You might be amused to know that Decca, in the 1950's, before stereo became common, often recorded in stereo but released in mono because they thought they would have to pay the musicians double if the musicians knew they were being recorded in stereo.
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.
- ...
- 576 posts total
@dover Ha-Ha, that's because musicians only think about money. I believe Remington was the first to record in stereo. I'm thinking it was the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra in the 1940's. But I really have to wonder if they're done well or if it just sounds like panning, or the piano in one speaker and everyone else in the other, etc... In many respects, early stereo was a gimmick before it became an art in and of itself. I've got the $1,500.00 EMT mono cartridge on my radar but I need to upgrade my tonearm first. For me, a devoted mono table is financially doable. |
@mikelavigne , My answer is simple. Bernie is wrong, dead wrong. Done in 24/192 or above transformations are transparent. The system I use operates in 64 bit floating point so volume does not matter at all. 24/192 recordings of the turntable are indistinguishable from the original unless there is a scratch then the recording sounds better because the scratch is gone. It was removed prior to RIAA correction when its duration is shortest. The "hole" is filled in with a duplicate of the prior millisecond or so of music. Nobody would ever know where there was a scratch. As @rauliruegas suggests, you can use any audio tool to make things worse. The beauty of digital signal processing is that if used correctly deficiencies in any system (includes the room) can usually be resolved resulting in a dramatic improvement in sound quality. But there are limitations and acoustics have to be managed so that digital corrections are minimal particularly in the bass region or one can rapidly run out of amplifier power. There is no system than could not benefit from digital signal processing. Processors are running so fast now that there is virtually no down side unless you are the type that insists on everything remaining analog, the horse and buggy crowd.
|
Dear @mikelavigne : " we don’t all have to agree on what we hear. but it’s about that. " The dialogue about digital/analog started in this thread when you posted that your MUSIC recorded reference is a R2R Studer recorder and I posted that from some years to now the MUSIC reference is the digital alternative. I and other gentlemans posted an explained why is digital the reference beeen a lost-less signal information. You brougth here the Bernie " feelings " and your own opinion about that’s not under any question because that’s not the main matters/subject but the reference and why. Please think for a moment what I will try to explain but before that, @dover if you don’t like this thread is your privilege not to read it but it’s our privilege to post what we are posting and you can’t come here to tell us what or not what to do: period. :
from many years now all financial transactions in the world including corporation as Wall Street used and are using DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY and through the years that technology showed it works for any financial world corporation. Thank’s to that digital/computer technology the financial world works fantastic and billions of transactions are made it by lower time than a sg. with no error. LOST-LESS signal information.
Your car works under digital/computer technology, your cell phone, all world communications of any kind, Hospital and Medical centers works trusting in digital tools and items, Militar world Industry works thank’s to digital/computers, Awero Space Industry works thank’s to digital, automotive industry inside its robotic machines works thank’s to digital, your streaming listen sessions are los-less digital with no " mistakes " and you and your organism works/ with no errors by digital and you and we are alive thank’s to that " technology ". What you prefer is only an " accident " as is what any of us prefer but not Bernie or any one can prove that digital lost signal information and due to that lost-less characteristic is the recorder MUSIC reference not the Studer’s no matters what. It’s a trusty technology not like the cartridge riding a LP through a pivoted tonearm where all is full of un-accuracies and every time losting information even the cartridge can’t pick-up the 100% of the recorded signal information in those LP grooves and what I say 100%? I think that not even the 80%. Analog/LP main characteristic is that’s a non-accurated medium when digital is totally/100% accurated. Mike, you can be sure that your overall tonearm/cartridge/TT set up is not 100% accurated no matters what, the tonearm/cartridge alignment and set up parameters are totally non-accurated due that's a mechanical alternative down there. Analog is full of problems/nigthmare and even that I like it but this " I like it " is not the SUBJECT. Subjectivity has no " place " with because the issue is totally OBJECTIVE. There is no-return and the best of this new King is forth-coming yet.
Mike, take a look to Sony and if you want about audio you can go the Apogee site it’s interesting for every one of us: https://www.sony.com/en/SonyInfo/products/ R. |
- 576 posts total