LONDON Decca, Tzar DST and similar cartridges


I have always been curious about these phono cartridges and the Stereophile review of the Tzar DST has heightened my interest. When I read about the peculiarities of these cartridges, I am put off from trying them. Can anyone offer persuasive reasons to try them and also provide real practical advice on how to make them work reliably?  Tonearm suggestions? Phono preamp suggestions? Damping recommendations? How badly do they grind out record grooves?  Any other words of advice? Thanks. 
128x128kmccarty
I have the London Decca Reference
http://i.imgur.com/KNDkQoV.jpg
and Jonathan Valin fairly nailed it in his review late 2008
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/london-reference-phono-cartridge/
I don’t hold with all the current theories and folk-lore about cartridge and tonearm matching.
In my experience of a dozen tonearms and over 70 cartridges of all types.....I have HEARD the results of supposedly ’kosher’ and ’unkosher’ combinations and it is my view that the very best tonearms will work with every single cartridge regardless of weight and compliance. Because of the different cartridge body materials utilised by manufacturers....the headshell material of the tonearm greatly affects the ’matching’ to the tonearm.
Because most modern high-end tonearms don’t have interchangeable headshells, the majority of high-end audiophiles are at the mercy of poor cartridge/headshell compatibility.....NOT tonearm compatibility.
So I have my Decca London Ref mounted on my Dynavector DV-507/II which is a mighty weighty arm with extreme rigidity (particularly in the horizontal plane).
None of my arms utilises damping and three of the unipivots I owned which used it were a PITA 😡
The Decca London is one of the lightest cartridges I have owned so you will need a counterweight and arm which can balance this.

When I first mounted it, it certainly DID emphasise many more clicks and pops than I was ever aware of on my favourite discs. But after 10 hours or so of run-in....this flaw diminished.
What it also does is reveal any damaged groove wall on a particular disc......damage which is not revealed by any other cartridge.
But this has occurred (so far) only on my favourite 45 year-old test record...and only on a few grooves.
I think this may be the genesis of the ’myth’ that the Decca London "grinds out record grooves"....
It is also true that it picks up groove dirt and dust faster than others and it will repay you handsomely if you brush, dip in Magic Eraser and finally Onzow ZeroDust after every side.
The only shortcoming of the cartridge which may bother some, is its narrow soundstage.
There is plenty of soundstage depth but any width beyond your speakers is unrealised terrain.

That being said.....the Decca London Reference is perhaps the most ’alive’ cartridge you will hear. It is much more aligned to the great vintage MMs of the past in that respect, than to modern LOMCs and that pleases me enormously. 
Everyone speaks of its amazing midrange but it is certainly no slouch in the bass department...😍
For demanding classical recordings.....whether individual instruments, trios and quartets or full-blown orchestral extravaganzas.....it is unsurpassed in my experience.

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.    

Thanks for your responses. I have read that SME arms are a good match, any thoughts about that ? Or, as bdp24 says, is it best to specifically outfit arm and table for these cartridges?