What is the “World’s Best Cartridge”?

In the other side and talking of that specs " tree " in those old times the Studer R2R mike owns were not designed for home use by audiophiles but to be used by recording studios and Studer was not the only R2R with the quality levels for that kind of job because were deep quality competition with true challenges for every R2R manufacture. So the specs Studer gaves to the recording studios were the best they achieved on those times to competes against other manufacturer machines. That was the overall context on that Studer issue.

Ralph, I appreciated that this time you posted with a good attitude and not trying to hit me and that’s why I give my answer.

Probably those mike’s Studer performs a little better but even that is not a today reference and cant compete in any room/system with what I posted: reference is the digital medium other than live MUSIC.

@mikelavigne 

@rauliruegas I get all that you are saying about tape degradation. But your comment in the last paragraph really isn't correct. If you spent some time recording live with such equipment you would know why- they can be so beguiling that you can be easily fooled into thinking that what you are hearing on the headphones is real as opposed to a recording. Yes, they are that good.

A direct lathe cut is even better as it is lower noise and wider bandwidth.

But for the most part, regular audiophiles in the trenches never get to hear what such equipment is really all about and how real the recordings they make actually sound. In the studio, if the engineer is careful, the big difference between digital, tape and the mastering lathe is cost, not sound. Again if you doubt this, I advise spending some time around such equipment to get to know the ropes. FWIW I've managed recording studios since the mid 1970s.

Dear @atmasphere  : My knowledge level on the recording proccess is really poor, so I can't technically understand some issues you posted.

I remember that when I posted that a difference  in digital recording for the better was that bass range can be recorded stereo due that digital has no limitation as analog that always needs the bass range mono  and you posted that even that it could be that way normally digital comes in mono too due that the cost goes to high and in the other side engeeners are a little lazy to do it in the rigth way.

I know for your posts that you are a little biased/oriented through  LP instead digital. Obviously that you have your reasons but even that and even my recording knowledge about still it's not clear for me you last paragraph:

"" the big difference between digital, tape and the mastering lathe is cost, not sound.  ""

Ok, what if cost no object? still no quality differences between tape/analog and digital?

If we take the frequency ranges in the bass range it's clear an advantage of digital recording against analog and is something that any one can be aware through playback in our home system.

Now, I don't posted that the Studer is a bs of machine but that from some time now ( last around 10 years. ) it's not any more the quality reference due the huge digital improvements.

I still own several Telarc LPs that were recorded at the end of the 70's and early 80's. All were recorded with the PCM Soundstream ( pediestran if you like ) digital recorder and if you listen to some of those Telar's you be aware of its very high quality performance and after all those years those zeros and ones stay exactly the same and unaltered.

Next I paste what the Telarc engeeners explained on each LP about digital recording and the Soundstream specs. In my point of view and inside all my knowledge limitations those words are still in " good shape " and not only that but improved everything against those 16 bits to today PCM 32/384 or 4X DSD.

Analog can't compete against it and I don't have and even do not read yet any real/true evidence in favor of analog/tape vs digital: even human been has in the deep/internal ear an ADC because it's in digital way how the whole brain assimilates every kind of sound:

I repeat, cost no object because the issue is more important to define one s and for ever that digital today is the reference. It's not only your opinion, other audiophiles opinions or my opinion because it's not a matter of who is rith or wrong but where is the true.

What says your common sense? that the apple does not comes down the tree by gravity effects?

The overall subject could be controversial, what's not controversial is the reality behind those vintage analog recorder machines.

R.

@atmasphere : You was in recording studios from the 70’s and maybe you knew or meet J.Renner or S.Ricker both were involved in almost all the Telarc digital LP recordings, the former as the sound engineering and Stan at the mastering job.

A few years ago FIM label made a re-issue of the 1812 where were as advisors S.Ricker and J.Blloomenthal. This one member of the Telar recording team as digital recording and editing job along that Jules was the co-designer of the Soundstream digital recorder.

Obviously that I would like to know what all those elarc team members think about the analog tape vs digital recorders.

Btw, even that the FIM re-issue comes in a 200grs. vinyl ( I think the original came in 120grs. vinyl. )  and that was mastered trhough an " ultra high definition 32-bit mastering and with D.Sax as mastering engineer differences in between the original LP and the re-issue is way difficult to really say: here is better than there, at least in my room/system. The original 1812 LP is part of my whole evaluation/comparison proccess tests so I really know it as the fingers of my hands. The comparison sessions tells me that the Telarc original recording team were truly excellent.

If you don’t own both LPs try to buy it and listen to it, a fun and good experience. I'm sure that the experience could be a challenge even for the most demanding audiophiles as @mikelavigne  and ceratinly a full challenge for any room/system speacially for the cartridges/tonearms.

Anyway, what I still can’t get on your statement:

"" big difference between digital, tape ........ is cost, not sound. ""

Yes, my poor knowledge level but how comes that if the digital signal recorded is immutable to all the tape drawbacks and compared vs an analog recorded signal that is affected/degraded for each one of those drawbacks differences is " not sound ", how comes?

R.

Yes, I've met Stan. He was very nice, liked our room and Canto General which I played for him.

If you think digital is 'immutable' think again- why do people endlessly talk about which site has the better file to stream, which CD is the better version, the different sound of DACs and so on. Stan and I both sought out when mastering LPs the digital source file that lacked the DSP for the digital release because the DSP messed up the result- you could make a better sounding LP without it.

I remember that when I posted that a difference  in digital recording for the better was that bass range can be recorded stereo due that digital has no limitation as analog that always needs the bass range mono  and you posted that even that it could be that way normally digital comes in mono too due that the cost goes to high and in the other side engeeners are a little lazy to do it in the rigth way.

I missed this earlier.

@rauliruegas Emphasis added. This is a common myth. Tape is analog and does not need any mono bass. The reason it can show up on LP is to save time but you don't need to do that if you simply spend time with the project and look into ways to prevent out-of-phase bass from knocking the stylus out of the groove.

There's a number of ways to do that: rest set the groove depth to be deeper, perhaps cut the passage or project about 1dB lower- that doesn't sound like much but 3dB doubles the amount of modulation in the groove so 1dB less modulation can have an enormous effect!.

FWIW where this is really a problem if you are in a hurry to master the LP is below 80Hz- in most rooms its of no consequence. At that frequency the bass note is 14 feet long, and it takes several iterations of the bass note for the ear to know what the bass note is- by that time, the bass in most rooms is entirely ambient so mono bass is inaudible. Subwoofers take advantage of this fact all the time. At any rate the processor that does the mono bass is a passive device. Our processor (which we found we never used) would mono the bass only for a few milliseconds.

So when you are commenting about these things, its best to be informed- keep this in mind with future posts.