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

From my very first post that started this threadd:

" At under $1100.00 from LP Tunes, its a bargain. The ART-9 surpasses all cartridges I've had in the system before. That would include Dynavectors, Benz, Grado Signatures and a Lyra Clavis that I dearly loved. In fact, its more musically correct than the Clavis. The Clavis was the champ at reproducing the piano correctly ... the ART-9 is equally as good in this area."

Frank

I also like the fact that it is a little too careful and polite compared to some cartridges that like to manufacture air and sparkle that isn't on the recording.  I hear it as adding to the realism factor, not detracting from it.  It gives the ART9 its squeaky clean, natural sound and demeanor.  

I personally have had Van Den Hul Condor, Lyra Skala, Benz Micro Ebony TR and Miyabi standard/47 before the ART-9.

@avanti1960

I also believe that comparisons to the Ortofon 2M black are valid and significant because it is a highly regarded, high value, universally praised cartridge by critics and consumers alike.

Have you tried old Ortofon M20FL (fine line) against your new 2M Black? Or Stanton 881s mk2  or maybe 981 (stereohedron) which kills 2M for much less money.

I wish i could come up with my Audio-Technica AT-ML170 and AT-ML180 VM OCC from the 80’s. It would be nice to compare ART9 MC to the best AT’s vintage MM, they are in the same price range today, but the technogy has changed. Look here how the diamont mounted on the cantilever. Those two AT-ML models are the ultimate MMs ever, hard to imagine today price for them if AT could make them, their new MMs are far away from their top products from the 70s/80s, so why their new MC must be better?

Those vintage AT-ML 170 and AT-ML180 VM OCC are much better than newly made ART2000 MC i have owned (it was good cartridge too).

So i’m curious why not compare Audio-Technica’s own stuff to find out what is better. At least they are from the same family tree.

I posted comparisons vs. Dynavector XX2, but it wasn't mkII, and I didn't say that the ART9 came out ahead.
It came out ahead on value for price if that 2x factor or ~$1000 is important in your decision. 
I found both carts excellent and could live with either, but I found the ART9 a tad polite and lacking warmth; not on an absolute basis, but relative to the XX2. The ART9 was very neutral in tonality, detailed and had very clearly defined images in space. 
The XX2 had a more engaging way with vocals and more 3D body to the instruments, excelling with instruments like cello and acoustic guitar, but a smaller soundstage overall, with slightly less ability to untangle each instrument from the next in a large orchestra. 
My takeaway was that listeners primarily listening to rock might prefer XX2, and those into classical might prefer the ART9.
Granted all this was based on just a few hours listening, but we are all hungry for viewpoints so I didn't hesitate to share mine in case it might help somebody. I recall that the night of the comparison I felt that I'd wished that the next lower priced Dynavectors were on hand to compare to ART9 at equal price points. 

To go WAY OUT ON AN OVERSIMPLIFICATION LIMB for sh*ts and giggles here if I had to line up other carts I've lived with relative to these on a sonic continuum it would be like this:

VDH Colibri XGP <> ZYX Airy3 <> ART9 <> Signet MK111E <> XX2 Allnic Verito <>Denon103R

The left side would be described by a random room of audio buffs as detailed/delicate/airy/bright/trebley/fast/neutral/hifi/transparent/tape-like, while the same group of fans & detractors might call the right side smooth/relaxed/diffuse/rocking/warm/smeared/musical/concert-like. YMMV.
Hey if I keep going this way, maybe I can turn a whole review into just a thumbs up or thumbs down :-) Cheers,
Spencer