I think that âspeedâ means different things to different listeners. Â For me, speed is what I have previously tried to describe as âsense of alivenessâ. Â It is where the emotional component of music is found (heard). Â Then there is the issue of how tonal balance influences perceived âspeedâ. Â A cartridge that does not properly decode the high frequency information in the grooves might sound thick and tubby and the absence of a good leading edge will distort the rhythm component of music. Â The MIT/Shure comparison is a good example of this.
No contest.  To my ears the MIT is a far superior cartridge. Even though the balance is clearly tilted too far to the high frequencies it is, overall, much better at letting the drums sound like drums and not cardboard boxes and papery cymbals like the Shure does by comparison.  The excessive brightness would probably be a deal breaker for me âthough.  The sound of the Shure is very much as I remember my Shureâs sounding in my system: grayish in color without enough brilliance and definition in the highs and an overall âsoftâ sound. Â
The MITâs soundstage sounds huge and expansive while the Shureâs seems smaller.  Even the space occupied by the live audience in the overall sound stage seems a lot smaller by comparison.  While the MITâs excessive brightness distracts one can still hear the differences in timbre between the different drums and cymbals while the Shure homogenizes the various sounds.  I hear a bit of thickness in the lower mids that is similar to what I hear in my system when the xover point on my REL subs is set a few hertz too high; I lose a little midrange clarity. Â
Thanks, halcro.
BTW, I do have some thoughts on the Signet/FR MC, some of which relate to the above. Â
No contest.  To my ears the MIT is a far superior cartridge. Even though the balance is clearly tilted too far to the high frequencies it is, overall, much better at letting the drums sound like drums and not cardboard boxes and papery cymbals like the Shure does by comparison.  The excessive brightness would probably be a deal breaker for me âthough.  The sound of the Shure is very much as I remember my Shureâs sounding in my system: grayish in color without enough brilliance and definition in the highs and an overall âsoftâ sound. Â
The MITâs soundstage sounds huge and expansive while the Shureâs seems smaller.  Even the space occupied by the live audience in the overall sound stage seems a lot smaller by comparison.  While the MITâs excessive brightness distracts one can still hear the differences in timbre between the different drums and cymbals while the Shure homogenizes the various sounds.  I hear a bit of thickness in the lower mids that is similar to what I hear in my system when the xover point on my REL subs is set a few hertz too high; I lose a little midrange clarity. Â
Thanks, halcro.
BTW, I do have some thoughts on the Signet/FR MC, some of which relate to the above. Â