The greatest MM and MI cartridges ....

Dear Nikola, I didn't want to ask any specific person about this - I wanted to get the information/recommendation as eclectic as possible.
There was no reason to direct the question to someone in specific.
Furthermore - I'd rather intended to direct certain contributions away from the "Greatest MCs ever"-thread.
Certainly no intentions to hi-jack any posts from Raul's "who needs MM"-thread - and I can't see any danger for this either, as that thread long developed in certain directions.
I do see my question above going to a different direction anyway.
So far I am still certainly not in the fan-group for MMs and MIs.
I had many encounters with them and I liked quite a few.
But I draw a strict line between "I like it" and "I can live with it".
There is a wide gap between that camps.
I am very interested in the technical aspects of moving magnet cartridges - especially so, as I believe that the topic isn't fully explored yet.
When power restriction was an important point in PA audio, speaker development saw quantum leaps. When the "power issue" was solved in the late 1960s speaker development concentrated on reducing magnet/frame weight.
I see a similar analogy in MM design history.
There is no need/market call today for top-flight (= high priced) MMs - and there isn't since a long time.
Aside from Grado and Decca/London the high-price department is LOMC only.
Would really like to see a few gifted designers to return to an old "field" and trying to bring in an all new harvest of previously unknown quality from MM.
I am sure, that the very best possible MM hasn't been designed yet.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Daniel, Damn it! From all my German friends only Syntax seems to like the Balkan humour. The other two are probable too refined to mess with the Balkans?

Cheers,

Dear Nandric,

of course, and without question mark. :-)

best @ fun only

Dear Professor, The nomenclature of many MM brands is not
easy to understand much less to remember. The LPM 320;315;312 we refered to as 'long nose' in order to distinguish them from the earlier models with the same numbers but different looks. I noticed that the 'long nose' got more than the 'nose lenght' of advantage in valuation. I owned the earlier 315 and 312 but alas without original styli and,speaking about styli and the nomenclature I bought 3 wrong styli for them. Because of this 'radical' difference in valuation I assume that the 'long nose' contains some important innovations in comparison ? Would you care to explain?

With pupil's regards,

Regards, Nandric: AFAIK, with the M3xx (square) carts, output impedance is 2700 Ohm instead of the 610 Ohm with the LPM 3xx carts, or the LPM 4xx carts with 710 Ohm output impedance. IIRC, the "M"'s are also higher output, 4.0mv compared to the LPM's 3.5mv. I've no exposure to the "big block" Acutex's but under the circumstances would expect the mids to be brighter/more forward & would anticipate cap. requirements to be in the 300-400pF range. It's possible the diamond on the LPM's are of better (Ogura) quality, Acutex stressed the quality of LPM styli. Just a guess. Or three.

The terminal 4xx series (available for only several years as Acutex dropped cartridges from their catalog in 1992) differ in apperance by their translucent grips, specific grip fitment and mechanically by a redesign of the neutral or negative third armature. This was modified from a sleeve on the cantilever to a lighter tab afixed to the base of the cantilever. There is a very slight trade-off in improved clarity (reduced cantilever mass?) for the very pleasing presence heard with the LPM 300's. One must listen closely to hear any difference.

BTW, out of curiousity did a search of VE's cart database, there's a pantheon of well regarded carts with Ti. cantilevers. The majority wore LC, Shibata, VDH1/2 or ML styli.

Peace,