No cartridge is good enough.


It appears that even the very best can't extract everything from the groove. Yes, along with table/arm.
Is there any way, theoretically speaking, to take cartridge design and execution to a much higher level?
What about laser instead of cartridge/arm? I know there was/is one company that tried. It didn't sound better and required cleaning records before each play. But laser could be improved. This approach didn't take off, it would seem.
inna
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.


The simple fact that we continually find yet even more music as we dig deeper into the grooves don't strike me as a problem, but rather a blessing and a quest.