I was fortunate to recently obtain on the WAM an OC9/iii with a handful of hours. I have been using the OC9/MLii for many years (onto my third now) and I have built my phono section around getting a good performance out of this cart which has proved at times tricky to get the balance right. As.mentioned in a recent post it can sound anything from warm and slightly lazy to overly lean and bright. But get it right and it rewards with a big soundstage, great rhythm and forensic timing.
My front end comprises a 401 and Audio Note Arm Three. The phono section comprises a Phonomac modded Denon HA 500 and a heavily modded Puresound P10 which sounds hugely better than the stock item. In conjunction with vintage JBL 12" monitors the system has a very strong bass, great dynamics but a slightly rolled off treble. IMO, this combo complements the less than generous bass and slightly rising treble of the OC9/MLii, providing amazing speed and infectious rhythm on upbeat numbers.
However there is a cost which was nicely summed up by Jack non smoking man who has heard my system several times as lacking romance and I get what he means. The OC9/MLii doesnt linger on a note, it's all about the leading edge and getting to the next note which gives that rapid fire bass on kick drums for example. As my system is heavily geared around the AT sound, I am reluctant to make a big change as I have had many carts in the past which have not given me what I need and I really enjoy the sound I get. So the MLii seemed a low risk purchase and having directly compared the MLii to the Art9 which uses the same line contact stylus so I had an idea of the sound it would provide.
The OC9/iii has now got about 50 hours on it, so enough time to make some informed comments about it. Immediately it was obvious the balance of the iii is warmer than the ii. The bass is much deeper and fuller, so it loses the lean balance that is a hallmark of the ii. In fact the bottom end is similar in heft to the PTG2 but without that carts slightly heavy delivery (and less even response). The soundstage of the iii is bigger which results in clearer vocals as there seems.to be more room.to breathe compared to the ii which sounds a touch congested in comparison. The top-end is very similar to the ii which is a good thing as it always been a strong point of the ii. The treble is clearly superior to the PTG2 being more even and integrated without the slight edge.
What was surprising is the extra detail of the iii both in the midrange and in the bass. Listening for pleasure (no laughing, I love The Wall!) to the very familiar intro of Floyd's 'Is there anybody out there', I was surprised just how much more of the background television chat I could discern. No doubt, [SIZE=1em]if I went back to the ii I would hear it but it wouldn't be as obvious, instead it would be more buried. [/SIZE]Similarly bass guitar, drum and synth lines are stronger and easier to follow, providing a funkier underpinning to rhythm led music. Compared to the ii it gives more e[SIZE=1em]mphasis to reverb and decay rather than racing to the next note. This can also be heard in the midrange where vocals are richer and more intimate.[/SIZE]
So a knock out victory to the iii, then? Actually its not as simple as that. By all objective measures the iii is superior to the ii and in many ways closer to the ART9 in balance. However there is a cost to all the extra information which is a degree of overhang compared to the ii. By all normal standards the iii is a quick cart, but its not as scalpel sharp as the ii. I think this may partly due to the information that the ii leaves out, allowing it to unencumbered by sustaining the last note, instead what has come before is curtailed so it can ram the next notes down your lug holes. So on some lusher 70s recordings the ii can appear a bit more energetic whereas the balance of the iii is perfect for hotter 80s cuts. I can see why some people say the microline tip of the older ii is superior but I suspect this is on decks with a more lyrical balance such as the LP12. Certainly I remember my suspended TD166 loving the ii.
However the balance of the iii is far better suited to Technics. When I tried my ii on Pete Orbscure's SP10 I thought it was too forward and too energetic compared to his ART9, in fact not dissimilar to what I found on the simpler Technics SL-150. Of course on some material speed is not that important and I confess I am slightly obsessional with extracting pace and rhythm.
So the conclusion is that the perfect cart for my system would have the balance and scale and funky bass of the iii with the speed of the ii which may well be impossible as alluded to above....I will be making some tweaks to the system to hopefully emphasize this a little more as it is obvious the iii is fundamentally superior in the bass and midrange.
Hopefully this helps give a flavour of what to expect from the OC9/iii. I believe it's a top quality cart and my criticisms are intended to highlight the differences between it and the ii. On balance it is the best AT cart I have owned and much more enjoyable than other , often more expensive, models such as Shelter, Denon, Lyra, Nagaoka that I have owned.
I certainly would be very interested to hear the next generation OC9XSL one day....
Last edited by a moderator:
