Dynavector XV-1s What is the REAL story?

Grooves,it would have been "nice" if you had addressed the subject of the "criticality"(hope that's a word)of the dampening fluid,between the Graham 2.2,and the newer Phantom.As I'm sure you know,the 2.2 is a "Devil" to voice,as the fluid is rediculously critical,in ultimate timbre obtained.Makes or breaks the sound,and many will not go to the length needed.How 'bout the Phantom?Is it less so?This IS a critical parameter for those whose diet consists of more than re-issued rock!
Sorry,if it seems I'm trying to bait you!Really I'm not,and you surely must have a tough schedule.I could not do the overall fine,and consistent work you do.Regardless of the "human nature" criticism,you might take.Yet,and yet(sound familiar?)it is something that "would not be a bad thing to bring up in a future column,if you aren't comfortable doing so here.There are a hell of alot of Grahams out there,so it's pretty viable to cover.

Best!

Hello all,

I've been swamped as of late, and have been meaning to contribute to a few of the recent threads on the Dyna XV-1s. There is one thread I can't immediately find which references people running these babies at 2.5 grams.

This has not been my experience and has not been the experience of the US distributor. I am tracking the cartridge in the 1.87 gram range - with both an 18 gram Schröder Reference as well as with a Triplanar.

Rather than re-post my lengthy comments on the subject of minor variations in tracking force and their effect on high resolution cartridges, I refer you to the active thread on the Shelter 90x over here: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1144607453&read&3&4&

In the past, I have hinted at numerous setup issues beyond those of basic geometry. Tracking force is one of these areas of interest, and for reasons that most people don't speak about. The typical tracking force discussion centers on issues of reducing mis-tracking as well as of course the extreme case where you move the coil out of the center of the magnetic field. Of course, mention is made of changes in VTA/SRA when you adjust the tracking force. This is not of what I speak, however.

I'm referring to things far more subtle than this. When I read any analog review it is always with a jaundiced eye toward the sensitivity of the reviewer to these issues - unless I have personal experience of the reviewer. I don't want to sound too dismissive of the audio press. Many of our most respected audio-experts have not had the experience that for example Doug Deacon and I have had - sitting at the feet of Frank Schröder and watching him in action.

These reviewers cannot be blamed for their ignorance, but their opinions should be taken in this light however. Many people (and the last time I checked, reviewers are people) underestimate how far you can take an analog setup, and by not realizing it, a bit of randomness enters their observations.

There are some other good observations in this thread, but I don't have time to explore them at this late hour.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

Dear Sirspeedy: Along your thread I decided to fully break my XV-1 suspension playing record after record.. As I already posted 2.4 was used for a time, now that the XV-1 is really on target the VTF that I'm using is 2.1 ( as a fact I'm still " playing with the VTF between 1.9 and 2.2 ), I tested between the 2.2 and 2.5 range and definitive the performance on these VTF range is really poor against the 2.1. Btw, my XV-1 is matched with a Lustre GST 801 tonearm.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

I don't own a Dyna, but Raul provides a plausible explanation for some reviewers' preference for higher than recommended VTF's. Reviewers listen to new cartridges. New elastomers contain molecular bonds which prevent a smoothly linear compression. Once the elastomer "relaxes" a bit, from use, the cantilever can accelerate smoother, faster and reach fuller extensions. Design range VTFs now allow the cartridge to react more linearly to groove modulations - especially small, HF ones. This is why the last sonic change during cartridge break in is typically a reduction in HF "grain". The elastomer is finally allowing a smooth response for even the smallest movements.

Thom's observations are spot on, though I think he gives me too much credit. Anyone who lives with high performance cartridges learns how sensitive they are to small adjustments. With our best cartridge, the VTF window for acceptable performance is never more than .04g wide. The window for prime performance is about .01g wide. Larger adjustments bounce us right out of the zone.

As Thom said, these subtle changes have little to do with tracking/mistracking or keeping the cantilever centered in the magnetic fields. VTF has to be badly off before you have those problems. The ideal VTF is one that maintains constant stylus-groove contact while putting the LEAST external pressure on the suspension. The more pre-compressed the elastomer is, the less it can can compress when the cantilever tries to move.

In a sense the "ideal" VTF is a lot like the "ideal" antiskate setting: you want the minimum force necessary for the job. This allows the cantilever/elastomer the greatest freedom to respond quickly and fully to groove modulations. External pressures, whether downforce or sideforce, inhibit this freedom and muffle the sound. Lateral fluid damping of the arm has the same effect and for the same reason - at least on a TriPlanar with any cartridge we've used. That feature may have been a useful bandaid with the peaky MC's that were prevalent when Herb Papier first offered it, but it is not needed with modern MC cartridges.

Raul,I'm glad you have decided to give your superb cartridge/arm collection another "go round"!The business of tracking on the high side,to me,represents a potential mismatch somewhere.Not always,but I have found that there is more gained,by trying to voice a set-up by trying almost all combinations,and settling on the one that appeals best to me.That is until my "predatory" audio pals come over.Then it's time to bring in the "defensive squad"!
I always strive to set downforce closer to the lower setting,as this gives the most "air",and inner textures.Yet you can lose bass power if not careful.
One advantage I have with my Graham 2.2 is that the actual damping fluid can,also,come into "good service",when used to aid with tracking on the lighter side of the mfgrs recommendation.You must REALLY be careful here,but believe me,experimentation will prove very worthwhile.
I don't know if the XV-1 is a particularly good match with your 2.2(I assume you have this arm),but if the cartridge weight is not problematic you can use the fluid(in a good way,finally)to voice for a bit lower tracking force.
Also,I have now heard the newest Titan-i with a unipivot arm.Not the 2.2!I have,also heard it on an Air Tangent,both in the same system,that I am intimately familiar with.Though the newer unipivot is going through some voicing,I must admit that,taken as a whole,my suspicians about it was correct.At least to me.The air bearing design is clearly superior in bringing about a sense of "body" with better timbres.I doubt if any amount of voicing can match what that great arm was able to do.I can only imagine how fabulous the Kuzma Airline must be.Providing the "rap on the street" is correct.
Also,based on my rather limited experience,but enough to feel confident in this,the new Titan-i is the best sounding cartridge I have ever heard!It is superior to the ZYX Universe,that we discuss so much.From my recollection of the Univ,the Titan simply has more "body" and ambient feel.The Univ,though superb,was a bit better in high freq extention and quickness of transient attack,but the Titan-i is really close here,and clobbers the Univ in the area of overall believability.
Like your comparison of my Transfiguration Temper-v(which I have no intention of moving away from,btw)to the Colibri,the Titan-i is the more real,with the Univ letting you know it is more "there".
Hope you get to hear all these great,fun,toys!Who knows?Maybe next year I'll have an Orpheus!

Best!