I thought I was set on an AT-ART9XA but I've decided to select a cart with a higher output than .2mV for my first MC. I've become partial to the Shibata stylus the past couple of years but am not requiring that in my cart selection. I've only ever heard a couple of AT MM carts and believe that they offer incredible value for their pricing but they're obviously only one of many capable cartridge makers. The sea of options is stunning. My set-up will be Technics SL1500C w/KAB damper-->Graham Slee Elevator + Reflex M-->Yamaha A-S3200-->JBL L82's + Rythmik L12 sub. The Elevator and Reflex M offer ~63dB of gain with adjustable impedance loading. I'd like to keep the cartridge under $1500 for my first dip. Brands/carts I've begun looking closer at are Audio Technica ART9XI/OC9XSH, Sumiko Blackbird, Benz MicroGlider SL, Hana, Denon, and Dynavector. My understanding is that the tonearm on my SL1500C will pair better with lighter carts with higher compliance. Please correct me if necessary. What LOMC would you suggest I consider? And as always, thanks for sharing your experience.
I would highly recommend the OC9XML, which has a technically superior stylus, or the OC9XSH if you really like Shibata. Both are well under $1500 and will sound great. Some on here have even reported to prefer them to the ART cartridges.
So far one person vs. many others who have found the ARTs a huge upgrade. If the $549 Audio Technica cartridge sounds better than the $1249 Audio Technica cartridge that would be one heck of a deal and one dumb move on Audio Technica's part. The latest OC9s appear to be well liked and excellent values but expectations should be tempered. The ART9s compete with and even sound better than some cartridges at the $2K level.
The ART9XI certainly looks better. Could it be that the SLC stylus on the ART9XI is more critical of set up and harder to get it to sing at its' best? The ML stylus on the OC9XML being a more stalwart performer even if alignment isn't dialed to perfection?
Knowing that you like the full-bodied tone that the Shibata tip brings, I can recommend the Ortofon Quintet Black. With the caveat that you need your setup very spot-on in terms of VTA, alignment, and loading. Too much tail up, tail down, or the wrong loading and things can get harsh. The KAB damper and Cinemag SUT improved things too. Once it’s eventually dialled in, it’s very, very good. However. If I started down the moving coil path again, I’d also be seriously considering an OC9. They look like great value for money.
Lighter cartridges and lower compliance. Idk if it’s just me, but a >1k cartridge on a 900 bucks turntable seems a bit strange to me. Should work just fine though.
Because in many cases the turntable is the most expensive and fancy of the two. But as I said, it could be just me.
This actually seems right to me. Spend about the same amount on cartridge as you did for the deck. I have a Benz-Micro Glider on my P5. I was originally going to get the ACE, but came across a deal for the Glider for not much more. By this logic, what turntable should you put a $15,000 Koetsu Jade Platinum cartridge on?
I think that one person is me. It could very well just be a sample-to-sample variance, but in my case the OC9XML not only sounded better to my ears, it measured better. While the ART9XI was up to spec at about 29-30dB channel separation, my OC9XML measures 37dB, which is well beyond its spec of 27dB. This gave it a bigger, wider soundstage. Also, the ML stylus on the OC9XML was able to trace inner grooves just a bit better, with less distortion, despite the truly minuscule SLC tip that is laser-drilled into the cantilever on the ART9XI. I think regardless, these cartridges sound different more than one is better than the other, at least in my anecdotal experience. It may be personal preference. However, the OC9XML is definitely a better value at less than half the price. Finally, I can’t promise that one would get the same results with two different samples, or if I just happened to get an excellent sample of the OC9XML and a so-so ART9XI. As always, YMMV.
When I got to hear the older ART9 model, I was pretty disappointed with the inner groove tracing ability of that cartridge. Haven't heard the new one. I think it's worth pointing out that while the SLC tip might have a better mount because it uses less glue and is laser-drilled instead of a fully glued "bird beak" mount, the side radius of the ML/MR is still much thinner than the SLC.
I think it's really up to the individual to decide what they want to spend as far as price ratios with different components go. There are definitely some combos that don't make sense to me either but I don't think spending roughly the same on the cartridge as the turntable costs is that weird. I know a guy that uses a $10K cartridge on an older, heavily modified 1200. Even with those mods, the turntable is much less expensive than the cartridge. Probably weird to many members here but that guy doesn't have any cartridge performance issues with his combo.
I have the 1500c with an AT-33pgtii and am very happy with it. Using an AT-11 headshell. Must say I was initially underwhelmed with the sound through the phono section of my Rogue Pharoah integrated (63db at 100 ohms). Everything was there and tracked very well but overall it was a bit “polite”(or boring to put it less charitably). Running with increased gain through Parks Audio Puffin improved things (more lively and dynamic). But what really opened things up was the addition of the Sutherland TZ Vibe phono preamp.
Right. The side radius on the ML is less than half that of the SLC. I believe the ML has a substantially longer contact patch as well. You’d posted an article previously that suggested that what makes the SLC more expensive (in the same OC9 line) is literally the cost of the diamond itself and mounting into the cantilever. It really says nothing about how it performs relative the the ML. Same is true of the Shibata.
Yeah, pretty much every cart company gets diamonds from a third party - many times but not always - pre-mounted on a cantilever. There are only a few suppliers in the world for this stuff and they can charge what they need to or want to. If they charge more for a certain type of diamond or mounting procedure or cantilever/diamond combo, those costs are going to get passed on to the consumer. Thinner side radius is what I always prefer. That said there are other factors in cartridge performance and depending on the records the end user is playing the thinner side radius may not be a top priority.
Yeah decisions are up to the person that buys it/will be using it. I’ve been using PA monitors (Yamaha CBR12) in my HiFi system for quite a few years - plenty people would probably find that a strange combination as well, but it worked just fine for me
The OC9X line seems like the best value, by far. I’d be going with the ML, but that’s just because I don’t like IGD or avoidable groove wear.
I've had the same considerations w/ my interest to try MC carts. Thinking, "Is it foolish to put a $1500 cart on a $1200 'table?" I think the Technics will still prove a worthy vehicle in this cartridge price range. Is it possible to get an OC9XML that doesn't look like Iron Man's toe? Fugly cart!
I agree, but I think they made it partially red because of the stylus tip. The VM95ML and VM540ML styli are red too.
Were you able to compare the AT33PTGII while you were analyzing the MC's from Audio Technica? If so, how did it stack up between the OC9 & ART9?
Ha! That's funny. Honestly I wouldn't worry about the looks too much of any brand/model, unless you are in the habit of staring at your cart when you listen. Other than an initial check for things like warps and off-center records, I don't really look at the cart that much when playing records.
