Dynavector DV-507 Mk II ?

In what plane is the compliance data you quoted? Since, as you say, this true mono cartridge only responds to horizontal motion of the cantilever, its vertical compliance is not so relevant, if that figure is for vertical compliance.  Anyway, the horizontal compliance is probably also low.  The Dynavector tonearms are high in horizontal effective mass but low in vertical effective mass.

Ditto. I’m still happy with the DV505 on my Lenco. I also own a 501, inherited in NOS condition from the estate of a friend, but I’ve not used it. The original choice of the 505 for my Lenco was partly governed by the need for a surface mount tonearm . My Lenco is in a slate plinth that does not have a separate mount board. So I cannot use a tonearm with a vertical shaft that must penetrates the mount area surface.

Verybig and Carl, Your comments are useless to anyone contemplating a purchase. I think it would be fair to say that the DV tonearms are fundamentally different in design and execution from standard pivoted tonearms. The differences afford certain advantages and disadvantages as compared to the standard type. That does not make them "faulty". Would you say the same about unipivots vs captured bearing types? Which of those two types is "faulty"?

Consttraveler, Yes, warps will affect VTA on the DV507 more so than with a conventional pivoted tonearm. However, who among us that can afford a $5000+ tonearm will tolerate a warped LP? On the other hand, the skating force is never constant at any point across the surface of any LP with music on it. Therefore, what is the advantage of applying constant anti-skate (which I am not sure is constant, since the magnetic AS will change based on any change in distance between two magnets)? "Correct" AS is a crapshoot at best.

I use a DV505, the older model, on my Lenco. Essentially the DV505 is a DV507 with string and weight AS instead of magnetic AS. I also own a Triplanar and a Reed and a FR66S, that I use on other TTs. The DV505 sounds superb with either of two of my favorite MM cartridges, the Grace Ruby and the Acutex LPM320. Choice of headshell should be made with a view to matching the cartridge, since the vertically pivoting part of the arm is so short and light. Headshell becomes more important. Bass response and "detail" are indeed superb, but so is "air".

Mordante, It is really hard to answer your question, because I use my DV505 on a Lenco with MM cartridges, and I use my Reed and Triplanar with MC cartridges on other tables. The Reed is very nice sounding on my Technics, I must say. As you note, the DV tonearm gives excellent bass and solidity and good "air" and delicacy as well, but I could not say that there is not some other tonearm which if mated to the same cartridge in the same system would not be even better. At some point, I accept "very good" as "good enough".

Mordante, Speaking for myself, it's the speakers that finally gave me the feeling that I was essentially "finished" with my audio odyssey. Once I got "there" with speakers, then messing about with the upstream chain becomes merely fun and not something that is motivated by a sense that there is something missing. Lucky for me, I have two such systems. One is my Sound Lab 845PX with a very highly modified input stage (what SL acolytes refer to as the "backplates", where the crossover and audio step-up transformers are mounted). The other is a pair of Beveridge 2SWs that I bought and fussed with until they work very nicely.

Glai, That's an impressive list. Where do you rank the Grandezza in the group?