It Also Doubles As An Apple Peeler.

I owned the original model. I remember it had prodigious bass, combined with lackluster high frequency response.

It had difficulty with anything less than a perfect LP, mistracking even slightly off center or warped records due to it's high horizontal mass combined with ultra short tonearm.

Does look cool though, in a strange sort of way.

Albert, It looks cool from an engineering sort of way. No doubt, it would be the topic of conversation at any audiophile get-together. Although, for those of us who subscribe to the K.I.S.S. theory........... I would gather it is available from either a high end stereo store or possibly Williams-Sonoma?

I assume by looking at it, that there is two tonearm cable termination/transitions before even leaving the tonearm.
Din #1 at the headshell, Din #2 at the rear of the tonearm.

Is that correct?

I believe that's correct, at least three counting the termination to RCA connectors.

The horizontal axis is handled by the beam with the Dynavector logo on it. The vertical axis is handled by the tiny tonearm out on the end. The large beam cannot travel vertically at all and the tiny arm cannot travel horizontally at all.

In my opinion, Dynavector's execution is a overly extreme way of increasing horizontal mass for better bass and reducing vertical mass for ultimate track ability. In theory this arm gets everything right, but as I said before I didn't like what it did, particularly in the high frequencies.

For the audition, it was mounted on my VPI, their best turntable at that time.

Perhaps there was a problem between the VPI and the Dynavector. However, the two next test with Breuer and Triplaner tonearms both performed splendidly and superior to the Dynavector, so the TT was certainly not faulty.

I agree with Albert's assessment. An overly complex way to try to solve a fairly simple problem. While they did accomplish their goal of separate horizontal and vertical effective mass components, they did so many other things that they mucked up the overall performance, and thus obscured the one good thing they did.

The TWL HiFi mod is based around the concept of separate horizontal and vertical effective mass components. But I do it in a very simple, effective way that allows people to do it on their existing tonearms, without much expenditure or effort. It works very well.

Too bad the Dynavector 507 wasn't better overall, because it might have had a beneficial effect on other tonearm designers to do better in the horizontal mass component.

Twl, Overly complex? As an unbiased opinion, analyzing from a design standpoint, it seems absolutely no compromise was permissable. Unfortunately, the design began conflicting with the relentless laws of physics.

Correct me if I'm wrong,

Effective mass is the amount of force felt at the STYLUS under dynamic conditions in any (x,y,z) arcing vector about the pivot. VTF is a totally different dynamic, which is set static and it's settings only remain constant under pristine, consistent flatness conditions while the record is in play.

Effective mass would be influenced by the weight of the many various appendages of this particular tonearm assembly, in ratio to the distances from the pivots. Weight that is further from the pivot centers, will account for higher effective mass than the same weight if positioned closer to the pivot. But doesn't one adjustment affect another?

Said slightly differently, the heavy bits on the tonearm need to be closer to the tonearm pivot or excessive effective mass will be the result. Make Sense?

Is this not also introducing a myriad of different resonance frequency changes that may or may not be in the audible frequency spectrum? Also, Isn't the capacitance of the tonearm wiring greatly affected by all of the different connectors transitions. I would assume that when addressing an engineering excercise of this magnitude, a component resulting in such significant sonic results such as the wiring, would be on the top of the applicable design criteria.

Am I missing something here TWL?