What I am asking is: are they no longer tying 607 to the 2520 years ending in 1914? And just using the 'signs of the times' to support 1914?
They still tie 607 to 1914 via the 70 weeks of years nonsense. I think the reason they fail to mention 1914 is because it would show the obvious bias of the article. When you're trying to convince someone of something you don't want them to know that everything else you're trying to convince them of hangs on that one thing. Also, a lot of JWs don't have a clue about how 1914 was arrived at (or, really, how it was supposedly arrived at) so they don't want to tie it to 607 in an article that calls the 607 date into question.
It's all rather clever - you "prove" something to someone as if it doesn't really matter, so they'll be less likely to care enough to really investigate it. Then, later on, you reference the "fact" that you've "proven" earlier and they'll remember accepting the prior point and not that they didn't bother to really investigate it. They'll just assume it's true because they accepted it at the time. That's how so much of cult indoctrination goes, and why the indoctrination is slow in the case of JWs. They say things that don't seem important, so it's not worth pushing the matter and risking the new friends you have - but when you find out that it was important, you don't realize you never actually had it explained in a satisfactory way.