No cartridge is good enough.

Here’s an alternate thought: Although the cartridge’s challenges and shortcomings are well known, perhaps it has a decided advantage in the symmetry of the kinetics at both ends of the signal chain: The cartridge traces the physical analog of the recording, which creates an electromagnetically induced  signal stream. This is amplified and tranferred to the loudspeakers, where the signal excites the electromagnetic fields of the loudspeakers to make music in the room.  

Analog tape and digital playback don’t have this physical motion that starts the music. A cartridge tracing an LP has something in common with live music in that both sources are physical vibrations.

In my arrogance, I started a thread a number of years ago suggesting that perhaps cartridge and speakers should be matched in some way.
I didn't really want to go into this, though tape/direct to disc comparison would be interesting. It might also be, all other things being equal, that this would not be better/worse outcome but simply somewhat different presentation. Maybe it would even depend on the kind of music being recorded, I don't know. 
Next thing we should start talking about, I guess, are microphones. And microphone amps.

In a round table discussion of some mastering experts (reported by TAS of S'phile a few years ago), in response to a question about unique properties of vinyl vs. digital or analog tape, Bernie Grundman theorized that the kinetic aspect of the signal generated by the phono cartridge "preconditions" the signal to match what our ears and brains expect.

Next thing we should start talking about, I guess, are microphones. And microphone amps.

Good point. I can't remember where I read it, but somebody (e.g., Fremer or Reichert) mentioned that one reason mono and early stereo recordings sound so real and immediate is because--before the age of multi-channel, multi-mic recording--these recordings only went through three or so mic preamps rather than a couple dozen.