Dynavector DV-507 Mk II ?

Verybig and Carl, Your comments are useless to anyone contemplating a purchase. I think it would be fair to say that the DV tonearms are fundamentally different in design and execution from standard pivoted tonearms. The differences afford certain advantages and disadvantages as compared to the standard type. That does not make them "faulty". Would you say the same about unipivots vs captured bearing types? Which of those two types is "faulty"?

Consttraveler, Yes, warps will affect VTA on the DV507 more so than with a conventional pivoted tonearm. However, who among us that can afford a $5000+ tonearm will tolerate a warped LP? On the other hand, the skating force is never constant at any point across the surface of any LP with music on it. Therefore, what is the advantage of applying constant anti-skate (which I am not sure is constant, since the magnetic AS will change based on any change in distance between two magnets)? "Correct" AS is a crapshoot at best.

I use a DV505, the older model, on my Lenco. Essentially the DV505 is a DV507 with string and weight AS instead of magnetic AS. I also own a Triplanar and a Reed and a FR66S, that I use on other TTs. The DV505 sounds superb with either of two of my favorite MM cartridges, the Grace Ruby and the Acutex LPM320. Choice of headshell should be made with a view to matching the cartridge, since the vertically pivoting part of the arm is so short and light. Headshell becomes more important. Bass response and "detail" are indeed superb, but so is "air".

Contrary to what has been stated, I have found the Dynavector arm (a 501, in my case), to be quite versatile. It works well with such disparate cartridges as Dynavector XX2MKII, Zu Denon 103R (with ESCCO cantilever/Paratrace stylus modification), an Acutex LPM 415, and Acutex M320 STR LPM.

All track very well, and sound very good to my ears. Assumptions about performance without actually using the item in discussion is, in my opinion, misguided.

Although there are differences between the older 501, and the newest version, the 507 MK II, they are mainly, as previously noted, in the anti-skate and VTF adjustment methods. I do believe they would perform, and sound, similarly.

I have been more than pleased with every aspect of this arm's performance, and firmly believe in order to obtain a better performing tonearm, I would have to pay multiples of what the 501 arm cost.

A 507 MKII for $4000, in good condition, may not be a bad deal, but I can't say with any certainty.

Regards,
Dan

@LEWN

How does the 505 compare to the other arms you have? I have never heard the TriPlaner arm. I have heard the reed arms on Dr.Feickert turntables. But I find it hard to compare arms because of cartridge/turntable differences. But as far as I can tell the Reed arm are a tad more analytical compared to the 507 but the 507 gives more fundamentals more body to the music.

Chances are likely that I'll buy the 507mkII together with the SAC Girati Grande and a Dynavector Te Katora Rua.

Mordante, It is really hard to answer your question, because I use my DV505 on a Lenco with MM cartridges, and I use my Reed and Triplanar with MC cartridges on other tables. The Reed is very nice sounding on my Technics, I must say. As you note, the DV tonearm gives excellent bass and solidity and good "air" and delicacy as well, but I could not say that there is not some other tonearm which if mated to the same cartridge in the same system would not be even better. At some point, I accept "very good" as "good enough".

Lewn,

Thank you for answering. You are 100% correct and some point you have to accept things how they are. I suspect this will be my final turntable/arm combo.

The feeling that there really is no need anymore to keep looking for the upgrade is great.