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

Hi rauoliregas

I know - by your standards I am maybe a subjectivist eating bananas. And I have not heard a lot of top notch carts. Although we disagree on some points, I appreciate your comments, and your search for more objectivity. I agree that analog is truncated, limited and problematic in many ways. It is amazing that it is still competitive. But to my ears, there are digital problems too, often larger than the analog problems (even if the gap has narrowed). Digital is still not "perfect". Likewise, my 'purist' tube system may introduce distortions you would not like, but then again, I lived with top solid state for many years, and don't miss it. Or - truth to be told - only a little bit ; -).

I was asked about my music reference. I go for the best sound I hear, regardless of format. No prejudice. Sometimes the CD sounds great, better than the LP, or the streaming, or the sacd or dvd-audio - and so on. Probably mainly because it was mastered and cut more precisely to the specific format, or they had a lucky day, or whatever. But in general, AAA (all analog recorded) LPs are my choice cuts. But also more processed recordings. I go for the best sound. Not just acoustic or vocal but full scale prog rock or classical also. world music. Lots of references.

Like one bought just now, Toure, Al Farka, with Ry Cooder: Talking Timbuktu - 2 x 180g, World circuit 2015 - marvellous guitar sound and string interplay. For female vocal, Rosalia: Motomami on LP is superior to digital in my system. And for a "fat" prog rock sound - Deep purple: Whoosh, Ear music 2020 - try ’Man alive - likewise the LP version sounds better. To my ears in my system.

 

But to my ears, there are digital problems too, often larger than the analog problems (even if the gap has narrowed).

 

😁 If digital were really that much better there would be no discussion about cartridges, tonearms, where you bought that record and the like. It would be moot. Its not; its been 41 years since the inception of the CD and LPs are still around. Can we finally agree that digital is merely incremental in its improvements? I've no doubt that one day it will be better in every way... when that day comes people won't argue about it.

Anytime a new technology appears, if it is truly superior the prior art vanishes and becomes a thing of collectors for nostalgia only. I like to point to the example of side valves in internal combustion engines. Overhead valves showed up and no-one looks back- they are more reliable and offer vastly improved performance. As a result no-one puts side valves in cars anymore. Its not worth it!

When digital is truly better there won't be cartridge and tonearm manufacturers, no LPs produced and so on.

Dear @o_holter : " It is amazing that it is still competitive. ", amazing and incredible for say the least.

But exist a deep and main reason why of that and the reasonis that almost all of us was what for many years were accustom to listen it and what does it means this fact: simple we are accustomed to the LP developed high distortions it’s what we like even if its wrong and this is not the issue. The deep main reason is that: we are accustomed to those LP sound alond its developed distortions.

Whe appeared the CD as even today we " like it " but do not " like it ", we always have an argument against digital even arguments that are totally false.

We refused and refuse to really think deep down there and ask our self: what are we missing with digital medium? because this is the issue. Here M Lavigne posted that LP is " complete " and obviously and against digital this medium is incomplete.

My take is that all of us are missing through digital medium ALL THE ADDED DISTORTIONS DEVELOPED THROUGH THE RECORDING AND PLAYBACK PROCCESS .

Our brain knows something is " different " down there.

If you take a little of time and make a check-up of all the steps in the playback proccess where the cartridge signal must pass you can understand in more objective way my take my statement about. The cartridge signal playback path is a long tortuose path for the way sensitive cartridge signal and at each of those " thousands " path steps the cartridge signal integrity goes degrading and degrading till we can listen. Maybe in what we can listen are " nice distortions " ( we are accustom for. ) in 30% or maybe 40% of the original signal. Digital is way direct and if anything more complete and nearer truer to the recording it does not matters that we don’t like it so much what we are listning and till we think a little with ovjectivity the LP will stays extremely " competitive " no matters what.

Btw, one of those false argument in favor of LP is that " we listen analog not in digital " but is false because what our ears and body are perciving with digital what comes in is just a SPLs waves exactly in similar way that the SPL waves that comes in from LPs, this is not the issue. Other false argument is that LP moves us more emotionally than digital to the degree that digital could be boring. Other false argument: " When digital is truly better there won’t be cartridge and tonearm manufacturers "" and is false because exist thousands and thousands audiophiles that own thousands of LPs and that " loves " reissues.

I asked you which is your MUSIC REFERENCE and your answer is full of subjectivity: " what we like it ".

I asked you because when talking of digital vs analog almost all always compare digital against the LP REFERENCE or the R2R REFERENCE when in reality and overall those mediums can’t be a MUSIC REFERENCE .

We can argue against that but for me the only true reference are the live events we attended and attend seated at near field position that even at nearer position ( that we can seat. ) is where the recording microphones are " seated " and where pic-up the signal coming from the MUSIC sources.

If we don’t have yet enough lisent experiences like that then we really do not know what I’m talking about and why I repeat and repeat that " nearer and truer to the recording " that in my point of view should be the main target for any audiophile/MUSIC lover.

Sure I can be wrong but not only in this thread but in many others over the years I posted that statement in this and other web forums. Only an opinion.

Anyway, thank’s for your answers,

 

R.

Nandric pointed out that the question posed by the OP is poorly conceived. So did I and others at the top of this thread. Which is maybe why it’s degenerated into an even more endless and unresolvable debate about analog vs digital. By now we know where most of us stand on that issue.  But some of us nevertheless expect to “win”. That’s not going to happen.