This is the kind of thing that we tend to fall back on the word "magic" for (a magical word). I think it's a kind of realism that's present in any good design or artistic performance. A good sports car feels like it isn't there, even though of course you're flying down the highway. The design allows the car to get out of its own way. A great musician can seem to be channeling the music rather than producing it. Sometimes a good song appears to write itself, choosing it's author rather than the other way around. The Zyx UNI Optimum (what on Earth will he name the next one?) appears to have that same quality. All of a sudden the music just feels right, or real, or present, or however you want to say it.
so to break it down more tightly, I'd just say there's a sense of greater detail in this cartridge, but without seeming exaggerated ('analytical'). The bass and midrange both have a resonant quality that I haven't heard before. You not only hear the front edge of the notes and all of its "slam" but also the resonance that comes afterwards. It's convincing and something new in my audio journey. Full midrange glory without skimping on the ends of the spectrum either. That is perhaps the most apparent and important quality of the sound that I've heard so far (not even 15 LPs yet!). Here's one more thing. This cartridge separates the instruments in a way that is profound but also natural. I've owned another popular one (I won't name names but its initials are AT ART9) that does separation so well that it seems forced, as if the musicians are playing on different stages. not so here.
I'll stop there. I think the OP did a very good job of describing this cartridge and its strengths, and he braved the inevitable blowback to anyone extolling the virtues of a mega-costly and exclusive piece of audio gear. I understand the criticism and I wrestled with the issue quite a bit before deciding to make the move up the Zyx chain (and yes I do think it goes in that direction). I felt skeptical that any great stride could be made at this level, and for once I began to think that I was acting like an addict or a fool and not a rational consumer. (Well I guess that ship probably sailed a long time ago, but still). It's obviously reasonable to question the validity of these kinds of prices for a piece of gear, especially when it's the most delicate and potentially short-lived item that you'll buy. Most people would reasonably want to avoid spending that much on an entire audio system. And no question that the markup in high-end audio is sometimes (often?) exorbitant and even exploitive. But on the other hand there are intangibles in a product like this that are very difficult to tag with a monetary value. What price the work of a craftsman at the top of his game, honing the craft in a way that few people can?
Jeez, I had no intention of going on like this but it's an interesting thread. I agree with you @nandric that our language can be imprecise and that comparisons are a bit of a crutch. But conversely, academic training can just as well produce rigidity and tunnel vision so I applaud the efforts here, even if they're imperfect. (my own comments are limited by the relatively small sample size of cartridges that I've heard in my own system). And yes, @lewm makes a good point about the terms used by the OP (that the same descriptors are used repetitively and imprecisely in successive reviews.) But surely that same point applies to the entire output of Stereophile and Absolute Sound magazines, no?