MC-MM-MI CARTRIDGES . DO YOU KNOW WHICH HAS BETTER QUALITY PERFORMANCE? REALLY?

Raul, I agree with what you wrote and I can only add that it goes even much deeper than that as concerns how rhythmic nuance is conveyed by audio equipment. Transient response is key, but only one piece of the puzzle it seems to me. And I do believe it is a puzzle because I have not seen entirely satisfactory explanations, from a technical standpoint, for all that contributes to the sense of immediacy and tension/release that one hears in well performed live music and from well reproduced recordings.. All things that contribute to great rhythmic feeling. One example:

A string section in a great orchestra plays a musical passage that consists of sustained chords. One hears the initial transient attack of one chord that has to be perfectly timed within the overall context of the music for it to be correctly rhythmic. This sustained chord then resolves to another sustained chord that likewise has to be perfectly timed. However, it is not just the temporal relationship between those two transients that matters, it is also what happens in between those two transients that makes the difference. It is the excitement created by the sense of tension/release of one chord leading to the next, like a coiled spring finally releasing that makes all the difference. Some audio gear does a much better job of conveying this type of nuance than others do.

Surely tension/release is a neurological matter rather then one created by a skilled orchestra, a good venue or a fine cartridge? We talk of joyful music, sad music and so on, but we are simply describing the emotions it engenders in our minds, not in the music. It is interesting that we generally agree on the emotions that music causes: it gives a small insight into the way our brains work. One of the admirable qualities about Puccini was that he wrote in emotions as much as in melodies; he had the ability (was it conscious?) to reach straight into one's thalamus and manipulate the emotions. Probably heightened by all the excitement of a live performance, where travelling there, dressing up, the set, the costumes, and finally the music all contribute to the final effect of leaving me weeping.

I want my music reproduction to work at several levels:

—I want the detailed timbres of an intimate venue chamber recital or solo voice reproduced so I can hear them as if I were there, I want to hear how much rosin is on the horsehair

—I want my feet to tap from the musicality of it all, which is simply a physical manifestation of how successfully the music is dominating all other mental processes

—I want that emotional experience

But then, I'm easily satisfied...

Apparently.

You may find this interesting.  Basic, but to the point:

https://www.schoolofcomposition.com/what-is-tension-and-release-in-music/#:~:text='Tension%20and%20release'%20refers%20to,keeps%20the%20music%20moving%20forward.

OK I admit that in my sound room there is a piano and a set of drums and a lot of percussion instruments.  Sometimes these must inevitably influence my perception of sound as reproduced from my stereo system.  But, the influence is only subliminal and never due to direct comparison.  It does help me hear if the piano is in tune.  Especially live acoustic jazz recordings sometimes reveal out of tune pianos.  Also, Connie Kay, the great drummer of MJQ, had a bell tree with a very distinctive sound.  I have one of those bell trees and use it to verify that my overall system presentation and tonality are reasonably accurate in the upper midrange and highs. If the bells don't sound right a cartridge could be a no go.  This in my experience happens with cartridges with a rising high frequency response, which is  confirmed on an O-scope.  This is more common than you think and one of factors that led me to favor my Hyperion.

@rauliruegas , good to see you continuing the good fight in the audio wars my friend.  I'm a few days late in discovering this post.

Regarding a "true" answer, I don't believe that will ever be possible.  As you pointed out there are too many variables in playback systems.  But also significant variables in the sources, the recordings we listen to.  Then there is the equally wide variation in personal taste, based upon exposure and experience, plus individual hearing response profiles.

I agree with the importance for calibration of personal audible standards by listening to live performances.  Unfortunately that is challenged by the reduced number of unamplified performances now available.  But here I don't intend to say attending one or two a year is sufficient.  Repetition is needed to ingrain the unique sonics or each type of instrument and vocal range.  Again there is the likelihood for sonic variations from one live venue to another, one brand or design of a given instrument to another, and individual vocal characteristics.  So broad and aggregated experience becomes necessary.

BTW, I trust that frogman won't mind if I reveal that he is a professional musician of long standing who also enjoys home music reproduction.  So he has the benefit of  experience and musical knowledge as a bases for his perceptions.

As for me, I have MM, MI, and LOMC examples (thanks to Raul's earlier post) and find something to enjoy in each type.  But I started in this hobby in the mid-1960s and my ears no longer demand the precise playback they once did.  So I don't worry about the fine points as much as I used to. ;^)