It Also Doubles As An Apple Peeler.

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?

Buscis2, as I'm sure you are well aware, there are always compromises in designs.

Also, "excessive" effective mass" can be quite relative, depending upon the needs of the cartridge being used.

If you'd like my analysis of the DV507 in a nutshell, I'd say that it achieved its goal of maximum horizontal effective mass and minimum vertical effective mass. However, in the process, the geometry was severely compromised by the very short stub-tonearm which changes VTA-SRA dramatically with only small variations in record thickness or warps, the rigidity was compromised by the additional set of small bearings out there near the headshell, and the amount of wiring connections was compromised by need to bridge from the stub-tonearm to the main tonearm. Also, there were bound to be resonance problems by the multitude of various parts on the arm itself, but I have not done any vibrational analysis of this arm, so I cannot be sure exactly how much impact came from that. Also, back when this arm came out originally, there wasn't much consensus on whether wiring really made any difference or not.

However, they did have a great idea about making different horizontal and vertical effective mass, and that was something worth studying this arm for. I got the idea for my HiFi mod from that. I just didn't over-do the complexity, and made it easy enough for people to add on themselves to the popular Rega and OL tonearms.

I don't think you seem to be missing anything.