Dyna 20X?

Thanks Axel for the info and tips.

Hi Jsman,

In my experience, the 17D3 will be a major leap up from the 20X - far out of proportion to the price difference. Note that I have only experience of the 20X-L and not the 20X-H.

Changing from a 20X-H to a 20X-L/step-up combo will be a "pig in a poke". You might like the "flavor" that the step-up (and/or loading strategy) imparts and ascribe your preference to the cartridge. Alternatively, you might hear little to no positive change.

Of course (as with a shift to a 20X-L), the 17D3, forces you into a low o/p MC strategy - achieving additional gain through a step-up trannie or other means.

I'd either stand pat with what I have, or wait until I could make the leap to the 17D3. I not a fan of recommending small, incremental improvements out of proportion to the money spent.

In the case of a 20X-H to 20X-L swap, you will incur the trade-in loss on your cartridge, plus the cost of a step-up. Taken in this light, the additional expense of moving up to a 17D3 will be a worthwhile one. Stay with what you have, until you're ready for a leap to the 17D3.

Warning - dealer disclaimer.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

Thom, Are you saying that there would be a noticable improvment going to the step up and 17D3?

Hi Jsman,
what Tom says is of course right, in the sense that ANY 'better' cart (as long as it suits your arm!) will be expected to give you a 'better' result.
Interesting is the 17D3 suggestion --- dealer disclaimer --- might have a little to do with it. Not that a 17D3 is a bad pick at all, B U T it has an issue with regard to its physical size, which can cause a mounting problem, depending on your arm's geometry. This is due to its very short cantilever-to-mounting-hole distance, and to no small part created by its unusual and very short diamond-cantilever.
I have NOT heard it, but no doubt it's a more lively performer than the 20X-(L also), itself not a slouch.

Now, to confuse you some more, --- maybe you want to look into that MM related thread of Raul's which MIGHT be yet another most interesting alternative ---.
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&&&&&st250

Myself, I'm using a P-77 moving-magnet cart in place of my Windfeld plus XF-1 at present, and have a pretty hard time to explain why this ancient MM (at $ = ~ 0.00) should sound so natural and alive in comparison to some $7 000 - $8 000 MC cart, with or with-out SUT!
Makes you think, but you need to be 'open' and not intimidated by the current 'MC only' trend.
Greetings,
Axel

Hi Jsman,

Actually, although the 17D3 uses a short cantilever, it is positioned quite far forward, so that the location of the stylus relative to the cartridge mounting holes is very close to the statistical norm of 9 - 9.25mm. From this perspective, mounting shouldn't be an issue. Check over here: http://www.dynavector.com/products/cart/e_17d3.html.

While some of the Dynavector pages show the engineering drawing along with dimensions, this one does not. You can see from the photo however, that the forward location of the cantilever assembly makes up for how short it is (stylus fairly close to the front of the cartridge body).

Of course, one would expect a manufacturer's more expensive cartridge to be "better", but in this case the 17D3 is far, far better than the price differential from the 20X would predict. I've even commented to the US distributor that I actually prefer the 17D3 to the more expensive XX2, and he couldn't disagree with me.

We both agreed that this preference comes down more down to personal taste than absolute goodness. It's also a function of the components you're matching up with this cartridge, and in this sense, I don't want the above statement to be misconstrued. My 'tables tend to control resonance very well, but a more "excitable" analog rig might not respond as well to a lively, bouncy, cartridge.

I can envision someone with a system that tends toward the bright side as considering the XX2 to be a far superior cartridge. In the context of their system, they'd be right.

In the 17D3 and XX2, it's as if Dynavector took two parallel paths toward the ultimate convergence occurring in the XV-1 series (the "s" and "t" models) - acknowledging that you can't have it all without heroic efforts and a commensurate price. I look at the XX2 as appealing to a fellow who's willing to sacrifice dynamics in favor of refinement. The 17D3 makes the opposite compromise.

While the choice between a 17D3 and the more expensive XX2 seems to be very system dependent, the leap up from a 20X to a 17D3 does not seem to be. You're not sacrificing any refinement in stepping up to the 17D3 from a 20X.

Cheers,
Thom