Hi all ... warning dealer disclaimer.
The DV-507 is a different beast, in that it has a very light vertical moment of inertia (effective mass) and a higher (and tunable) horizontal one. This is due to the split vertical and horizontal bearings.
The big disk at the rear of this arm controls the horizontal mass. From my experimentation with this arm, the effects of moving this large weight are fairly subtle not as much as youd expect from moving such a massive disk.
Ive come to the following provisional conclusions about this: (a) this large weight is a fine tuning element, and (b) vertical moment of inertia has more effect on what you hear than the horizontal inertia.
I suspect theres a lot of truth to (b) above, but there arent enough tonearms out there to come to this generalization with any degree of certainty. The arm (in my experience) that comes to mind is the ET-2. This arm has a vertical eff. mass of 7 grams, and a horizontal one of 35.
If the 35 number had a large influence on cartridge compatibility, then the Benz cartridges I was using at the time would have had a bogged down sound a slow, muddy, congested bass. They did not.
For all linear trackers, the horizontal effective mass is the weight of the moving assembly, which means that all of them are going to have a disparate pair of numbers with a much larger horizontal effective mass than vertical.
So, if the above is assumed to be true, the DV-507 comes up as a slightly lighter arm than the 11 gram Tri-Planar. The stone bodied Koetsus will help you out in the effective mass department with both the Tri-Planar and the DV-507, as mass at the end of the headshell counts as pure effective mass
I think this boils down less to a cartridge compatibility issue (when comparing the two arms) than to the individual character of both arms. No arm is perfect and they all have a character.
My experience of the DV-507 (dealer disclaimer) is that it's touch "polite" - even when paired with its sibling, the XV1s cartridge. I get the impression, that when DV voiced this pairing, they were concerned about lean and mean systems.
The Tri-Planar and DV-507 share a fairly similar sonic signature in the lower frequencies, and in this manner, they share much with the great Japanese tonearms like the Micro Seiki Max 282. The Tri-Planar is a bit more extended in the upper octaves, however. This (to my ears) is due to the wire. I first heard these differences with the 507 Mk I, and interestingly, one of the two main differences between the 507 Mk I and the Mk II is wire (the other being the bearing). The Mk II is still a bit rolled off to my ears. With a system that snarls a bit, this might be exactly what you need.
I think the key takeaway from this missive is that you shouldnt believe any of us about which arm is a better match because theyre much closer to each other than they are different, and system interactions will cause any of us to reverse our opinion.
In one sense, this is unsettling, but in another, its liberating, because you can choose the arm that suits your fancy, and tune to your hearts content.
A couple of final notes the DV-507 is quite hefty, so some suspended turntables might not like it.
Heres another way of putting it. If youre using a Graham 2.2 but your system is a bit lean and mean, Id go with the Tri-Planar or Phantom, because they will fill in the bottom end nicely, and retain the marvelous top end. There are infinite possibilities as far as what youre currently using, but I pulled the above case out of the air, in hope so being illustrative of where you might be, vs. where you want to go.
Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier
