Hear my Cartridges....🎶

Halcro, thanks for the additional comments. Just a few more from me; not as a challenge to any of yours, but to further explain how the process works for me.

As you acknowledged, my (and most musicians’) priorities in reproduced sound are timbre and rhythm; and not necessarily in that order. That’s where the “magic” is for me. We all listen for different things and prioritize different aspects of recorded sound. As fun as a great soundstage is it really has little, if anything, to do with the music (performance). Just two days ago, I was speaking to a colleague and audio buddy about music and audio. He reviews equipment for a small on-line ‘zine. He had been listening to a new pair of speakers and commented on and corroborated what I have often said; an oversimplification to be sure, but that one of the best considerations when evaluating speakers is how they sound outside the listening room; or, at least, while sitting away from the sweet spot. Is the sound still tonally believable and can one still get a reasonable amount of the immediacy of live?

We do seem to have some agreement about how the two cartridges each sound; while describing it differently. You seem to like the Shure’s seemingly more extended bass. I listened to the two musical examples again. Interestingly, I don’t hear any bass information from the Shure that I don’t hear with the Decca. However, there is more bass volume with the Shure. It is fuller, more “powerful” (volume wise) sounding with the Shure, but not more extended. So, at least with these two musical examples, I don’t hear this supposedly superior bass extension. I say “supposedly” because, to me, the leaner and more linear response in the bass range of the Decca sounds more natural, more rhythmically lithe; closer to real. The extra oomph and thickness in the upper bass/lower mids of the Shure crowds the midrange for what I hear as less clarity, not more. Clearly we are listening for different things in a recording.

I am not surprised in the least that you were not impressed with the sound at the live concert that you posted and I am not sure what, if anything, this particular example proves. I don’t think that any advocate of the superiority of live sound would argue that every example of live is going to be a good one. An outdoor space like that with an orchestra on a portable stage is not going to sound stage well at all; not by audiophile standards, any way. In a food hall it is a different matter altogether as I am sure you know.  However, the sound of a live performance in any venue no matter how inferior it is acoustically will still exhibit certain sonic characteristics that elude even the very best audio systems. In live music there is an immediacy and vibrancy to the musical intent of the performers that is diminished (or distorted) by each step of the record-playback process. Even in an inferior acoustic there can be a brutally honest depiction of timbre without hype. For me that is where the magic is; everything else, while fun, is secondary and often just sonic fluff. What I am talking about is akin to the feeling one gets when walking down the street and out of an open window the sound of someone playing trumpet, violin, or a jazz trio is heard. Very low-fi with no sound staging at all; but one immediately knows that the sound is live. Why is that? Timbre and rhythm. The magic. Is it possible that while searching for the elusive sound stage and changing your seat five times that you may have missed the magic of the performance? How did the orchestra play? Even in, sometimes especially in, a brutally honest outdoor acoustic the differences in timbre between, for instance, violins and violas is heard with a level of realism that even the best audio systems (usually played at too high a volume) can’t match.

Anyway, just some further thoughts and thanks again for the posts.