Koetsu cartridges - myth or reality?

iSanchez,

I would chime in and say that your XV-1s has a higher compliance than a Koetsu. I know that Koetsu's are extremely low. The 507 II matches well with a Koetsu. That might make it too high a mass for a XV-1s.

Did you try a test record to check the resonant frequency? That would help answer more questions. You do have some latitude but between 8-12 Hz is ideal.

Dgad, I think the point is that one can alter the effective mass of the DV507 in the vertical plane, by using headshells of different weight mostly. I am not sure about iSanchez' idea that changing counter-weights has much of an effect on effective mass, especially if the counter-weight is decoupled, which it may or may not be in the case of the DV507. BTW, the manufacturer's spec for the effective mass of the DV507 is a fairly high 25 gm; that would be with the standard 15-gm headshell, no doubt. The XV-1s is said to have compliance of 10 X 10^6 cm/dyne, while the Urushi is said to have compliance of 10-12 "cu" or compliance units. I think 1 cu = 10^6 cm/dyne. Therefore, the two cartridges have about the same nominal compliance, according to their respective makers. In actual practice, there may be some differences, however, since compliance is frequency dependent and probably VTF dependent as well, and the two companies may have different ways of measuring. In the end, you have to determine for yourself where resonance is occurring in your own system, using a test record, as you say.

Dgad,

I tried the Hi-Fi News test record about a year ago and I don't recall any anomalies from the test. I eventually didn't expect any weird results from this test since both items are from the same maker.

Lawm, ++++"I am not sure about iSanchez' idea that changing counter-weights has much of an effect on effective mass, especially if the counter-weight is decoupled"++++. Well, it's hard to tell how decoupled the counter-weight is. The documentation states that the flexibility of the mounting stub for the counter-wight is designed to reduce resonances of the arm.

My point is that the effective mass of the tonearm is largely governed by the mass between the pivot and the stylus contact point. The CW is on the "other" side of the pivot and I don't think makes much contribution to effective mass. I saw a discussion of this once on Vinyl Asylum between two very knowledgable persons, but I don't recall the final outcome. At the moment I have no time to look up the formula for eff mass, but it's available on the net.

Well,on the mass over pivot subject(which IS very interesting,btw)take a look at the Caliburn Copperhead white pages,on this subject.
They feel(which is a very good point)that low mass over the pivot allows for a far better ability of an arm to navigate the groove walls,and allow the arm to be freed up to give more detail.
Quite interesting actually!

Best.