AT OC9/II vs AT OC9/III

What exactly were your mixed results with the Lyra? The reason I ask is because I have owned the OC9ll and was not impressed at all while the Clavis was definitely a keeper, both carts were on a VPI 9 memorial arm when I made this judgement, I know different strokes for different folks and all and have seen the responses from others that loved the OC9 but never heard someone preferring it over the Clavis which I have direct experience with. Maybe I need to go back and visit the OC9 again.

I prefer OC9/II to Lyra. 

Between the II and III, III is overall better and cleaner sounding. But it has twice the compliance. I like the sound of higher compliance cartridges.

tooblue, I spent a long time trying to get the CdC set up.  It was consistently too lean.  

I understand that the later generations of Lyra cartridges were much better.

But that's not particular to the question.

@bpoletti , but it was to mine. Would you consider selling me the Lyra?

@bpoletti You should considering ART-2000 on top of the AT-OC9/II and AT-OC9/III The ART-2000 has the same size/shape, but it was limited edition model, great cartridge: https://www.audio-technica.co.jp/atj/products/cartridge/at-art2000.html  

I have owned the OC9 II, III, and the 50ANV. The OC9 III has a noticeably different presentation than the II. The earlier cartridge has always been voiced to be a bit cool in the best of circumstances, and in the worst it can be bright and lean. 

The III is richer, with more meat on the bones in the lower mids, and a top end that is more controlled. The bass response is fantastic, with it being solid and powerful. It is a nice cartridge that can be had in the $500 range if a person shops carefully, and its a good value in my opinion. 

Does anyone remember the OC-9? The first one, with no Roman numerals? I bought one 25 years ago when it was the latest "greatest bargain ever", and kept it for future use. It's still NOS. Any comments on what I can expect to hear, not in comparison to its successors, but as a cartridge in general? The tonearm(s) I'll use are good matches and shouldn't be a factor, and the suspension seems fine.

What OP should really get is the ART9. 

Many years ago I spoke with the US Importer (I believe) about the difference between the two and (if I recall correctly) he told me the ONLY difference was the way the stylus was fixed to the cantilever. Consequently, he said, there was no difference in the SQ. I'm not sure whether or how this would impact the compliance difference noted in the thread (I did not look the compliance stats up to compare) but that is my recollection. FWIW, I ran an OC9MLII for a number of years and liked it very much on my VPI Scout. I also ran the ART9 which is superb--much better than the OC9MLII (and much more money as well).

dodgealum - Are you still running the ART9?

Bill FWIW, soundsmith adjusted the suspension on my original Clavis  and did level 2 rebuilds of two different Helikon SL carts proved to be better, by my taste, than the originals. I will get back to you after I have broken in the new AT ART9 cart (purchased from 2Juki for $860.00) after broken in. Thanks again.

bpoletti--no, I moved to a Soundsmith MIMC Star--wrote a long comparison here if you are interested:
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/3-cartridges-reviewed

@dodgealum   Thanks for the link to your comparison.  I'm reconsidering several options.  Your observations are quite relevant since we are using the same pre-amp and phono stage.  

I'm not familiar with the AT OC9-mkII but I did have and enjoyed both the Clavis and the OC9-mkIII in the system. While the Clavis was super detailed (in a good way), I found the OC9- mkIII to be more musical overall. Both nailed the piano quite well.

Over the past several years I've been using the AT ART-9 and have no inclinations to upgrade to anything else. Its a wonderful cartridge that just seems to disappear and doesn't call attention to itself at all. It just lets the music flow in a natural, organic manner. Highly recommended. 

Frank