NOS Grace F9E question

All B&O cartridges made by SoundSmith for B&O under contract. SoundSmith is OEM, Peter spread the light on this interesting fact in his interview for Stereophile: https://youtu.be/Rd948px1230

@jollytinker : Maybe could be better to you to look for a different cartridge " taste " that could be the excelent Acutex M320 or Acutex 315/320LPM, B?O MMC1 or MMC2 or even the Astatic MF200 or MF100.

Yes, please buy all those, but leave the Grace LEVEL II and F14, AT-ML170 and AT-ML180, Victor X-1II, Stanton CS-100 WOS, Glanz MFG61 and Pioneer PC-1000 mkII for me, i will appreciate it very much, thanks :)

Dear @lewm : Agree that no one can change the speed of what the TT has. Maybe I explasin me in wrong way.

"""  my interpretation is that MC cartridges may lose the trailing edge of notes more quickly than do the other types, which makes them seem to emphasize the attack.... """

The decay time through a LOMC cartridge is faster and sound faster than with MM one. First because lower rounds of wire at the coils and second because are truer to the recording and you can attest this when you attend to an acoustic lmusic live event and are seated at near field: a few meters. Here you can listen how fast is the decay time of the different instruments that when you are seated at 30m. that decay time is longer because the " reberberation " effect of the venue. 
We have to remember that normally in good recordings the recording microphones are at near field position and from this point of view the LOMC are truer to the recording.

In a MM/MI performance the bass range almost always is floating/larger decay time that the tigthness / no overhang/low distortions in a LOMC ones.

Obviously that all depends of the quality level of each one room/audio system.

Your point seems valid.

R.

We have to remember that normally in good recordings the recording microphones are at near field position and from this point of view the LOMC are truer to the recording.

We’re talking about vintage cartridges here (let’s say from the 80s max), and some of the best mastering and cutting engineers have completely different opinion about MM vs. MC. Here is a TAS article about it. All of them prefer an MM over MC. But the choice of MM is very special: The Audio-Technica AT-ML170, Technics 100c mk4, and even Stanton 881s.

"Kavi Alexander, auteur of the remarkable Water Lily Acoustics series of analogue vinyl discs, is monitoring disc production by comparing test pressings to the master tape. What cartridge is he using? Another moving magnet, this time the Technics EPC 100, Mark IV, unfortunately no longer available in the US. But he describes the Audio Technica ATML-170 as very similar, and very close to the actual sound of the tape. In this comparison, he says, virtually no moving coil does so well; most have seriously apparent colorations."

I believe there are an exceptions, but everyone have to compare prices for the exceptional MC to some amazing MM first.

I do trust people from the industry, who mastered and cut some of the best records at the studios like Doug Sax’s The Mastering Lab in L.A. etc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Sax

A good point Chakster....and one I have read many times.
It's not as if these famous mastering engineers haven't heard the best LOMCs....and their opinions carry far more weight than the average punter.
After all.....they are comparing directly to the master tape and that's a comparison almost none of us can duplicate.
My vintage MM cartridges generally sound more 'natural' and satisfying than any LOMCs I've heard or owned.