connector system. The general level of workmanship of these cartridges is poor to say the least; so poor that hand-selected samples were reserved for export. The housing of the Mk. Vs for the home market were coloured blue (and hence are also known as the Decca ‘Blue’), whereas those selected for export were coloured grey (hence the ‘Grey’, or ‘Export’). Later versions followed: a carefully built, so-called ‘improved’ model, the ‘Maroon’ (also known as the Decca ‘Plum’), retaining the 15μm spherical tipped stylus and the Decca Mk. VI fitted with a 15μm x 7.5μm elliptical stylus. This latter cartridge (variously known as the Decca London Elliptical or, on account of the colour, simply known as the Decca ‘Gold’) is the version under discussion here. (I have seen reference to a Decca ‘Black’, but know nothing about it. If any members know of this, I would be very interested to learn more.)

Finally, one other aspect dictated by the unique design of Decca cartridges is the fact that they do not have user-replaceable styli – like moving coil cartridges, they have to be returned to the manufacture for stylus renewal. Decca countered criticism of this by pointing out that any user-replaceable stylus cannot be located with sufficient precision without the necessary tools that only the manufacturer would possess. A useful benefit was that Decca would check all the internal parts and guarantee a performance as good as a new cartridge.


Installation and set-up

As can be appreciated from the above description of the operating principles of the Decca cartridge, they are not easy to install. First of all, in having two different generator mechanisms for horizontal (lateral) and vertical groove modulation, all Decca cartridges have separate and different compliance figures for these stylus motions. This in turn means that all pivoted pick up arms will, when used with a Decca cartridge, display two separate LF resonance frequencies. Furthermore, the compliance figures are pitifully low: 7.5cu vertical, 15cu lateral for the Gold. These are most likely static compliances so the dynamic values at 10Hz will be about half these values.

Both the Mk V and VI cartridges are designed to be used either with Decca arms or in arms that use ½” spaced screw fixings. When used with an early Decca arm the cartridge simply slides over the end of the arm, with the three spring contacts of the cartridge connecting with three contact pips at the end of the arm. When used in an SME arm or similar, Decca supply a plastic mounting bracket that slides into the end of the cartridge connecting the cartridge contacts to three pins, as well as providing the correct geometry for fitting into the headshell. The fit between this bracket and the cartridge itself is none too rigid, and in the days where rigidity was deemed paramount, this arrangement came in for much criticism. To provide an alternative mounting arrangement and to do something about the suspected resonant behaviour of the thin metal housing, GB, manufacturer of the highly regarded Zeta arm, produced a clamp or mounting block in which the Decca cartridge could be fitted. (Apparently the Decca cartridge was used extensively during the development of the Zeta arm.) I have used such a mounting block. The photo below shows the cartridge in the GB mounting block fitted into the Jelco EIA bayonet fitting headshell.

http://i780.photobucket.com/albums/yy88/barrydhunt/003.jpg?t=1279642768

The cartridge, mounting block and headshell weigh 22.2g - towards the upper limit of counterbalance of the SME arm, as this photo shows.

http://i780.photobucket.com/albums/yy88/barrydhunt/005-1.jpg?t=1279643292

I applied the suggested tracking force of 1.5g as recommended by Decca. I see no advantage in going for lower playing weights. Using too low a tracking force causes more record damage, than is caused by using too much.

Having balanced the arm in both planes and applied the correct playing weight, the cartridge azimuth has to be checked. I use a mirror to do this – obsessive users will need to use a double beam oscilloscope and a mono LP. Both the Jelco headshell and the SME arm have provision for azimuth adjustment. I used that on the SME arm rather than that on the headshell for the sake of expediency.

I found a bias setting of 0.75g was sufficient - half that of the playing weight.

Vertical tracking angle is a parameter that can obsess some people even to the extent of adjusting for each and every record! I’m happy to go along with the advice of the arm manufacturer (both Decca and SME) and arrange matters so that the arm is exactly parallel with the surface of the record. VTA is not the easiest of things to set on the older SME arms; the newer ones are much better in that regard. Under these conditions the azimuth adjustment on the Jelco headshell is well clear of the record surface, whereas the underside of the cartridge is only about 1mm clear; your records need to be flat, only the mildest of warp can be tolerated without the cartridge grounding.

We now come to the most difficult, cussed and time consuming part of the set up – that of adjusting for minimum tracking error. The Jelco headshell is slotted so as to adjust for the correct stylus to arm pivot distance commensurate with minimum deviation from true parallel tracking. I used the two-point alignment protractor provided by SME. And this is where the fun started. I found that when I tightened the second nut, the whole cartridge/GB block would slew or yaw slightly. This happened every time, no matter how careful I was. In the end I got around the problem by fitting two hard plastic washers under the nuts. To give you an idea of how time consuming all this was: I can tell you that it took me about ten minutes to fit the cartridge and GB block into the headshell; and over an hour to set the arm up!

Now having such a low compliance means that a lot of energy is extracted from the grooves, only a small fraction of which is converted into the electrical signal, the rest is ducted into the arm either to be absorbed in the arm, or near the pivot. As will become clear the cartridge arm resonant frequencies are on the high side, so I used an SME 3009/II arm fitted with the FD200 silicone fluid damping dashpot. With the possible exception of linear tracking arms Deccas benefit from some form of damping at or near the arm pivot. In the case of unipivot designs this is usually the case. I used the lightest damping, provided by using the black coloured paddle. Calculated LF resonance frequencies are 10.7Hz lateral, 15.2Hz vertical: on the high side suggesting that perhaps an additional mass of 12g might be beneficial.

As mentioned earlier the Deccas use a three-wire system, so what do you do with the fourth lead in the headshell? Depending on the amplifier, one can both ignore, and not fit the fourth wire (either the blue or green coloured return) or these two returns can be strapped together in the headshell. This is what I did, as can (just) be seen in the photo below. Doing such may actually create a hum loop – strictly speaking it did in my case, as the Quad 33 uses DIN connectors, with common signal returns. However in my system the hum was drastically reduced to near inaudible levels: and then only heard when a record was not being played and the volume turned up to maximum. Systems vary, so a certain amount of experimentation is required.

http://i780.photobucket.com/albums/yy88/barrydhunt/006.jpg?t=1279645413

Decca recommend a load impedance of 50kΩ. This is more or less the standard 47kΩ of most MM phono stages. I am (still) using my Quad 33 preamp, which offers an impedance of 68kΩ. It has been claimed by some that Deccas prefer looking into lower load impedances; indeed on a friend’s system, I found that 33kΩ seemed better. However in my system I found there was no audible change in varying the load impedance over the range 22kΩ to 68kΩ. I therefore left the load impedance at 68kΩ.

It is also claimed that the Decca is immune to additional capacitance. Most MM cartridges benefit from some additional capacitance to resonate with the coil inductance and reduce the HF rise. Usually this extra capacitance is 200-500pF. I did indeed found that adding capacitance around this value made no difference to the treble. To remove the treble ‘sting’, I found that it was necessary to add an enormous amount of capacitance: up to 10nF (= 10,000pF). The coil inductance of the Decca is 560mH, no different to most MM cartridges. Yes I know, I’ve done the sums and it doesn’t make any sense – but without it I found the Decca tiring to listen to. Deccas of this period displayed enormous sample-to-sample variation, especially in regard to the treble peak around 8kHz. My preference for a large amount of capacitive loading could well only apply to my sample.

So that is the installation and set up of the Decca Gold. You may feel that I have belaboured the installation but the Decca is unique and demands careful set. Tracking error, azimuth and VTA are all critical and if not set up properly will severely compromise both the performance and tracking ability.

Audition

Well after the protracted and detailed description of the installation, you are all no doubt champing at the bit to know what it sounds like; assuming that you haven’t fallen asleep reading this. The short answer is “absolutely marvellous”. All that Decca magic is there: jaw-dropping attack; transparency; detail and a sense of ‘presence’ that is uncanny. If I had to sum up the Decca in one word it would be: ‘exciting’.

Now I have experienced all this before. However, then, the ‘edge of your seat’ excitement was tempered by the feeling that the Decca was just on the verge of misbehaving and the whole system would fall over. The constant clash of excitement and apprehension was just too much and ultimately was a fatiguing experience – I couldn’t put up with it for long.

This time, possibly through taking greater care in set up and in trying to optimise operation conditions, I experienced none of these difficulties. Unlike some other cartridges, that are very good on resolution, attack and detail, the Decca doesn’t draw attention to itself –“Hey listen to me”, rather it’s more of a case of “Hey listen to this”. It has been stated elsewhere in this forum that if you think your system sounds good when heard from an adjoining room, then it is good. Several times when I was in the kitchen with the joining door open, I would think “this sound good, what am I doing here, I’m going through to listen to it properly.”

Quite simply I’ve never had so much fun playing records; in fact CDs have barely had a look in. I just wanted to hear what my records sounded like with the Decca – leading to many sessions lasting through to the early hours of the morning.

The percussive attack on instruments such as the piano or snare drum, cymbals and other percussive instruments just has to be heard to be believed. I will cite one example: the Curzon version of Grieg’s Piano Concerto (Decca SXL 2173). This is an excellent recording and always sounds good. Playing it with the Decca just gave me goose bumps and on reaching the finale, I was emotionally exhausted!

This is probably a good place to dismiss some of the myths surrounding the Decca. It has been claimed that the Decca sound best only when playing Decca recordings. Not so, I played recordings by most of the major companies: Philips, DGG, CBS, EMI, Verve, Blue Note, Atlantic, Mercury, as well as quite a few minor labels. They were all able to display the Decca ‘magic’.

Second, using a Decca will wear out or damage your records. Sadly, this myth continues to be promulgated by the publisher of a popular audio magazine. If record wear did occur, the cartridge must have been poorly set up, and maybe tracked with insufficient tracking force.

It is also claimed by some that the Deccas are unreliable, leading to the sarcastic saying that if you like using Deccas you should own three: one in use, one being repaired and the third in the post! I don’t know anyone who uses a Decca who has experienced this.

So is the Decca the “best thing since sliced bread”? No, of course not – the Decca displays some noticeable shortcomings. The most obvious is a compression of depth, most likely due to the poor crosstalk at high frequencies. The width of the soundstage is however sufficiently wide. Bass, whilst not being bloated, is not particularly taut or firm. There are some practical aspects to bear in mind: the Decca is totally unforgiving of poor or worn recordings. Your records must flat; even if the warp will clear the base of the cartridge, warp wow is quite disturbing and unpleasant. Furthermore, the very small clearance means that records must be clean and any fluff cleared from the stylus after playing each side.

Despite all this, the performance of the Decca over the mid-range along with the astounding attack, detail, dynamics and display of presence mitigates its shortcomings.

Will I be listening to nothing else from now on? Again no, I do like my EMT, Ortofon and Denon cartridges, and whilst they do not have the sheer presence of the Decca, they are in some ways more authoritative – I suspect they are tonally more accurate.

If all this has whetted your appetite to try a Decca – I’ve saved the best news for last. Following the sale of Decca to Sony/Polydor, Racal, then owners of Decca closed down the Special Products Division where the Deccas were made. The rights to manufacture of the Decca cartridge were sold to Peter Wright and Brian Smith under the ‘London’ name. These new Deccas, whilst being considerably more expensive, are now housed in a non-resonant machined aluminium block, enjoy a greater standard of workmanship, display less sample to sample variation and employ trouble free 4-wire connection.

John
20-07-2010, 19:26
Great review Barry If you go further up to something like a Jubilee the issues you mentioned no longer exist
For me the Decca allows music to flow they help bring me closer to the music

anthonyTD
20-07-2010, 19:30
very interesting and informative write up barry.
well done.
A...

DSJR
20-07-2010, 19:40
If you were able to compare Decca's to master tapes, you'd find that the supposed compression of spatial depth isn't really there, as many other cartridges put an "ambient halo" around everything. Just listen to the un-spoken channel of an instrument playing exclusively on the other - most, but not all, cartridges add something that isn't there in the recording. Sorry, but it's true.

The reliability issue was a definite thing in the eighties. My own Gold Microscanner failed (so did a mate's Maroon on his Rock/Excalibur) - sustained piano and guitar notes became buzzy. There are now people who can sort this, and mine was serviced (top magnet re-glued and a new lateral coil) three years ago, although I only tried it (for a laugh initially) this afternoon.

I could also be wrong here, but I believe the current standard models come with the Bastin Decca-Pod as mine has as standard, the flimsy plastic bracket now confined to history I believe.

The older conical tip Decca's (4RC?) were required to track at 3 grammes, although they can easily track properly at half that pressure. 1.5 for a Gold is fine I reckon.

Setup? I did my current "usual" and fitted it to the Nagaoka shell using three wires, setting the correct overhang without being manic about it and only using thin metal washers between shell and fixing nut.

Finally, I found these cartridges seem to work opposite to everything else. raise the arm and they go dull - lower it (or increase the tracking weight) seems to make them "sharper." A damped arm is mandatory I think and the Jelco 750 should be good, as a small amount of damping can be applied. I found the SME FD200 fluid as standard was a bit too thick, but you may have diluted it a little perhaps Barry?

Like you, I fitted my Decca in a fit of pique, not expecting it to like the R200 arm at all (decent headshell or no), yet it surpasses all my expectations. I'd be inclined to use "Phono 2" on the Quad 33 though, as surface "ticks and snaps" can be very strong on a Decca and overloading phono stages can get upset and ring (the ARC SP14 LOVED the Decca as the overload margin was 175mV or so IIRC - the Quad on Phono 1 is about 30mV as I remember).

Clive
20-07-2010, 22:32
Great review Barry If you go further up to something like a Jubilee the issues you mentioned no longer exist
For me the Decca allows music to flow they help bring me closer to the music
The horribly expensive Reference does even better, the bass gets really tight and dynamics are even better....but you'd hope that given the price.

I have a Reference running in a Terminator and a Jubilee in an OL Encounter mkIII. Surprisingly the Jubilee is well behaved in the OL. I find these two more modern models respond well to capacitance and resistive loading tweaks. Each has it's own phono stage, both are set to 33k, I find this fills out the bass a little, not a massive change though, 47k works well too. I run the Reference at about 150pF and the Jubliee at 200pF, this includes all leads etc. Addicted.

Great write up Barry!

Clive
21-07-2010, 07:51
I wanted to add....I find that my London Reference and Jubilee respond very obviously to VTA changes, note I'm not a VTA freak that changes setup for each LP so when I say there is a noticeable change, this is not subtle . The stylus profiles of the various Decca / London cartridges will have a significant impact on how sensitive they are to setup. The Super Gold and Jubilee are Line Contact, the Reference (this is not generally known) is a Paratrace.

DSJR
21-07-2010, 08:14
I believe the Microscanner is also a Paratrace, Shibata III or VDH style of profile.

quadsugdenman
21-07-2010, 08:56
Super explanation Barry and relives some of the joy/heartaches of owning Decca cartridges. I must admit sitting on the edge of my seat awaiting a problem that sometimes never came! When set up (more by luck than judgement in my case) in a Hadcock or Mayware Formula IV it sounded unbeleivably real to my ears. However it was stolen along with my TD160 and was replaced by flat earth technology of the early 80's!

DSJR
21-07-2010, 09:02
If anyone's interested in ancient Decca's, look at this Gramophone review from the late sixties -

http://www.gramophone.net/Issue/Page/September%201968/128/797893/TECHNICAL+REPORTS

and this fascinating Saturn Sound archive-

http://www.saturn-sound.com/history/hi-fi,%20reviews.htm

Clive
21-07-2010, 09:05
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/0609/london_super_gold_jubilee.htm

hifi_dave
21-07-2010, 10:54
Thank you Barry for that in depth, informative and interesting write up of Decca cartridges. I have been a long time fan of these wonderful cartridges and sold many during the 80's and continue to this day with the refined London models.

I have a few points to add.

The original Decca cartridges did tend to have reliability issues, which precluded selling them to all but the real enthusiast. The latest London cartridges do not have any such problems and are also very consistent. The latest London models also sound better than the Deccas, particular in the bass.

The Decca red plastic mounting bracket was designed to reduce the amount of energy sent back into the arm. With some arms this will be a better bet than using a clamp.

We have always used the Bastin Pod which slides onto the cartridge body after removing the lid. This holds the cartridge rigidly with no possibility of squashing the 'tin' body as can occur with screwed on clamps.

The London cartridges are available with standard plastic bracket or with the 'Deccapod, which is the Bastin design, fitted for an extra £100.

I have used Decca cartridges and now London cartridges for over 30 years and have not found any wear on my precious vinyl.

John
21-07-2010, 12:04
I have used Decca cartridges and now London cartridges for over 30 years and have not found any wear on my precious vinyl.

And so ends the myth of vinyl wear It might of been a issue in the early days but with the right arm and set up is not an issue.

REM
21-07-2010, 15:19
And so ends the myth of vinyl wear It might of been a issue in the early days but with the right arm and set up is not an issue.

KK interviewed John Wright in HFN back when the Reference was introduced and of course the vinyl wear question was raised. IIRC JW did conceed that there used to be problems but they had been ironed out since about 1980, which I think is when he took over production and the London range was introduced.

I have a Decca 'Stereo Spectacular' test record from '67 with a blank track for setting anti skate and assuming it was used by Decca owners it would seem the reputation is well deserved, the track looks like a ploughed field:doh:.

John
21-07-2010, 18:43
Yes I am sure it was a issue in the past but as you say not since 1980 Unfortunately it sometimes still gets labeled with this issue

Clive
21-07-2010, 20:06
The current Londons have "goo" inside them, I suspect this is damping. If a record wearing resonance issue every existed, which very debatable, this goo may be the fix.

Marco
21-07-2010, 21:27
Quality write-up, Barry. You've now whetted my appetite even more, so get it boxed up and sent to me pronto! :lolsign:

Marco.

The Grand Wazoo
27-02-2012, 01:16
From The Grave

DSJR
27-02-2012, 08:59
No need really... Modern London Decca's are still an acquired taste for many, since they do need dedicated arms and especially phono stages with high overload margins to give of their very best, but my Gawd, when you get it right..........

The funny thing is, a good Decca can easily show the colourations , both soft and "nice" as in Koetsu's of old and thinner and strident as in certain AT's, when I thought once that it would be thinner and more strident than the worst of the others...

Darren
27-02-2012, 19:42
My own Decca Gold remains lost in my office somewhere.if its been accidentally thrown away I'll go mental.
Have also missed a couple of vintage deccas on EBay recently as they are going for stupid money.

jandl100
28-02-2012, 07:40
I had a brief outing with an eBay-sourced Gold recently - but Dave DSJR advised that it was sub-par :( so I sent it back for (and received :)) a refund.

Nonetheless, if the sound of that Gold was even somewhat representative of a decently fettled one, then yes, I can understand some of the fuss, even though I am sure that mine was far from perfectly setup.

The immediacy and openness in the mids was good, but it was all a bit 'inyerface' and I retrenched with my Zu103 with a sense of relief.

Synergy is a funny thing, and I guess we all have our systems set up for the resident mix of kit - insert a component of different character and the whole shebang can get thrown off kilter.

If I'd realised the patience and perseverence that are needed to get these Deccas set up just right I never would have bothered in the 1st place!
Plug .... OK, fiddle a bit .... and play. That's me.

Clive
28-02-2012, 09:34
Nonetheless, if the sound of that Gold was even somewhat representative of a decently fettled one, then yes, I can understand some of the fuss, even though I am sure that mine was far from perfectly setup.

The immediacy and openness in the mids was good, but it was all a bit 'inyerface' and I retrenched with my Zu103 with a sense of relief.

A lot of that inyerface-ness is due to the cartridge housing which would give biscuit tins a bad name. There a guy on Lenco Heaven who's developed a new housing. If you compare a Super Gold to Jubilee you'd get to understand the potential...those 2 cartridges have identical innards and stylus; the only difference being the housing/body.

Marco
28-02-2012, 12:53
Yup - the materials cartridge bodies are made from have a huge and fundamental influence on the sound of cartridges, often more so than what type of stylus tips are used. I kid you not!

Marco.

jandl100
28-02-2012, 13:09
Yep, I know.

I've had two re-bodied Denon 103 carts now, and much as I love the standard 103, the insertion of the cart's guts into a massive aluminium body results in a similarly massive improvement in the sound!

Mileend
16-03-2012, 10:34
A lot of that inyerface-ness is due to the cartridge housing which would give biscuit tins a bad name. There a guy on Lenco Heaven who's developed a new housing. If you compare a Super Gold to Jubilee you'd get to understand the potential...those 2 cartridges have identical innards and stylus; the only difference being the housing/body.

Yes Clive I followed that thread on Lenco heaven but it involved chopping a few chunks of the Gold which looked a bit of hazardous DIY !

I had a C4E re-tipped with a line contact recently by John Wright and it blew away my Gold with the same stylus. I suspect the solid case of the C4E is a major factor. I have a second C4e for John to put a paratrace on !

ps Cannot speak highly enough about John Wright's workmanship and service - you get your cartridges back within a week at a reasonable cost (not like the 3/4 months wait with ESC who incidentally do not retip Decca's anymore referring the work to John ! )

Mervyn

Barry
17-03-2012, 01:57
Yes Clive I followed that thread on Lenco heaven but it involved chopping a few chunks of the Gold which looked a bit of hazardous DIY !

I had a C4E re-tipped with a line contact recently by John Wright and it blew away my Gold with the same stylus. I suspect the solid case of the C4E is a major factor. I have a second C4e for John to put a paratrace on !

ps Cannot speak highly enough about John Wright's workmanship and service - you get your cartridges back within a week at a reasonable cost (not like the 3/4 months wait with ESC who incidentally do not retip Decca's anymore referring the work to John ! )

Mervyn

Interesting findings Mervyn,

I have some experience with both the Mk VI and the Mk I. The Mk IV, in the form of the H4E is a superb cartridge, and in some ways better than the Mk VI. The important point here is it was designed to operate with the ffss arm, and as such does so impeccably.

The Gold (the Mk. VI) builds on the Mk IV, but requires considerable care in setup and use. It should not be dismissed!

The Mark V and Mk. VI suffered enormous sample-to-sample variation, and should not be dismissed as such.

anthonyTD
17-03-2012, 11:52
I had a brief outing with an eBay-sourced Gold recently - but Dave DSJR advised that it was sub-par :( so I sent it back for (and received :)) a refund.

Nonetheless, if the sound of that Gold was even somewhat representative of a decently fettled one, then yes, I can understand some of the fuss, even though I am sure that mine was far from perfectly setup.

The immediacy and openness in the mids was good, but it was all a bit 'inyerface' and I retrenched with my Zu103 with a sense of relief.

Synergy is a funny thing, and I guess we all have our systems set up for the resident mix of kit - insert a component of different character and the whole shebang can get thrown off kilter.

If I'd realised the patience and perseverence that are needed to get these Deccas set up just right I never would have bothered in the 1st place!
Plug .... OK, fiddle a bit .... and play. That's me.
Its a wonder you have any refrence to relate to with the amount of kit thats gone through your hands over the years.:eyebrows::)
Just an observation.:lol:
A...

Mileend
18-03-2012, 23:10
Interesting findings Mervyn,

I have some experience with both the Mk VI and the Mk I. The Mk IV, in the form of the H4E is a superb cartridge, and in some ways better than the Mk VI. The important point here is it was designed to operate with the ffss arm, and as such does so impeccably.

The Gold (the Mk. VI) builds on the Mk IV, but requires considerable care in setup and use. It should not be dismissed!

The Mark V and Mk. VI suffered enormous sample-to-sample variation, and should not be dismissed as such.

Hi Barry
Totally agree concerning the Gold. It is definitely not a plug and play cartridge but rewards careful setup and matching. Not given up by any means and have a NA Mentor arm to try it with and with my GB clamp and a cartridge isolator.

In contrast the Mk4 just seemed to work straight out of the box !

Best
Mervyn