I'm a happy ART-9 user and I've done a search looking for the difference between the ART-9 and the ART-9XI. Besides the threaded mounting holes and increased price I could not find anything. Specs and descriptions that I found seem to be identical between the two. If it's been discussed here perhaps someone can point me to a particular post. Thanks.
Audio Technica ART9 MC Cartridge- The Real Deal? Mainly the compliance and VTA, beyond the changes to the body.
Thank you. Interesting in that tail slightly up was the consensus SRA setting for the 9 The 9XI best setting may now be level or even tail down. Hard to evaluate the small compliance change. A bit better with heavy arms? The higher compliance worked for me.
listen to that video up thread from LP gear that has the '9 playing and then the '9XI. of course too many variables to say for sure but the XI does sound more transparent. unfortunately one thing i love about the original is the slightly thick mid-bass area yet impeccable detail and refined resolution. contributed to it's colorful sound.
I understand. I already use a DSP-based phono stage and, if I end up getting a NAD M33, I'll be adding Dirac room correction to LPs. So I discarded any analog purist cred a while ago.
I am not against DSP or an analog purist. The ART9 is special and I sincerely doubt that adding EQ of any kind will be able to duplicate its sound- or come close.
It's a pretty simple electro-mechanical circuit with a transfer function. Using test tracks to model an ART9 vs ART9XI would not be hard at all. They would both yield a frequency response curve. Calculating the null between the two gives you the filters needed via DSP. It's a trivial problem compared to something like room correction. Very solvable if someone wanted to bother.
It’s not necessarily just a tonal thing, it may be a simple electro-mechanical circuit, but by using a DSP to modify the frequency response it is only dealing with the electrical side of the cartridge. The magic of the ART9 comes more from the mechanical side of it. The dynamics, detail, timing and wide soundstage cannot be dialled in with a DSP if it is different in the first place, that’s down to how the cartridge resonates in the grooves.
Sure, but in the case of the ART9 vs ART9XI (the only case I was referencing as being solvable via DSP): --The stylus is the same --The cartridge body is the same --The motor is the same --The cantilever seems to be the same / almost the same (.26 mm vs .28 mm solid boron) The only difference difference seems to be in the suspension / compliance. Which, all else being equal, effects primarily bass resonances. Bass resonances can absolutely be modeled via test tracks -- which is why we test them that way. And a bass resonance is going to show up as narrow Q peak, which is an easy issue to deal with using PEQ / convolution. Given the tiny differences between the two, I bet you could EQ one to sound close enough to the other that you couldn't statistically tell them apart in an ABX test. Or if you don't want to use DSP, solve for the difference in compliance by using different headshell weights, if one prefers to alter a resonance mechanically. If not, and people think the ART9 is special in a way that can never be replicated by the new ART9XI....well, I guess you better buy up the remaining stock now.
Well, there is the $300 price difference too But seriously, there is also the 3 degree difference in VTA to factor in.
That's user configurable -- adjust according to either manufacturer suggests or as you prefer. Just like tracking weight. That's only a barrier of some kind if you can't adjust VTA.
Why? "No" is easy to say. But, again, if you don't believe it, and think the ART9 is magic that will never be replicated by the ART9XI, I guess you should buy up a lifetime supply.
it remains to be heard. i do trust AT to deliver a quality product. the idea of replicating the sound of a cartridge by using EQ / DSP is a misconception.
I don't buy into your general denial when it comes to two cartridges as similar as the ART9 vs ART9XI. The fact that I can normalize their different compliance-induced cartridge resonances via headshell weight alone should tell you how trivial it is.
I couldn't tell without trying and making a serious comparison as I don't think the compliance would be the only factor determining the sound difference. There is a small chance I might -at some stage- end up getting this cartridge but it is highly unlikely I'll ever end up having as well another version to compare so that is something I will never know.
If everything else is identical, or darn near so, why wouldn't it be? Again -- same motor, same stylus, same cartridge body, same tracking force, same cantilever material It's basically the same cartridge with a slightly different suspension. Oh, and threaded screws, I guess.
Different suspension, that is plenty! Even if the compliance with a different suspension was the same it'll be a mistake to assume it would sound the same. You have mentioned same cantilever material. What makes you think that a different cantilever can change the sound and a different suspension won't? In this case I prefer not to assume anything and compare directly. Perhaps someone else will get the chance to do it, I know I won't but undoubtedly Audio Technica has and they are confident enough that the change is worth some extra money. If you are considering getting it and the extra money puts you off then the other versions should still be pretty decent regardless.
I made no comment on whether cantilever changes have an audible difference on the sound. I'm only noting that there is only one significant difference, compliance, between these two cartridges, that we can discern from the data. As I don't believe in magic, therefore any sonic difference between them should be because of compliance differences. The effect of cartridge compliance on sound is *very well* understood from decades of research from the 1960s to 1980s. Modern, properly designed cartridges are intentionally engineered so that compliance differences manifest themselves as they impact resonance as a result of effective mass. And those resonances ideally should be in the sub-sonic range so they can be filtered out. If a cartridge compliance difference is showing up in the audible range detectable by human ears using music, either: a) Your cartridge is broken b) You have a bad tonearm / headshell / effective mass match c) It's a badly engineered cartridge Intentionally tailoring the sound in the audible range via compliance is a bad engineering idea as it will make the cartridge more 'finicky' about matching systems. And I don't think AT is that dumb.
