• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

"No Point" getting higher end MM if you can properly run MC as well

MC will out-perform MM at same price point if neither is disadvantaged by system

  • YES

    Votes: 48 43.2%

  • NO

    Votes: 63 56.8%
  • Total voters
    111
Lean? OC9ML/ii is very flat(below 5k), what you might hear is the rising top end giving it a bright character, for young listeners ;)

1690812591205.png

The new OC9XSH have quite some deviations in the top, and leaner bass, not sure that would satisfy me. 3db down at 10k is not a good cartridge., let's hope it is the test record/setup
1690812781400.png

The OC9XEN has a significant droop. Must be a quite dull cartridge
Both cartridges has poorer crosstalk and poorer channel balance specs than the previous generation. O9Xxx is not a step forward for AT.

1690812951759.png

By the way her is s properly loaded MM from 1978 ( I measure 0.4 channel balance and -30db crosstalk better then most cartridges), the cheap type the followed Technics turntables...where is the progress one may wonder

1690813566055.png
 
Last edited:
Sleiven said:
Lean? OC9ML/ii is very flat(below 5k), what you might hear is the rising top end giving it a bright character, for young listeners ;)

View attachment 2946543

The new OC9XSH have quite some deviations in the top, and leaner bass, not sure that would satisfy me. 3db down at 10k is not a good cartridge., let's hope it is the test record/setup
View attachment 2946544

The OC9XEN has a significant droop. Must be a quite dull cartridge
Both cartridges has poorer crosstalk and poorer channel balance specs than the previous generation. O9Xxx is not a step forward for AT.

View attachment 2946545

By the way her is s properly loaded MM from 1978 ( I measure 0.4 channel balance and -30db crosstalk better then most cartridges), the cheap type the followed Technics turntables...where is the progress one may wonder

View attachment 2946550
Click to expand...

All you have to do is listen to an OC9 II. The limitations of that cartridge is painfully obvious. For people who have owned them and had them side by side, and that tells us a lot about the differences between the two cartridges. Hell a graph supplies with a $89 moving magnet shows it's more than adequate for audio playback. Conversely, one with a $5000 cartridge does not indicate enough of a difference to justify the cost. Yet those who listen do not make that choice.
 
Mister Pig said:
All you have to do is listen to an OC9 II. The limitations of that cartridge is painfully obvious. For people who have owned them and had them side by side, and that tells us a lot about the differences between the two cartridges. Hell a graph supplies with a $89 moving magnet shows it's more than adequate for audio playback. Conversely, one with a $5000 cartridge does not indicate enough of a difference to justify the cost. Yet those who listen do not make that choice.
Click to expand...
Have an OC9 II and while not an end all it's an excellent cartridge at its price point, although an ATML170 sounds better in no small degree to these ears. Nothing painful about the OC9 II's sound unless one's ears are golden and can hear the grass grow. :cool:
 
nailer said:
Have an OC9 II and while not an end all it's an excellent cartridge at its price point, although an ATML170 sounds better in no small degree to these ears. Nothing painful about the OC9 II's sound unless one's ears are golden and can hear the grass grow. :cool:
Click to expand...


Did you read this previous post?

The OC9 II is a lean cartridge, without the texture and shading the latest generation OC9 cartridges possess. The II was a great value when you could buy it for $300 or less, but it's got its limitations.

I have owned cartridges I like a lot less than an OC9 II, and I have owned others I enjoy a lot more. No one said it sounded painful, but I did say it was lean and you could include cool sounding.
 
Last edited:
Mister Pig said:
No one said it sounded painful,
Click to expand...
erm...
Mister Pig said:
All you have to do is listen to an OC9 II. The limitations of that cartridge is painfully obvious. For people who have owned them and had them side by side, and that tells us a lot about the differences between the two cartridges. Hell a graph supplies with a $89 moving magnet shows it's more than adequate for audio playback. Conversely, one with a $5000 cartridge does not indicate enough of a difference to justify the cost. Yet those who listen do not make that choice.
Click to expand...
But to the point: I would describe the OC9/II as being neutral, lacking in euphonic colouration, much like the rest of the AT lineup, as opposed to the more exotic cartridges, particularly vintage. "Lacks discrete character" would be a better descriptor, IME. However, I find it responds well to whatever arm it is attached. If the arm is dynamic, so will be the AT.

I haven't heard the XML but I doubt it's an improvement, unless one considers a tubular alloy cantilever to be an improvement over a gold sputtered boron rod.
 
ripblade said:
erm...

But to the point: I would describe the OC9/II as being neutral, lacking in euphonic colouration, much like the rest of the AT lineup, as opposed to the more exotic cartridges, particularly vintage. "Lacks discrete character" would be a better descriptor, IME. However, I find it responds well to whatever arm it is attached. If the arm is dynamic, so will be the AT.

I haven't heard the XML but I doubt it's an improvement, unless one considers a tubular alloy cantilever to be an improvement over a gold sputtered boron rod.
Click to expand...

Painfully obvious means it's differences are easily noticeable. That isn't too hard to suss out.

As far as the XMLcantilever it's boron rod. Not a tubular alloy.

Stylus Shape
Microlinear
Cantilever
0.28 mm diameter nude boron
 
Mister Pig said:
Painfully obvious means it's differences are easily noticeable. That isn't too hard to suss out.

As far as the XMLcantilever it's boron rod. Not a tubular alloy.

Stylus Shape
Microlinear
Cantilever
0.28 mm diameter nude boron
Click to expand...
Ah, ok, my info is old. I recall the OC9x were introduced when boron was becoming unobtainium. Glad to see the change. Now, if only they could bring back the boron pipe...
 
KentTeffeteller said:
You know, there's 3 different lacquers cut of this classic. One is much tougher to track than the other two lacquer masterings (which are easier to track). I figure the two easier masterings are what you have.
Click to expand...
I got this one in the first few months of its release. It came with the warning letter of it being hard to track and hard on your speakers! LOL
 
Mister Pig said:
Did you read this previous post?

The OC9 II is a lean cartridge, without the texture and shading the latest generation OC9 cartridges possess. The II was a great value when you could buy it for $300 or less, but it's got its limitations.

I have owned cartridges I like a lot less than an OC9 II, and I have owned others I enjoy a lot more. No one said it sounded painful, but I did say it was lean and you could include cool sounding.
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not. Who posted it and what's its post #?

Who is this no one you're referencing?

Mister Pig said:
The limitations of that cartridge is painfully obvious.
Click to expand...
You wrote this in post 422 and I took poetic license with it. :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom