Great post, Lewm. I agree on every count; exactly my experience.
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.
Showing 10 responses by frogman
It’s much simpler than that (for me). Assuming no significant electrical incompatibilities that would cause us to unfairly judge its actual potential in a different application, each piece of audio gear inserted into an audio system affects the resulting sound in one of two ways- it moves the resulting sound closer to, or farther away from the sound of live music. This, no matter that piece of equipment’s pedigree. Even the very best gear has a long way to go to being truly “neutral”. We can talk about technical “accuracy”, or technical superiority all we want, but then are left with the inevitable question of whether it actually brings the sound closer to the sound of live music. THAT, as far as I’m concerned is the most important measure of a component’s superiority; and technical issues take a back seat. So, how to make that judgment? The best we can hope for is to judge the sound relative to the sonic “generalities” that we have learned to recognize through experience and exposure to live sound. And, yes, even the sound of electronic music can be judged this way; although, the well of information available for making that judgment is far far less deep than that available from live, unprocessed acoustic music. A simple and unavoidable fact. Oh, but then there are the cries of- “there are too many variables”, “we all hear differently”, “how do we know what it sounded like in the studio?”, etc., etc. Or, “it is superior if it sounds closest to what is on the recording”. First, how the hell does one know exactly what is on the recording unless one was at the recording session AND have an extremely good aural memory? We don’t. So, ask yourself this question: how is it that when walking down a street and one hears the sound of a saxophone or vocalist coming out an open window a block away one can immediately tell when it is an actual live musician playing? First, it is the complex tonal textures and, even more importantly, the dynamic immediacy and nuance that immediately tell us it is the real thing; aspects of musical sounds that suffer tremendously during the record/reproduce process. There is no electronic signature. And, importantly, we don’t have our audiophile hats on at that moment. Hats which tend to cause us to lower the bar of expectation and accept at least some degree of electronic signature as “normal”. I think that, ironically, many audiophiles have not learned to listen. We tend to go into a different mode of “listening” when dealing with and listening to “Audio”. Another example: How is it that even over a telephone, the lowest of the low-fi pieces of equipment, we can immediately recognize, not only the voice of a loved one, but that the person has a slight cold, for instance? We can because of familiarity with that sound. There is no substitute for this. |
“There is this thing called listening” - mikelavigne So simple, so basic and so true. How ironic (and absurd) the notion that the final judgment of what equipment is best in the context of a given system, in a given room, should be made by anything other than LISTENING. Last time I checked the purpose of an audio system is listening (to music). The idea that lowest possible measured (measurable) distortion necessarily makes a piece of equipment sonically superior is equally absurd. How many examples of equipment with great measurements that sounded mediocre, even poor, have we all experienced? Just what is it about those who rely so much on measurements that drives them to denigrate the experience of those who base their final judgment on listening? I have to think that the reason is simply insecurity in their own ability to listen critically. So, those who claim to hear what they themselves can’t hear must be deluded “golden ears”; or, are “biased” and just “used to” a certain (distorted) sound. |
@mikelavigne, sorry about your decision to no longer post and I hope that it applies to this thread only. Your comments are always appreciated. I respect and enjoy your approach to this hobby with its emphasis on trusting one’s ears. I understand your reaction to the heavy handed style of some and have to wonder if the rigidity in their approach to this hobby kills the fun and and wonder of the music listening experience. Listening to music is not a technical exercise. |
Dear @rauliruegas, I have been a member here for many years and have learned the hard way that it is often best to not engage in one-one dialogue when there is obvious and strong disagreement. I prefer to simply put my opinions out there and anyone can make of them what they will. You have addressed me directly for the third time (I think) on this thread, so out of respect for you I will make an exception; and thank you for your thoughts. Please understand that I may or may not respond further. Raul, I am not in the psychology business. I normally do not “talk” about my professional life on this or any forum as I don’t want my opinions to be construed as self serving in any way. I am a professional musician by trade and have done nothing else for my entire working life; forty five years now. My performance experience is and has been overwhelmingly in the live acoustic music, mostly orchestral, scenes. I am and have been around the sound of live acoustic music, at minimum, an average of probably four hours each and every day, I know and am confident in what I hear. Replicating that sound as much as possible is my personal goal with audio. My familiarity with that sound is what drives my choices of gear. I bring this up because you and I don’t agree on some audio related issues, the analog/digital, the tube/ss debates and the subjective/objective issues in particular. I believe you know where I stand on those. The “psychology” part: Although you actually seem to have softened your stance somewhat, the problem as I see it, and what prompted part of my “heavy handed” comment, is that while you do (more so recently) concede that everyone is entitled to like whatever type of sound they may prefer (duh!), your comments usually also include, or are followed by something along the lines of “(yes, everyone can like whatever sound they like), IF they like distortions”. Forgive the paraphrasing. IOW, yes, we can all listen to whatever sound we prefer, BUT Raul knows what a good (accurate) sound truly is. “Respect” has to include at least a modicum of humility. I won’t question what you hear and how, and based on what, you make those determinations. I know you have a great deal of experience as an audiophile and would not question your preferences. However, from my vantage point, they are still preferences and not absolutes. Neither are my preferences absolutes for everyone. They are absolutes FOR ME and if anyone wants to derive some kernel of truth from them that’s great; if not, that’s fine too. Enjoy the music. (I will leave the “not distortions” part out. Perhaps you should consider doing the same? Saludos..
|
Absolutely true that there are many ways to approach this subject and one of those ways is never losing sight of the importance (for some) of NOT separating the act of music listening from the process of building a system. To do so is an approach that strikes me as wrong headed. A system cannot be SOTA if it doesn’t do a good job of honoring the music. It may be SOTA on paper, but so what? |
**** If I were to follow the Instructions in a Cabinet Makers Text Book and apply a Heritage Coating such as a Shellac Finish on to an Item of Ikea Designed and Produced furniture. I fail to see how this can not acceptably present itself as a comparison to any modern product, that coated with a Heritage Coating. **** Wow! No offense intended, but really? It’s been maybe five years since I have bought a piece designed/produced by IKEA, so I suppose it’s possible that unbeknownst to me the quality of materials used and care in assembly has experienced a major uptick. But, I don’t see it. Those are just two things that a great craftsman can bring to the table (no pun) that completely elude most mass producers.
|