Hear my Cartridges....🎶

For me it always comes back to something very simple: they can’t all be equally good while sounding so different.  My comments are about the differences, as I hear them, in direct comparison (same setup, same music).  As I commented, the Shure sounds impressive at first and would probably continue to sound impressive.  Additionally, if for some strange reason I were ever forced to use a Shure, I would not feel the urge to run out of the room or to cut back on music listening time.  It is a very good and enjoyable cartridge.  However, in direct comparison to the Decca the differences are pretty obvious.  So, what to make of this?  Again, they can’t both be equally good at replicating the sound of music if they each sound so different from the other.  

**** I really can't hear what you describe no matter what genre I throw at them. ****

So, in what ways does the Ultra sound different from the Decca to you?  Or, are you saying that to you the Shure sounds just like, or is the equal of the Decca?  

Thanks for the comments.

Halcro, its interesting. I have found with multiple turntables and cartridges that ultimately I come down to a strong preference. I find that once I have identified shortcomings in a cartridge then it becomes unistenable, all I hear are the shortcomings. I'm not so hard on the Shures like Frogman, I did manage to listen to a Roksan/Final Audio ET2/Shure V15vxmr for about 10 years whilst having an audio hiatus.
On the other hand I simply cannot stand my original mint Victor X1,
use to enjoy the Koetsu Black with Zeta, but my latest one sounds stodgy most of the time in my current system. A lot of it comes down to system matching as well, particularly step up/phono characteristics.

Would like to hear the Dyanvector XV1S (original ) vs the Decca if you are inclined. I have not had the opportunity to hear the Dynavector XV series in a system I know..

 

Addendum to my Post above:

During the month that one of my DM-58 Monoblocks was being repaired......I was forced to listen through headphones (Audeze LCD-2 Magnetic Planars with Schiit Audio Lyr Valve Headphone Amp).
Having listened to my cartridges for 40 years solely through speakers...I was unable to recognise or differentiate any of my cartridges through the headphones.
The sense of transparency, soundstage, depth of field, bass location, room dynamics etc were all missing and thus my 'knowledge' of the specific cartridge traits had disappeared.
This is not to say Frogman, that your method of listening through headphones is flawed.....only that it's far far different from the way I experience my cartridges in my listening room.
Could you perhaps try to listen through speakers (or iPad) to see if you can hear some differences in presentation?

Regards

Thanks for the comments, Halcro.  Somehow, I feel we are not connecting with what we are each trying to say re our experiences and descriptions.  Dover is correct by pointing out that sometimes once a shortcoming or difference is identified it renders the component, if not always unlistenable, then obviously flawed.  I understand that you enjoy all the cartridges in your collection.  I would too; you have many of the best.  However, I still want to understand what about them, in this case the Shure and Decca, you hear as different from each other?  I approach this exercise (and the hobby in general) from the standpoint of determining which component gets me closer to the sound of music as I (!) know it.  Once that is established then one component necessarily becomes superior to the other and the other inferior.  I also don’t particularly enjoy swapping out components.  In the case of cartridges I have found that once I find a cartridge that I like, I prefer to live with it for some time and learn how very small adjustments in set up can optimize the sound.  Just one of the many reasons that I live the ET2; it makes this possible and easy.  I am a bit perplexed as to why  I keep getting the feeling that there is resistance to the idea that one cartridge might be superior to the other.  Again, they can’t all be equally good.

**** But they CAN all be wrong....even the LDR.****

Exactly right!  And, once again, proof of just how far removed even the best are from “the absolute sound”.  

But, some get closer to it than others.  And that is what I hear and try to describe.  The differences may be very subtle, but they are there.  To me, the Decca sounds closer to the sound of music as I know it than the Shure does.  So, if that is to be the case, then there have to be differences between the two.  I suspect that you are reacting more strongly to what I am describing as the differences (and reason for the preference) than is warranted?  Also keep in mind that, as should be obvious, that for me the most important aspect of all this is to all issues.  For me that is the most important aspect of it all.  

**** Could you perhaps try to listen through speakers (or iPad) to see if you can hear some differences in presentation? ****

I have!  And not just for comparing cartridges.  I have been doing so for many years.  Not only do I not think the method is flawed, I have found that for determining differences in timbre and things like musical phrasing my Stax/tube driver setup is superior to speaker listening.  Keep in mind that my speakers are also electrostatics (Stax F81) or transmission line (Paragon Regent).  As good as the Paragons are they are no match for the Stax as far as faithfulness to tonal issues.  I will concede that headphones are inferior to good speakers as far as sound staging issues are concerned.  But, those are secondary concerns for me.  Btw, about a year ago a friend who owns the Audeze and I did a comparison to my Stax and while the Audeze sounds very good I (and he) felt that the Stax did a better job of revealing tonal differences as well being more rhythmically lithe.  The Audeze setup was very good, but to me was overly full sounding.  I kept thinking “this reminds me of the sound of better Grado cartridges”.  

Thanks for the comments and comparisons and keep them coming.