What should I expect moving from MM to MC?

Zarzu, you say MC cartridges are”faster” because they have lower moving mass with the “same suspension “. Yes, MC cartridges tend to have less moving mass compared to MM cartridges, but no, the suspensions are not the same.  MM cartridges tend to have much higher compliance than a typical MC. That high compliance should enable an MM to better navigate the groove undulations. And if low moving mass is your god, then you ought to be using an MI type; MIs have the very lowest moving mass possible. My point is not to defend MM cartridges but to call attention to the fact that the best test for comparing cartridges is a listening test. If you have an open mind, you’ll be pleasantly surprised to find you don’t have to spend $10,000 on a LOMC cartridge  to achieve your own Nirvana. And these empirical arguments audiophiles make without actual supporting data are sometimes hogwash.

to my ears, the Blue Point  seemed too bright....could have been the system.

Analog LP is a pain.  I advise you spend equal amounts on your phono preamp and cartridge as your TT.  Used market cut that in half.  MC LO vs HO MC the LO Output will pick up more Suttle details such as string vibration and tones in wood instruments sound right. HO is not a bad either. HO Chamber echos sound good and the recording should sound as intended with less noise pickup.  Price usually dictates quality.  As far as jump from MM to MC I would probably say price is more important across the entire chain.   Everything matters and you need to learn a lot have fun.  Its best to learn setup and what is going on yourself.  My Analog was less quality then Tube DAQ.  But after learning applying and just keep working with what I have now Analog is better.   Things may take longer then you think.  Its always good to notice quality within the few hours things sound good then it may take months to finally realize what the capabilities are.

+1 for what @alvinnir2 has written.

The way I would put it is that the movement to a MC cartridge would be expected to give you more of what we used to call low level information. That translates principally to things not available in the specification of a cartridge. The include space, instrumental articulation, & solidity or roundness of the instrumental sound. These things all contribute to the sense of being there in the recording. That would be the good news.

The not so good news IMO is that a high output MC is not likely to provide these benefits because the stylus, like that in MM cartridges, is just carrying too much weight at the other end. Also, you might also have to invest more in the rest of your system to fully appreciate these improvements.

I pay very little attention to reviews. They are just there to sell. Consensus opinions of actual purchasers, as fond in places like this have never failed me. It takes a bit longer to figure out but it pays in the long run. Not like the quick fix of a review.

Although there was a brief discussion of >20khz response, the OP has repeatedly prioritized a "fuller, warmer sound".  This sounds to me like the mid-range.

The original holder of the MC patent was audio legend Joe Grado.  However, he didn't make them.  A believer in the importance of getting the mid-range right, his cartridges were MI (Moving Iron).  AFAIK, Grado & Soundsmith are the major MI cartridge makers today.

The Schiit Mani 2 gives you plenty of versatility for optimizing your phono sound, and should result in meaningful improvement.  Upgrading your cartridge will cost more, but should also make a bigger difference in the sound.