|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
50.166.146.22
I rcvd an OC9 as gift from a member here. In looking at history this cart gets little regard due to being peaky and thin. And it was a little thin when running in for a while loaded thru Cinemags @37.5ohms. But it opened up when i removed the lower part of the body. It comes right of easily. There is a small notch at the back where the connecting pins are. An invitation - it was made to be removed.While it is cleaner than a DL-103, less body overall, it is really not lacking in sufficient depth and weight. Amazing what a little plastic will and won't do.
I also added a magnet to the front. I would have placed it on the front yoke but there are very thin wires across that yoke and I didn't want to disturb them after already killing two cartridges lately.
Edits: 10/29/14 10/29/14Follow Ups:
Where did you get those tightening nuts for your OC9? They look much improved over the stock nuts.
i kept a lot of old harware from old cars. these came from Denon carts, I think. I may switch to brass screws.
I have an AT OC9ML II and I tried for some time to get it to sound correct to my ears. I didn't find it was bright or too detailed, but rather, I found the sound was somewhat "removed" in a polite sort of way. I could never get the immediacy I wanted from a good MC like with my Benz Glider.
After a few months it went back in it's box. I concluded that the problem could be the big black plastic mount which isolates the cart from real contact with the tonearm. The Glider is metal on metal and has a very fast recovery time and boasts great transients. I seem to prefer carts that let energy pass through either wood, stone or metal.
you could try a wood plate between the cart and headshell. and take the bottom of the OC9 ...
"I have an AT OC9ML II and I tried for some time to get it to sound correct to my ears. I didn't find it was bright or too detailed, but rather, I found the sound was somewhat "removed" in a polite sort of way. I could never get the immediacy I wanted from a good MC like with my Benz Glider."
I too went from a Glider to the MLIII. My table has had just 2 mc's before the AT that are opposite personalities. Sumiko Blackbird/Benz Glider.
Having those 2 helped me decide what I'm looking for and I prefer something in between them.
The OC9(in my system) approaches what I'm seeking. For the less than half the cost, a great value.
That said, I'm considering the ART9 which is about the same retail as the others. Or cheap out a little, and find an ART7 for a few bucks less.
As always, YMMV
I had no trouble with the OC9 sounding thin. The Lyra Clavis da Capo is thin, but the OC9 and especially the OC9/II are rich and full. Thin sounding? Something is not right.
I'm not sure what arm you're using, but that could be part of the problem. Try adding some mass and making sure the VTF is near the max for the cart.
The AT-OC9ML II was my first entry into the world of MC carts.
To my ears-
Yes! It is very finicky with regards to setup (both physical and equipment). With an Ortofon T-10 step-up iron, it did have a bit of brightness (which I then thought was part of the "MC mystique").
After doing some VTA adjustment and a new MC head amp (Flemming Audio Stage-1), the cart began to "speak to me". While still maintaining the AT MC sound (gone from bright to let's just say, ever so slightly "overly detailed") it just didn't seem to convey the music on the recordings, although it DID reduce the surface noise significantly in comparison to the three previous carts I owned (Linn K-5,K-9 and Adikt), it still sounded like I was listening to a record.
My next "2.5 steps up" were Ortofon MC15 Super MK II and now the Ortofon Kontrpunkt A (the "0.5" of the step ups being Sound Smith's Level Two stylus cantilever upgrade).
YMMV...
Cheers,
Dman
Analog Junkie
cartridge I've ever suffered with. Could not sell it fast enough.
Opus 33 1/3
The secondary of my Cinemag is loaded with 10K in parallel with 47K. The brightness is gone and the sound is clean. So clean that I understand what you mean when you say the sound is sterile, but I consider that a strength, not a weakness. The cartridge gets out of the way and is true to the source.
-reub
sterile is just that, sterile. No flesh, no richness. Just uninvolving.
I tried the cartridge for nearly 6 months, then sold it for whatever I could get. Good riddance.
Opus 33 1/3
I didn't find it overly bright, but certainly sterile and uninvolving.
Then, some years ago I discovered the Vinyl Asylum, thereby the Denon 103R and Dynavector DV20X2. I've been far more musically satisfied with these two cartridges than I was with the OC9ML/II.
I tried it on two different tables, (Maplenoll and Roksan / Rega 900) along with a several SS and tube phono preamps. Additionaly, I was using classic tube amps, some bordering on warm and soft. Nothing I'd classify as dry or hard. I didn't hate the OC9, but eventually found I preferred warmer sounding cartridges.
2¢
The OC9MLII changed character from one install to the next more than any cartridge I've owned. I can see how some would come away with the impression of it being overly lean but in the right system it's got good weight and dynamics.
Edits: 10/29/14
of my Scout. Where the Dyna 20XL sang beautifully, the OC9 just sat there, screaming harshly. It definitely shared a "house sound" with it's AT MM brothers, the 440ML and 440ML/a. I hated them, too.
Surprisingly, the modest AT-120E/T I found to be a very warm, involving MM.
Opus 33 1/3
There's way too much of it out there to spend a long time fiddling with something that isn't doing the job.
Of course, sometimes after I get rid of something I wish I could have it back to try in a new situation, but then my house would look like a hi-fi pawn shop.
I agree! Some people are more sensitive to certain kinds of distortion that others. I could like with the AT MM sound, given the price, in the right setup, but prefer my Shure M97xe in my Grace 707. There are inmates her who can't stand the Shure. The only AT MC cartridges that I have worked with were Signet cartridges in the 80's, so it does not apply to the current crop.
"but then my house would look like a hi-fi pawn shop." Oops, my sound room kind of does!
Dave
Opus 33 1/3
Interesting. I think the OC9's performance is also dependent on using a very good phono stage. I've had the OC9s on several tables and all have sounded quite good using Herron Audio phono stages. That's all I've used for the last 15+ years.
Probably wasn't the cartridge. Probably something downstream in your system. What is the weak link in your chain?
A Rogue Cronus tube integrated amplifier and Magnepan speakers. None of those could remotely be called lean or bright. Actually, the opposite.And several folks whose ears I trust agree with my assessment. Ask Mosin or even John Elison.
The AT does all the "audiophile tricks" very well. What it fails miserably at is conveying the music.
Opus 33 1/3
Edits: 10/30/14
Although I tend to agree with you, I don't think I hate the OC9ML/II as much as you. I have many recordings made with that cartridge but I prefer to listen to recordings made with other cartridges. The OC9ML/II is my least favorite, but I don't think it sounds quite as horrible as you indicate. I actually played mine for a couple of years before replacing it with a DL-103R.
I do own an Audio Technica cartridge that I really like, the AT33EV. It has a totally different character than either the OC9ML/II or the AT33PTG, both of which sounded very similar to each other in my system.
Best regards,
John Elison
Opus 33 1/3
From the picture it looks like you have it mounted on an SL1200 with stock Technics headshell?
Is it the original OC9 with elliptical tip or the ML? The ML is very fussy with arm height as you've probably already found. The stock Technics headshell are very variable in both plug mounting height and angle - the arm height is calibrated assuming a 0.4° upward tilt of the headshell which compensates for the cantilever deflection. Some headshells are set at 0° which straight away gives you a 0.34mm error in arm height before you compensate for the plug mounting error.
If your sound was "thin" it may be that your arm height is too high. My cartridge is very balanced tonally and I haven't found the cartridge to be inherently bass shy.
You may find it beneficial going to a slightly heavier headshell like the Stanton H4S which is ~9.5g. The LF resonance of my OC9ML/II in a Stanton headshell is just slightly above 8Hz, giving a very well balanced sound and satisfyingly tight but extended bass which extends smoothly to the upper frequency extremes; the FR is essentially ruler flat from 1kHz to well past 20kHz if you've seen the white noise response that I showed John.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Yes, the height has to be quite low on my rega arm to get the cartridge body parallel to the record surface as per AT's setup instructions. I have the Riggle VTAF adjuster so I was able to get the correct height. Once this adjustment is made, the sound is not thin or bright at all.
Edits: 10/29/14
it is the original elliptical. and i did have the arm high and dropped it. that may have contributed some, you're right.
i did have some more weight on there but it seemed lose air. i dropped the weight and it seems to respond better - but i have the damping trough, as well.
I have a OC9ML/II that worked just fine on my Roksan Artemiz arm but I'm curious to try it in the heavy AT magnesium (?) headshell (I got recently) play it on my Pioneer PL=570.
Just got to get motivated lol
Does you Pioneer arm require the normal 52mm overhang alignment? You may have difficulty with the AT headshells getting the correct overhang. The MG10 and MG100 which I have all come up slightly short on the front holes until you shim it with appropriate gaskets on the plug.
Also, I would be very careful about going much higher than 10g depending on the effective mass of the Pioneer arm. The Technics arm is 12g effective mass. With a 9.5g headshell, the LF resonance was right at the bottom end of the "ideal" range.
If you go for a heavier headshell like the 13g or 15g AT, then you risk negatively impacting the sound due to the LF warps causing the cantilever to start bouncing around at a greater amplitude than with the stock headshell which will cause poor tracing and tracking.
I was recently playing with a Denon DL301 which is a fairly high compliance design. In the Stanton headshell, the LF resonance is about 7Hz. Once I remounted it in the stock headshell which is 2.5g lighter, the sound is much cleaner with really well defined, tight but very extended bass.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: