What is the “World’s Best Cartridge”?


I believe that a cartridge and a speaker, by far, contribute the most to SQ.

The two transducers in a system.

I bit the bulllet and bought a Lyra Atlas SL for $13K for my Woodsong Garrard 301 with Triplanar SE arm. I use a full function Atma-Sphere MP-1 preamp. My $60K front end. It is certainly, by far, the best I have owned. I read so many comments exclaiming that Lyra as among the best. I had to wait 6 months to get it. But the improvement over my excellent $3K Mayijima Shilabi was spectacular-putting it mildly.

I recently heard a demo of much more pricy system using a $25K cartridge. Seemed to be the most expensive cartridge made. Don’t recall the name.

For sure, the amount of detail was something I never heard. To hear a timpani sound like the real thing was incredible. And so much more! 
This got me thinking of what could be possible with a different kind of cartridge than a moving coil. That is, a moving iron.

I have heard so much about the late Decca London Reference. A MI and a very different take from a MC. Could it be better? The World’s Best? No longer made.

However Grado has been making MI cartridges for decades. Even though they hold the patent for the MC. Recently, Grado came out with their assault on “The World’s Best”. At least their best effort. At $12K the Epoch 3. I bought one and have been using it now for about two weeks replacing my Lyra. There is no question that the Atlas SL is a fabulous cartridge. But the Epoch is even better. Overall, it’s SQ is the closest to real I have heard. To begin, putting the stylus down on the run in grove there is dead silence. As well as the groves between cuts. This silence is indicative of the purity of the music content. Everything I have read about it is true. IME, the comment of one reviewer, “The World’s Best”, may be true.
 

 

mglik

honestly; this stuff is not that complicated. but it does require commitment and effort.

acquire great digital and analog sources, and great original/native media, then a great room and system to listen.

listen and see what you prefer.

don’t tell me about opinions other than you listened and this is what you heard. the other stuff matters to try and explain it. but the other stuff does not make the case. listening makes the case.

we don't all have to agree on what we hear. but it's about that.

“acquire great digital and analog sources, and great original/native media, then a great room and system to listen.”

Exactly! Thank you @mikelavigne for keeping it short and to the point. 

Dear @mikelavigne   : "" 

this stuff is not that complicated. but it does require commitment and effort.

acquire great digital and analog sources, and great original/native media, then a great room and system to listen.

listen and see what you prefer.  ""

 

Sure is not complicated and agree that require commitment and effort and I can't tell you that I did and still doing just that.

I don't give you other opinions but mine just from the dialogue began. My post to mijo was only to make an explanation about that " kidding " and all the other statements came from me and that's my opinion and the issue here is not about preferences because my preference is MUSIC always.

Yes, we don't have all to agree an especially on what we hear. Mike it's really hard to be un-biased with this kind of discussions and that's why I try to understand you and that's why I poste what I posted twice to mijos.

 

Btw, rigth now that I mentioned I will listen to those Athena LP recordings that I do not in the last 4-5 years or maybe more.

 

Nothing like the MUSIC enjoyment. So enjoy it.

 

R.

 

 

In my own world objectivity leads to the best subjective results. The problem with strict analog paths is that every step degrades the end result. But, once the music is in numbers no further degradation occurs until the last analog step. Computers do not hear distortion, they only hear ones and zeros and at a speed the human brain can not comprehend. This does not take into account the difficulties and limitations imposed by such processes as dragging a rock through a trench. 

It takes extreme objectivity to set up speakers in a room with appropriate acoustic adjustments to make a system perform near it's best. But to get all the way there requires digital signal processing or extreme luck. In my own experience that would be twice in hundreds of systems.

You can not get to the absolute sound by throwing a lot of money at a system. 

@rauliruegas , of course it is about the music. I listen to vinyl and continue to improve my vinyl playback because at least 1/2 of the music I love is planted there. Sometimes the digital transcriptions do not fair well because of poor mastering. As I think you were trying to suggest, predetermined bias contaminates the issue, the result of intentional misdirection by marketing and the unintentional misdirection by biased reviewers. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Analog can't compete against it and I don't have and even do not read yet any real/true evidence in favor of analog/tape vs digital:

@rauliruegas @mikelavigne 

Raul, you seem to be missing something here. Clearly, analog has been competing 'against it' for a very long time.

You don't have to know anything technical to understand this statement! All you have to know is that tape is still being made for analog recorders, that used quality analog recorders command prodigious prices, that new titles are being issued on reel to reel tape and what people say about the tapes and their machines.

If analog could not compete quite simply we wouldn't be having this conversation! Instead it would simply be gone and no further talk about it other than historical context.

It really is that simple.