Dynavector DV507-II on Technics SL-1210

[MartinT]

Nice find, Hamish. That does show how well the DV tracks warps, just as I have found.

[Ali Tait]

Impressive!

[Marco]

Hi Martin,

Nice find, Hamish. That does show how well the DV tracks warps, just as I have found.

Indeed - and with it tracking warps so well, this should mean that overall groove stability is superb, which should also translate into a more precise and controlled sound, resulting in (I suspect) an unflappable rendition of 'difficult' material the Jelco would perhaps have baulked at.

Is that what you're hearing, Martin?

Also, does the DV have a detachable headshell? It certainly looks that way, which just goes to prove what a load of bollocks people talk about detachable headshell tonearms being 'inferior' to fixed headshell types - talk about a gross generalisation!

Context, as ever, is the key.

Marco.

[MartinT]

Is that what you're hearing, Martin?

Yes, exactly that. The tracking gives the impression of being very secure with no audible warp wow and very stable handling of crescendos. Much must rest with the damping provided by the eddy current mechanism, something which I believe is unique to this arm, and the very low vertical effective mass. Certainly watching the stylus in action shows no overshoot at all, whether the record has vertical warp or an off-centre hole. I believe it also goes towards the superb suppression of surface noise which I must say is very welcome indeed and steps towards the utter background silence of CDs.

Also, does the DV have a detachable headshell?

Yes, it does and the connection seems very snug and secure. I've only been using the DV headshell so far but will try my DL-160 in a Sumiko headshell soon for comparison's sake.

[Marco]

Nice one, Martin - it's kind of what I predicted... It's so satisfying when risks like this pay off, isn't it?

I've been through similar situations many times. Once was when I forked out around £1500 in advance for a fully KAB-modified brand new SL-1210, imported from America, having no idea what it was going to sound like!

Fortunately that one worked out ok.....

It was also the same when I had my Sony transport and DAC modified internally by Audiocom, forking out around £1800 in advance with no idea what to expect in return.....

And it was also the very same with the crossover modifications for my Lockwoods, and the extensive mods I've had done to my Croft preamp.

Like you though, I do enjoy the 'speculate to accumulate' philosophy in hi-fi, as the rewards can be substantial - so well done!

I've only been using the DV headshell so far but will try my DL-160 in a Sumiko headshell soon for comparison's sake.

Of the two, which headshell is the lightest? I suspect that both the DL-160 and AT33-PTG will be happier in whatever headshell has the least amount of mass.

Marco.

[MartinT]

Nice one, Martin - it's kind of what I predicted... It's so satisfying when risks like this pay off, isn't it?

It really is, even if it goes against normal advice (I'm always telling people to get a home demo/loan as that is the only proper way to evaluate components). For me the two best 'chances' were the DV arm and the Pass Labs XP-20, ordered blind at an 'opportunity' price to upgrade from my previous X-1 preamp. It worked out really well, representing a significant improvement in sound quality over the already good X-1 at a price I promised not to repeat!

Very satisfying indeed

The Sumiko headshell is slightly lighter than the DV, should be fine for the DL-160.

[DSJR]

Hi Martin,

Also, does the DV have a detachable headshell? It certainly looks that way, which just goes to prove what a load of bollocks people talk about detachable headshell tonearms being 'inferior' to fixed headshell types - talk about a gross generalisation!

Context, as ever, is the key.

Marco.

Don't get me wrong here, but "technically" and "objectively," a detachable headshel IS inferior when measured, having breakup modes at lower mid frequencies (around 200Hz on almost all of them ever tested).

The thing is, you lot (and the far easterners who've been using these arms for decades), have shown that a suitable headshell can terminate the cartridge properly so it doesn't "excite" this resonance overmuch, if at all, so the only "problem" is probably in the arm tube, which most fixed-head arms suffer from. Indeed it can be said that the break can help transmission of resonances I reckon..

I must admit that I like the SME 309/312 fixing, as it seems very "solid."

Anyway, glad the DV507 is turning out so well

[MartinT]

The only thing about the DV using a detachable headshell is that the connecting point is almost at the vertical pivot on a very short stub arm, so its effect is likely to be even less than on a conventional arm.

[chris@panteg]

Be interesting to know how you get on with the DL160 ' i have been experimenting with loading and my findings so far '

100 ohm sounded poor and indistinct !

1k sounds strong and dynamic ' with very good bass but a touch of hardness

47k sounds a little softer but more relaxed ' and perhaps i jumped the gun thinking 1k was better so going to live with 47k for a while .

i think overall the DL160 gives you a taste of what a good mc can do but i think it falls a little short .

So Martin over to you

[MartinT]

I just tried the Hi-Fi News HFS-69 test record, playing the so-called torture tracks B (lateral) and D (vertical). The DV and AT combo had no trouble tracking them, so the impression of the AT being held in a vice-like grip is borne out in practice.