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

What I have learnt from this thread is that a MI Cart' can now be acquired for $12K.

Setting the Brand of that Cart's other models aside, what is the price jump from another go to MI Cart' to get to the cost referred to above, $6K, $7K, $8k as there are no in between models?.

In the MC Market the outlays to get to $12K, would easily be progressive in 300 - $500 increments, even all the way up to $15K, as a result of the range of models on offer.

Dear @mijostyn  : " I auditioned the Strain Gauge. It is on the bright side do to response irregularities and it will not handle high groove velocities near as well as a MI or MC cartridge will. "

I agree with you on the brigth side of SG but not in your last sentence due that as optical cartridge design SG did not develops voltage due that " no sense " groove velocity but its amplitude and tha's why in the first page of the thread @mke246  posted that his SoundSmith SG cartridges has not only lower noise but lower distortion even at inner grooves that his high compliance Shure cartridge and he has reason on what he is listening.

R.

Mijostyn, You wrote, "The one huge advantage of high output cartridges is a much better signal to noise ratio which everyone will notice right away." That is actually a very complex statement, not completely correct and not completely incorrect, in my opinion. To begin with a low output cartridge will per se have a worse SN ratio when its signal reaches the first amplification stage, simply because noise due to the LP surface irregularities and etc is a fixed base affecting all types equally and signal is purely a function of the cartridge output. So LO cartridges are at a disadvantage vs HO cartridges purely as regards the ratio of S to N, because S is relatively low. But at the phono stage output, I would think the disadvantage in SN ratio is ameliorated at least to a degree (different for each of the myriad of different possible combinations of cartridge and phono stage), if the phono stage is very low in noise and I suppose if one is using a SUT to supply some voltage gain for an LOMC. Anyway, I am rarely bothered by the sense that noise is a problem with LO cartridges. What I sense when comparing let’s say a good LOMC to a good MI cartridge is that the LOMC always seems just a tad lean compared to real music and compared to what the best MI cartridges can do. With the latter on average I get a greater sense of the real. Especially on piano jazz do I sense problems with good LOMCs. Again, I have never had a $10K+ LOMC in my system, or even one costing much more than $6K.

Since LOMC cartridges tend to be low in compliance, I would guess that most of my mild dissatisfaction with even "good" ones is due to mistracking, especially on piano.  So that would be my beef with LOMC, not noise.

@dogberry  Good to hear. Yes, all of the more advanced stylus shapes VTA sensitive because they have a longer contact patch. You can lose the high end easily. The OCL stylus is more like the stylus Lyra uses in the Atlas. It is not quite as severe as the replicant. Soundsmith's MR stylus is much more like the reolicant, but the Replicant remains the most severe stylus on the market. The GygerS is closest. I have a new Hyperion MR, but I can not really comment on it yet. It is a little brighter than I like and I will be able to EQ it shortly. Then I will listen more carefully and comment. 

Live Opera in a great theater is an incredible experience. You can't know what the human voice can do until you hear one and it is a great example of what a great system should sound like. Close your eyes for a few minutes and imagine you are listening to a stereo. Detail the sound in your mind, a mental note. 

I might also add that from my perspective tracking performance and detail are most important. With the ability to EQ a cartridge you can modify the sound to taste. The Hyperion MR is a great example. It tracks like a bandit and is superbly detailed, but just a bit on the bright side for me. This is easy to fix. Poor detail and poor tracking can not be fixed. 

@frogman Thank you for the link: I do know that musicologists regard tension and release as something written on the stave. My point was why is they can say that? Why do we all, or nearly all, recognise what the music is doing to us? That must belong to the realm of neurology, even if we don't have the foggiest idea of how.

@mijostyn After a day of experimentation yesterday, I'm of the opinion that the Sussurro MkII ES sounds different this time because it is awfully sensitive to VTA - I believe I have read that the Soundsmith OCL stylus looks a lot like an Ortofon Replicant. For the first time I'm seeing why Soundsmith cartridges are so beloved by their owners. Once I had fiddled with that, I ended up playing albums on the LP-S, Sussurro and Decca Reference. The LP-S plays them in a coolly clinical way, detailed but not necessarily involving (and this is supposed to be a relatively lush MC!). The Sussurro would be a great way of getting a non-vinyl person to see why they might try it out. It's warm, bouncy and rich, but still has nearly all the detail of the LP-S, if a bit less clarity. The Decca is somewhere between those extremes. I wish I were in a position to try The Voice and a Hyperion too. (I cannot speak about imaging or soundstage, having one ear and no ability to hear stereo.)

@rauliruegas You're right that rare live attendances at live music won't make much impression. I wonder whether the kind of performance makes a difference too? I used to go to half a dozen operas a year, so I feel I know what one ought to sound like (for that hall etc). My next door neighbour before my last move used to offer piano and chamber recitals in a purpose built space in her home, and often remarks how much she likes to listen to my hi-fi. I have very little exposure to small venue jazz, folk or vocals, so I may be less critical about those kinds of music. I suppose that at the end of it all, as long as we enjoy what we use, we should be happy. It just makes it harder to describe the sound of a cartridge to others if we don't share a reference point.

@lewm  exactly, especially when you consider price.

MM and MC cartridges occupy two distinctly different markets. Buyers of MC cartridges are willing to spend much more money on a cartridge than buyers of MM cartridges. Thus, MM cartridges are a much better value. MM cartridges rule below about $1500. MI cartridges seem to straddle the two markets. I would rather have say an Ortofon 2M Black LVB than any of the low end Hana cartridges. The one huge advantage of high output cartridges is a much better signal to noise ratio which everyone will notice right away.  If you have a MM phono stage and desire to get into the highest level of performance I can not recommend the Soundsmith Voice highly enough. It makes far more sense and will be less expensive than springing for a MC phono stage and cartridge. 

Mahler, in my opinion, no, it is not possible to generalize about the different transduction mechanisms, as regards a pecking order of what gives best SQ. All MCs are certainly not better than all MMs, to address your specific point.

@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. ***

Is it possible to really generalize about this?  Can we say that all mms are inferior to all mc, for example?  Or are some mm better than some mcs?  One can speak of general traits of differing technologies, but ultimately a high degree of musical fidelity can be obtained with all of them.  At some point listener preference becomes key

Dover, I don’t think I can be wrong for asking why a “good LOMC cartridge” (whatever that is) would produce lowest groove noise. Because I’ve made no assertion. I just wanna know why. Of course I also think compliance, VTA, stylus shape, and almost everything else have more to do with groove noise than the mechanics of transduction.

Great post Raul.

As always there are many roads to Rome. No one cartridge design has been shown to be significantly better. It is all in the execution. I have heard several very convincing MC and MI cartridges. MM seems to lag a little bit behind. I auditioned the Strain Gauge. It is on the bright side do to response irregularities and it will not handle high groove velocities near as well as a MI or MC cartridge will.

I believe everyone should carefully examine new cartridges and any irregularity should be reported to the company immediately. No manufacturer can be perfect 100% of the time when it comes to these microscopic assemblies. Careful alignment is also necessary to produce the best performance. Only the owner will take the time to do this correctly. There are tools that greatly improve accuracy in cartridge alignment. I would like to suggest the WallySkater, the Wally Performance and the SmarTractor as tools that can greatly speed up this process and improve accuracy. 

Dear @pryso : " 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. "

You are just spot on.

Btw, you know I live in México and in one of my USA trips I was in San Diego Area where I meet you along other incredible gentlemans and audiophiles. I was at your place listening your system through those great Duntech Sorveign and was at your home where took place the second shoot-out between the Dartzeel phonolinepreamp and my Essential 3150 That was a great time with all of you where the most important issue for me was to know great great human being with which all been shared our first hand experiences of our beloved hooby: MUSIC and MUSIC home reproduction.

For me the time with all of you were learning audio times that even today gaves me certainty to my way of thinking in audio world.

Same happened in Dallas ( two times ) with audio lovers as @albertporter and his group, he had the opportunity to listen the Essential 3150 and in the second trip the Essential 3160 too. I was in Idaho, Austin, LA, Denver, Georgia, twice in Houston where I been hosted in his house both times by a gentleman that is some one to meet him and obviously his audio friends he is @fcrowder where I listened for the very first time Rockport TT and the top of the line Acapella speakers: great room/system for say the least.

To many places to name all but I can’t let out Phiuladelphia area hosted by a dear @sbank and his group and between that group was @slipknot1 and that time we liste to the Essential 3150 in his place in a meeting with their audio area club ( at least 20 audiopphiles there ) where was there Lloyd Walker ( TT designer. ) a close fiend of him , obviously that he owned the Walker Procenium surrounded by top audio system.

From here a hot regards to all of them and you in especial.

R.

Dear @dgarretson  : Certainly is a real pleasure to meet you here again, as a fact I know that as me several Agoners miss you and miss your very kigh knowledge audio world levels either technically and sound system first hand experiences. I hope you can continue, time to time, in this forum that needs gentlemans as you.

" throughout your epic thread I accumulated many vintage TOTL MM/MI cartridges, many NOS, and was finally convinced that on identical tonearms a Stanton 981LZS was pretty close to a Lyra Etna. Not to mention top Grace, Precept, Astatic, even an inexpensive Sonus Blue-- a fast and lovely sounding very high compliance design. "

As you several music lovers/audiophiles ( including me ) really enjoy that " new " long cartridge voyage that still today continue.

Your sentence about the Stanton/Etna truly helps me to confirm part of my opinion/answer that till today I don't posted yet in this thread. Obviously that I have my self OP conclusions that will share with all Agoners any time from now.

Btw, yes optical old design cartridge is the " fashion " ( for good reasons. ) in analog with the advantage ( along SG cartridge designs. ) that to develops voltage through tracking grooves velocitties both optical/SG makes it as an amplitude devices and yes as everything in analog has its own trade-offs.

Good to see you again.

R.

The answer to Raul's OP question seems to be no, nobody knows which cartridge type is inherently "better".  But most of us have an opinion.

And that's the sad fact about audio forums - there are so many opinions that are not based on actual lived experiences.

There are tens of thousands of posts in this forum claiming cartridge "a" was much better than cartridge "b", but probably substantially less than a thousand where the author actually described what the differences were in some detail with references to music played.

Furthermore  the number of times that someone posts their cartridge comparison and includes information on context - turntable/arm & phono used, would be less than 100.

Therefore many posts are meaningless, other than providing an opportunity for social discourse.

Please offer a mechanism to explain why a “good LOMC suppressed groove noise better than the others”, other than that’s your opinion.

No you are wrong.

@frogman never said that was his opinion.

@frogman posted that this was his experience in his system with cartridges he has used in that environment.

There is a vast chasm between an actual lived experience and an opinion.

Doctors often offer an opinion because they have to cover off the fact that they may well be wrong with their diagnosis. Compare this with their patient who also may have their own opinion on their health woes, but it is only the patient that has actually experienced the ill health in their body and can describe accurately what they have experienced.

@lewm, you said in a few words what I attempted with many.

Dear @terry9  :Both different cartridges overall tone color and other characteristics.

I used several cartridges with ruby cantilever and no oneof them really satisfied totally to me. The top  Grado lost alittle the natural agresiveness, brigthness and even agresiveness that we can listen seated at near field posiiton in live MUSIC but overall is a good performer.

The answer to Raul's OP question seems to be no, nobody knows which cartridge type is inherently "better".  But most of us have an opinion.

@rauliruegas LOVE the Hana Umami Red.  I also have a Soundsmith Paua which I consider to be on the same level.  I think these carts are right in the sweet spot for price vs performance.  

@lewm @jhnnrrs

I have two of the higher end cartridges, a diamond Koetsu and a Grado Epoch. The Koetsu at 1510 hours (minimal stylus wear at 1000 hours by photomicrograph) is exceptional in its smoothness, quietness, resolution, sweetness, and musicality, but not so much on tracking. As a provisional opinion, the new Grado surpasses the Koetsu (at 1510 hours) in all resects, and is a superb tracker. It likes a stiff wand with good damping, but doesn’t work well with sapphire IMO - too analytical for my taste.

I’ll be switching back to the Koetsu soon for variety, when my opinion will firm up. Both are good, one seems better. As for fuzzy ...

Air bearing table and tonearm, battery powered air gap / vacuum capped RIAA, ESL’s.

I think stylus profile has more to do with the amount of groove noise than the type of motor at the top of the cantilever (honorable exception: a mono cartridge that is insensitive to vertical motion).

Please offer a mechanism to explain why a “good LOMC suppressed groove noise better than the others”, other than that’s your opinion.

Under the category of " everything the same" as a methodology for having experienced a broad range of Cart' Types.

All my previous reports are askew, as I have not had the experiences where all ancillaries to support the use of the Cart' are identical.

I am also sure TA used today are selected for their being better for the usage of a particular Cart' Design and Phonostages Types used have evolved in their designs where they have become more desirable to keep maintained in use.

 " everything the same ". Is to prove to be difficult to adhere to, as a means of offering a report. 

@daveyf : " is the impact on the cartridge of the phono stage, and the arm, both of which make a very large difference. "

Yes, but remember that in the OP says: " everything the same. " and I touched there all what you posted and what @bslon did it to. Btw, the designer of your Aerial speakers by coincidence was the engineer in chief on ADS and he was the personal designer of my vintage  Professional Monitors ADS L2030 speakers, after ADS he started his own company: Aerial.

R.

I agree with @daveyf , and would add that a good LOMC suppresses groove noise better than the others. But the other consideration is stylus profile and cantilever material. It’s all up to the owner’s ears in the end, maybe no wrong answer here.

@rauliruegas   Raul, I no longer own the Benz.To answer your question as to why I prefer LOMC’s, it is one word…resolution. I find in my system that the better MC’s resolve more detail than any of the MM’s I have owned. Same goes for the MI’s. I have not heard a really good optical in my system, but the one’s I have heard are very nice…for a very high price. One thing that has not been discussed is the impact on the cartridge of the phono stage, and the arm, both of which make a very large difference, IME. 

Dear @daveyf  :I can see in your system the Kleos and I think the BM Ruby.

Permit me ask: why have you preference for the LOMC cartridges?.Btw, I own the Kleos and owned all Ruby versions.

R.

Dear @mglik  :I don't own the Epoch 3 but I own severalvintage Grado ones where the  TLZ is from where the your cartridge came on design and main difference is that the TLZ does not usegold wire and its cartridge body is plastic where cantilever is not made by ruby material.

The Grado TLZ series was the Joseph Grado cartridge motor design and the next model a tophad a 1K price in those old times.

So, I think in good " hands " with. The main characteristic I remember ( I still own the TLZ ) is that is a performer that just refuse to distort no matters what.I like it but " to musical " for me and different to the London Decca you owned.

Good that you enjoy it so much.

R.

The best explanation came from J. Peter Moncreiff (IIRC) who said that moving magnet/moving iron cartirdges impart a fuzziness to the instruments that is missing from a moving coil.  The effect is subtle, but noticeable as an overall cleaner, more transparent sound.

@jhnnrrs He made a lot of claims but his studies (like you see in IAR #5) lacked the provenance to really know what was going on. For example, for MM cartridges to work right you have to deal with the high inductance they have. That inductance is high enough that the cartridge can ring at audio frequencies, and the inductance in parallel with the tonearm cable can set up an electrical resonance just at the upper end of the audio band or barely ultrasonic. This can mess with phono sections if they don't have a good HF overload characteristic.

So for the study to be valid, the phono section used, the tonearm cable capacitance has to be stated along with the inductance of the cartridge and what was done about it.

If LP playback has a strong weakness against digital, setup is arguably it- with digital its nearly plug and play but if you want the best out of an analog system it has to be set up right/you have to know what you are doing.

***************************

IME the ability of the arm to properly track the cartridge is far more important then what cartridge you have. Some arms are a lot better at this sort of thing than others!

FWIW as reference I use recordings that I recorded, some of which I also mastered to LP.

I've myself attended many live performances, Choirs, Choristers, Orchestral, Acoustic, Rock.

Some of the Venues visited have been wonderful to listen to Music, with even the Albert Hall included, which has had extensive work carried out to enhance the Venue for live performance.

A HiFi System can't do it, it can't encapsulate an individual in the expanse of the sound.

The Sound at a Live Venue is usually omnidirectional and expands to envelope the listener.

A Rock Venue not so much, as this is expansive sound but directional.

A Sound produced from a Audio System is directional, it is here where all similarities are lost to a live performance.

I don't disagree with the idea, a particular instrument when heard on a Audio System, can create the perception there is an honesty to the sound being produced, bit the lag between a Instrument Heard in one location, the exposure to endless ambient sound from the local environment, and then listening to a recorded music on the home system, even if achieved in the shortest of timeline, leaves a individual with a corrupted hearing.

I suggest anybody with the notion on board, they are able to have equivalent of a  Live Music Encounter, as a match for a Recorded Music Audio Experience, has a little fantastical attached to their notion and inaccurate assessment.

@rauliruegas , good to see you continuing the good fight in the audio wars my friend.  I'm a few days late in discovering this post.

Regarding a "true" answer, I don't believe that will ever be possible.  As you pointed out there are too many variables in playback systems.  But also significant variables in the sources, the recordings we listen to.  Then there is the equally wide variation in personal taste, based upon exposure and experience, plus individual hearing response profiles.

I agree with the importance for calibration of personal audible standards by listening to live performances.  Unfortunately that is challenged by the reduced number of unamplified performances now available.  But here 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.

BTW, I trust that frogman won't mind if I reveal that he is a professional musician of long standing who also enjoys home music reproduction.  So he has the benefit of  experience and musical knowledge as a bases for his perceptions.

As for me, I have MM, MI, and LOMC examples (thanks to Raul's earlier post) and find something to enjoy in each type.  But I started in this hobby in the mid-1960s and my ears no longer demand the precise playback they once did.  So I don't worry about the fine points as much as I used to. ;^)

OK I admit that in my sound room there is a piano and a set of drums and a lot of percussion instruments.  Sometimes these must inevitably influence my perception of sound as reproduced from my stereo system.  But, the influence is only subliminal and never due to direct comparison.  It does help me hear if the piano is in tune.  Especially live acoustic jazz recordings sometimes reveal out of tune pianos.  Also, Connie Kay, the great drummer of MJQ, had a bell tree with a very distinctive sound.  I have one of those bell trees and use it to verify that my overall system presentation and tonality are reasonably accurate in the upper midrange and highs. If the bells don't sound right a cartridge could be a no go.  This in my experience happens with cartridges with a rising high frequency response, which is  confirmed on an O-scope.  This is more common than you think and one of factors that led me to favor my Hyperion.

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.

Surely tension/release is a neurological matter rather then one created by a skilled orchestra, a good venue or a fine cartridge? We talk of joyful music, sad music and so on, but we are simply describing the emotions it engenders in our minds, not in the music. It is interesting that we generally agree on the emotions that music causes: it gives a small insight into the way our brains work. One of the admirable qualities about Puccini was that he wrote in emotions as much as in melodies; he had the ability (was it conscious?) to reach straight into one's thalamus and manipulate the emotions. Probably heightened by all the excitement of a live performance, where travelling there, dressing up, the set, the costumes, and finally the music all contribute to the final effect of leaving me weeping.

I want my music reproduction to work at several levels:

—I want the detailed timbres of an intimate venue chamber recital or solo voice reproduced so I can hear them as if I were there, I want to hear how much rosin is on the horsehair

—I want my feet to tap from the musicality of it all, which is simply a physical manifestation of how successfully the music is dominating all other mental processes

—I want that emotional experience

But then, I'm easily satisfied...

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.

Dear @frogman  :  I think I know you on MUSIC/audio reproduction targets and of course rhythm  is at the top chatacteristic and is not for free or at random because exist several reasons behind it.

From where comes/came that live MUSIC rhythm?. Well and this is only my take about:

months ago maybe years in other Agon forum was opened a thread with a dialogue about rhythm and I participated down there and what I posted is that differences for the better or bad belongs to Transient Response here is where starts MUSIC and from that Transient Response ( instruments/audio system ) is developed the Rhythm and MUSIC Dynamics.

That first attack that @bdp24  is exactly where start Transient Response but the Rhythm that is developed depends of several issues:

first which the rhythm proposed by the MUSIC composer and is very important because  ( example ) the Orchestra Director needs a correct explicit interpretation of what the composer try to achieve and the Director must has to transmit that issue to the Orchestra players  that's why so many training sessions to show a MUSICAL score to the Hall public seated there. 

But here exist some troubles: one is the venue that has implicated part of the natural color of tha MUSIC score, then the quality level of all the player instruments and obviously their talent invloved there but each human being today can have a rhtyhm/feels and 6 hours latter a little different one due to changes in the mood or for whatever other reason.

With out transient response rhythm can exist, overall is to complicated to explain it and needs a new thread but at the end that rhythm is what makes the differences between cartridges even coming from the same manufacturer.

The ones like me that owns or listened in their system several cartridges know exactly what I'm talking about. Each cartridge has its own rhythm that sometime makes us to move our legs/foots very easy and other times not so easy or even no movements at all and yes we  all have our own rhythm too.

Cartridges with out rhythm are cartridges with bad transient response or not so good levels.

R.

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.  

How do you know a flugehorn kind of sound, or the kind of sound of a double bass or a piano instrument if you never heard it live?

How do you know what a flugelhorn or piano recorded in another venue as interpreted by the recording engineer sounds like if you weren’t there and/or were the recording engineer?  Hearing a flugelhorn or piano live on certain occasions in various venues doesn’t mean that translates to or what was captured on a certain recording nor what you should expect.  It’s by definition a moving target and thus hearing something live somewhere is an unreliable and unrealistic reference point as to what you think you should hear on a recording.  I play drums but don’t use the sound of my drums as the standard by which I hear drums on a given recording — there are just too many variables involved to make that a viable standard or useful benchmark for reproduced recorded music at home.  Anyway, I’m otherwise very much enjoying the various takes on the sound of different cartridge designs — very interesting and educational.

Dear @rdk777  : " the MI technology. It has become my favorite cartridge now. "

Perhaps you need to listen the Atlas Lambda SL in your system ( really nice system you own. ) against the Hyperion that I know why you like it.

The thread is not a competition but to talk about first hamd cartridge experiences in between. An agoner posted  in the last few weeks his preference of that Lyra over the Hyperion, he owned both along the Orton Diamond that he like it too.

" haven't had the need to try MM's . " well I think that it's not necesssarily a " need " but only an additional experience when you own two respectable phono stages to listen MM cartridges. 

R.

Dear @dogberry  I can live with the LP-S or London Decca but not the MP 500 that's a good cartridge but nothing more than that.

R.

Dear @soix ​@billstevenson  :  Both are rigth as is @knock1  ( please read wmy answer posted to him.

The issue is only these:

How do you know a flugehorn kind of sound, or the kind of sound of a double bass or a piano instrument if you never heard it live?

In this thread what we will try to find out is which kind of cartridge design/cartridge motor ( everything the same that is a premise on the OP. ) performs faithful and accurated to MUSIC.

Tha's all. I'm not trying to analize live MUSIC and all its implications involved or the recording proccess: NO.

R.

+1 @billstevenson Using live music as a standard for reproduced music by a stereo in a home is really a farce much like “The Absolute Sound” is a farce (as are their reviews, but that’s another story). Most music is recorded in a studio save for maybe classical, so should even studio recordings be made to sound live even if they weren’t recorded or intended by the recording engineer to sound that way? That’s just misplaced and misinterpreting what’s on the recording not unlike if a playwright’s script is changed to alter the story/meaning of a play counter to the original intent. That’s counter to what “high fidelity” is. The definition of “fidelity” from Webster’s dictionary is:

the quality or state of being faithful, accuracy in details : EXACTNESS, the degree to which an electronic device (such as a record player, radio, or television) accurately reproduces its effect (such as sound or picture)

If something is recorded live or made to sound live it should be reproduced that way and likewise for studio recordings intended to sound like studio recordings — to do otherwise is by definition not even fidelity much less high fidelity. So why apply a standard of live music when it doesn’t even apply to a lot of music we listen to? That’s just unrealistic and untruthful, but if someone’s goal is to make everything somehow sound live more power to them. Although for me using live music is not a proper or useful bar, I think Bill said it best in his above post…

The answer, the only answer is to chose what sounds good to you that is compatible with your needs and your budget. Most importantly, have fun.

The search for the Holy Grail.  Frankly there is no right answer for a number of reasons:  Everything changes with time especially technology; the live music reference is not an accurate gauge because every live venue is different; every recording is different - who mastered it? - what mics were used? - How many?  Artists have good days and not so good days;  Ask any reed player how consistent reeds are;  ask any piano player how good the piano was; ask everyone involved in the recording how the acoustics of the studio or stage or wherever were; the list of variables in the live part is endless.  Then in addition to the variable of the cartridge itself we must consider the interface: wire, tonearm, perhaps headshell, phono stage, cables.  The answer, the only answer is to chose what sounds good to you that is compatible with your needs and your budget.  Most importantly, have fun.

Dear @knock1 : " I always picked center of the main floor, the difference in just a few rows was really something. Therefore it comes a conundrum, how one is to know the "correct" sound of an orchestra, a band or an instrument itself?  "

We can't know for sure but only when we seated in the venuelistening it.

I almost always ( for comparisons. ) talk of live MUSIC as reference.If we don't attend often/frequently to listen live MUSIC thenagainst what we are comparing what we listen in the home room/system. We just can't do it and with out first hand live MUSIC experiences we only can say that what we are listening in our home audio system is " what I like ".

No,wecan't mimic in any home roo/system the live MUSIC experiencesbut if we are interested in true MUSIC enjoyment then that must be our reference and yes as you posted :

" I think that that comparison to LIVE performance is a very complex issue. "

But for me it's themoreideal tool at our handstomake those kind of tests.

R.

Sadly, the London Decca Reference cartridge is no longer available.

The new owner tells me he hopes to have them back in production, along with a new version by August of this year. Perhaps then there will be no need for a few lone voices in the wilderness to keep enthusiasm alive for these wonderful cartridges. I have never heard an Epoch3, but I do know my Statement3 doesn't come close to the sound of a cartridge with no cantilever. In my view, it is the absence of the cantilever that makes all the difference, rather than the moving iron nature of them. I was interested to hear that Raul reports the Ikeda MC variant on the concept sounds similar. I wish it were still available.

Hi Dave! Good to hear from you. I too was influenced by Raul’s thread, which led me to purchase several highly regarded vintage MM and MI cartridges. Two of those were Stanton 980LZS and an NOS Stanton 981LZS. I loved the 980 until I wore it out. But I only recently unboxed the 981, and I installed it on my Viv Float (underhung) tonearm. It’s on my modified Lenco driving my Steelhead via MC inputs, which drives my Beveridge 2SWs. The combo is fantastic. For those who don’t know, the 981 is a low output MM cartridge (0.3mV), requiring MC gain. The 981LZS is just a selected version of the 980LZS. There are also high output versions, HZS suffix. I’m using 1000 ohms load. 47K also works fine.

Hello Raul, throughout your epic thread I accumulated many vintage TOTL MM/MI cartridges, many NOS, and was finally convinced that on identical tonearms a Stanton 981LZS was pretty close to a Lyra Etna. Not to mention top Grace, Precept, Astatic, even an inexpensive Sonus Blue-- a fast and lovely sounding very high compliance design. My vinyl setup is in storage, but recent communications with several reliable audio guys suggests that the latest DS Audio optical cartridge and electronics prevail uber alles. But none of my skin in the game at present.

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.

Interesting Post from @mglik, Using the typical usage life on a Cart' is suggested to be 1000 hrs.

The Cart' that superseded a $14 per hour Cart's was superseded by a Cart' costing $12 per hour and quite different as the fundamental design.

I don't think many contributing to this thread will have any experience of or come close to being able to describe the impression to be had, using a $12K MI Cart' for creating the signal that is to be presented as produced Sound. 

It is quite interesting to hear of such a Cart' being selected for use, certainly more interesting than the LOMC's that seem to get all of the High Price Tag coverage.  .