MC-MM-MI CARTRIDGES . DO YOU KNOW WHICH HAS BETTER QUALITY PERFORMANCE? REALLY?

OK, let’s try and get back on track and away from the typical nonsense that seems to often creep into these threads.

For whatever it may be worth, some thoughts and opinions based on my personal experiences with cartridges of every persuasion (MC, MI, MM) :

I agree with @bdp24 about the Decca cantilever-less cartridges and could not have described what I hear from them any better:

*** The London (Decca) moving iron pickups make music sound more like live music than anything else I’ve heard. Startling attack, immediacy, presence, full-bodied tonality, dynamics, and imaging. The musician’s touch on keyboard, fretboard, or drumhead, the singer’s lips, throat, and vocal chords---the "life" in music. ***

That “life” in music is FOR ME the most important consideration when comparing audio equipment. Assuming no gross tonal problems, even more so than tonality (timbre) issues, That quality is what gives the rhythmic integrity of music meaning and without rhythmic integrity music is pretty meaningless. As some musicians like to say “No one ever got fired for having a bad tone”. An exaggeration to be sure, but the point is that, in performance, rhythmic accuracy and feel trumps everything else. A musician can have a beautiful tone, but if his rhythmic accuracy and feel is not so great there are going to be problems.

So, does this mean that I think that MI designs “has better quality performance? Really?” I don’t think so. As much as I have liked some of the qualities of the Grado carts that I have owned, they didn’t come close to having the sense of life that the Decca’s have. I will let the more technically astute postulate as to why this may be so, but to my simple mind it points to the issue of compliance and why MC’s have been FOR ME second best in this regard, some a close second. MC’s tend to also be of low compliance. Coincidence? They also tend to share with the Decca’s tonal attributes that in my experience tend to elude most high compliance MM’s that I have used. Of course, there is more at play besides compliance.

To my ears the MM and, to a somewhat lesser extent, MI (not the Decca) designs that I have used seem to rob the music of some of the natural color of the sound of acoustic instruments. “Color” is a maligned term in audiospeak, but live music has tons of natural color. I hear what I can only describe as a “grey” or bleached tonal quality in the sound of even the best MM/MI cartridges in my experience. Some consider this quality to be “neutrality”. I disagree.

I think that as much as much as we hate to admit it, when we consider tonal issues in audio systems we are mixing and matching the tonal qualities of the various components to achieve a tonal quality that we like or feel that is closest to the sound of music. Regardless of what specs may tell us, no piece of audio gear is truly “neutral”. We can add or subtract a bit of this or that in the overall frequency spectrum by the choice of certain components, but it seems to me that the sense of “life” cannot be added to the sound if it was not present at the source.

It is unfortunate that some feel that because reproduced sound will never sound EXACTLY like live music, to strive for a sound that is as close as possible to that experience (certainly as concerns the two most important aspects of music, rhythm and timbre) should be considered to be pointless. I couldn’t disagree more with that sentiment. This hobby took a turn for the worse when the idea of live as a reference was abandoned by many.  This is the very reason that there are so many “audiophile” systems that do, in fact, sound “completely different” from live. Not because a reasonable facsimile is not possible.

As Raul wrote, the key is extensive exposure to live music.  No offense intended, but those who oppose using live music as a reference are copping out and/or are listening to the wrong things when (if) they spend much time attending live performances.  There are aspects of live sound that can be appreciated no matter the venue, musician, your seat in the venue, etc,; all those “variables” that for some invalidate the use of live as a reference.  

**** So why apply a standard of live music when it doesn’t even apply to a lot of music we listen to? ****

Fair question, but the answer is simple: because live unamplified musical sounds have the most information available to the audiophile.  And, yes, those who listen to amplified music primarily are at a disadvantage in this regard.  Sorry, but true.  Dynamic, rhythmic, timbral and textural nuance are there to be heard on a level much richer and finer than in amplified/processed music.  Nothing wrong with not using this as one’s guide and simply striving for a sound that is liked, just as there is nothing wrong and certainly not a “farce” to believe in using it.  However, to not use it is the reason that so many “audiophile” systems make sounds that one never hears live, while some which are assembled with this in mind can get reasonably close.  And that is a worthy goal for some.  

Raul, I agree with what you wrote and I can only add that it goes even much deeper than that as concerns how rhythmic nuance is conveyed by audio equipment. Transient response is key, but only one piece of the puzzle it seems to me. And I do believe it is a puzzle because I have not seen entirely satisfactory explanations, from a technical standpoint, for all that contributes to the sense of immediacy and tension/release that one hears in well performed live music and from well reproduced recordings.. All things that contribute to great rhythmic feeling. One example:

A string section in a great orchestra plays a musical passage that consists of sustained chords. One hears the initial transient attack of one chord that has to be perfectly timed within the overall context of the music for it to be correctly rhythmic. This sustained chord then resolves to another sustained chord that likewise has to be perfectly timed. However, it is not just the temporal relationship between those two transients that matters, it is also what happens in between those two transients that makes the difference. It is the excitement created by the sense of tension/release of one chord leading to the next, like a coiled spring finally releasing that makes all the difference. Some audio gear does a much better job of conveying this type of nuance than others do.

Apparently.

You may find this interesting.  Basic, but to the point:

https://www.schoolofcomposition.com/what-is-tension-and-release-in-music/#:~:text='Tension%20and%20release'%20refers%20to,keeps%20the%20music%20moving%20forward.

@dover , great to hear from you and thank you for your concern, but it was not I who made the comment re groove noise.

In the endless debate about the relevance of the live music experience as reference, as @rauliruegas has pointed out this comment from @pryso is key.  It may not be possible or practical for some, but there is no getting around it.

*** I don’t intend to say attending one or two a year is sufficient. Repetition is needed to ingrain the unique sonics or each type of instrument and vocal range. Again there is the likelihood for sonic variations from one live venue to another, one brand or design of a given instrument to another, and individual vocal characteristics. So broad and aggregated experience becomes necessary. ***