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

@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. ;^)

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.

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.

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.

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.