Pani ... New ART-9 up and running ...

I don't think the warranty is a worrisome issue.  It was some years ago that I returned a cartridge to a Japanese seller because it did not look as though the cantilever was lined up correctly.  It was handled with dispatch.  With modern shipping the whole thing probably took no longer than if I had sent it to California (from NY).  I have found in this and other experiences that the level of business ethics is high in Japan.  Ordinarily, if a cartridge works well at the beginning, there will not be an issue.  The Art-9 that I received looked and sounds absolutely perfect.

The only issue that may be real is whether there is a trade in deal when the stylus wears.  Nothing has been written about what that deal might be if you buy from LP Gear/Tunes.  Does anyone know?  The question arises because the Art-9 does not seem to be in the catalog of A-T US Inc.

If bought from Japan or Hong Kong, can the unit be returned to Japan when the stylus wears?

A good reason to use Stylast?

It seems that the Art-9 sells for less in Asia and Europe (x-VAT) than in the US.  

Glad you’re happy Al, it will gradually get better as others have said, I have just passed the 100hrs mark and the sound has formed very well, it is very coherent and nothing distracts from the musical performance itself, as you say, very nicely detailed without over emphasising the HF. Bass improves in definition and scale, I think it is excellent in this area.

Take time for a very good set up and it is a true bargain by today’s standards. (Melm it is £820 in the UK)

Rgds,
Paul.

Hi Almarg, I was very interested to read your remarks comparing the ART9 to your SS re-tipped Grace Ruby.  I use an SS re-tipped Ruby (top of the line OCL stylus) regularly on one of my two systems.  What struck me is that your list of the ways in which you perceive that the ART9 ("considerably increased detail and better definition in the treble region, cleaner and more accurate response to fast transients, and improved dynamics") surpasses the re-tipped Ruby would also be MY list of the strong points of my OCL Ruby, as compared to the qualities of the original OEM elliptical version.  IMO, these virtues come at the expense of a more romantic mellow sound with the elliptical.

So, my first question to you is whether you have the CL or the OCL stylus on your Ruby.  If you have the OCL tip, I am really puzzled, because if I had my 'druthers, I would want my Ruby to be slightly LESS strong in the very same areas you mention.  Mine has only 20-30 hours on it, so I do have reason to expect that it will mellow out a bit as the hours of use accumulate.  But I would not want to go from the current flavor of my OCL to another cartridge that was similar only more so in the areas you mention.  My Ruby is driving the phono section of a vintage Quicksilver preamplifier with a load of 47K ohms and no added capacitance.  The Q is highly tweaked in terms of parts, but I have left the circuit topology as Mike Saunders designed it.  Speakers are Beveridge 2SW plus home-made Transmission Line woofers below 100Hz.

Hi Lew,

My re-tipped F9E Ruby is Mr. Ledermann’s CL version, not the OCL version you have.

Since I purchased my Herron VTPH-2 phono stage a few months ago I too was running it at 47K, with load capacitance being the Herron’s MM input capacitance of 100 pf plus the unknown capacitances of my approximately 5 foot phono cable and the tonearm wiring.

Of course an additional variable in the mix is that the input stage of the Herron that is used for the two cartridges is different. Although I suspect that the difference essentially just involves insertion of the Herron’s FET-based LOMC stage into the signal path for LOMC’s, with the rest of its signal path probably being the same for both types of cartridges.

I would speculate, also, that given the age of the Grace cartridges there is likely to be significant sample-to-sample variation in performance among them, even when re-tipped in the same manner.

I’ll mention also, btw, that I’ve been running the AT-ART9 essentially unloaded, into the near-infinite input impedance the VTPH-2 has on its LOMC inputs if no termination resistors are plugged into the connectors it has on its rear panel for that purpose. Keith Herron suggests that with his particular design that is likely to be optimal for many or most LOMC cartridges. After the cartridge is broken in I’ll probably try the 47K and 1K loading plugs I ordered with the VTPH-2. But I see no reason to doubt the comments that have been made in the past by Atmasphere, Jonathan Carr, and others to the effect that the need for relatively heavy resistive loading of an LOMC, where necessary, is driven primarily by the need to control the degree to which a particular phono stage is exposed to ultrasonic or RF energy resulting from the resonance between cartridge inductance and load capacitance, rather than by the needs of the cartridge itself. And it would seem that the sonics of the Herron are less likely to be affected by that energy than in the case of most other phono stages.

Paul (Ps68), thanks very much for your comment.

Best regards,
-- Al

Thanks oregonpapa and melm.....Waiting to hear from both LPTunes and LPGear as to when they will have new stock. If not will look at buying from Japan seller....makes my tummy queasy thinking about that :(