JP
Major Contributor
It made me laugh.Thank you, man!
I liked the irony of his opinion.
It made me laugh.Thank you, man!
I liked the irony of his opinion.
Never understood why anyone would want to introduce all that mechanical complication into the tonearm.
The most complex technology a non-technical mind can feel as if they comprehend. Magnetic hysteresis? CIRC? Bit depth? I'll stick with things I can see thank you.With these types it's a miracle they don't revert to using wax cylinders. They're sort of like a bizarro Amish community that actively tries to push the envelope of technology, but only technology that existed before a certain date.
The vibrations go in this end, and come out the other end (as much as possible) the same they went in. At every stage the signal physically resembles the original vibrations. Indeed, I think anyone who has bothered to get how sound and audio works at the most basic levels will feel like they get how a turntable works.The most complex technology a non-technical mind can feel as if they comprehend.
As long as SQ isn't at the top of the attributes list.I admit there is a lot of appeal to a fully analog system.
OMA K3 compared with the TechDasI can't understand the fuss over this cheapo TT, when the TechDAS Air Force Zero exists!
Just saying!
They both sound bloody awful, but that's what happens when you play jazz on anything.OMA K3 compared with the TechDas
I can't decide which sounds better
Probably the K3
DAT -- yeah, the audiophile fringe.The most complex technology a non-technical mind can feel as if they comprehend. Magnetic hysteresis? CIRC? Bit depth? I'll stick with things I can see thank you.
It would be weird if they had settled on DAT instead.
It only proves how disconnected the audiophools o
I hear the lament of someone who sold their record collection for pennies in the 90's and is still salty about itIt only proves how disconnected the audiophools of "high end" audio think.
All solid media is dead, the rest of the worlds population have moved on to streaming their digital entertainment.
View attachment 341932
I sold my turntable and all my LPs in the 90s. I don't miss the so-so sound quality and the added faff of playing records, but I would have got a better price if I'd held on to them for a while and waited for the vinyl revival.I hear the lament of someone who sold their record collection for pennies in the 90's and is still salty about it
OMA K3 compared with the TechDas
I can't decide which sounds better
Probably the K3
I didn't notice. That probably explains a lot about my failure to become an audio reviewer.I took a brief look at the audio in that video at the end of November- there was a nearly 5dB level difference between the two captures.
... shades of the justly infamous Garrard "zero tracking error"pantographparallelogram tonearm!
Managed to find a couple of lateral tracking turntables at yard sales around 2010 or so. They didn't get rid of inner groove distortion, as the cartridges that came with the 'tables were underperforming ellipticals and a lot of my records were used/worn. They also had more issues with peak warp wow as their arms were so short. The mechanism that pulled the arm from edge to center gave out on both before too long and I went back to pivoted arms after that.Because I like being in the minority, I have to say that the Z-100 wasn't as horrible as almost everyone says it was. In fact, with a proper cartridge, tracking at about 2g, it produces a very clean and crisp sound-- a result of the insignificant lateral groove distortion. In fact, I have one in a secondary system now, and am still happy with that aspect of its performance.
Being strictly mechanical, it does not hold long term speed well; over the course of the record most probably would not realize any drift, however with absolute pitch one might notice it. Flutter mostly depends upon the condition of the rubber idler/brass motor shaft. Rumble is commensurate with any idler mech from the '70s.
It reaches speed instantaneously, quicker than even the then new Japanese servo DD record players, those quickly demolishing the entire belt and idler drive consumer record player industry--at least until more 'tweako' designs became popular (mostly beginning with the Linn, an AR derived design). Consumers compared idler Garrards, Duals, and the others with the newer Technics, and quickly walked away. Build QC of Japanese product was light years ahead of anything coming out of England and Germany. Plus, no one really wanted a record changer anymore.
All things considered, I think one can reasonably argue that at its popular price point the Z-100 was quite an engineering feat for the times. There were other attempts before the Garrard, but none had any commercial success. Now a few sophisticated pivoted designs are available, all at a much higher price point.
One is the Klaudio, which is set up using a laser beam, costing as much as a high performance Japanese motorcycle. Chump change compared to the OMA.
View attachment 342352
Apples to oranges, though, vis-a-vis the Garrard parallelogram arm, which was oh-so-pivoted.Managed to find a couple of lateral tracking turntables at yard sales around 2010 or so. They didn't get rid of inner groove distortion, as the cartridges that came with the 'tables were underperforming ellipticals and a lot of my records were used/worn. They also had more issues with peak warp wow as their arms were so short. The mechanism that pulled the arm from edge to center gave out on both before too long and I went back to pivoted arms after that.
I will say that, to this day, I have an old b&o TX-2 in the 'on deck circle' (too American? too sports?) and it does a fine job with audible reduction of IGD relative to many of the other "midfi" decks here with ordinary swingin' arms on them.
Standard Fremer practice not to record at same levelI took a brief look at the audio in that video at the end of November- there was a nearly 5dB level difference between the two captures.
Another thing that killed any development of the pantograph arm at a popular price point were those lateral tracking decks, which could be pretty inexpensive. B&O were expensive and proprietary (cartridge), but there were a plethora of straight line tracking players from Japan sold for not too much over entry level dollars. Technics made a few about the size of a record. ReVox was also well known.
For whatever reason I never had any 'in the living room' experience with them. I did demo a top of the line Beogram 4002 system at an audio salon. Visually stunning with rosewood panels. Sure it all looked great in an upscale Manhattan high-rise.
View attachment 342390