I would guess they’re made mostly of brushed aluminum and stainless steel, here and there. The obvious improvements available in the 507 are magnetic vs string anti-skate and a superior mechanism for VTA adjustment. There could be more improvements that are less obvious. |
The DV505 is still a high-end tonearm, but of course each individual owner will have his or her own idea of where it stands in the hierarchy of tonearms. I like mine very very much. In particular it is excellent in the bass region which is predictable from its construction. It is very flexible in the sense that I have mounted a wide range of very different cartridges in the tonearm, and it works well with all of them, provided I used an appropriate mass head shell with each. (although I own the OEM headshell, I hardly ever use it. I prefer other types. ) It is by no means out-dated, because since it was marketed, there have been no imitators, save for the later models 507 and 507 mk2. Also, materials science as regards the building of tonearms has not really been revolutionized since the 1980s. Despite what some modern tonearm manufacturers would have us think. |
The subweight is moveable fore and aft to balance the mass directly over the center of horizontal rotation. It is an approximate exercise, at best. But the actual horizontal bearing will only rotate in the horizontal plane. It’s true that you can tilt the whole shebang backward by about 30 degrees for various adjustments, but in operation the anterior vertical bearing will do all the work in the vertical plane. Its friction and mass are very much lower than what needs to be overcome if you tilt the whole assembly rearward on the posterior horizontal bearing. Unfortunately semantics get in the way of conveying my meaning as clearly as I would like. Photos would be better, if I knew how to post them.
|
I own 3 Dynavector tonearms, two are 505s and one is a 501. I bought the DV505s because I was planning to create plinths out of solid slate, and I did not want to have to account for a removable tonearm mounting board or to cope with drilling a hole for a vertical shaft. The DV505 works without either accommodation. But I was also curious about its unique separation of the horizontal from the vertical pivot points. The DV501 was essentially a stripped down version of the DV505 that lacks on-the-fly VTA adjustment and spring-loaded VTF. The DV505 also has a long springy wire mounted out of sight under the arm wand, which is anchored only at one end so as to permit it to resonate; the idea was to soak up resonant energy that enters the arm wand. It's tunable using an adjustable weight. That feature is also lacking in the DV501. Paradoxically, many end users feel that the DV501 is at least as good as or better than the DV505. I have no dog in that fight. I use one of the DV505s on my slate-plinthed Lenco, and I am very happy with it. The other two DV tonearms are in mothballs. My long-winded point is that on none of my three DV tonearms does the horizontal bearing permit motion (of the arm wand) in the vertical plane. You might check the horizontal bearing at the rear of the arm wand; it can get out of whack which may make it loose enough to permit the vertical motion you observe.
|
The Acutex 300 series are IM, as you say, but where does the “piezo” come in? Acutex 400 series are conventional MM. The Azden line was discussed in Raul’s original MM thread, but I don’t recall too much about them. |
I think you would find, or at least in my opinion, MC cartridges have advanced quite a bit more in terms of sound quality than have moving magnet or moving iron iron cartridges, since the good old days of the 1970s. I choose that era because the first MC cartridges to reach the US market did so in the early 1970s, to the best of my recollection. Specifically we received the Supex line of cartridges from Japan at about that time. In my opinion, the Supex cartridges were no match for any of the better moving magnet and moving iron cartridges of those days. That could be because there was a dearth of devices that had sufficient gain to handle the low output of the cartridges. Mark Levinson was one of the first to produce such a black box which could be used ahead of a moving magnet phono stage to add gain. I suppose there were also SUT‘s back then, but I have no memory of them. However, gurus like Harry Pearson jumped on the bandwagon right away, and his praise of the Supex was way over the top compared to what my own ears told me back then. I was not even tempted to own one. My point is that I think you would have more fun investigating vintage moving magnet and moving iron cartridges and stick with later production moving coil types, say from the 1990s onwards to the present.
|
I would not spend big bucks on feet for speakers, but I would have any speaker, particularly if it is expected to reproduce deep bass, well and stably mounted on the floor. I recognize that sometimes there is a risk of acoustic coupling that can be undesireable, when the drivers get too close to the floor. In that case, I would raise the speaker but still have it on a rigid stand of some sort. But none of this requires ebony or Combak products. For example, one of my systems uses Sound Labs 845PX, with a heavily modified crossover. I added 80 lbs of weight on top of the back plate at the rear of the active panel, for each speaker, which sits on the OEM very ordinary feet that SL provides. The added mass very audibly deepened and cleaned up the bass response. I even considered bracing the whole 8-foot tall panel by running a piece of steel from the top of the speaker to anchor on the floor behind the back plate, but I never went that far.
|
These threads do tend to wander. I am afraid I am a guilty party. But c'est la vie and all that.
|
What is a "Townshend Podium"? Is it based on an inner tube (i.e., compressed air in a bladder)? If so, that might not be as deleterious as some other footers actual using springs or rubbery compounds. My objection is based on theory; I have never tried it and don’t intend to as the speakers in both of my systems are physically huge. (Please don’t jump on me for advising against something I have not myself tried. It is just anyone’s natural tendency not to do something that seems like a bad idea.) Also, if bass frequencies are relegated to an outboard woofer or subwoofer (as for one of my two systems), then the negative effects of a springy suspension on the main speaker would be ameliorated, I would think. Finally, any negative effects that I describe might in some cases be below the level of detection, unless one compares a very rigid support with the springy type of support. Problem is that many speakers are not well supported by their solid feet to begin with, so replacing inadequate solid footers with wobbly feet is not that detectable at the listening seat. But I just cannot get my mind around the idea that speaker designers spend so much effort rigidly mounting drivers in very thick and robust cabinets, stiffening them and touting non-resonant materials, etc. How then can it be a good idea to stand the speakers on a deliberately unstable base (in the lateral plane)? How could you not be dissipating amplifier energy in moving the speaker back and forth? On the other hand, if one likes the net effect, that is all that counts. I certainly am not upset either way.
|
I've said this before, but I do not see the benefit of using spongy or springy feet under any loudspeaker. I see only negative consequences, because some of the amplifier power delivered to drive the speaker diaphragm will then be used up in rocking the speaker back and forth. That would result in a loss of speaker efficiency but also in an increase in distortion and possibly a high frequency roll-off. For that reason, I believe speakers should be firmly anchored.
|
For even better results always sit on AT616 feet during listening sessions, as well. Two of them will provide ample support for most audiophile butts. AT616, there IS no substitute. |
Most of the vintage Japanese DD turntables were sold with thick floppy rubber mats. Most sound better with replacement modern mats of one kind or another. This is just a common observation borne of a common experience. It’s not evidence of a design flaw. I agree that the DP80 or DP75 is best bang for the buck. However beware of examples that were built for 100V AC in japan and then subjected to 120V in the US. Such abuse can have damaged the single IC in the control circuit. 100V models are absolutely fine otherwise but you need a step down transformer. The OEM plinth is also ok; I had a slate plinth with an isolating suspension made for mine. |
