pink fish media

Go Back   pink fish media > discussion > classic

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #91  
Old 20-03-17, 09:18 AM
Tony L Tony L is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 55,060
I want to try and understand exactly what the Decca wants in an arm before making any decisions there. I'm also kind of tied in some respects as my TD-124 looks so damn cool I'm very reluctant indeed to break the 1965-66 aesthetic with a modern arm. The C4E is an experiment, a way to dip my toes in the water in a very easy way as I don't need to change anything else to get it to work. If I really like it and feel it could be my only cart then I may try to hunt down a Mk IV head and use it with a period correct Decca arm, though the lack of anti-skate worries me a little.

The weird thing with Deccas is there seems to be a whole range of different views as to what the ideal arm is. Low mass uni-pivot Hadcocks are a very popular choice and apparently work well, though I've also seen folk rave about them in 774s, or Zetas, Fidelity Research, Schick and other high-mass arms. My SME is a medium mass (12.5g) arm so massier that a Hadcock or 774, a bit lighter than a Zeta and way lighter than a FR or Schick. I'd be interested to know the mass of the Decca FFSS or Professional arm as one would expect them to know what they were doing! I obviously understand mass is but one factor, but given the Decca's different behaviour vertically and laterally I'm curious as to what the best figure is. I assume a lot were used in 3009s and 3012s at the time as that was the default decent arm of the day.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 20-03-17, 09:22 AM
Patrick Dixon Patrick Dixon is offline
Imagineer
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,471
Decca Mission so far:



AFAIU the Decca arm has a magnetic bias/anti-skate
__________________
Citizen of the World, Enemy of the People.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 20-03-17, 09:25 AM
smegger68 smegger68 is offline
Mango Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 653
My Decca has been in a few arms but works best in either high mass or damped arms. It's currently in a Kuzma Stogi S unipivot with a lot of silicone damping and sounds lovely. It worked well in a damped Hadcock too. It was less happy in a Technoarm but worked well in a Jelco 750, even better when a little damping was applied.

In theory, the SME is a suspect choice being as it has knife edge vertical bearings likely to be rattled badly by all the energy the Decca is going to put through them. If you have the damping trough I imagine it will work a lot better. Of course, people do use them in 3009 II's all the time so YMMV
__________________
The Dutch are weeping in four languages at least.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 20-03-17, 11:33 AM
Tony L Tony L is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 55,060
Mine is the heavier earlier 1962-71 3009, not the low mass 'Improved' (though I have a couple of those too):



A cartridge would really have to go some to rattle the knife-edge (which I'm convinced internet myth, the top-arm assembly must weigh 200g or so). Any play will actually be in the lateral bearings, which are not the best. I've actually got a set of new higher-spec lateral ball-races to fit to it when I can be bothered taking it to bits again! I suspect the main issues with 3009s are resonances elsewhere, and I'd certainly never argue it was the best arm in the world. The picture above shows the 3009 with a DL-103 (with an additional 9g headshell mass, hence the counterweight being so far back) in it and it worked rather well to my ears, etter than I've had out of a 103 in other arms. The 103 is a lot lower compliance than a Decca which is why I'm curious as to the ideal mass for this cart. I've no damping facility.

I understand from things I've read that there are situations where a Decca 'dance' (visibly wobble and mistrack) when the mass/compliance is hopelessly wrong, so I'd obviously like to avoid this area!

Anyone know how heavy the C4E body is and what its lateral compliance is? I'm assuming it is quite heavy from looking at it/its construction. I realise the vertical compliance is very low/boderline non-existent, but if I can get figures for the weight and lateral compliance I can probably figure out where issues may lie and maybe how to avoid them.

Edit: Just spotted Graham Tricker's post on page 2: Looks like vertical falls between 4-7cu depending on model and lateral between 12-15cu. Probably best to build the arm quite 'heavy' then with the additional rider-weight. I may need that anyway just to balance it out if it is as heavy as it looks!
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 20-03-17, 11:48 AM
Patrick Dixon Patrick Dixon is offline
Imagineer
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,471
An (S)C4e weighs 12.7gm. I ran one in my SME S2 Imp with a damping trough for a while, and it worked surprisingly well, although not as well as in the 774.

The 4 series are much heavier than the gold/red etc 5s.
__________________
Citizen of the World, Enemy of the People.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 20-03-17, 11:55 AM
topoxforddoc topoxforddoc is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,480
Tony,

As promised, here is some information.

1) First up a photo of my Decca C4E mounted in my Hadcock - please note that I had J7 rewire my Hadcock with both earth leads going to a single cartridge clip.



2) Set -up

I track my rebuilt C4E (fine line as opposed to paratrace) at 1.8g, as suggested by JW. He recommended 33k loading and 220 pf capacitance (although the capacitance was only ever published for the Super Gold and JW said in his emails to me that the MkIV should be very similar 100-300 pf with 220 pF optimum)

Good luck

Charlie

PS Stunsworth is right - buy a Hadcock!
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 20-03-17, 12:01 PM
Jonathan Jonathan is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 476
word has it the well tempered arm is especially good as a decca or strain gauge cartridge platform ... would love to hear that setup.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 20-03-17, 12:06 PM
topoxforddoc topoxforddoc is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
word has it the well tempered arm is especially good as a decca or strain gauge cartridge platform ... would love to hear that setup.
I can see that working as the WT is effectively an inverted unipivot suspended on a thread (bit like the early 2 thread Schroeders) and damped by the golf ball in the trough.

I have used my Deccas in a Schroeder Model 2 to good effect, whislt my 1970s vintage Hadcock was u/s.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 20-03-17, 12:08 PM
Jonathan Jonathan is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 476
Quote:
Originally Posted by topoxforddoc View Post
I can see that working as the WT is effectively an inverted unipivot suspended on a thread (bit like the early 2 thread Schroeders) and damped by the golf ball in the trough.

I have used my Deccas in a Schroeder Model 2 to good effect, whislt my 1970s vintage Hadcock was u/s.
i was thinking of the 'classic' WT but the 'arnold palmer' edition is close enough

apparently old american lenco tonearms (something popular as of late - don't ask me why) are a nightmare with deccas
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 20-03-17, 12:42 PM
Tony L Tony L is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 55,060
All good info, many thanks.

I googled-up a 1967 Hi-Fi News review of the C4E so some good specs and info here (page 1, page 2). Very interesting for me as the test rig was a TD-124 and a 3009 Series II, i.e. my deck! Also interesting to note they had issues with the cart in the earlier and higher-mass Series I SME, i.e. taking the mass upwards is likely not a good idea.

I'll need to decide whether to use the additional rider-weight or not. At 13g I may have to in order not to have the counterweight too far out back and it will be easier to get correct lateral balance weight too (the setting everyone forgets when setting up a SME!). My pic above is of the arm with a 8.5g DL-103 plus 2x 4.4g SME headshell weights, i.e. it is balancing out just under 19g of cartridge. The rider is fitted and the counterweight weight assembly ended up a bit further back than I'd like. I guess really I'll need to try both ways and see which works best.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 20-03-17, 04:18 PM
Tony L Tony L is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 55,060
Aaargh, I may have hit an issue. I've just read a few comments that it is not possible to use a Decca with the green cast-iron sub platter on the TD-124 due to the magnets being too strong. Can anyone confirm or deny this? I have got an alloy platter but I really don't want to refit it as it sounds so naff compared to the iron one. It is a total PITA to accurately centre too. With many MC carts the iron platter is no issue, e.g. with a DL-103 (or SPU) it equates to about 0.5g pull, so I just factor that in when setting the weight (I set the weight with the top platter off and the scales at the exact height of a record).

I need to figure this one out in advance if it's a no deal I'll not even fit it and just bounce it out for sale again. I certanly don't want to run the risk of trashing it.

Edit: Just found a reference in Joachim Bung's TD-124 book that the magnetic attraction for an FFSS is 5g! This is a non-starter without fitting the alloy platter then. Annoyed I didn't do sufficient research before buying, but at least I've not trashed the thing!
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 20-03-17, 04:28 PM
JemHayward JemHayward is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,474
I've returned to using my Decca Gold after probably twenty years of moving coils. I've had, Linn Asak, then Asak with ESCO stylus, then Lyra Lydian, Lydian Beta, Denon DL103, Zu/Denon 103, and finally ESCO Zu/Denon DL103 with sapphire cantilever and paratrace stylus. I still think that the Decca is the best of the lot, even if it does have some issues with tracking on some albums. Arms I've used with the Decca: Audiocraft (Ultracraft) AC300, Hadcock, Linn Ittok, Naim ARO, and now the dramatically mis-matched Transcriptors Vestigial. It sounds superb. I think that the different vertical vs horizontal compliance means that you really have to suck it and see. Arms I've had issues with have been SME3009 (not sure which one, but likely an early one...), Acos Lustre, and it's Rega derivative. I also briefly tried it in a Rega RB300 and it didn't seem to be too happy there either. I've heard one (not mine) in a Decca International, and it sounded very fine. I suspect the Decca arm is under-rated - it was very cheap at one stage, I wish I'd bought one. The Vestigial is so odd, it cannot really be compared with anything else. It works, but one album did, I think, set off a resonance problem.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 21-03-17, 01:25 AM
thebiglebowski thebiglebowski is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,929
I'm using a Decca Gold with an Audio Note Arm one v2 and it works really well despite the lack of damping and the fact the AN is barely a unipivot.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 21-03-17, 01:39 AM
Patrick Dixon Patrick Dixon is offline
Imagineer
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,471
You won't trash a Decca by running it at too high a VTF. There is no cantilever and they are pretty robust.
__________________
Citizen of the World, Enemy of the People.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 21-03-17, 02:40 AM
awkwardbydesign awkwardbydesign is offline
Officially Awesome
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Dixon View Post

AFAIU the Decca arm has a magnetic bias/anti-skate
I believe it is only the Decca International Tonearm (unipivot) that has the magnetic bias. I have one and it handles the Supergold well.
__________________
ABD.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
pink fish media