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

The change in cartridge weight won’t impact it as much as the tonearm mass and cartridge compliance. Honestly this combo puts you right in the low end of the sweet spot to slightly below (7-8hz cartridge resonance). You can run some numbers on vinyl engine.

https://www.vinylengine.com/cartridge_resonance_evaluator.php?eff_mass=10&submit=Submit

Along the left you’ll see cartridge compliance. AT rates the ART9 at 18×10-6cm/dyne (100Hz). Assume 18×10-6cm/dyne (10Hz).

I’d be shocked if you weren’t pleased with the setup. You get into that orange area and you’d start seeing issues.

I had some concerns initially and even considered some nylon or aluminum hardware I found online somewhere which might’ve save .5 grams on cartridge weight.  But I never saw any gremlins pop up so I didn’t bother. You’d be hard pressed to find a cartridge in the sub $1000 category that didn’t have multiple shortfalls compared to the ART9.

I’m rambling now. FWIW you’re better on the low end. The higher resonance value will cause a much bigger issue when it falls in the area of the frequency of the music being played. The lower end resonance value becomes an issue with warped records as the cartridge is playing rumble from the bouncing up and down. With a good center weight most people wouldn’t ever know they have a low end resonance issue. If you have a outer periphery ring weight you’d be even better yet. I just have a center clamp (screw down type) and I don’t have a lot of warped records. No issues here.

Here is some lightweight headshell hardware.  

https://www.amazon.com/FYL-Turntable-Headshell-Mounting-Hardware/dp/B01J5FAGQS#featureBulletsAndDeta...

Thanks Wrxified for the information... the nylon hardware certainly looks interesting.   However I am not sure I'd need it if I am reading the chart correctly.  On the left side where it reads 18 for the spec you supplied on the ART9, it lands at 9hz if I come across to 8 to 9 grams which would be the cartridge and some minimal mass from the screws.  That is squarely in the green.   That is if I am reading this chart correctly.   

Sorry I typed that wrong. I’m on my mobile. Meant the following but I’m going to add some data. Also keep in mind the compliance rating on the left side of the vinyl engine chart is based on a 10Hz compliance measurement.

AT rates the dynamic compliance on ART9 at 18×10-6cm/dyne (100Hz), most people would say that the 10Hz dynamic rating would be about 1.5 - 2x the 100Hz measurement.

This would put the 10Hz dynamic compliance measurement at 27- to 36x10-6cm/dyne (10Hz). That is an extremely high compliance cartridge!!! Why Japanese cart manufacturers rate at 100Hz is mind boggling to most people. The problem is there is no direct calculation from 10Hz to 100Hz.

I’ve read other people who say you can take the static compliance of a cartridge, which for the ART-9 is 35×10-6cm/dyne, and divide by 2. Again no direct correlation and it’s only offered as a guide. But if we take the 2nd method, you end up with a much more medium high compliance cartridge which seems to jive with what others are seeing.

On the Hoffman forum ART-9 thread there are are countless members with tonearms in the 10-12 gram range that have the cartridge running. Some describe the cartridge experience as if the moment they mounted the ART-9, the clouds above them opened and angels started singing down upon their audio system. 😂. Several of them also ran the combo through various test records to measure the resonance, and came back with a combined resonant frequency well within the 8-11hz range.

This would lead me to believe the cartridge is a moderately high compliance cartridge, not the extremely high end one that many systems would struggle with.

Here is my take on it: The SME Series IV is regarded as one of the best tone arms ever made; so it would make sense to me that it would play well with most cartridges out in the market place or people would not compliment how it performs. I guess that is a back door way in to saying it probably will be within the good parameters.

Speaking of the clouds opening and angels singing down to me; I had that exact same experience when I put together my VPI Ares3/super platter table with the SME IV. I had been using a very highly touted vintage Marantz 6300 with the AT15ss (both of which I bought new when I was in college and I thought this TT was just outstanding. When I picked up the Ares3, it came to me with an arm board drilled out for the Dynavector high end tone arm, so I had to put it into my Bridgeport mill and machine a slot for the template of the SME (I just barely made it on HTA as the geometry of the two arms are different). It took me two days of work and fine tuning on the TT base to get the two to fit up; a big issue is the right angle DIN plug which causes a sharp bend in the cables which I had to make a relief cut for.

The long and short of this is that I ended up transferring the AT15ss (with a NOS OEM stylus and about 100 hours use) from the Marantz 6300 over to the Ares3, so this was a true apples to apples comparison of what a TT and tone arm combination arm will do. YIKES!! I could not believe what I was hearing! There were instruments playing on well listened to records I have that I had not heard before. And the soundstage/imagining was like being in a concert hall. I just couldn’t believe what I was witnessing. As noted earlier, the AT15ss is an 8 gram cartridge in an aluminum body MM, It’s in the suggested range of 5 to 16 gms. from SME. I don’t know the other specs on compliance, but it sure does work! I am guessing since that it is in the same family as the ART9, things should be just fine.

Honestly, I had always thought that most of the high end TT/tonearm units out there were for the eye candy appeal more than anything else with a marginal improvement in performance.  Was I ever shown the light.....