What is the “World’s Best Cartridge”?

Exactly, @rauliruegas , we cannot impose our experience on others. Having read a lot of your input in other threads, I respect your experience, and I'm grateful to read about it. Even so, all of the wonderful things you and I have heard from cartridges of so many kinds might not work for others, We may offer a guiding light, but we cannot lead anyone else safely to harbour.

Dear @dogberry  : Sorry that in some way or the other some of my posts " showed " that I want " lead " and that's not exactly my whole attitude but perhaps only the " way " I post but not my " meaning ".

Btw, the ones that know said these talking of Studer:

" 

Studer is a Swiss manufacturer of professional audio equipment, founded in Zurich in 1948 by Willi Studer. It is known primarily for the design and manufacture of analog tape recorders and mixing consoles. Studer also produce other technology solutions, such as telephony management systems and radio broadcast studio equipment. Studer originated the consumer brand Revox, but sold the group to private investors in 1990.

Studer's analog tape recorders are widely considered to be the best in world by Audio engineers due to their excellent reliability and sound quality. The company has built a variety of two-track recorder models throughout its history for stereo recording and mixing.  ""

R.

It seems my effort at being emollient backfired. I'll bow out.

In the other side and talking of that specs " tree " in those old times the Studer R2R mike owns were not designed for home use by audiophiles but to be used by recording studios and Studer was not the only R2R with the quality levels for that kind of job because were deep quality competition with true challenges for every R2R manufacture. So the specs Studer gaves to the recording studios were the best they achieved on those times to competes against other manufacturer machines. That was the overall context on that Studer issue.

Ralph, I appreciated that this time you posted with a good attitude and not trying to hit me and that’s why I give my answer.

Probably those mike’s Studer performs a little better but even that is not a today reference and cant compete in any room/system with what I posted: reference is the digital medium other than live MUSIC.

@mikelavigne 

@rauliruegas I get all that you are saying about tape degradation. But your comment in the last paragraph really isn't correct. If you spent some time recording live with such equipment you would know why- they can be so beguiling that you can be easily fooled into thinking that what you are hearing on the headphones is real as opposed to a recording. Yes, they are that good.

A direct lathe cut is even better as it is lower noise and wider bandwidth.

But for the most part, regular audiophiles in the trenches never get to hear what such equipment is really all about and how real the recordings they make actually sound. In the studio, if the engineer is careful, the big difference between digital, tape and the mastering lathe is cost, not sound. Again if you doubt this, I advise spending some time around such equipment to get to know the ropes. FWIW I've managed recording studios since the mid 1970s.

Dear @atmasphere  : My knowledge level on the recording proccess is really poor, so I can't technically understand some issues you posted.

I remember that when I posted that a difference  in digital recording for the better was that bass range can be recorded stereo due that digital has no limitation as analog that always needs the bass range mono  and you posted that even that it could be that way normally digital comes in mono too due that the cost goes to high and in the other side engeeners are a little lazy to do it in the rigth way.

I know for your posts that you are a little biased/oriented through  LP instead digital. Obviously that you have your reasons but even that and even my recording knowledge about still it's not clear for me you last paragraph:

"" the big difference between digital, tape and the mastering lathe is cost, not sound.  ""

Ok, what if cost no object? still no quality differences between tape/analog and digital?

If we take the frequency ranges in the bass range it's clear an advantage of digital recording against analog and is something that any one can be aware through playback in our home system.

Now, I don't posted that the Studer is a bs of machine but that from some time now ( last around 10 years. ) it's not any more the quality reference due the huge digital improvements.

I still own several Telarc LPs that were recorded at the end of the 70's and early 80's. All were recorded with the PCM Soundstream ( pediestran if you like ) digital recorder and if you listen to some of those Telar's you be aware of its very high quality performance and after all those years those zeros and ones stay exactly the same and unaltered.

Next I paste what the Telarc engeeners explained on each LP about digital recording and the Soundstream specs. In my point of view and inside all my knowledge limitations those words are still in " good shape " and not only that but improved everything against those 16 bits to today PCM 32/384 or 4X DSD.

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: even human been has in the deep/internal ear an ADC because it's in digital way how the whole brain assimilates every kind of sound:

I repeat, cost no object because the issue is more important to define one s and for ever that digital today is the reference. It's not only your opinion, other audiophiles opinions or my opinion because it's not a matter of who is rith or wrong but where is the true.

What says your common sense? that the apple does not comes down the tree by gravity effects?

The overall subject could be controversial, what's not controversial is the reality behind those vintage analog recorder machines.

R.