AT-ART9XI Cartridge - Reduced Compliance

Dear @keegiam : Rigth to where you need to stay. Good luck.

R.

Hit a speed bump.  Looking into ordering the XA, I noticed its dynamic compliance is 10 (x10-6 @ 100 Hz) vs. 15 for the XI.  10 seems quite low for the SME V with its 10/11 gram effective mass.

I believe I read somewhere that viscous damping, which the SME has, makes Fres less crucial.  Should that alleviate my concern?

Between possibly adding headshell weight and switching out the Classe's resistors to handle the XA, I'm back on the fence re: XI vs. XA.

After many decades in audio, I was curious about Audio Technica cartridges. I bought a new AT 440Mlb, and was shocked how good it sounded on my Dynavector 501 arm.

I then ordered a new ART-9, and have found my analog front end is much better than I knew it was. 

I wish I'd done it sooner.

I have attached a report from a assessment of the New Art 9's used on a Home System belonging to a Individual who is Based in Germany.

I have read quite a lot of Translated Assessments from this individual, and the Translation appear to be very good at getting the impressions made from the Devices being assessed across to the reader.

Note: the report is a Translation of German to English.

_______________________________________________________

I did that last night

 

Audio Technica ART 9 XA 

System got and built in. 

Thanks to the thread in the system body, this is now much easier 

I am currently listening to the system in the following analouge environment: 

Mechanism: TechDAS AF3 premium Tonearm
: Ikeda 345
Headshell: Yamamoto HS 6 (titanium) 

Headshell screws: Yamamoto titanium

Headshell finger cot: Yamamoto TY-1 titanium
Headshell mat: Dereneville
Tonearm cable: HMS Gran Finale
PhonoPre: Neukomm MCA 122s (100ohm version) 

PhonoPre: Musical Fidelity Nuvista
Transmitter: NAT 20x 

What is immediately noticeable the first time you listen is that the ART 9 XA also plays very well straight from the box. The ART 9 XI has changed a bit in the first 10 hours, but not to the extent that I know it from other systems. I assume that this will also be the case with the ART 9 XA. 

From memory, the ART 9 XA plays with better resolution and a deeper and wider space than the old ART 7. 

In this tuning, the new XA comes terrifyingly close to my two current 4k expensive MC systems. 

On the old ART 7 I really liked the filigree and delicate reproduction, so I enjoyed listening to classical and vocal records with the ART 7. 

This character was retained in the ART 9 XA

However, I have the impression that coarse and fine dynamics have become better,

this may be due to the higher output voltage, which is much more phono preamplifier friendly. 

But the 0.2mv of the ART 9 XA only makes sense on really loud MC phono preamps, or on a 20x transformer with a correspondingly good MM preamp.

The NAT XX ÜT works very nicely with the ART 9 XA. 

The XA will definitely become one of my standard systems on the AF3P turntable, I have the impression that Audio Technica (assuming the appropriate phono pre) has created a really outstanding pickup in this price range with the XA. 

My recommendation therefore applies to the ART 9 XI, as the universal system with high output voltage and a vital sound, whereas the ART 9 XA is the more filigree system for the gourmet with an elaborate phono stage. 

Greeting

My SME V is being overhauled and rewired (one length to preamp) by SME Tonearms in Canada.  The Owner, Alfred, liked my choice of AT-ARTXA or XI but suggested the Dynavector xx2 Mk ii, which he happens to be able to get at a great price right now.

Any thoughts: AT-ARTXA (or I) vs. Dynavector xx2 Mk ii?