What is it in MM that can give me goose-bumps? 🤔

Dear @jasonbourne52 :  Yes the MA are really good I still own 2-3 of them like the 630.

Now, Nagatron designed a ribbon very special cartridge that was the 9100 model, I never had the opportunity to own it and there is an Agoner that owns it and posted about years ago.

Yes, @dover  is rigth when talked about speed/coherence that MM can't achieve at the same levels than good LOMC designs.

I mentioned the IM/MI ADC 26/27 that along the AKG P100LE and Astatic MF2500 ( no one is MM. ) are " there ".

R.

Dear @justmetoo : "  What I do not agree with is, that this sound presentation is closer to near field LIFE listening. "

My mistake because no media can really puts us nearer to live MUSIC event.

What I was thinking in that post  is that " puts me nearer to the recording " where normally the recording microphones are " seated " at near field position.

You posted: " deeply detailed.. "   well MUSIC at near field position as where recording microphones are " seated " is exactly that: deeply detailed and I can add with brigthness, agresiveness and even sometimes harsh.
 Between the MUSIC source and microphones is nothing but air.

Transients defines the timbre/tone/color of the MUSIC, its natural color and for whatever reasons the MM tone is the one that moves you the more. 
It's not about room/system or kind of MUSIC or the media you are listening but the overall tone/color what moves you the more.

It's something deep personal/subjective. The " color " of CD/LOMC quality performance is not what moves you.

I don't know what kind of explanations you was waiting to read when posted this thread.

Again, sorry but I can't help to give you the rigth answer to the OP. At least not to satisfy you.

R.

Dear @justmetoo : I try to figure out what you are hearing in your system. I know very well your electronics and analog rig but the Burmester quality level performance is totally unknow for me.

I can see that you don't use a TT clamp, that you have behind the rigth speaker " something " that looks as a " speaker ", at your seat position I don't know at what level are your ears against the midrange/tweeter drivers, I can see a reflecting glass table just in front of " you ", etc, etc.

Perhaps the best way that any of us can help you could be that you choose 3-4 tracks of 3-4 LPs/CDs and tell us what is the kind/characterisitcs of the sound you are listening then maybe some one of us couild own a LP/CD of the ones you named and we can make comparisons of your description against what we listen in our system.

R.

Ya know, @noromance is right.

In asking about MM's, I take it the op is thinking of such cartridges in terms of their high output voltage compared to that of MC's, correct? Well, the Decca and London cartridges are MI's (Moving Iron), and have extremely high output---5mV!

If it's goosebumps you're looking for, nothing beats a Decca or London. No cantilever (in his early-mid 70's Stereophile reviews of various Decca's, J. Gordon Holt used the term "cantilever haze" to describe the sound of non-Decca cartridges), no rubber suspension. Their sound is extremely dynamic, explosive, immediate, alive, and robust. Yes, lots of "textural density" ;-) . It's sound in relation to other designs is like the sound of direct-to-disk LP's in relation to those pressed from tape sources.

However, Deccas and Londons are not for everyone. Their design presents a serious challenge to the tonearm they are mounted on. They produce a lot of mechanical energy (none of it lost in the cantilever and rubber suspension as in "normal" cartridges), and the arm had better have a very stiff & non-resonant arm tube and rattle-free bearings to deal with that energy. Of course, ALL cartridges benefit from such an arm, just not to the same degree.

Thanks for all new thoughtful responses. 

I can relate to the differences I hear, mostly to do with 'higher naturalness' of timbre.
Meaning MMs appears more matched to my hearing (timbre-memory of natural instruments) then even very good CD/LOMC. 

Maybe sitting in a music hall/theatre the sound also is not all that 'immediate' than it is 'heared' (and recorded) by microphone(s). 

Is it this 'beyond natural' listened-to microphonic-immediacy, reproduced by both CD/LOMC true to the recording, making the difference to the MM's reproduction? 

Also, the more 'sensitive' the reproduction equipment, the more this difference would be apparent, wouldn't it? 

So, possibly the mentioned 'slower' impulse-speed of MM cartridges might simply compensate for these near field microphone positions, most always preferred to avoid too much 'hall information', too much reverb etc. 

This is just my unscientific best guess of what might be at work... 🤔
There always can be just - too much of a good thing - one might call it 'over-definition'... creating a less 'natural' presentation of timbre. 
Michélle 🇿🇦 

PS: Burmestet 961 are quit bass strong to 35Hz, by 8" side firing, light membrane, glass-fibre woofers, very detailed carbon-fibre weave 5¼" mid-woofers (AUDAX HM130CO),  and Air Motion Transformer (JET1 ATM) tweeters. 

Hearing position is near field and seated with ears between mids and woofer levels i.e. below tweeter height. 
ATMs have more lateral and vertical dispersion than do dome-tweeters.