Hear my Cartridges....🎶

@halcro I love Bob Marley myself, there is Bob Marley and everyone else below.  I was a kid in the 70's (less than 10 years old) who visited Jamaica and learned about Marley.

A few years ago I was walking along a beach in Santa Barbara, CA and I heard some singer playing a guitar surrounded my a lot of very young kids. He sounded identical  to Bob Marley. I got closer to see it was one of his sons, Ziggy Marley. 

A few years ago I discovered someone who I think is a giant in the same level as Bob Marley, his name is Fela Kuti. The Bob Marley of Africa. Check him out if you are not familiar.

+1 Fela Kuti!  Check him out.

Halcro, me anti MM?  Not at all; way too strong a characterization.  I own several MM's and enjoy my Acutex'.  I recently purchased a M320 STR III that I have yet to mount.  While I obviously do have my preferences, it's probably fair to say that, overall, I have made about as many negative/positive comments about the MM cartridges presented here as I have about MC's.  With two notable exceptions, of course 😁.  Btw, the only MM's that I can honestly say "offend" me are the non-Ultra Shures. Can't stand their bland color-less presentation of timbre 😝. Come to think of it, it has been some of the vintage MC's that have offended me most with their overly tight and unnatural high frequencies:

At the risk of seeming indulgent; again, quotes from past comparisons.  May help clarify my general feelings about MM vs MC's and help answer your question about which MM (and MF) cartridges I have liked:

**** To my ears it is MM’s that tend to have a fuller, more tonally saturated sound; what I would describe as “lush”.  I have also found that the sometimes exaggerated high frequency “clarity” of some MC’s creates a better balance in my all-tube amplification chain which tends, itself, to be on the lush side.  Even the best of my MM’s can be a little too lush and dark in my system without enough clarity and control in the highs.  The problem for me is that while I love the midrange “neutrality” of good MM’s they tend to go a little too far in that direction; almost as if they rob timbres of some natural colors by seeming to reduce the high frequency extension needed to balance out the very full and dense midrange character.  MC’s tend to put the emphasis on clarity/detail in the highs leaving the midrange to sound too lean.  A very difficult balance to get right.  

Assessing dynamics is complicated since timbre neutrality affects our perception of it.  All I can say is that to me that wonderful “coiled spring” aliveness and sense of the music always moving forward is generally better served by good MC’s. ****

**** Audio Technica (180):

More distant perspective as if sitting further back in the room. The most linear and without the nasality. Tonally the most realistic. Colorless the way some Maggies are...probably too colorless; music has color. I want to say it’s my favorite, but the X1 is probably the most fun to listen with. ****

**** I think that the Glanz, overall, gives the Palladian the best “run for its money” of all of them.  

The Glanz is excellent and in some ways I like its tonal balance on the sound of the piano a little better than the Palladian which sounds a little “tinkly” at times.  This is a result or the Glanz having a fuller tonal balance which also adds more weight to the bass and a seductive dusky quality to the voice.  While the piano has more realistic weight it also has a less realistic timbre overall; it sounds a little odd in the higher registers and lacking a little natural brilliance. The extra weight in the bass makes the bass sound a little too thick and with less pitch definition than the Palladian.  Listen to the three note ascending bass line at 1:52 and the upward glissando at 1:59.  Less distinct than on the Palladian where one can more clearly hear the individual pitches of the notes.  The voice on the Palladian has a better sense of purity and refinement to my ears even if that dusky quality and extra chestiness one hears with the Glanz can be very appealing.  ****

Regards.

Wonderful Frogman.....
Thanks for that 🙏

To my ears it is MM’s that tend to have a fuller, more tonally saturated sound; what I would describe as “lush”.  I have also found that the sometimes exaggerated high frequency “clarity” of some MC’s creates a better balance in my all-tube amplification chain which tends, itself, to be on the lush side.  Even the best of my MM’s can be a little too lush and dark in my system without enough clarity and control in the highs.  The problem for me is that while I love the midrange “neutrality” of good MM’s they tend to go a little too far in that direction; almost as if they rob timbres of some natural colors by seeming to reduce the high frequency extension needed to balance out the very full and dense midrange character.  MC’s tend to put the emphasis on clarity/detail in the highs leaving the midrange to sound too lean.  A very difficult balance to get right.  

I had forgotten your brilliant synopsis posted previously....
Totally agree 👍
And thanks to you and yyz for the tip of Fela Kuti...
Will certainly check him out..

Please help me select 🙏 👂
Which are the best two cartridges....?

GLANZ 610LX

VICTOR Z1/SAS

SHURE ULTRA 500

To me it sounds like the Glanz is the more smooth and natural sounding. And the Victor sounding a little more lite up but possibly edgier and less refined. But more lively too. The shure is in between the two. I’m guess the Glanz would be the one I’d prefer. But in your room it may sound quite different than what I’m hearing?