What is the “World’s Best Cartridge”?

Dear @mikelavigne  : I think that my misunderstood came from what you posted:

 

" the tubed power supply sounds better than a solid state power supply "

Than's for your last post where appeared not one but 3 different tube power suplies with no SS one.

 

Btw, " projects lots of energy and life. "  :

Obviously that exist different levels but those DaVa characteristics you named are shared by cantilever-less cartridge designs as the Ikeda REX9 and others.

There is no doubt that cartridge field coil design means a " different " quality level than other cartridge design principles ( motor. ) but the DaVa comes with 2 different " principles ": catilever-less and field coil. How much for one and how much of that quality for the other. Yes, at the ends only is important its overall quality level but ??....

The field coil principle can't recovery what the DaVa design cantilever-less can't pick-up from the LP grooves due that it is not ( no one cantilever-less is. ) good tracker.

 

Taking in count those facts could be interesting that an Audio Note I/O LOMC owner that along owns the I/O field coil could chime here on it because both cartridges are the same but the generator variable.

 

R.

 

 

 

 

"You would have to be out of your mind to buy a Decca cartridge."

I'll just sit here and drool and twitch!

If you are talking about supposed tracking issues, I have to say I have never had any such problems with either the undamped SME M10 or the damped Series V. I will admit they increase surface noise, and that has inspired me to become fanatical about record cleaning (and that's a good idea anyway as you cannot clean the stylus with anything other than a dry brush). If I outlive my Deccas, the plan is to get a Soundsmith strain gauge as a replacement, unless someone swoops in to continue the business.

I’ve been listening to the DaVa FC-1 (the lower-range model vs the Reference that MikeL has) for several months now. I bought it used with both SS and tubed power supplies and hadn’t bothered listening to the SS one until I saw this thread.

After a quick comparison, the difference is pretty obvious. The SS has more impact, the tubed more nuance, subtlety (though with still very saturated transients--not pulling punches in the least).

Also about this cart, in addition to having field coil magnets, it has a cactus quill cantilever, a conical stylus and I believe like the AT ART1000, the coil is attached very close to the stylus.

The best?

Always the next one ☝️

 

The problem with High End is the price tag. All think, the higher the price, the better it is.
Analog reproduction is a chain, the best cartridge can’t shine when the phono stage is not on par, same with Tonearm, cable, Preamp and so on and on

 

and finally, the old story… 3 Audiophiles listen … 3 opinions …

 

or, let’s be honest, imagine there is really the best cartridge out there BUT RSP would be 2500$ … do you really think, the audiophile community would accept it ?
I don’t think so

I try to understand the premise or assertion on which the ''conclusions '' are

based' . Those are called  in logic and mathematics  ''universal quantors''.

Those are in contra dsistinction with ''numerical''. Numerical name the numbers

of ''indicviduals'' involved while ''universal'' don't;

The formula e for universal kinds is:

''for all x Fx & Gx''  

'There are exacltly 100.000 members of A'gon forum.''  is the numerical.

One of Tarski's '''theories  of thruth'' is called 'truth by satisfaction''..

In the formula  above this means that all members of set ''x'' satisfy

conditions F and G. If there is one contra example or ''one x'' which does

not satisfay both F and G condiions  the (general) statement is NOT TRUE.

''All '' is not a name with refering function so we can't know to what  ''it''

refers to. In writeing an statement with ''all '' in the  ''subject place'' we

only assumet to to have said something sensible .

That is why numerical quantors explain ''universal''. because we know

the number of individuals to which ''it'' refers.

European commission decided that ''all immigrants'' have te right foir asylum procedure''. But each country has laws which determine condition which

''asylum immigrants'' NEED to satisfy to get an Asylum. The most do not

satisfy those conditions and will not get one. Well the (whole) European commission had no idea what ''all'' means so Europe got immigrants from ''everywhere''. The whole Africa in addition to Syria. Holland for example

has no place to put them.. While there is no possibility to return them

to their countires because those  will not accept them back.

I hope that the ''SENSE'' of the question iin casu is well explained?