Dynavector XV-1T vs XV-1S

philb7777

philb7777

New member
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
58
Location
Tulsa, Oklahoma
From another thread there was interest in my experience comparing the Dynavector XV-1T to the XV-1S. So I started this thread to not detract from the other thread's initial topics.

I just received my XV-1T yesterday and have only about 5 hours on it after set up. It drops right in for the XV-1T (same SRA, same overhang, same AS) but the VTF needs significant adjustment as the XV-1T is 0.6 grams lighter than the XV-1s. Set up was using a Mint Protractor specific for my tonearm. Associated equipment is TW Acustic Raven AC turntable, TW Acustic TW 10.5 tonearm, ARC Ref Phono 2se, ARC Ref 5 se, and ARC Ref 250 mono amps. Loudspeakers are Avalon Eidolon Diamonds and cables are Cardas Golden Reference.

I set the VTF at 2.005 g for the XV-1t and used 1.975g for the XV-1s. As the XV-1t breaks in I expect that I will decrease the VTF a bit. Loading on the XV-1t was set at both 200 ohms and 500 ohms on the Ref Phono 2 Se and was 100 ohms on the XV-1s (XV-1t internal impedance is 24 ohms vs 6 ohms for the XV-1s). At this point I'm not sure which load I like better for the XV-1t, the 200 or 500 ohm setting. As the cart breaks in, I am betting it will be the 500 ohm setting.

Now on to the comparison, category by category:

Soundstaging: Clear winner is the XV-1T, much more refined and has fully fleshed out 3D images inside of a 3D soundstage. There is much more air around the images with the XV-1T. Soundstage width and depth were more expansive with the XV-1T.

Noisefloor: Both the XV-1T and XV-1s are champs here. Both have very low noise floors and surface noise is all but inaudible from the listening position. I found no discernible difference in my system when comparing the output of both carts (XV-1T 0.35 mV, XV-1S 0.30 mV).

Dynamics: slight edge to the XV-1T over the XV-1s. Macro - both very similar; micro - slight edge to XV-1T

Musicality: Pretty much a toss up as both carts are typical Dynavector - a chameleon in that they do everything quite well. Both carts have a nice sweet musical tone to them.

Bass: Clear winner is the XV-1T; bass much faster. PRAT better. Bass extension similar in the XV-1s, but much tighter and focussed.

Detail retrieval: Again the clear winner is the XV-1T. Much more texture and detail than the XV-1s. Subtle details I had never heard before were coming through on several of my 'go-to' records. In fact, it was almost spooky the amount of times I was surprised to hear subtleties I had not heard before.

So now the $4K question: Is the XV-1T worth spending $4K more on than the XV-1s? I would say it depends. If you are an analog guy that plays 95% vinyl and 5% digital or streaming, and your system warrants a megabuck cart, then the XV-1T is absolutely worth the investment and worth the jump from the XV-1s. I personally have spent more money in other areas of my system and not received the improved qualities mentioned above. All that being said, the XV-1s is a FANTASTIC cart and XV-1s owners should be very happy and proud of that cart. At $5500, its a 'steal' in these days of rapidly escalating prices for audio carts. For those who are considering an XV-1T, it's a world class cart that will likely be state of the art for several years along with other carts such as the Ortofon Anna, Zyx Universe II, Clearaudio Goldfinger, and Air Tight PC Supreme to name a few. As the XV-1T breaks in, I will report back on its changes and improvements.
 
Thanks for such a detailed update! With performance that good after only five hours of break in, just wait until you get about fifty hours on it. Enjoy the tunes with your new cartridge and I look forward to your further impressions in due time.
 
audio.bill said:
Thanks for such a detailed update! With performance that good after only five hours of break in, just wait until you get about fifty hours on it. Enjoy the tunes with your new cartridge and I look forward to your further impressions in due time.
Click to expand...

+1
 
Hi Phil

Thanks for your thoughts. I am on my third XV-1s and have been thinking of stepping up to the XV-1t when time for a rebuild.

If the xv-1t has better sounding staging, wow it must be good as the XV-1s is sensational with soundstaging. I am very interested in hearing about the bass after 50 hours. That slightly tubby bass the XV-1s has, in my system, is slightly off the mark, especially in comparison to my Lyra and have been wondering if the XV-1t will bring that or still similar as i love the dyna tone it 3d depth it brings.
A bit more detail, extension and tighter/faster bass ultimately would be an ideal foil for the Lyra.

Please update us after 50 of so hours after the suspension etc jells into place.

cheers
 
I'll by happy to update at around 50 hours. Been listening all day - the XV-1T keeps getting better and better. I'm really preferring the 200 ohm load at this time. I'm guessing I'm approaching 15-20 hours......
 
XV-1 said:
Hi Phil

Thanks for your thoughts. I am on my third XV-1s and have been thinking of stepping up to the XV-1t when time for a rebuild.

If the xv-1t has better sounding staging, wow it must be good as the XV-1s is sensational with soundstaging. I am very interested in hearing about the bass after 50 hours. That slightly tubby bass the XV-1s has, in my system, is slightly off the mark, especially in comparison to my Lyra and have been wondering if the XV-1t will bring that or still similar as i love the dyna tone it 3d depth it brings.
A bit more detail, extension and tighter/faster bass ultimately would be an ideal foil for the Lyra.

Please update us after 50 of so hours after the suspension etc jells into place.

cheers
Click to expand...

Of all the words I would use to describe the bass of the XV-1s cartridge, "tubby" wouldn't be one of them. It doesn't plumb the depths quite as deep as some other cartridges, but what it does, it does damn good IMO. I think it sounds 'right' when reproducing standup acoustic bass as well as kick drums, the left hand register of the piano, organ, and electric bass (listen to the Speakers Corner reissue of Lou Reed's Take a Walk on the Wild Side). The XV-1s doesn't call attention to itself in the bass frequencies which I think is a good thing.
 
mep said:
Of all the words I would use to describe the bass of the XV-1s cartridge, "tubby" wouldn't be one of them. It doesn't plumb the depths quite as deep as some other cartridges, but what it does, it does damn good IMO. I think it sounds 'right' when reproducing standup acoustic bass as well as kick drums, the left hand register of the piano, organ, and electric bass (listen to the Speakers Corner reissue of Lou Reed's Take a Walk on the Wild Side). The XV-1s doesn't call attention to itself in the bass frequencies which I think is a good thing.
Click to expand...


i agree mep, but different systems reveal different findings with some. My bass with the XV-1s was very extended and deep, but at times, seemed a bit 'muddy' despite its impact and extension. The 'muddiness' sometimes made subtle images in the back of the soundstage a bit hard to discern, especially on complex passages. With the XV-1t, this is certainly not an issue at all in my system and room now. But again, its performance, as well as many other components, are system and room dependent, especially when it comes to bass response.

Phil
 
Interesting Phil. I'm using the XV-1s mounted on an SME 312s arm on a SP-10 MKII table in a custom plinth. I'm using a Krell KPE Ref phono stage with the loading set at 100 ohms. In my system and in my room, the bass is very clean and would never be considered as tubby or muddy. I appreciate that your new cartridge is even better than the XV-1s and it should be. I would love to hear it.
 
I can describe XV-1t sound as the closest to well sorted tape sound I have heard on vinyl in terms of bass extension, articulation and dynamics. That is not to say it is my favorite cart that I have heard, but it is very close.
 
mep said:
Interesting Phil. I'm using the XV-1s mounted on an SME 312s arm on a SP-10 MKII table in a custom plinth. I'm using a Krell KPE Ref phono stage with the loading set at 100 ohms. In my system and in my room, the bass is very clean and would never be considered as tubby or muddy. I appreciate that your new cartridge is even better than the XV-1s and it should be. I would love to hear it.
Click to expand...


It might be a tubes vs solid state thing in the bass department too. I'm betting the Krell has a tight control on bass. With my previous Rowland gear I think my bass was a little better with the XV-1s too. But with the XV-1t, my bass is out of this world. Tight, palpable, focused and tuneful too.

I had my XV-1s set at 100 ohm load too. It just sounded best there. I've heard many have increased the load to 300-500 ohms for the XV-it. I have tried both 200 and 500 and right now, to my ears, 200 is the ticket.
 
mep said:
Of all the words I would use to describe the bass of the XV-1s cartridge, "tubby" wouldn't be one of them. It doesn't plumb the depths quite as deep as some other cartridges, but what it does, it does damn good IMO. I think it sounds 'right' when reproducing standup acoustic bass as well as kick drums, the left hand register of the piano, organ, and electric bass (listen to the Speakers Corner reissue of Lou Reed's Take a Walk on the Wild Side). The XV-1s doesn't call attention to itself in the bass frequencies which I think is a good thing.
Click to expand...

The XV-1s bass is not tubby like say a Koetsu Rosewood in absolute terms. Perhaps better wording might be IMO the xv-1 bass is like great tube amp bass - slightly spread in the bass which adds nice weight but not the last word in tightness.
This is not a criticism, as I am on my 3rd XV-1 and have been using them for the last 13 years and I love the music the XV-1s makes. The bass is tighter on my ss phono, but the overall bass still a little round.

In comparison to the Lyra Atlas the differences in the bass are a little more obvious.

Cheers
 
What is everyone tracking their XV1S at? Remember there was a bit of controversy at one time over the best VTF setting.
 
I don't remember HP talking about the XV-1s. I would have to double check my tracking force, but I'm pretty sure I went with what jazdoc told me he uses.
 
Running my XV-1S at 2.4 gr and loaded at121 ohms. Arm is parallel to the table. Using a Graham Phantom Supreme as arm.
 
Thom Mackris of Galibier has posted extensively on this topic and I think his advice is wise

Play with this [tracking force] first. It's something you can do at home and at little to no expense.

You will need a scale with .01 gram sensitivity. .1 gram will not do. Cartridges of this caliber will speak with a different voice, with as little as a .05 gram change, and the rounding error in a .1 gram sensitivity scale will not give you repeatable results.


Run the Dynavector and track it anywhere from 1.85 to 2.0 grams. IGNORE the advice about tracking at 2.5 grams. I have found in my personal cartridge (Schröder Reference and Triplanar tonearms on my turntables) has a sweet spot of about 1.87 grams. As I work my way to 1.92, the dynamics and pace suffer.


Comments you find referencing tracking the XV-1s at 2.5 on this forum and elsewhere are ill-informed, to put it kindly. In 5 different XV-1s based setups, the median tracking force has centered in on 1.90 grams.


The Dynavector importer agrees with me about this.


If you surf the archives, you will find numerous posts from both myself as well as Doug Deacon on the topic. In short, you want to track on the razor's edge ... the point slightly heavier than where you mis-track and NO MORE.


When you track at too heavy a force, not only will you lose dynamics, but the sense of pace will slow down. I kid you not.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks it made no sense and I wondered if the cartridge was defective, something was wrong with the setup or the cartridge didn't work with the arm being used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top