OMA K3 $360K TURNTABLE

[Gibsonian]

I'd love to hear one. I surely wouldn't kick it out of bed but think I'd sell it if given one and buy 40 acres and a small house.

 

[DonR]

At first I thought it couldn't be snake oil because it presumably at least met a published spec, but alas there is none.

"Beyond pretty basic measurement of static conditions for programming the speed controller, there exists no easy nor automatic, computerized way to do this work. You have to listen, make changes, and then listen again. This process took our engineering team over 1000 hours of work to pro- gram the speed control on K3. This process entailed making smaller and smaller changes to the point where they were impacting how the platter moved down to several arc second increments. One arc second is 1/1,296,000 of a circle. To our team's astonishment they could hear these changes. This process was done double blind, btw."

Really like the last part to satisfy the objectivist crowd.

Not bad. Only a few orders of magnitude worse than a cheap CD player.

 

[prerich]

No matter how much is invested in the playback gear, LPs will always have some sort of mechanical error. The degree of these manufacturing errors in LPs varies from disc to disc, but none will have the pitch and speed stability of a bog-standard CD. Full stop. One reaches the upper limit of the playback performance from the playback media long before the playback gear. Making overkill SOTA turntables pointless.

I personally believe SOTA turntables are audio jewelry. They're over engineered, no they can't deliver what a cheap DAC can, but they can sure look pretty doing what they do. Ultimately we all deal with sighted bias one way or another (bias towards the look of the equipment, or the look of the measurements). Let me explain myself, we all know sighted bias looking at the gear, but looking at the measurements - the ones that go overboard, state that I'm hearing perfect sound because my measurements are perfect...but sadly, our ears are not perfect. OK, it's cool to know that my gear is delivering a pure signal with no audible distortion, etc....until it hits my ears and my brain (which can wreck havoc on anything). Many of us have hearing loss, tinnitus, we don't take yearly audiograms, we're a recipe for failure as we compete with each other for purity. My signal is pure but it sounds like garbage to me. What matters is if you're happy.
The cost of a thing is determined by the ones willing to purchase it. I have a thing about buying large houses when you're getting old....who's going to clean it? You may say hire a maid - good point. Same goes for gear. I may not want a big house that I can't clean, nor do I want to hire a maid - but that doesn't make someone else's purchase foolish. People are going to buy what they want to buy. Sooner or later - some companies are going to notice the pull that ASR has in segments of the HiFi arena....which could have a positive or negative impact on the cost of gear...knowing companies - they will turn the pot on slow boil, and we will be paying high prices just like other people.

 

[NoMoFoNo]

I think we were comparing two specific turntables - in fact not even that. Two specific turntable design philosophies.

Yet you have to turn someones choice into a mud slinging opportunity.

Baloney. Calling out the price-to-performance discrepancies involved in any substantial phono setup as compared to digital is always appropriate on ASR. BTW, I own a Rega P6 so I know about Rega and their philosophy, likely better than you.

The poster raved about the performance of a particular set of phono gear, which would cost >$8,000USD these days. You have a problem with pointing out that a $100 DAC will greatly outperform that set up?

The one slinging mud in this instance is you. I don't need chaperoning by you. Put me ignore, like I have with you, if you don't want to read my opinions.

 

[antcollinet]

Baloney. Calling out the price-to-performance discrepancies involved in any substantial phono setup as compared to digital is always appropriate on ASR. BTW, I own a Rega P6 so I know about Rega and their philosophy, likely better than you.

The poster raved about the performance of a particular set of phono gear, which would cost >$8,000USD these days. You have a problem with pointing out that a $100 DAC will greatly outperform that set up?

The one slinging mud in this instance is you. I don't need chaperoning by you. Put me ignore if you don't want to read my opinions.

OK

 

[egellings]

They say it's the most powerful motor in any turntable

Thig is though, it doesn't take much power to spin a record. Why ask for a drop forge when all you need is a tack hammer?

 

[antcollinet]

Thig is though, it doesn't take much power to spin a record. Why ask for a drop forge when all you need is a tack hammer?

True, but they are spinning most of the metal recycled from the gun turret of a chieftain tank - as well as the record. Quite a bit of energy needed to get it up to speed.

 

[Robin L]

I personally believe SOTA turntables are audio jewelry. They're over engineered, no they can't deliver what a cheap DAC can, but they can sure look pretty doing what they do. Ultimately we all deal with sighted bias one way or another (bias towards the look of the equipment, or the look of the measurements). Let me explain myself, we all know sighted bias looking at the gear, but looking at the measurements - the ones that go overboard, state that I'm hearing perfect sound because my measurements are perfect...but sadly, our ears are not perfect. OK, it's cool to know that my gear is delivering a pure signal with no audible distortion, etc....until it hits my ears and my brain (which can wreck havoc on anything). Many of us have hearing loss, tinnitus, we don't take yearly audiograms, we're a recipe for failure as we compete with each other for purity. My signal is pure but it sounds like garbage to me. What matters is if you're happy.
The cost of a thing is determined by the ones willing to purchase it. I have a thing about buying large houses when you're getting old....who's going to clean it? You may say hire a maid - good point. Same goes for gear. I may not want a big house that I can't clean, nor do I want to hire a maid - but that doesn't make someone else's purchase foolish. People are going to buy what they want to buy. Sooner or later - some companies are going to notice the pull that ASR has in segments of the HiFi arena....which could have a positive or negative impact on the cost of gear...knowing companies - they will turn the pot on slow boil, and we will be paying high prices just like other people.

I'll confess to being an audio cheapskate. The total cost of my playback gear---including my computer---is under $1,000.00. My Blue-Ray disc player set me back $7.00, used. Buying a remote for it was more. I'm running the Blu-Ray player through a $130 Topping DAC. Got my amp, a used Yamaha surround AVR, for about $40 at a thrift store. My Infinity Primus mini towers were $30 the pair at the same thrift store. I take pride in going the opposite direction of those collecting audio jewelry. I've got a lot of classical music and the dates of recording go back as far as the 1930s, so sound quality of the recordings is all over the map. The best of those recordings sound excellent, the worst are barely tolerable. I would say that the gear I'm now using is more than good enough for the recordings I'm now listening to.

I used to have a couple of turntables that could be considered high-end by the standards of their time, a Strathclyde 305-M with an SME-III arm and a Linn Sondek LP-12 with an Ittok arm, Audio Technica High Output moving coil cartridge. And the flaws of LPs, the off-center discs and peak-warp wow, the IGD, were just as audible as they were on the cheaper (mostly AR-XA) turntables that came before. For me, the audible difference between high (ish) end vinyl and bog-standard CD was too great. I'm sure that for others the size of the record collection or the sense that there's "something" about the vinyl experience makes it superior. But for me, good digital playback is audibly better than the best LP playback. And that is, for me, the most important consideration.

 

[fpitas]

SQ aside
No one can say these hi end turntables don't look cool
View attachment 319596View attachment 319598

I must be too old. That just looks like a pile of faux steampunk stuff to me.

 

[egellings]

True, but they are spinning most of the metal recycled from the gun turret of a chieftain tank - as well as the record. Quite a bit of energy needed to get it up to speed.

I wonder what that entire turntable weighs.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Curious if @Frank Dernie has any thoughts about the K3 after glancing at it.

My biggest concern would be whether the loads of little struts in the truss like arm resonate at ear-sensitive frequencies and add to the cartridge output, depends a bit on internal damping of the metal chosen but metals have low damping in general.

I write this because the arm lift on the SME headshell I tested gave a clear peak on the cartridge output frequency sweep. I had one at home at the time so removed it from my headshell which made me feel better and cueing less convenient.

I wouldn’t expect it to be much better than a Technics with the same cartridge, and if the struts ring maybe slightly worse.

 

[Dialectic]

My biggest concern would be whether the loads of little struts in the truss like arm resonate at ear-sensitive frequencies and add to the cartridge output, depends a bit on internal damping of the metal chosen but metals have low damping in general.

I write this because the arm lift on the SME headshell I tested gave a clear peak on the cartridge output frequency sweep. I had one at home at the time so removed it from my headshell which made me feel better and cueing less convenient.

I wouldn’t expect it to be much better than a Technics with the same cartridge, and if the struts ring maybe slightly worse.

Thank you!

 

[anmpr1]

Well spotted, as soon as I sow the picture of the arm I thought of my old Meccano.

In the heyday of analog, Japanese company Shinagawa Musen (under the name of Grace) sold what we referred to as an 'erector set' tonearm. Oil damped unipivot. You never really want to get involved with an oil damped unipivot. Without valium or strong drink. Also sold a version made of wood, not that anyone really cared.

I'm agnostic. The OMA record player may be the world's best. I'm sure someone makes the world's best Pogo stick, too--for a price. In any case, it certainly vies for the world's ugliest record player.

 

[Anton D]

Working with an oil trough tonearm is like trying to feed a baby pasta.

 

[prerich]

I'll confess to being an audio cheapskate. The total cost of my playback gear---including my computer---is under $1,000.00. My Blue-Ray disc player set me back $7.00, used. Buying a remote for it was more. I'm running the Blu-Ray player through a $130 Topping DAC. Got my amp, a used Yamaha surround AVR, for about $40 at a thrift store. My Infinity Primus mini towers were $30 the pair at the same thrift store. I take pride in going the opposite direction of those collecting audio jewelry. I've got a lot of classical music and the dates of recording go back as far as the 1930s, so sound quality of the recordings is all over the map. The best of those recordings sound excellent, the worst are barely tolerable. I would say that the gear I'm now using is more than good enough for the recordings I'm now listening to.

I used to have a couple of turntables that could be considered high-end by the standards of their time, a Strathclyde 305-M with an SME-III arm and a Linn Sondek LP-12 with an Ittok arm, Audio Technica High Output moving coil cartridge. And the flaws of LPs, the off-center discs and peak-warp wow, the IGD, were just as audible as they were on the cheaper (mostly AR-XA) turntables that came before. For me, the audible difference between high (ish) end vinyl and bog-standard CD was too great. I'm sure that for others the size of the record collection or the sense that there's "something" about the vinyl experience makes it superior. But for me, good digital playback is audibly better than the best LP playback. And that is, for me, the most important consideration.

I have some pieces of audio jewelry - but if you look - I don't have any vinyl. Why? I prefer digital. When I was a DJ, yes - I had tons of vinyl, but I even told my mentor "these records will soon be obsolete - we will be able to mix with cds...maybe even with files on an Amiga 5000"! (That really dates when I said that)!

You said something key for vinyl lovers - there's "something" about the EXPERIENCE....is not just listening to music for those people. It's like comfort food (and some comfort food is just nasty). It's the process that's involved. I obtained my jewelry by getting a steal of a deal at each stop. Could I build something sonically superior to what I have measurement wise....yes, would I be able to tell the difference - more than likely no. The point of diminishing returns for some begins with the wallet, for others it begins with the aesthetics (this is why some people buy Rolex instead of Timex). Digital to Analog will always outperform Analog to Analog, via measurements, however for those whose taste runs towards distortions (lets be real here - those who love Metal Rock and most Hard Rock actually like distortions) will have a soft spot for all analog playback. Hey I even like certain distortions (i.e. the distortions of a Hammond B-3 organ, played gospel style).

 

[Robin L]

In the heyday of analog, Japanese company Shinagawa Musen (under the name of Grace) sold what we referred to as an 'erector set' tonearm. Oil damped unipivot. You never really want to get involved with an oil damped unipivot. Without valium or strong drink. Also sold a version made of wood, not that anyone really cared.

I'm agnostic. The OMA record player may be the world's best. I'm sure someone makes the world's best Pogo stick, too--for a price. In any case, it certainly vies for the world's ugliest record player.

View attachment 319757

Grace also made a rather pretty and more than reasonable tonearm, the Grace 707. I've owned a couple, they were fine with high compliance cartridges:

 

[anmpr1]

I must be too old. That just looks like a pile of faux steampunk stuff to me.

Yeah, but you know what? You can't even believe steam you get until you plug one of those into one of these"

 

[Anton D]

I think there must be a catalog of various visual features a company can choose from for its vibe, and Hi Fi Rose just tapped the book and said, "We want one with everything."

All it's missing is a joystick and fake oscilloscope!

 

[anmpr1]

Grace also made a rather pretty and more than reasonable tonearm, the Grace 707. I've owned a couple, they were fine with high compliance cartridges:

As an owner of three 707 arms (still have one of them), and a former owner of their 747 (same arm, plug in headshell), I am a Grace fan. Worked well with cartridges like the Shure V15 V and other higher compliance types, as you point out. Those arms were simple, relatively inexpensive, and built solidly.

707 was/is, however, a pain to change cartridges, because of the way it was designed, but the 747 with its plug in shell was quite ergonomic. Back then, the audiophile's 'budget blaster' record player from the mid to late '70s was a Kenwood KD-500 'concrete' table with a G-707 tonearm. That combo was cheaper than the top of the line Dual! And if you still have one, it is likely going strong.

OMA? The idea of spending as much for a record player as a house in the suburbs is really something I can't relate to. And even if I could, I wouldn't.

 

[anmpr1]

I think there must be a catalog of various visual features a company can choose from for its vibe, and Hi Fi Rose just tapped the book and said, "We want one with everything."

All it's missing is a joystick and fake oscilloscope!

It's sort of the Nagra look, but for the 'poor' man. To be fair, apart from the steam, it has features.