My results with the Copla have me very curious about what some nice Hashimoto/Cinemag/etc. Could bring to the table. It is all uncharted until our ears dive in...
Sorry this is not ART related but would you mind giving me a quick comparison of the dl-s1 vs the dl-301 in your experience? My experience has been the 301 is outstanding with the exception of fine top end sparkle and presence. No warts, just some information that is not available. Ultimately what I am getting at is should I seek out a S1? Thank you.
Are you using the Denton DL 301 or DL 301 MK ll ? My 301 MK ll has always had a nice top end. And Yes...the DL-S1 is Denon’s reference cartridge. If you like the natural warm sound of the DL 301, you get more of that sound but taken up about 5 notches it seems. It has much more fidelity. Its a very refined sound with lots of air, gobs of detail, great bass and much sparkle without bringing attention to one aspect of the sound. It’s a heck of a cartridge...Denon has a large “cult like” following for a reason. And now the Art9 Carts seem to have a large following as well. I’m really thinking I may want to take a listen. Ive heard it’s a different type of sound from Denon. But to answer your question, please hunt down a Denon DL-S1....you will love the natural sound it presents,
I've learned to take the recommended advice with a grain of salt when it comes to transformers. Lots of MC carts start at 100 ohms and go up from there. A very good 10x transformer will take care of that.
I could see that 1:20 being pretty spot on. FWIW, I run my OC9xml with 1:14 vintage RCA 12399 transformers with 40db through my Tubebox DS, and there is no competition with going straight to the Tubebox with the 60db setting. I recently played with not using the SUT, but the dynamics and slam were just not there without it.
I think I am in need of a good therapist. I have the Art9XA and was using a Reson Reca (Goldring G10xx based) on a Technics 1200G with Audio Technica At11g h/s Since getting the Art9XA I have used it into my EAR834p with Beyer 1:15 SUTS (not enough gain). Bought an Audio South with unknown Lundahl SUTS but better step up ration 1:24 Then bought a Technics SU300MC MC to MM step up amplifier. Add in a Douk ERA834P clone and is it any wonder this is getting confusing if not messy? Comparing different combinations is doing my "nut" in. all tested today into a Yulong D100 Head amp and KLH Ultimate Ones 'phones. I concluded the Reson Reca is within 95% of the Art9XA ie not significatly different. The Douk 834p and original EAR834p difference is small. Yes there is a difference between the LundahlSUT and Technics Pre-Pre, but it is more of a different presentation the Lundahl adding a "bloom" to the sound that I think isn't accurate. Yes the Art9xa is "slightlty better" but I am going through stepup devices and getting nowhere. Seriously considering going back to the reson reca because it just works.
Can't edit the above hyperbole. So conclusion is ART9XA is no better than my Reson Reca. So will deffo go up for sale. I suspect the technics Sl1200G is not good enough or its becasue SUTs PrePre maps negate the benefits. Interesting conclusion that repeats what happened with my hifi in the 70's & 80s. when I gave up Moving coil....
I thought some might be interested in this test tone sweep of the ART9XA, using a new in package CBS Laboratories STR 100. Cartridge loading was set at 200 ohms. The peak in the treble is about +4 dB at 12k, which matches nicely with the predictions made by the Hagerman loading calculator, which predicted a resonance peak of 12.7k, based upon published specs from Audio Technica, when using 200 ohm loading. Luckily, this peak is right at the edge of my hearing tests (I drop off now at about 15k) and is gentle enough that one could easily EQ it away at the amp with just a modest filter if one really wants to get it dead nuts flat. I thought the declining distortion in the upper register was very interesting, and different from behavior I've seen in some other MC carts. If you're interested in the methods used in this test, you can read the discussion here. Experiments were also done with loading at 460 ohm, which barely reduced the resonance peak and dramatically increased distortion.
And here is a similar, but slightly different result, using 200 Ohms with the Hi Fi News Test LP (Side B, Track 7), which may be more commonly owned than the CBS Labs test record.
Here are my cartridge resonance test results using STR-100 cartridge resonance test track, which starts at 100 Hz and goes slowly down, then quickly down after 40 Hz. This is using the ART9XA with an AT-LH13H headshell (13 grams) and an SME M2-9R. The total mass is 31 grams and if one assumes a compliance of 16 (1.6x the listed spec), the empirical results match closely to those modeled by the cartridge resonance frequency calculator. Here we see a main resonance at about 7.3 Hz (versus 7.14 predicted by the calcuator), and smaller, secondary resonance at 10 Hz.
I think you are calculating the effective mass incorrectly. The cartridge is 8.5g with maybe 0.5g mounting hardware, the tonearm with standard headshell is 9.5g, you are removing the standard headshell and replacing it with a 13g one. I don't know what the standard SME headshell weighs, maybe 5-6g? So you may be adding 7-8g, but it's not all above the stylus, so maybe reduce it to 6g added to effective mass. So I get a total of 9 + 9.5 + 6 = 24.5g. This makes more sense because the ART9XA is likely much higher compliance than 16cu @ 10Hz based on my experience with their LOMC carts.
It might be incorrect, but it works in the calculator the for cocktail math of 16 compliance. I don't know if the calculator assumes accurate effective math, or just raw specs. It says "Total Mass". But, regardless, it gives you a baseline with an experimental test result if you want to fiddle around with different assumptions for compliance and/or effective mass, assuming an observed catridge resonance of about 7.3.
I came from the ART7. The ART9XA is a major upgrade. The higher output solves so many problems with gain and noise. The the change to a Shibata cartridge seems to have fleshed out the bottom end, giving it more bass, where the ART7 was sometimes a little too lean.
Here are the sweep test results using a Parks Puffin set to 200 ohm, using the sweep test track from CBS Labs STR-100, 1973 pressing, new. Test set up here. Sweep results here.
Brian did a great job on my setup, highly recommended. I'll join the call for some pictures of your setup as well.
Excellent posts and info watchnerd, thank you. The 9XA is sold on the idea of the air core providing lower distortion. From your plots vs. other competitive cartridges do you find this to be true and by how much? I have a hunch that the 12K peak will be reduced with 100ohm loading. I am surprised that wasn't done because it is the min recommended loading. Also what is the plateau in the response from 40 to 100 Hz?
thanks for the report. definitely glad i use active gain for my XA! stepping away from stepping up.....
Attempts to drive the peak down by increasing loading appear to increase distortion, at least in the case of 460 ohm, which has worse distortion than 200 ohm. Increasing the loading to 460ohm shaves about 1-2 dB off the peak relative to 200 ohm, but at the expense of making upper octave distortion far worse. I would surprised if going even higher, to 1000 ohm, reverses this trend. For me, a bit flatter peak is not worth the increase in distortion (especially as there are other ways to EQ this away), but others may feel differently. Here you see distortion changing from a downward trend at 200 ohm, compared to the graphs upthread, to an upward trend at 460 ohm
That particular track is a different track than the test sweep shown in the distortion graph. A4 Tone Arm Resonance Test: Left Sweep 200-10 Cps, Constant Amplitude, +3 Db Relative To Band A1 A5 Tone Arm Resonance Test: Right Sweep 200-10 Cps, Constant Amplitude, +3 Db Relative To Band A2 However, what this leaves out is what the engineering notes describe: There is a declining volume sweep that then falls off rapidly in volume after 40 Hz. The intent is to provide an audible reference point to the bass in the music band vs the subsonic bass, so one can see if the subsonic resonances are approaching an amplitude that matches the audible tones. In other words, it's supposed to look like that.
