NOS Grace F9E question

@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.

Dear @halcro : I was thinking as you and as a fact I was whom brougth to Agon that link. Unfortunatelly we never had the opportunity to ask them directly about and today two of them pass away.

But in other forum with several recording engineers I had that opportunity because they posted there and were gentlemans that made it their work through the best regarded quality recording labels.

Well, rigth there and after different discussions overtime I learned that the main priorities of all of them were different ( many reasons about. ) of the normal audiophile room/audio system priorities because in reality are way different what they are looking for and how each one of them is biased and what system use to monitoring and the like.
There are great recordings and a lot more really bad.

A room audio system LP recording reproduction is a total different " animale " than a recording studio/mastering and each one of us music/sound priorities are different too. Yes, you can think that they and us want it the same: extreme/perfect quality performance levels but that happens only a few times.
. Two different worlds.

If we follow them we just can’t grow up and can’t achieve the real qualituy our system can shows.

I’m not diminish in any way their job that’s a main important subject only that is a different world and not the audiophile world.

Do you think that those ( any ) recording professionals own top audiophile electronics or speakers as the top Magico/Wilson or the like and TTs as the Exclusive P3 or SP10MK3 or top Clearaudio statement TT or top cables and everything we audiiophiles own. Top highgain phonolinepreamps, Cobra tonearms.? Do you think that their system outperforms the M.Lavigne system?   No they own nothing of that level not even what I have in my humble/modest system. ! !

Obviously that each one of us have the privilege to make a choice. As you I did it many years ago but I always say that each day is a learning one and through the time I learned about. Sooner or latter you will learn or maybe not is up to you.

Anyway only a point of view. My main room/audio system music/sound priority/target is stay truer to the recording and I don’t care of other matters. It’s me not what the engineers did it, they already did their job and now I must do mine at home. This is my task no mater what.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.


Btw, I remember when I started in audio: what I wanted is to have the electronics/speakers that the recording engineers/professionals uses, go figure !.