Using the aux weight would increase the effective mass by a small amount, so the wisdom depends on what you are trying to accomplish.
I understand that I am already pushing the limits for traditional good behavior, so I guess that I will go for a little less effective mass. It definitely sounds terrific to me.
Increasing the mass of the CW requires that you move the weight closer to the pivot to balance the arm and this decreases effective weight. Not increasing it.
Understood. The math used here is a simplified model that amongst other does not take damping, materials and surface treatments into account. And it is not exactly know how to convert compliance from 100 to 10 hz - it has to be measured. Not saying you are wrong at all - just saying it actually sounds really good and that the HIFI News test LP shows a verifiable outcome that seams ok.
So if aux weight is added you will have to move main weight towards pivot to balance the arm, correct?
LOL OK then.............. all the best. Not the first time I have seen the "real life" argument implying just throw away all the proven theory on compliance matching, with the argument being just trust me it sounds really good, or trust my measurements! I am sure you know what you are doing, but it doesn't change the fact that the ART9 is a high compliance cartridge and the SL-1200 is a medium mass tonearm. Cheers.
Definition aside, did you find the Cadenza blue to have noticeable louder bass than the ART9? Thanks!
I'm guessing you still think highly of the Art9's bang for the buck? How do you think it would do on a 9C arm?
I have a question for the experts: According to AT, the ARR9 wants to see an impedance of 100 ohms. My preamp has a phono input impedance of 47K ohms. I'm using an AT-650 step up transformer as the SUT. It has selectable impedance settings of 3, 20, 40 and "Pass Through" and a load impedence of 47K ohms. What would be the best setting for the SUT and how do these relate to the 100 ohm that the Art9 recommends. What would be the effects of the different settings on the SUT? Thanks in advance.
The 100 is probably related to the use of a head amp or phono stage only not related to SUT. In my view with a SUT you have to match the closest setting or higher than the cartridge coil's resistance, not sure what the ART9 is. However nothing is set in stone and you might find that for some records it helps to use a diferent setting. In my Denon SUT a higher resistance (40) means less bass but much more precise and more high end with more detail. In the lower setting (3 I think) the bass seem to be much more loose, louder and the high end is a tiny bit more subdue but it works better on some records.
Actually, AT specs the recommended load at a minimum of 100 ohm. If you want to load the cartridge close to 100 ohms, then you would use the 3 setting, which has a gain of 20, so the load would be around 47K divided by 400. I'd probably go with the 20 setting with a gain of 8 and a load around 700 ohms. Depends on your phono preamp to a certain extent, you want to stay well under the input overload margin.
the 9C's effective mass of 11g will be a good match for the ART9. my old VPI had an 11g effective mass tonearm and the ART9 sounded incredible on it. expect it to sound a little on the rich side yet fully detailed and transparent.
your SUT was designed for AT's range of moving coil cartidges with .4mv output, e.g. the AT33E. those cartridges had internal coil impedances of 10-17 ohms and the ART9 is 12 ohms~ the ART9 has a slightly higher output (.5mv vs. .4mv) but this should not matter. basically the ART9 is a derivitive of the AT cartridges that your SUT was designed for. pick the input impedance that sounds the best.
I've got an ART-9 coming my way. Taking a chance on a gently used (or so I hope) cart, from a dealer. I'll be running it on an SL-1200GR. Right now I've got a Graham Slee Era Gold V (MM only) phono pre. Considering either a SUT or a new phono stage and curious what folks are using. I see a poster above is using an AT-650 SUT.... I'm also considering adding a DL103R at some point, so something that can do double duty would be interesting. Very intrigued by SUTs, but, truthfully, still learning about the science (or art) of matching/loading.
I got an ART9 last week and have been using it on my Pioneer PLX-1000 and I'm very happy with the results. It's still too early to make a definitive statement, but I feel like this cartridge is doing everything right and nothing wrong. I'm hearing no IGD, plenty of detail and great soundstage.
I've been tempted to play the SUT game but haven't found a need to and the results seem to be mixed. Not sure what your budget is but the Art 9 sounded excellent running through the Lehmann Black Cube SE II.
soundstage is one thing it does very well. you should try it with a tube amp! but the biggest thing it does well IMHO is deliver a rich, highly refined, completely clean sound that never offends the senses- plus some kick ass bass!
I probably wouldn't go over $600-700 for a single SUT.... Or maybe more, if I could use it for two different carts, say, the ART9 and and DL103 or DL103R. I sent Kevin at K&K Audio an email, and we'll see what he says re: SUTs. As for a phono stage that, unlike my Era Gold V, can do both MM and MC well.... I might go up to $1500 or possibly $2000. Sort of a buy once, buy well proposition.... Black Cube is on my radar. Also, the JC3 Jr. I like the idea of a phono stage with multiple inputs (I have two tables), which might include --Gold Note PH-10 (well reviewed) --Music Fidelity M6 Vinyl (3 inputs, almost zero reviews) --possibly the Pro-Ject Tube Box DS2 (which has 2 input, 2 output, but might not be a step up, overall, from my Graham Slee MM stage) Lots more fun research to do. Thanks for any thoughts. Excited to hear the ART9 in my system.
