Age old discussion I know but MM or MC? Benefits?

@totem395 

A family relative of your Stanton 980LSZ is the Pickering XLZ-7500 and one I recently purchased with a very low output of .33 mv
and 3 ohm rating.
Another interesting Pickering is the XSV-5000 although not a super
low output at 3.8 mv a very nice sounding cartridge with
a similar stylus.

Yep, i know.
But my 3.2mV signature Stanton CS-100 W.O.S. with unique sapphire coated cantilever and Stereohedron II stylus was superior to low output 980LZS model. It was also superior to 881s MKII based on Pickering 3000, but improved. 

Stanton CS-100 W.O.S. is a keeper, a great sounding cartridge for 47-100k Ohm preamps. This is very rare model. 

chakster
The lowest output (0.6 mv) MM cartridge is Stanton 980LSZ 

I have to agree the low output top MM's of the day are special and getting harder to come by.

A family relative of your Stanton 980LSZ is the Pickering XLZ-7500 and one I recently purchased with a very low output of .33 mv
and 3 ohm rating.
Another interesting Pickering is the XSV-5000 although not a super
low output at 3.8 mv a very nice sounding cartridge with 
a similar stylus.
 

Dear @chakster :  """   i could live forever with MM cartridges from my own edition of the "best of the month" list """

Well, me too but I'm not talking to live with but to live with the best that's a " little " different subject.

Btw, """  And yes, i like tubes! """.  This is your today limitation, that's why too "" no digital !  """

You are " young " and with many years to come with learning experiences  that will beats your today overall audio level and priorities.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

I just bought nearly all top MM cartridges from our "best of the month" list over the years, and i also bought several top quality vintage MC cartridges that our "opinion makers" considered the best only a few years ago. I did the same with the vintage tonearms and turntables. I also have had some brand new 21st century top quality LOMC. I even got reference tonearms like Reed 3P just to make sure that those vintage japanese arms are not bad at all. I’m 41 now, hope my hearing ability is ok, i could live forever with MM cartridges from my own edition of the "best of the month" list. I ask myself why do i need all those cartridges, including MC cartridges, 8 different tonearms, 9 different turntables, different phono stages, SUTs etc ??? It’s an interesting process to compare things, but i always return to what i really liked before - those vintage MM cartridges. I’m not the guy who will invest multy thousands on a single brand new cart anymore, enough for me, the vintage MM is the better choise for many reasons. I do have an MC alternative just to prove it for myself. Life is so much easier with vintage top quality MM carts. The rest for the records, no digital! And yes, i like tubes! 

Dear @ the_treble_with_tribbles: In a " mainstream " set up?, if you are mainly an analog/LP person then top LOMC is second to none, it's perfect? nothing is in audio trade-offs always exist as almost anything in the life.

Distinction between MM and LOMC stages in a phonolinepreamp are mainly that the LOMC cartridges needs at the same time: very high gain ( some times over 80dbs of gain. ), .very low generated noise level and with low distortion level.

Units for MM/MI has around 40-45db on gain. Only for you can imagine what means that very high gain for the LOMC cartridges: doubling the power gain gives you only 3db of additional gain.

More gain means higher noise and level distortion and needs deep knowledge level and skills to design that phonolinepreamp to mantain that high gain with noise/distortions at minimum. That's why is really dificult to find out  good phonolinepreamps that can handle with " no compromises " LOMC cartridges using active devices and when you find out comes with very high price tags.

Drawbacks ?, all cartridge designs it does not matters if LOMC/MM/MI comes with its own trade-offs.

If you have the rigth audio system,  money and know-how levels to make the whole room/system set up and music/sound knowledge and enough " software "/LPs the best choice is LOMC cartridge alternative. Period.

If not then stay away from analog and go to the best alternative that's today digital that comes with very high quality performance levels even over the best analog alternative you can achieve.


Regards and enjoyb the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

@the_treble_with_tribbles

The lowest output (0.6 mv) MM cartridge is Stanton 980LSZ - an old exciting magnetic cartridge design concept from the 1980. The 980LZS offer "low impedance" and will work directly into the Moving Coil (MC) input instead of MM input. It provides extended frequency response well beyond 50kHz. The 980LZS patented moving stylus system featured a Stereohedron nude diamond and ulta-low mass samarium cobalt magnet which allows it to track the highest levels found on the most sophisticated high technology records. It is insensitive to cable capacitance and load impedance above 100 ohms. Mr. Walter Stanton believed to his dying day that NO moving coil cartridge could ever be any good.


SPECIFICATIONS for the 980LZS:

Stylus Type: Nude Stereohedron Contact Radii: .0028 (71u)
Scanning Radii: .0003 (8u)Stylus
Tracking Force: 1 gram (+/- 0.5)
Setting with Brush: 2 gram (+/- 0.5) resulting operation tracking force 1 gram (+/- 0.5)
Frequency Response: 10 Hz to 50 kHz +
Output: .06 mv /cm/sec
Channel Balance: Within 1 dB @ 1kHz
Channel Separation: 35 dB @ 1kHz
Cartridge DC Resistance: 3. ohms
Cartridge Inductance: 1.mH
Cartridge Color: Chrome
*Cartridge Weight: 5.5 grams (*Brush weight self supporting 1 gram)
Load Resistance: 100 ohms or greaterLoad Capacitance: 1000 pF, or less (incl. arm leads cable and amp.)

"Aficionados of moving-coil (MC) cartridges will be surprices and pleased to learm that 980LZS is indistinguishable from the very best moving-coil (MC) types in the most rigorous laboratory and aural tests. Stanton’s is an impressive dual archivement. I was continually aware that 980LZS sounded like a moving-coil (MC) cartridge. The bass was well defined and tight with good sonic clarity, as well as transient response and applause definition. Transparency of sound was excellent when reproducing the high recorded levels present on most direct-to-disc recordings. At no time did i notice any coloration of the music. The 980LZS is also, one of the very few phono cartridges that can cleanly reproduce the cannon fire on the Telarc DG-10041 recording of Tchaikovsky’s 1812." - B.V.Pisha (Audio Review, Feb.1982)

Stanton’s 980 LZS cartridge was designed to be used in stereo systems which have high gain, low impedance MC inputs or use external head amps with inputs impedance of 100 Ohms or higher. Since the output of the 980 LZS cartridhe is .06 mv /cm/sec, 20 dB minimum of additional gain is required to step up the voltage to the level of the conventional MM cartridge. The 980 LZS features extremely low dynamic tip mass (resulting in rise time of 100 micro sec.), high compliance (30cu), replaceable stylus assembly designed with samarium cobalt magnet ans Stereohedron stylus tip.

Unlike ordinary high impedance cartridges, the 980 LZS is insensitive to capacitive loading. The Frequency response of the 980 LZS extends to beyond 50kHz in order to assure flawless reproduction of all overtones and signal harmonics which exist and are captured and recorded on modern discs. Although those frequencies cannot be heard directly, their interaction with other frequencies creates subharmonics which are in the audible range. Also any transducer capable of reproducing such high frequencies perform admirably within the audible rangeresponding without hesitation to any transient so vitally important in true recreation of original sound.

Stanton’s 980 LZS cartridge is a Moving Magnet pickup system with low impedance coil allowing the use of long cables between the turntable and preamp.The weight of the 980 LZS which is 5.5 grams, in comparison to relatively heavy moving coil cartridge (8 grams on the average) helps sound reproduction at low frequencies by improved tracking of warped records.

I owned this Stanton and i love Stanton cartridges, my favorite is CS-100 W.O.S signature model with sapphire coated cantilever and Stereohedron tip (very unique stylus/cantilever combo). The output of CS-100 is 3.2 mV.

Speaking about "top choice" you can't go wrong with Audio-Technica AT-ML170 MM cartridge. With this one you can forget about all MC cartridges and MC phono stages of any price. All you need is a normal MM phono stage. This cartridge is among my all time favorites, pretty rare one and much better than the most expensive MC i have owned. 

My first posting here, apologies if it is long, and I'm an absolute newbie, so apologies if the questions are such basic common knowledge, but I am hoping to learn from those who are knowledgeable.  So I'll quote three:

lewm:"  If Robjerman's rationale were correct (about MCs being superior because of having lower moving mass), then Moving Iron (MI) cartridges should rule, because MI cartridges have lower moving mass than do MC cartridges.  On top of that they generally have higher signal voltage output which makes the job of the phono stage much easier, in that the phono stage needs to provide much less gain for an MI, and much much less gain for an MM than for any MC.  With gain comes distortion and noise.  (One disadvantage of a LOMC cartridge.) Also, contrary to your assumption, I would argue that very little to nothing has advanced in the area of cartridge design, in the past 9 years since Raul opened his thread."

And chakster: " It’s always nice to get rid of all additional cables, suts, headamps etc, just to connect your MM to the phono stage to get the decent loud sound."

And leonardcooper: "  I believe as you get fast you must sacrifice output."

I am left wondering, with the various comments, are these LOMC cartridges a viable choice in a "mainstream" person's setup, as opposed to an "übersetup" where distortion and noise are essentially eliminated?  At some point, isn't the cartridge fast enough?  And, with phono pre-amps, why is there a distinction between MM and MC, when really the distinction is with the output voltage?  Aren't phono pre-amps for MC, or such low output cartridges, also more, if not much more, expensive than the MM pre-amps, everything else being equal?  It seems they are all designed for MM, and then some add the MC, and then others add the MC with different levels of adjustment for the vastly different outputs among the LOMC.  What is the lowest output MM and what is the highest output MC?  And finally, what drawbacks have prevented MI from being the top choice?

I am lucky, I have and use both MC and MM cartridges.  One tt set up for MM and the another for MC.  I listen to classic rock most of the time so the MM is used a lot.  The late 80's to present vinyl seem to sound better with the MC.   Currently my too cartridges are: AT-150MLX with a ATN150Sa Shibata stylus and for MC i use DL-103r with a hardwood body or a AT-33PTG/II

In my experience, as I have moved to more expensive cartridges, all the sound parameters have improved; always worth the investment. If you aren't going above the $1200 or so ceiling on MM, then MM or MC is your choice.  Generally, they are priced pretty respective of performance.

Well, well well indeed.
Hard to say which was the big mover as I made a number of changes at once.
Nottingham Analog Spacedeck cw Shelter 501 mk3 mc cart.
Also built a new rack using 2" maple boards and allthread and moved everything over and took time to tidy up all the wiring.
But...the music, oh the music.
NEVER has vinyl sounded so sweet in my system, so much air and just well soul is best words I can come up with.
Not that I thought so at first as first l.p. on was in through the out door by led zep, must be a poor recording as I thought, umm, soso.

Then I slipped on in the dark by grateful dead....ooh yes please, that hit the spot indeed. Followed with number the brave by wishbone ash and dark side of the moon by Floyd.

Just....heaven. Money very well spent imho.

Chackster, I said MI all the way not MM .
And that for classical which was the post before that .

Answer noted. Don´t worry about the MFG 610LX. I think it was only for the European market thirty years ago but it´s superb nevertheless.

@harold-not-the-barrel but my post was addressed not to your statement, but to @schubert 's "MM all the way" 

P.S. I'm still not sure the MFG 610LX is equal to earlier MF61 which i have never seen for sale in many years. 

Chakster, you got it all wrong. I never said the MM´s you just mentioned are inferior to MI´s mentioned by Leonard. On the contrary, they are as good some even better. This all comes down to TA´s and decks used, really. Audio life is hardly ever simple but audiophiles are using different equipment to evaluate quality/quantity differences in their carts, TA´s, preamps etc. The quality of one´s preamp and deck in particular is essential, not to mention a TA he´s using for a certain cart in question.
You are both right, in fact. Leonard´s experience tells an other side of the truth we are seeking for here.

And yes, the GLANZ MFG 610LX is a superb performer, in my system.

Well, i have Joseph Grado Signature XTZ (MI) cartridge, but i can’t say that MM cartridges like the Grace Level II (or F-14 LC-OFC), AT-ML180 OCC, Pioneer PC-1000mk2, Stanton CS100 WOS are on the lower level, they are even better than MI. Life is not so simple!

Don’t forget the superb Moving Flux cartridges like the Glanz MF61

Leonard the Cooper, funny kind of name : )... but he´s simply right.
Welcome to A´gon

The essence of a HQ cartridge: low moving mass of stylus/cantilever ass´y. I have known it for thirty years already.

Best regards,

MI all the way ! People named Leonard are almost always right !

I'm firmly in the moving iron court. The SoundSmith Carts are setup dependent because he uses the CL stylus, specially cut. It is sensitive, but so is a Shibata tip. If it's not elliptical or conical it will need very precise azimuth, SRA and skate control.

I have had exclusively MM carts for the past 40 years until I got the SoundSmith Voice. It's a high output MI, but if you want low output he has them too. I believe as you get fast you must sacrifice output. Those high end, low output carts at SoundSmith are very fast and great for classical and opera, hence the names of the carts. For rock and jazz the Sussaro would be quite adequate

You really have to listen to them to make a determination.

I had a very lengthy conversation with Tim Jarman of HiFi News who set up the following website:
https://beocentral.com

In the conversation I had with him at the High End Show in Windsor he said that the B and O cartridges were a brilliant design as they were conceived with a view to be put into the parallel arms found on the 4000 range of decks. As such they have a very small stylus. B and O apparently considered all parameters when designing the decks - arm/drive/cartridge as opposed to each part in isolation.
Now I am somewhat expanding this thread, but pivoted tonearms are inherently flawed as they follow an arc - so there is always a tracking error - most cartridges are designed with conventional pivoted arms in mind. Hence cartridge architecture originates from this. Parallel is the way records are cut and should be they way to go, but compliance matching appears to be an inherent problem (I am sure many will disagree). Anyway it was with this in mind that the B&O arms and cartridges were designed all of piece so to speak. 
So returning to the issue my intrigue has drawn me to getting a B&O 4002 which I am getting serviced along with the mmc20en cartridge - lets see if the theory is true...

Dear @lewm : No, you are not ignorant on that B&O regards, maybe a misunderstood by @lohanimal  because as you point out the B&O are Moving Iron cartridge design.

Btw, very good permormers those " diminute " cartridges., especially the one you own and the MMC1.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

If you do not mind sourcing, you can find some great deals. I bought my brand new Lyra Delos for $300 less than what I paid for my brand new Soundsmith Zephyr MKII. 

I've heard of but have never heard Nottingham and Shelter gear but I hope it's exactly what you are looking for! Good luck. 

@asp307 
Yes I have heard many good reports on the Lyra Delos, much as there should be bearing in mind the cost.
Hopefully I will be pretty happy with the new Nottingham table and Shelter cart for a while before I bankrupt myself...lol

@uberwaltz , I just replaced a Soundsmith Zephyr MKII High Output MI with a Lyra Delos (MC). The Delos is still breaking in, however, I cannot understate what an impact this has had already on my system. I would say, to my ears, I've almost doubled the sound quality. It sounds as though a veil has been lifted, the highs are sweet and not muddled and I've gained additional separation of air and instruments has.

lohanimal, What was "different" about the MMC series of cartridges from B&O?  I think of them as "not MC" (MM or MI without having done any research).  I ask this out of genuine ignorance.  I own an MMC2.  Thanks.

Oh yes, it is much better to overfill with the oil than underfill. One bottle is good for five times, I think. It is recommended to change the oil once a year if you play it a lot and every 18 months if you don't. Besides getting small metal particles in it, oil gets consumed, burnt.

I don't know about the Shelter cartridge, but with my Goldring MM it took me some patience to set the anti-skate right. It was slightly better in one position with some music and slightly better in another with other music, but these were very small steps.  With VTA set by ear I ended up with the arm in parallel but you have very different and heavier cartridge.
Yeah, Larry should be able to assist you in dialing it in if you need it.

@inna 
Thank you for the very usefull information.
The previous owner has included in the sale some original oil and a spare belt which is very nice. But the contact for future reference is helpful.
I will likely try it on maple blocks first as I have quite a few different size blocks around the place.

Great. Yes, the Shelter is liked by many with Nottinghams. If you have questions regarding the set-up you might want to talk to Larry from Hollywood Sound, he knows Nottinghams and I think the only distributor/dealer in the US. He also likes MC cartridges. You will probably want to use original Nottingham oil that he should have, though you could get it cheaper from the UK dealers. Belt lasts a long time but still you may want a new one. And of course you will need a record mat to replace the stock. Most people prefer Boston Audio graphite mat, but the company is no more so it's difficult to find. I am sure you read the Nottingham threads on Audiogon, see what alternatives are there. Also, as I remember, just about everyone used one of the three isolation platforms under Spacedecks - 2"-3" maple block, Symposium or Neuance (no longer made) but you can start with the platform it comes with. I use 3" maple block with Boston Audio tuneblocks under it.

Well I pulled the trigger and bought the Nottingham Spacedeck cw Spacearm and a nearly new Shelter 501 mk3 mc cartridge. This is apparently a medium voltage cart at 0.5mv and was reportedly a good match on the arm but obviously in my system we will have to see.
Cant wait.....

@lohanimal 

Out of interest @chakster which cartridges do you call the vintage MM's?

I'm talking about top MM cartridges from the 70s/80s era, from various brands such as Audio-Technica, Stanton, Pioneer, Glanz, Grado, Grace, Victor ... Most of them are RARE today, but still not expensive compared to modern MC. Those vintage MMs are hard to beat at any price, but i'm talking about specific models, not all of them are interesting. 

Out of interest @chakster which cartridges do you call the vintage MM's?
@lewm REG may well be an MM fan - it's is essentially a perspective, my point was that it is equally valid. Tom Fletcher of Nottingham Analogue was another well known proponent of the MM. 
There are also some interesting hybrids such as the MMC as designed by Bang and Olufsen (yes of lifestyle fame now I know) but they were designed ground up with a parallel tracking arm in mind with exceptionally small and dexterous stylus tips. 

Dear @uberwaltz:  """  so I am curious as to what I am missing if anything  """

of course that you are missing several " things " but not because you have not a LOMC cartridge.

Your today cartridge is an entry level MM one that is builded by AT and is designed to a specific price point, so there are significant quality performance levels as trade-offs vs its price.

If I was you what I do is to go for a way better MM alternative before think in a LOMC cartridge that could outperforms your MM up-grade.

In the other side your main listening is through digital ( good for this. ) that means your analog software is a poor one: how many thousands of LPs do you own that can justify a really good LOMC cartridge?

Maybe it's better to invest in a better digital source or digital software than in LOMC.

Fortunatelly I'm not you.

Btw, the kind of music you listen is not important when we are looking for a cartridge because if your choice is a good alternative/option then one of its characteristics must be to handle with high quality levels any kind of music ( either: MM/LOMC. )

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

@uberwaltz

MM are great, cost less, gives more and you can look for the top carts mentioned by many users in the dedicated thread. No one knows which MM or MI would be the best in your system and it’s about personal preferences in sound. But the potential of vintage MM is huge, prices are real compared to MC. It’s always nice to get rid of all additional cables, suts, headamps etc, just to connect your MM to the phono stage to get the decent loud sound. Rare vintage MM cartridges will give you neutrial presentation much closer to the mastertape than most of the MC. The option with 100k load is also very nice to improve the sound quality.

MC cartridges are also good (often colored), but normally more expensive if you will get in count the price of the sut, headamps or high gain phono stages. They are more sensitive to cables, because the signal is so low. In the other words you can spend a lot to realize at the end of the day that your vintage MM is still better.

High Output MC are also not bad, i have at lest 2 of them.
I have MI cartridges as well and even very low output MM cartridge.

I was so disappointed with the very expensive modern MC cartridges, the prices are crazy and i can’s stand it, still can be fine for some people, but i don’t believe in the absolute cartridge, it’s always experiment, you never know.

I would avoid oldschool cartridges, conical tips and those broadcast denon 103 madness. MM cartridges from the 70s/80s are superior to the modern MM cartridges and of cource much better that oldschool MC carts.

It’s nice to have an alternative in the system (at least two tonearms with different types of cartridges). It is so much fun and always potential to find a better cartridge if you can compare them carefully.

Agreed that you have to be the judge. Cart choice must fit into your system and produce a sound you like. Other people's opinions are just that. This is a subjective hobby. 

A lot of people will say that to truly hear what MC can do you need to spend $$$. I have heard anywhere from 2000k to 3000k. For me that is a lot to spend on a cart that cost near the same price to re-tip and at some point will completely fail. 

I have heard MC up to about 1500 bucks and was not overly impressed. I prefer the Soundsmith carts sound and the their economics of re-tip. 

Also surprised you have not read that your phono stage was specifically developed with a circuit to work with the 20x dyanvector. People say with the enhancer circuit and the 20x you get a lot of performance for the dollar.  

As always Al, your posts are very inciseful and contain many words of wisdom, as do the vast majority of the post already in this thread and I am grateful for each and every reply and the time and effort that goes into them.
I was of the opinion that a very lomc might not be a good fit and that possibly a medium output as you state or even a homc. Or stick with mm...or try mi....
Yes I have lots of great information now but still unclear of future path.
But that is one that at least is much more informed for sure!
Maybe at my level the present cart is more than good enough....but we all know the itch to try greener pastures.

REG of TAS has forever been a proponent of MM cartridges over MC types.  This is not to say he is wrong, just to say that he has a longstanding bias that he maintained even when HP was gushing over every new LOMC entry from Japan, back in the 70s and 80s and probably the 90s.  This proves to me that in the end, the judging has to be subjective and system-dependent.

Uberwaltz, you’ve received a lot of excellent comments above. I would add that a good means of narrowing the bewildering range of choices you would have in going to an LOMC cartridge would be to choose one having comparable weight and comparable compliance to your present cartridge. In doing so you would minimize the possibility of a mismatch between arm and cartridge, since your present cartridge appears to be commonly supplied with your turntable.

Your present cartridge weighs 8.4 grams. Its compliance doesn’t appear to be specified, but the compliances indicated at vinylengine.com for numerous Clearaudio moving magnet cartridges are all 15 x 10^-6 cm/dyne, presumably at 10 Hz. (Cartridges manufactured in Japan typically have compliances specified at 100 Hz, and to equate those numbers to the 10 Hz specs used by European manufacturers multiply the Japanese numbers by a factor in the area of approximately 1.7, as I understand it).

That would seem to rule out the Denon DL-103 and 103R that were mentioned. Although their weights (8.5 grams) are very close to the weight of your present cartridge, they have 100 Hz compliances of only 5 x 10^-6 cm/dyne.

Also, while I’m not familiar with the phono stage you have purchased, and specifically with its noise performance, keep in mind that choosing a cartridge having a rated output in the area of say 0.5 mv is less likely to result in excessive hiss than one having a considerably lower rated output, such as the DL-103R (0.25 mv). I note that the description of the phono stage recommends a minimum cartridge output rating of 0.15 mv, but I would take that with some grains of salt.  It's usually a good idea to provide significant margin relative to published specs.

Good luck with your choice. Regards,
-- Al

Hi guys - check out a website called REGON AUDIO by Robert Everest Greene who has written for THE ABSOLUTE SOUND. He gives a fascinating insight into MM carts. What is interesting, and I have found is the MC's pick up certain artefacts in a recording that when heard in a master tape are never picked up on, but due to the MC design they are. These often give a sense of air and magic that aren't in fact accurate - the MM's were in fact closer to neutral. I have a Pickering XSV4000 and I am impressed with the way it goes about its' business - it doesn't major on 'airy highs' but has an earth driving musicality that none of my 3 MC's deliver. In addition to this they don't require as much amplification as an MC. So MC's give a magic when done correctly, but MM's have their own strengths of equal value. 

Rarely mentioned is the third alternative---Moving Iron, Grado and London (aka Decca) being the two best known. A big advantage of the (generally) high-output MI's is their lack of the need for either a transformer or extra gain. London's produce 5mV output!

A further thought.  In your price range, which is to say at $600 and below, you might consider the Denon 103 or the Hana SL.  Other than those two, I would suggest an MM or an MI, because there you get more bang for the buck.

If you wait nine more years, you may have had the honor of starting your own 13K-post thread.  Because you have in a way re-stated Raul's question.  You cannot expect others to tell you what cartridge you will like.  Period. That's just for starters.  In addition, your question is based on an assumption that either all MM cartridges can outperform MC ones, or vice-versa.  (Maybe that's an unfair summary of your question, but that is one take-away from it.) That is simply not the case.  There are a few MM cartridges that outperform many or most MC cartridges.  (For a hint of what those cartridges might be, you might just read Raul's initial post on his long thread.) There are also a few MC cartridges that outperform most MM cartridges. It's a mixed bag, and only you can find your way out of it.  If Robjerman's rationale were correct (about MCs being superior because of having lower moving mass), then Moving Iron (MI) cartridges should rule, because MI cartridges have lower moving mass than do MC cartridges.  On top of that they generally have higher signal voltage output which makes the job of the phono stage much easier, in that the phono stage needs to provide much less gain for an MI, and much much less gain for an MM than for any MC.  With gain comes distortion and noise.  (One disadvantage of a LOMC cartridge.) Also, contrary to your assumption, I would argue that very little to nothing has advanced in the area of cartridge design, in the past 9 years since Raul opened his thread.  Certainly there is nothing new in the price range where you seem to want to shop.  So, my opinion is that you need to do some critical listening of your own.  I rank my top MM cartridges (Grace Ruby with Soundsmith CL re-tip, Acutex LPM320, Stanton 981LZS) in the same breath with my best MC cartridges (ZYX UNIverse, Audio Technical AT7, Koetsu Urushi, Ortofon MC2000).  I really have never heard a high output MC in my system that could compete in any way with those listed cartridges.  So, no HOMC for me.

Uberwaltz, you really have to have Nottingham Spacedeck ! Or at least Interspace deck. I wouldn't have it if it didn't rock, believe you me. But I listen to acoustic music, Spain's flamenco, world music, vocal in addition to jazzrock and some rock. So I need a very versatile cartridge. Sure, $2500 Tranfiguration Axia or maybe $1600 Lyra Delos would probably do most if not all things better than my humble 1042. But I really see no need, not to mention the cost, until I upgrade my Acoustech phono. And since I want good tube phono it will be at least $2000. So, a lot of money.
Of course, you could try Dynavector 20 LO, many like this cartridge. If it works in your arm. Perhaps you would like to take a risk with something used bought from a reputable member, just to aquaint yourself with MCs.

You’re right Inna. What I failed to mention is, would the op sacrifice his rock music for the extra sweetness in vocals with MC or would you stick with MM that can that can rock your world with out that extra clean midrange?

@inna 
Yes definitely just one cartridge and one table! Of course if you had a table with two arms it would be fairly easy to run 2 different carts......

But as normal I have been perusing eBay and spotted a Nottingham Analog table which I have promised myself to own one day...it never ends...lol.
Btw I am from Nottingham in the UK myself so quite poetic to actually own one!

I don’t think setting up a soundsmith is any different than other cartridges. You will need to setup vtf and anti-skate accurately to get the best out of any cartridge-IMO

I read that Soundsmith cartridges must be very precisely aligned, with VTF and anti-skate equally precisely set, that’s that they are more capricious than average. But this might only be true in some not all cases.

To have both is an excellent idea, either with one table or two. But that's not the option the OP is considering. Again, table rocks cartridge follows, well, if it does.