I’m almost the opposite, as I’ve barely heard the ML. For the maybe three hours I have, it sounded very good indeed. My *impression* (which is all I can give you, although I feel it is reasonably well informed) was that the ART9 has a little more warmth and perhaps a little more body overall. Perhaps.
Otherwise I think the two are really very similar. Both have beautiful tonality, with instruments sounding like themselves and reproduced with the right amount of body and richness. Both reproduce female voices (my favourite instrument) wonderfully and with utter reality.
In brief reference to shubert’s post above, I would suggest that a lack of dynamic range is evidence of problems elsewhere in the system and not in the cartridge. For the short while that I heard the ML, Borodin’s 2nd symphony in B Minor (Classic Records, can’t remember the year of release) was the only classical work played, but it sounded quite superb.
In short I found the ML’s dynamic range to be excellent, just like the ART9’s. Both reproduce transients with great speed and precision and with no sense of ever "struggling to keep up". Up top they’re very airy and detailed, while down below the bass is suitably deep and again very detailed, agile and precise.
In terms of holography the ML was also very good, painting a wide and detailed stage with instruments placed distinctly on the stage in both width and depth Just like the ART9 does.
How it would compare to the ART9 if I was able to compare them properly side by side and over a longer time is speculative at this point, but my fairly confident guess is that I would decare them slightly different, but equal. My sense is that I would prefer the ART9, if only just, but that’s far from definitive. Either way I feel that both cartridges are truly state of the art and about as good as it gets regardless of price.
