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

Having lived with the 9 for over a year now, I'm really wondering at what cost will a worthwhile improvement come at?

That is the whole point. The ART9 is not the ultimate cart but it is at a level where you are surfing in the upper echelons of what is possible from an MC cart. A worthwhile improvement from here means getting the top cartridges from other serious brands like Ortofon (A90 and above), Lyra (Etna and above), Dynavector (Xv1s and above), AT ART-1000, Transfiguration Proteus etc. Even among them you may have to choose carefully. So, when you are ready to get into that ultra-fi category it would make sense to look beyond ART9

My Soundsmith re-tipped Dynavector 20X2L (nude contact line stylus with ruby cantilever) gives the ART9 a serious run for the money and is slightly more dynamic but not quite as clean / smooth on all recordings.
I can see where some Soundsmith carts might be an upgrade from the ART9- e.g. the Zephyr MIMC star- especially if the dynamics are better than my re-tipped DV. The MIMC Star is a low output moving iron that has ultra low moving mass that is a fraction of the mass of a low output moving coil.

I finally got a chance to compare the ART9 to my Zyx UNIverse Premium, so I’m posting the results here as promised. The comparison is a bit silly since the cartridges are separated by an order of magnitude in price. It's clearly an unfair 'fight'. But the lingering question here is whether the ART9 can compete against the upper echelon of MC carts, and if not, just how far up the scale it reaches. For me this exercise helped to impart some clarity. I’m not a pro so please bear with me and apologies in advance if I step on any toes. My system is detailed at the bottom of the post.

In the end the results were about what I expected. The Zyx outperformed the ART9 in pretty much all the categories I could think of. I enjoyed the ART9 profoundly during the first 100 hours of break in, to the point where I felt no desire to put another cartridge in the system. But once I installed the Zyx UNI Pre again the differences became apparent, and I do hear the ART9 differently now. (I think it was Mark Twain who said that “comparison is the death of joy”)

First off, the Zyx is significantly more detailed, or has a lower ‘noise floor’. The ART9 is excellent in this regard, particularly in the upper mid range, but I always heard a certain dullness or compression as I noted in an earlier post. Break in improved this considerably but it never fully disappeared.

On the high end, the Zyx reaches further than the ART9. Rooms are more audible for example. On Keith Jarrett’s Koln Concert LP, the ART9 made the piano sound more close-miked. With the Zyx I heard the piano sitting on a stage in a particular hall, making for a more engaging listen.

On the low end, the ART9 is good - bass drums are felt and heard in a natural sounding way. But the Zyx goes much deeper and still stays taught and controlled. The bass is one of the great things about this Zyx IMHO (and btw I don’t hear Zyx cartridges as ‘bright’, as people commonly say, although i’ve only heard this one, a UNI II, and the 4D mono).

Mid-range is more complicated and I’m still teasing it out. The two carts are more comparable here - especially in vocals. But after switching back and forth I’m hearing the ART9 as a bit cloudy and colored in the lower mids - like there’s extra ‘stuff’ hanging on the notes. I probably wouldn’t have heard this without going back to the Zyx, but now that I’m aware of it I can’t “unhear” it. My overall sense with the ART9 is that it’s a bit over-emphasized in the mid range and (perhaps) under-emphasized at the bottom and top.

On dynamics, again the ART9 is great but the Zyx is better. There’s a sense of pure surprise that I get with the Zyx, usually a few times per LP if it’s an acoustic recording, that I don’t experience nearly as often with the ART9.

Also I heard a difference in the leading edges of notes, or in fast transients. The Zyx is sharp and precise in this regard, where the ART9 has a more rolled-off feeling. It’s like a decent knife versus an Obsidian blade. A reedy saxophone or a bow drawn across a double bass brings the distinction into focus.

Imaging? Again the Zyx excels here, but it’s slightly complicated. The ART9 has this wonderfully delineated quality, giving it a big, open soundstage. It’s the first thing that jumped out at me when I first installed the ART9. But in comparison to the Zyx this quality began to feel a bit exaggerated, as if the musicians were sometimes in different rooms altogether (which I suppose could be true). The Zyx otoh delineated the instruments but maintained an overall ‘organic’ or integrated feel. Also the Zyx has very precise images that extend out to the sides of the soundstage, more so than the ART9.

On tracking I have no strong opinion. Both cartridges were fine in this regard. However I have had some struggles in the past getting this and other Zyx cartridges to play nice with the VPI tonearm, so I might place the ART9 ahead in this category as it was flawless.

What’s the takeaway? To me the ART9 is still a remarkable cartridge that punches well above its weight. In the first 100 hours of use I thought my system had never sounded better (although that’s partly a result of the new Doshi Phono stage). The combined mid-range warmth and detail got me interested in some LPs that I had overlooked before (I’m thinking of a Mozart string quartet LP by the Sequoia Quartet).

In general my sense is that the real strength of the ART9 is in the upper mid range, where it’s remarkably clean and detailed, but that those strengths diminish as you move up and down the spectrum from there. Also, the differences between the ART9 and the Zyx UNI Premium were smaller on studio recordings in contrast to live ones or recordings of acoustic instruments.

However I wouldn’t say the ART9 belongs in the top echelon of cartridges, or pushes the boundaries of MC technology. I haven’t heard enough different cartridges to make that judgement, to be honest. But I don’t think the ART9 defies the laws of gravity. In other words, manufacturers have to make trade offs at lower price points. The ART9’s trade-offs are artfully done but they do exist. If the cartridge pushes an envelope, it's in delivering much higher performance than you would expect for its price.  

But just how high? The decisive thing to me now would be a comparison between the ART9 and one of the more moderately-priced insanely expensive cartridges, like the Benz Micro LP-S, Dynavector XVs, some Lyras (Titan?), Miyajima Kansui, etc. etc. I would love to see someone here do that!

System:
The ART9 was installed on a VPI Aries 1 turntable, modded so that all but the plinth is replaced. It has a Teres Verus II ‘rim drive’ motor, aluminum Classic platter, 3D tonearm, Edensound brass footers (with rubber shock mounts removed). The TT is sitting on a vibraplane.

Phono stage is a Doshi Alaap 2.1 with stock tubes, connected to a Horn Shoppe The Truth optical volume control. Amp is an Art Audio Jota HC SET amplifier, with Devore Silverback Reference speakers. Cables are mostly Auditorium 23, with one run of Kimber double stranded silver ICs. DIY isolation rack and various gewgaws for vibration control.

During break in I had the ART9 mounted on a 3D arm wand with the current “reference” tonearm wire. After 100 hours were completed I moved the ART9 to a second arm wand (a JMW 10.5i with Nordost Valhalla wiring) and put the Zyx UNI Pre on the 3D arm (its normal home). I switched back and forth between those two arms to compare the two carts. Cartridges were both aligned using a Mint LP protractor.

Jolly ... 

Wow! What a super effort and great comparison review. Thank you for doing that.

Its pretty much what I would expect, especially in the "detail" and "bass" area. Did you try comparing the two cartridges on any mono records? The ART-9 is great on monos, as is the AT OC-9 MKIII.  Oh, and what's the price difference between the two cartridges? You didn't mention it.

I got the feeling from your review that if you didn't know about the  Zyx UNI Premium that you could live happily with the ART-9.  Am I correct in assuming this?

Thanks again ... quality review. 

Frank

Thanks for the kind words Frank. I did try the ART9 on a few mono records but I wasn't too crazy about it. I found the sound too warm and thick in the mid-range, much more so than on stereo LPs. Not sure why that would be the case.  

On the second question... Yes I'd probably be happy with the ART9. However I've been kind of restless with tweaking and improving the system, so it's hard to predict whether or not I'd have the bug to try something else. I will say that the Zyx and the AT were remarkably close at times. On some studio recordings where there's not a lot of 'room effect' and not too much happening in the bass, the differences may be pretty subtle. I found this to be the case on the Rounder LP of the Boyoyo Boys (classic South African Mbaqanga music), when I listened to each side on a different cart.