London Decca Super Gold.

white-socks

white-socks

Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
188
Reaction score
0
Location
Torquay, Devon.
Hi,


Anyone here heard the London Decca Super Gold? I see you can get them brand new on some websites.



Our turntable is a Townshend Rock II with a PU7 tonearm. I've read that Decca's go well with the Rock turntables.

Kind Regards.
 
I've had an 80s SG with Van Den Hul stylus, SG Microscanner and the current SG.
Brilliant and horrible all rolled into one IMO.

I've found them fine on mono or narrow stereo recordings but prone to distortion and break-up on some stereo cuts.

The main reason is the very limited vertical compliance which limits tracking - the vertical component is responsible for producing two channels from the single groove.

So stunning on old 50s and 60s mono stuff but very variable on anything more modern.

The closest I've heard in delivery from a 'normal' cartridge is the Dynavector DV17 moving coil, though I've not heard the latest Mk3. Very Decca-like without the negatives.
 
I'm using a Gold, rather than a Super Gold, and am very much enjoying it. I'm not (yet?) having the problems Rob mentions. Could be that it is very arm dependant. What I have found is that it is much more sensitive to setup than other carts I've used recently (DV17 & AT33PTG), particularly VTA.
 
My kit is similar to the above, namely Rock 2 with Rega 300 (standard) and Decca Gold. This sounds great - dynamic and 'natural' sounding - and a vg front end for the money. The damping in a Rock makes the Decca 'undeccalike'. Ive had the Decca on a Morch Unipivot 3 on a Cranfield Rock and that was superlative.
My other 2 carts are AT33PTG and DV17D2 which are similar in ability but different in (tonal) presentation though more expensive than the Decca (s/h). They are in TD124s.
If forced to choose I would plump for the AT out of the three.
I would NOT use the Decca in anything other than a Rock (in which it sounds like a
good MC).
 
There are two cartridges that blow the socks of any others I have used in my PL71. My mc reference is Ortophon SPU Gold and my mm reference is Decca London Super Gold. I have tried numerous others but nothing approaches the *musical* performance of either of them within their genre.

If faced with an ultimate choice it would be very difficult to choose betwen the two, even though they are different. Luckily I need both as test vehicles for development and testing of mm and mc circuits.

Neither cartridge mistracks in any way or has any other frequency, design or construction anomolies as compared with any other cartridges.
 
Stuart said:
I'm using a Gold, rather than a Super Gold, and am very much enjoying it. I'm not (yet?) having the problems Rob mentions. Could be that it is very arm dependant. What I have found is that it is much more sensitive to setup than other carts I've used recently (DV17 & AT33PTG), particularly VTA.
Click to expand...

There are well known technical issues with them - virtually no vertical compliance will make them more prone to mistracking/distortion where there is strong left/right channel difference on the record.
The design was originally for mono records for which they work very well. They were later modified for stereo use but the design could only be pushed so far.
They can certainly sound excellent much of the time but I find anything but the VDH or Microscanner versions far to compromised. The thin metal body also contributes to the sound in a negative way - the clamp type mountings can help in that regard. But I'm very picky with cartridges and find most sold to sound poor, and a first rate ML, VDH or Gyger type tip is always essential for clean sound IME.
Deccas certainly suit some arms more than others, but arm choice and care over set-up cannot replace technical failings whihc are audible.
 
I have to say that my experience (with a London Jubilee) is that it takes some setting up but once you have it right it is a joy to listen to.
 
The Jubilee interests me - how does it compare to standard Londons?
 
RobHolt said:
There are well known technical issues with them - virtually no vertical compliance will make them more prone to mistracking/distortion where there is strong left/right channel difference on the record.
The design was originally for mono records for which they work very well. They were later modified for stereo use but the design could only be pushed so far.
They can certainly sound excellent much of the time but I find anything but the VDH or Microscanner versions far to compromised. The thin metal body also contributes to the sound in a negative way - the clamp type mountings can help in that regard. But I'm very picky with cartridges and find most sold to sound poor, and a first rate ML, VDH or Gyger type tip is always essential for clean sound IME.
Deccas certainly suit some arms more than others, but arm choice and care over set-up cannot replace technical failings whihc are audible.
Click to expand...
That is not true and out of date thinking. The original Deccas are not the same as the later ones, there is now enough vertical compliance. There are no more techical compromises than in any other design, in fact IMO far less. The lack of cantilever make the immediacy of the cartridges response astonishing and far ahead of *anything* else. I agree though that some of the stylus profile choices limited things a little.

I have never known my two Deccas (I own a Gold as well) to mistrack on anything including direct cut acetates that are cut at an astonishingly high level. Almost all this talk about Deccas is presumption or lack of understanding.
 
Vertical compliance is around 4cu - that's piss poor and needs excessive VTF to give even reasonable results on stereo.

Also depends what you regard as mistracking Richard and how much the distortion produced bothers you.

The lack of cantilever isn't really the issue, moving mass is the issue and that is no better than many other cartridges and worse than many MCs.

So the best ones can sound very good but certainly have their very audible issues.
 
You should read this then you might understand a little more about the subject.

http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/ortodeccatan.html

There is *no* audible tracking error on any Decca London cartridge I have tried apart from on the early conicals, but that is stylus not cartridge related. If you use them in an innapropriate arm then you may have some problem, but that is just down to knowledge and skill.
 
My understanding on this fine - it is a pet subject.

*All* cartridges produce tracking and tracing distortions and there are no exceptions. The only way to minimise the tracing distortions is to use a stylus with an ultra fine scanning radius of around 2.5-3um, or as close as you can get to the cutter.

I hear distortions from all elliptical tips, let alone conicals and the same goes for many extended profiles, which still leave the minor radius too large. Good set up and arm choice does not eliminate the problem which is one of the stylus being unable to trace short wavelengths.
If you doubt this, just look at the distortion produced by most phono cartridges - including Deccas - and you'll see >10% thd at HF - yes 10%.
Now if you are saying that is ok then fine, but I want better, and you can get better.

I never buy a cartridge unless it carries a top class Gyger, VDH or ML tip - if the stylus is incapable of tracing the groove then it doesn't matter how good the rest of the cartridge is. I make exceptions for low priced cartridges but even then you should insist on a special swept elliptical as on the Denon 110 as a minimum.
 
RobHolt said:
My understanding on this fine - it is a pet subject.

*All* cartridges produce tracking and tracing distortions and there are no exceptions. The only way to minimise the tracing distortions is to use a stylus with an ultra fine scanning radius of around 2.5-3um, or as close as you can get to the cutter.

I hear distortions from all elliptical tips, let alone conicals and the same goes for many extended profiles, which still leave the minor radius too large. Good set up and arm choice does not eliminate the problem which is one of the stylus being unable to trace short wavelengths.
If you doubt this, just look at the distortion produced by most phono cartridges - including Deccas - and you'll see >10% thd at HF - yes 10%.
Now if you are saying that is ok then fine, but I want better, and you can get better.

I never buy a cartridge unless it carries a top class Gyger, VDH or ML tip - if the stylus is incapable of tracing the groove then it doesn't matter how good the rest of the cartridge is. I make exceptions for low priced cartridges but even then you should insist on a special swept elliptical as on the Denon 110 as a minimum.
Click to expand...
Well we have different priorities, I really couldn't give a toss what your test equipment says, I listen to music, which lets face it is the reason I and most people use the damn stuff in the first place. All this staring at screens and gauges is just an anally retentive waste of time, if all you want to do is listen to music. In which case it is the better music that wins and that very rarely shows any correlation with bloody silly specs.

For some music I personally still love listening to a Shure M3D, conical chisel and all, it just boogies.
 
Hmm..... the test equipment and screens merely confirm what the ears are detecting - distortion. The tests simply prove that what is audible is in fact reality.

I also love the M3D but in a glass display cabinet museum relic kinda way :)

I have an M7 here somewhere.....
 
RobHolt said:
Hmm..... the test equipment and screens merely confirm what the ears are detecting - distortion. The tests simply prove that what is audible is in fact reality.

I also love the M3D but in a glass display cabinet museum relic kinda way :)

I have an M7 here somewhere.....
Click to expand...
You are deluding yourself, it is expectation bias introduced by your measurements :p
 

Latest posts

Back
Top