I'm surprised how many people prefer the 2nd one, citing it's more alive and warmer. To me it sounds warmer yes, but almost muddy and distorted. The first one had incredible separation, articulation, and dynamic range. I'd rather get my warmth from my amp or speakers. Second was perfectly balanced. Great demonstration.
Of course. The first one gets you in the room with the musicians performing although sometimes that can be a kick in the gut for the unaccustomed. It is no contest really.
I am absolutely astonished by this demonstration, not because I didn't think the turntable would make a difference but by how enormous that difference was, especially on two such highly developed 'tables. The difference was shocking. I found the OMA table more impressive, in the sense that it was obvious in its approach, like a Tesla Plaid. The TechDas was more like a Rolls Royce, elegant and flowing. It's a good thing I won't ever have enough money to make that choice! Brilliant work, Michael.
@@trackingangle929 Mike this is very interesting BUT at the same time it is kind of concerning for me. At this price point, both companies should had spent all they have to ensure the turntable will delivery real true HI FI, which translate, if am not mistaking, both units should reproduce the music as close as the original file was initially recorded without any modification or coloration of the sound. I mean, that is what I think. If I spend this kind of Rolls Royce money in a turntable, I want to hear what ever happened at The Village Vanguard as close as it was recorded. Most of the comments I read were related to the surprising difference from one turntable to the other. How could this be? where did the true fidelity go? These two devices should be delivering what any audiophile is searching for. True clean, crystal, unmodified, uncolored sound. But they sound different which is the opposite of true fidelity Something is wrong
Same feeling. But he didn't tell us if that was same amp and speakers. That says, he didn't mention the recording way that he used, or do I missed it ?
@@mygarart2764 we were not hearing an amp or speakers. It was most likely a recording from the output of the phono preamp or maybe the tape record out of the preamplifier. Maybe Micheal can clarify.
2:00 OMA K3 (Start track) Drum solo start 4:56 8:05 TechDas Air Force III Premium (Start track) Drum solo start 11:00 Question Michael, I see you've been using the SAT CF1-12 tonearm more than the 3D printed tonearm lately, any reason why?
These both sounded very good. I think the first one sounds a little better, maybe because I heard it first. I don't think I've ever heard drums sound so good on the internet.
The first one! The stereo separation was superior, and the kick bass was haunting! The whole soundstage was deeper. Please do more of these comparisons!
I thought the exact opposite. The first one sounds much more alive than the second one. The second one sounds pretty "dead" to me compared to the first one.
Wow, that's a huge difference! From an audiophile standpoint, 1st one is much better, very even top to bottom - it actually sounds like r2r tape. The second one is less dynamic and more mellow, the mid band is more pronounced (more like a live concert listening?), and has a better timbre on the piano. Honestly, I could live with the TechDas given how ridiculous the price on OMA is. Great video Michael!
I completely agree with your listening notes, could hear it clearly even over Pixel phone built-in speakers! East wind did a bunch of great recordings I love the Clifford Jordan one with Hank Jones, and the LA 4 l'apres midi de une faune, that one is pretty spectacular too. I play them on a rebuilt TD 125 with a Sorane tonearm, and a Hana cartridge, which is definitely in the turntable #2 lane of sound here, but of course not with that level of clarity.
Actually you can really hear it in the ride symbol the wash of the ride cymbal clear as day, the difference between the two. And I find that jazz drummer is like that darker sound and that is more what I hear on the second turntable, if I look up what symbol Tony Williams was playing in that era that's a good way to check which one is actually more accurate to that sound.
Yep, I agree. There is a specific spot in the track (7 min mark for the first turntable, 13 min mark for the second), the kick drum sounded better on the first turntable. I can't explain why, but my mind processed the audio and leaned towards the first turntable.
It only took 3 minutes of listening to the belt drive to decide the direct drive was well more direct and the belt drive more laid back with a different seating location in the venue (further back), BUT upon reflection the direct drive was manic, relentless, perhaps it is the one most faithful to the original event and the second robbing the life out of the performance; it certainly was laconic; easy listening but nowhere near as engaging; one extreme to the other!
Absolutely clearer on turntable #2, which some would dislike as being clinical. Ultimately comes down to taste. That being said, I am surprised to hear such a marked difference between turntables.
To answer the main question; yep, they sure sound different. As far as which one sounds better, I like the first one which has more detail. Second one sounds less detailed, but I agree with those who said it’s warmer and more real sounding. Thanks for taking the time for this interesting comparison. 👍
Prefer the first one. Well balanced. Drums are integrated. Bass could be stronger. Second on drums too forward. Piano in background but bass is better. Prefer first one for listening.😮
Yep, I much preferred #1 - especially that I could zero in on any instrument if I wanted or sit back and listen to the whole. The bass on the second was muddled a bit. Both very good, but the first really appealed to my preferences. A great example of how seemingly low impact things can make a big difference.
Can you tell us why they sound different, and which ones you would lean towards for different sorts of music and/or pressings? Thanks, fascinating demonstration.
The kick drum on the first one is amazing: natural, while at the same time hitting you in the guts. And the music in general is more alive and more organic
1rst one has proper depth, timing and placement. Really easy on the ears, draws you in. The second is also very good but flat in direct comparison. Less easy to follow the music everything comes at you at the same time and when the music becomes busy it looses focus. The drums are not the same on both turntables. The OMA is really something 😮
It’s no contest here, the first table had a more engaging performance, the bass was deeper, the piano notes were more precise. The kick drum just stood out more. The music just had more drive. With the second table, it was as if half of that tone of the music was hidden in the mix. You made your point loud and clear, here Michael. My wife thought that I was nuts because I went through three turntables in two years because the speed was off and I kept hearing it, it drove me nuts, until I got my current turntable. You proved what I believed that all turntables are different and I will be showing her this, thank you.
Very close, I would go with the 2nd table. More airiness between instruments, warmer sounding. Ron Carter's bass detail and the overall sound stage is slightly better on the 2nd turnable. Still, despite owning some decent tables myself, they are in this category of esoterica far beyond what I could afford or would spend if I had the money. I can achieve really good sound setting up older way more affordable used tables that do the job nicely.
TT No.2 is perfect for me. Excellent piano and very clear distinct drums. Maybe a bit analytic and perhaps sometimes a bit nervous for some poeple but that I don't mind - I love it. Many many information transmitted through this turntable. Great.
Dear Mr. Fremer, for me this was not a comparison to define the best, both are wonderful, just different, and will please different ears. In fact, the best thing about the video is the opportunity to experience this, I could easily watch the same thing many times with music of this level. Thank you very much for making this possible for us. Greetings from Brazil.
People who question these things (like me) are not trolls. We are good-faith skeptics who apply common sense when deciding when something should intuitively make a difference or not. Then we simply ask for blind compares to validate our intuition. That type of questioning is understandably terrifying to someone who professes to hear such differences and says they are worth, in some cases, thousands of dollars. So I understand your hostility with the troll comment. But all that aside, this video is not what we are asking for. We want YOU to be subjected to a double blind listening test, live to tape on camera, uncut, making notes and telling us which is which, with an impartial test administrator changing out the cables and making sure the DB level is the same for each trial. When you are ready to do that, I'll be ready to form some conclusions.
lol you have to opportunity right here to listen and judge for yourself. If Mike just told you what turntable sounded the best, I seriously doubt it would make you happy.
@@thegrimyeaper First, there is no way to judge these tables or any equipment without being in the room. Secondly, he's reacting to the prior video where the prior and current Techniques tables were compared, and the Techniques rep was being effusive in describing how the new one "sounds" better. I simply commented, 'How can that be if the system, cables, and cart are the same and the only difference is the table, particularly tables that share 90% of their design? Please test that on a blind basis". Mr. Fremer responded with usual "you know nothing, you are ignorant, I am expert". But obviously I'm in his head so he comes out with this video, which is a complete non sequitur. And BTW from the few comments so far, the differences are hardly striking, as common sense would have suggested in advance. No trolling, no hostility, just asking legit questions about things that dont seem plausible.
@@edd2771you can’t read or refuse to read the comments. Most people do hear the differences and astutely express them! Then they write they prefer one over the other. You are just ridiculous.
Normally when I get hi-fi comparisons on TH-cam I listen on my smartphone and usually I can’t tell difference between them , but this demonstration is incredible well done 👍 👌
I can't afford either turntable so I got the album instead :-). A nice way to asses my own system. It's great music, and thank you for the comparison, mr Fremer.
I have an idler (Thorens 124), a Gyrodec, a Thorens Td160S, a Technics SL 1000R and a Denon DP80. I rank my Thorens 160S as my most enjoyable table. Just about all these tables have at least 1 SME arm so it’s not the arm, cartridge or the pre. Each one has its own characteristic.
Thank you for doing this comparison. The turntables do sound quite different. I happen to think the AF3P sounds more natural and I prefer it. There is more tonal color, more weight and body, better tone. The K3 sounds grey and flat to me, with very thin white cymbals. The K3 is more hifi sounding, the AF3P more natural and more like real music. Is the mic placed at the listening seat so that only the video portion is recorded by phone? I think these videos are going to become more and more popular with reviewers and dealers who want to increase exposure.
Pretty clear that the TechDAS delivers more punch and more well-rounded bottom end. Would be interesting to hear the "in room" differences with speakers.
You are a genius! Now, I can skip the fancy turntable and high end audio gear and just have you record the songs. Then, I can just replay it through my laptop and it's just as good!
Personally, I prefer #1. It sounds more balanced overall with nicer detail. Tighter lows, nice airy highs, instruments have more realism. The 2nd seemed a bit too laid back for my taste. Thanks, Michael.
I found it easier to follow Tony's solo on the OMA as the timing of the cymbal and drum hits seemed more precise. Differences in note volume and duration were clearer so his different statements of the theme were easier to follow. That hooked me immediately and held me rapt til the end. Both tables are freaking awesome!!!
Wow I was listening to this through my DELL PC speakers while making breakfast 20ft away and I could hear a difference; the first demonstration had more impact the drum solo was very live sounding, a great demo, more please
The kick drum sound is phenomenal in both of them! I found both excellent in terms of speed/dynamics, transients and instruments separation and projection. Probably the Techdas a little bit more analytic... Thanks Mr. Fremer for this fantastic set-up in double dose!
What a great video. I'm no expert, had no idea which was which, and expected to hear no difference, but the first sounded better to me; the detail and separation were unreal. A touch depressing for us denizens of the real world, but food for thought at every level.
I never thought that choice of turntable would factor into overall system synergy very much at all but the differences are pretty dramatic. There's no doubt the OMA is more 'hi-fi' & clinical sounding, while the TechDAS sounds more 'musical' to my ears (a plus or a minus based on preference). Really great concept, probably a ton of work but would definitely appreciate more like this.
I could hear a difference. The piano stood out louder and more clearly in the mix and the decay of the notes was more apparent on the 1st table. The drums also had more detail and crispness to them . The overall presentation sounded faster in my opinion. I wonder if the clamp was emphasizing certain frequencies and giving it that extra slam? The second table sounded slower and more smeared. It had a warmer more analogue sound. Thank you for the video and comparison. I can only imagine how great both sound listening in a chair at ear level in the triangle.
Some of the difference I am hearing seem to possibly static/ discharge? e.g. 2:36 in there is some compression distortion right before a batch of what sound like static clicks. The same passage at around 8:41 lacks the compression distortion and following static clicks.
The belt drive turntable sounded "fat". I could see audience "fat hands" clapping at the end. Jonathan's turntable sounded precise without bloat. Thank you for setting everything up!
This is great! I most likely will never be able to afford anything in this price range, but I always assumed there would be less variance between the highest end tables. The disparity demonstrated here is pretty vast! I'm recalibrating my preconceived notions.
you can get a good DD at much cheaper prices. a TOTL vintage Japanese DD table with plinth would be 2-3k. if you can find someone knowledgeable, $1500 would net you a good DD that would beat most belt-drives (assuming you liked the DD presentation) .
TT1 for me, TT2 sounds a bit polite by comparison. On TT1 the drums literally explode off the vinyl and Tom Toms and hi hat are more realistic. Bass on TT1 has better definition. I have no idea which is the more expensive TT and I’m surprised I find myself liking direct drive over belt drive. Maybe the vacuum pull down on the platter is sucking the life out of the music.
As I suspected before listening, a primary difference is in the bass. Specifically, the bass instrument itself had better definition to my ears on the second turntable. Way back in the day, I was a nightclub, radio, and party DJ. One time, I had to use a spare Technics Sl-1800 MKII in place of a broken 1200 MKII, and the difference in sound caused me to have to individually EQ one of the phono inputs while remixing a song (taking two copies of the same song and blending them to make the song longer, etc.). Both copies were the same pressing, and when I first brought the second copy into the mix, I could hear the bass quality changing, so I brought it out of the mix, eq'ed it in cue, and then proceeded.
I far more preferred the second table. Cymbals were much tighter and crisp, toms during the drum solo had more significant tonal differences one to another, and the piano was more realistic. This to my ears. As noted in other comments, different doesn't necessarily mean better. Wow! I'd like to try testing those two set-ups with some rock, folk (acoustic), and orchestral to give a full trial. No worries, I can afford neither.
The first had a more pronounced bass drum during the solo, while the second has a clearer tom-tom sound and the cymbals had less shimmer. Both sounded goo, but I liked the second one better.
When I listened to the tracks yesterday evening via my TV I thought that the OMA hat much more bass, but today I listened again with my computer via headphones and I could hardly hear any difference - maybe the OMA had a little more impact on the kickdrum, but that´s about it. The TechDAS seemed a tiny bit smoother to me which I personally prefer. Also the TechDAS looks much better and we have to honor the late Nishikawa san.
The cymbals are much more real on the OMA, where they sound slightly rolled off on the top end on the AF3P - there's definitely something missing. On the other hand, the piano sounds perhaps a bit richer on the AF3P. Direct vs. Belt differences? Vacuum hold-down effect? Couldn't say. But the difference is obvious from note one.
There are scientific explanations for why these turntables sound so different. There’s really no need for a demo but I figured it would make it more clear but obviously you need more.
I’m surprised how much more I enjoyed the music on the the Air Force. Tonality was lovely on both, but Hank Jones sounded less in control on the OMA and I could hear Ron Carter better on the second table. The bass drum had a fuller sound too, a touch more depth
Great video! Really impressed by the first one. It is the directness, the more real feeling of the recording venue, the punch! Second presentation sounds like kind of phase issues (not that you wired it wrong, it is in the signal). What is your opinion on the root causes for these differences, is it the drive concept? If so, I wonder if I made the wrong choice when I bought the 3-motor Feickert Firebird instead of the big Technics. Certainly there is more than just the belt.
I really enjoyed the comparison but my take away was the record - found a pristine copy in Japan and it was delivered today- now one of my new faves thanks!
While the direct drive tt, #1, obviously has faster transients the belt drive tt, #2, is far more musical as far a balance between instruments is concerned. All depends what you are looking for in a turntable. Would be fun to see a dd vs dd and belt vs belt showdown. The technologies are really apples and kumquats.
Hi! It is 2:30 am in Massachusetts. Yup when you are a nut you are a nut. So anywho… they don’t sound the same. The first one is more balanced, the second one is equally agile but the drums are more forward. Don’t know yet which one I like best. They are both wonderful. Although I honestly take a slightly more sympathetic view of the second one. But that is entirely subjective. This was fun!
the BD is more warmer less treble and attack than the DD. both sound great but since i prefer the warm sound signature my fave is the BD thanks for doing this senor fremer
The OMA K3 was much cleaner sounding as a whole, while the AF III sounded "tubby" in the low frequencies and the highs sounded as if they were rounded off.
Huge difference, liquid, more clarity, warmer, more lively, punchier, the best drum sound on the internet etc All your raving comments make me feel like I'm deaf :) I really like the music though, Tony Williams' solo was exciting!
Thank you, Michael. I noticed that TT1, the OMA, was used with a DS Audio ION-001 Anti-Static Vinyl Ionizer, and the second was not. Did that contribute to the differences between the two turntables?
Impressive and humbling for a youtube video. Thank you, Michael. I perceived the first one to sound more congested and brittle, but can appreciate how others might prefer what could be described as a more precise or analytical rendering. The first one imparted a greater initial sense of excitement (PRAT), but eventually failed to keep me engaged per what I heard as reduced dimensionality (possibly due to digital/youtube limitations). The second one was more "romantic" without sounding dull or thick, and was overall more inviting and let me hear more deeply into the music without feeling guarded, or developing uncalled-for tension in my body. To the contrary, the engagement that I felt in my body while listening to the second one had me moving, even if limited by the headphone cable. The timbre on the second one sounded notably more like the actual instruments than the first, and along with the better timbre was a natural attack, sustain, decay (dynamic envelope) that provided an overall greater sense of effortlessness and swing. Also, more groove modulation (sometimes mistaken for wow) could be heard before the music began on the second. I don't think I would would be fooled to think either was tape--in spite of the humorous irony that I'm attempting to evaluate analog playback through a digital medium. Relative to tape the first one sounded rushed (versus "drive"), and the second one didn't have quite as much drive as I would "imagine" the tape would have. Only Michael could say to what degree the digital transfer and playback through youtube compromised the comparison, or possibly highlighted certain characteristics of either table over the other. Needless to say, my duty is now to find a good pressing and hear it in full analog glory in my home, free of "visceral robbing" headphones.
Thanks for this video. The OMA turntable is direct-drive and the Tech Das turntable is belt-drive. My first(I will be coming back to this video.) impression is that I like the Tech Das(i.e. the second one played) better.
Great comparison, thanks so much! Shocked how smoothed over the belt drive sounds in comparison. But those brass screw heads in the direct drive's platter would make me dizzy, if I owned a K3 (I wish!), I'd need to place it out of sight.
I'm blown away by how different they sound. I think the first one sounds better, but I like the second one more because I have tinnitus so I'm responding to the darker sound of the second.
My preference is the second unit, not only do I think it would be less fatiguing but much more pleasant to look at. The first table was making me dizzy. 😵💫
I agree. The first one sounded uninteresting compared. Probably would be bored after a while with it. The drums are much better on the belt drive deck and much more involving although the music isn't my taste.
In isolation the Tech Das is great but once you hear the OMA it's all over. The OMA is so much more in every way, just no contest...and for those of you that mention warmth, change the Atlas for an Epoch 3, now you got it all.
The Atlas isn't the cart I would use but I've herd both these tables in the flesh and the OMA is pretty special...i'm a Koetsu guy so ultra detail isn't my thing.@@JohnLee-db9zt
I felt like the first TT had more soundstage, because it was further back and there was more separation. The second TT sounded closer and more full, but less width in the soundstage. Killer music track, too! I especially loved the drum solo. I felt like the solo was more alive and more real with the first TT.
Great video, Michael. The k3 is definitely more natural sounding. I found the techdas a little beat fatiguing, specially on the cymbals. I have no doubt that turntables sounds different. Changing my VPI to Acoustic Signature was a huge difference in my system. However, others could argue that this difference perceived on your video could be caused by the arm setup.
No doubt they sound different, but which is better depends on your tastes I would think. Your point on the setup is an interesting one. Not sure how you eliminate that concern, perhaps by having multiple people do the set ups (or the same person do them multiple times) and then do multiple blind play backs.
The OMA is brighter/quicker/higher resolution/more accurate but the TechDAS sounds more "analogue" - rounded off/damped/smoother. TechDas sounds like the standard 70's tape recording:). I think I like the TechDas for jazz but would want perhaps a little more of that DD magic. I guess the best way to go is to have two decks haha. I see a Lyra Kleos SL box in the back there - I currently use that one myself:) Thanks Mike!
Both sound excellent! It all comes back to what flavor you like ! Never heard the OMA but I’ve heard the Techdas many times ! It’s truly an outstanding table ! I’ve done head to head listening with this table and the legendary Nachamichi TX 1000 and it’s tough to choose.
Actually fascinating that airforce w SAT seems so muted - yes easier to take but def leaving a lot of music on the table - so terrifying what my vpi classic sounds like in comparison W its NJ craftsmanship
Thanks for the video. I prefer the sound of the Oma. It’s way more dynamic and “crisp”. The TechDas sounded flat all the way through. The drum solo part is super crisp and alive with the Oma whereas for me the TechDas the drum solo doesn’t sound special. A few questions: 1. Why was not weight used with the TechDas? Is this a general limitation of belt drive turntables, e.g. that additional weight shouldn’t be placed on the record? 2. I’d be interested in seeing a spectrogram of both outputs, aligned preferably for easier analysis. Would you be able to capture and share those? Thanks again!
I saw a tonearm like the one in the video on top of a building the other day. It was massive. They had workers in hi viz vests operating it. I guess the the turntable is too huge to be used inside
In the seventies I owned a Thorens TD 124. It had a Grado tone arm, and I had a low end Micro Acoustics 2000 E cartridge installed. It had magnificent sound. To make a few audiophiles cringe, I used the phono input on an inexpensive Sherwood Receiver. Appreciate the comparison of the two turntables. To me they both sound very good each one with their strong points.
On my speakers and system I'll take the first one. The OMA? The difference was very apparent in the drums. They were bigger, more impactful and punchier and alive, especially the bass drum. I felt a greater sense of space around the instruments too, the piano was more colorful and richer sounding. Ron Carter's double bass had more weight too with the OMA. I never thought the difference would be this apparent to me. This is an eye opening experience.
![แข่งเพิ่มน้ำหนักใน 24 ชั่วโมง!! [Ver 2025]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/20xn0g6k-ec/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm surprised how many people prefer the 2nd one, citing it's more alive and warmer. To me it sounds warmer yes, but almost muddy and distorted. The first one had incredible separation, articulation, and dynamic range. I'd rather get my warmth from my amp or speakers. Second was perfectly balanced. Great demonstration.
Of course. The first one gets you in the room with the musicians performing although sometimes that can be a kick in the gut for the unaccustomed. It is no contest really.
Agree. Had no idea a high end turntable could make such a difference. Wow.
The first TT sounded more like a CD, for better or worse.
I am absolutely astonished by this demonstration, not because I didn't think the turntable would make a difference but by how enormous that difference was, especially on two such highly developed 'tables. The difference was shocking. I found the OMA table more impressive, in the sense that it was obvious in its approach, like a Tesla Plaid. The TechDas was more like a Rolls Royce, elegant and flowing. It's a good thing I won't ever have enough money to make that choice! Brilliant work, Michael.
Your analysis is spot on IMO!
@@trackingangle929 Mike this is very interesting BUT at the same time it is kind of concerning for me.
At this price point, both companies should had spent all they have to ensure the turntable will delivery real true HI FI, which translate, if am not mistaking, both units should reproduce the music as close as the original file was initially recorded without any modification or coloration of the sound.
I mean, that is what I think. If I spend this kind of Rolls Royce money in a turntable, I want to hear what ever happened at The Village Vanguard as close as it was recorded.
Most of the comments I read were related to the surprising difference from one turntable to the other. How could this be? where did the true fidelity go? These two devices should be delivering what any audiophile is searching for. True clean, crystal, unmodified, uncolored sound. But they sound different which is the opposite of true fidelity Something is wrong
Both sound excellent - but preferred second one, sounds a little warmer
Same feeling. But he didn't tell us if that was same amp and speakers. That says, he didn't mention the recording way that he used, or do I missed it ?
@@mygarart2764 we were not hearing an amp or speakers. It was most likely a recording from the output of the phono preamp or maybe the tape record out of the preamplifier. Maybe Micheal can clarify.
@@mygarart2764 I believe he was vividly clear that the only difference was the two turntables.
2:00 OMA K3 (Start track) Drum solo start 4:56
8:05 TechDas Air Force III Premium (Start track) Drum solo start 11:00
Question Michael, I see you've been using the SAT CF1-12 tonearm more than the 3D printed tonearm lately, any reason why?
I prefer the SAT. I probably should post a comparison!
Thanks for the time stamps, Pepper 👍
@@NickP333 Sure, no problem Nick. They help me go back & forth quickly.
These both sounded very good. I think the first one sounds a little better, maybe because I heard it first. I don't think I've ever heard drums sound so good on the internet.
The first one! The stereo separation was superior, and the kick bass was haunting! The whole soundstage was deeper. Please do more of these comparisons!
Second one sounds way warmer and more alive, punchy. I'd want to have that one.
I thought the exact opposite. The first one sounds much more alive than the second one. The second one sounds pretty "dead" to me compared to the first one.
My thoughts exactly
Glad to hear I get to keep the second one for myself.
I have the second one, with an under $50K tonearm. It is far from suffering I'll tell you for sure.
Agreed!
THE 1st TT KNOCKS IT OUT OF THE PARK - IMHO.....
I agree too
First is Superior 😮😮
Yeah, and the differences weren't as subtle as I expected.
Wow, that's a huge difference! From an audiophile standpoint, 1st one is much better, very even top to bottom - it actually sounds like r2r tape. The second one is less dynamic and more mellow, the mid band is more pronounced (more like a live concert listening?), and has a better timbre on the piano. Honestly, I could live with the TechDas given how ridiculous the price on OMA is. Great video Michael!
You are a sophisticated listener
I completely agree with your listening notes, could hear it clearly even over Pixel phone built-in speakers!
East wind did a bunch of great recordings I love the Clifford Jordan one with Hank Jones, and the LA 4 l'apres midi de une faune, that one is pretty spectacular too.
I play them on a rebuilt TD 125 with a Sorane tonearm, and a Hana cartridge, which is definitely in the turntable #2 lane of sound here, but of course not with that level of clarity.
Actually you can really hear it in the ride symbol the wash of the ride cymbal clear as day, the difference between the two. And I find that jazz drummer is like that darker sound and that is more what I hear on the second turntable, if I look up what symbol Tony Williams was playing in that era that's a good way to check which one is actually more accurate to that sound.
Yep, I agree. There is a specific spot in the track (7 min mark for the first turntable, 13 min mark for the second), the kick drum sounded better on the first turntable. I can't explain why, but my mind processed the audio and leaned towards the first turntable.
Heard the same difference!
It only took 3 minutes of listening to the belt drive to decide the direct drive was well more direct and the belt drive more laid back with a different seating location in the venue (further back), BUT upon reflection the direct drive was manic, relentless, perhaps it is the one most faithful to the original event and the second robbing the life out of the performance; it certainly was laconic; easy listening but nowhere near as engaging; one extreme to the other!
Not an audiophile, can’t hear anything between the two that would convince me to get one over the other.
You’re right, those TH-cam video shootouts are useful as a bike for a fish.
@@CapitanHarlockisbackHe is wrong. You are useless.
For real? Plain as day. Why did you even watch the video? Advice: buy some iPods and stick with those.
@@michaels639 hey, at least I admitted that I wasn’t an audiophile.
I heard the difference that the first was better hearing it with my Samsung 46 inch led tv with it's own speakers 😁
The first turntable sounds far richer with more depth and punch. That’s what I hear. This was a great simulation. Thank you.
I believe the 2nd one is my preference. The clarity is much better than the first one is.
............so is the tempo......and the tone....
Absolutely clearer on turntable #2, which some would dislike as being clinical. Ultimately comes down to taste. That being said, I am surprised to hear such a marked difference between turntables.
I prefer the third turntable.
Yeah, same here. The platter is machined from unobtainium.
And the moon rock needle
This is the best comment.
yeah the one that was playing when I lost my virginity
To answer the main question; yep, they sure sound different. As far as which one sounds better, I like the first one which has more detail. Second one sounds less detailed, but I agree with those who said it’s warmer and more real sounding. Thanks for taking the time for this interesting comparison. 👍
Prefer the first one. Well balanced. Drums are integrated. Bass could be stronger. Second on drums too forward. Piano in background but bass is better. Prefer first one for listening.😮
Yep, I much preferred #1 - especially that I could zero in on any instrument if I wanted or sit back and listen to the whole. The bass on the second was muddled a bit. Both very good, but the first really appealed to my preferences. A great example of how seemingly low impact things can make a big difference.
Can you tell us why they sound different, and which ones you would lean towards for different sorts of music and/or pressings? Thanks, fascinating demonstration.
magic
A good start would be oma site where they explain what goes into their tt
My guess the big difference is in the Direct drive Vs Belt
The kick drum on the first one is amazing: natural, while at the same time hitting you in the guts. And the music in general is more alive and more organic
1rst one has proper depth, timing and placement. Really easy on the ears, draws you in.
The second is also very good but flat in direct comparison. Less easy to follow the music everything comes at you at the same time and when the music becomes busy it looses focus. The drums are not the same on both turntables. The OMA is really something 😮
It’s no contest here, the first table had a more engaging performance, the bass was deeper, the piano notes were more precise. The kick drum just stood out more. The music just had more drive. With the second table, it was as if half of that tone of the music was hidden in the mix. You made your point loud and clear, here Michael.
My wife thought that I was nuts because I went through three turntables in two years because the speed was off and I kept hearing it, it drove me nuts, until I got my current turntable. You proved what I believed that all turntables are different and I will be showing her this, thank you.
Interesting how people hear the same differences but have differing preferences.
Very close, I would go with the 2nd table. More airiness between instruments, warmer sounding. Ron Carter's bass detail and the overall sound stage is slightly better on the 2nd turnable. Still, despite owning some decent tables myself, they are in this category of esoterica far beyond what I could afford or would spend if I had the money. I can achieve really good sound setting up older way more affordable used tables that do the job nicely.
TT No.2 is perfect for me. Excellent piano and very clear distinct drums. Maybe a bit analytic and perhaps sometimes a bit nervous for some poeple but that I don't mind - I love it. Many many information transmitted through this turntable. Great.
Agreed!
Dear Mr. Fremer, for me this was not a comparison to define the best, both are wonderful, just different, and will please different ears. In fact, the best thing about the video is the opportunity to experience this, I could easily watch the same thing many times with music of this level. Thank you very much for making this possible for us.
Greetings from Brazil.
People who question these things (like me) are not trolls. We are good-faith skeptics who apply common sense when deciding when something should intuitively make a difference or not. Then we simply ask for blind compares to validate our intuition. That type of questioning is understandably terrifying to someone who professes to hear such differences and says they are worth, in some cases, thousands of dollars. So I understand your hostility with the troll comment. But all that aside, this video is not what we are asking for. We want YOU to be subjected to a double blind listening test, live to tape on camera, uncut, making notes and telling us which is which, with an impartial test administrator changing out the cables and making sure the DB level is the same for each trial. When you are ready to do that, I'll be ready to form some conclusions.
lol you have to opportunity right here to listen and judge for yourself. If Mike just told you what turntable sounded the best, I seriously doubt it would make you happy.
@@thegrimyeaper First, there is no way to judge these tables or any equipment without being in the room. Secondly, he's reacting to the prior video where the prior and current Techniques tables were compared, and the Techniques rep was being effusive in describing how the new one "sounds" better. I simply commented, 'How can that be if the system, cables, and cart are the same and the only difference is the table, particularly tables that share 90% of their design? Please test that on a blind basis". Mr. Fremer responded with usual "you know nothing, you are ignorant, I am expert". But obviously I'm in his head so he comes out with this video, which is a complete non sequitur. And BTW from the few comments so far, the differences are hardly striking, as common sense would have suggested in advance. No trolling, no hostility, just asking legit questions about things that dont seem plausible.
I’d say it looks more like Mr Fremer has gotten into your head.
@@geepee280 nah. I had completely forgotten about the matter until this video popped up with a comment quoting me. Gotta respond when that happens
@@edd2771you can’t read or refuse to read the comments. Most people do hear the differences and astutely express them! Then they write they prefer one over the other. You are just ridiculous.
TT 1 is livelier, more exciting- A drive down the A24 in Italy in a Ferrari. TT2 is mellow, soft on the edges- a cruise down the avenue in a 66 caddy.
wow, they both sound very good. 1st one sounds like its 2 generations closer to the tape.
Normally when I get hi-fi comparisons on TH-cam I listen on my smartphone and usually I can’t tell difference between them , but this demonstration is incredible well done 👍 👌
I can't afford either turntable so I got the album instead :-). A nice way to asses my own system. It's great music, and thank you for the comparison, mr Fremer.
Which one do you prefer Mr. Fremer?
I have an idler (Thorens 124), a Gyrodec, a Thorens Td160S, a Technics SL 1000R and a Denon DP80. I rank my Thorens 160S as my most enjoyable table. Just about all these tables have at least 1 SME arm so it’s not the arm, cartridge or the pre. Each one has its own characteristic.
I have the 160S as well, with a Rega RB3000 arm & Lyra Etna Lambda.
@@stephenchen1420 the 160s when tuned for its suspension correctly is truly one of my all time favorites.
Thank you for doing this comparison. The turntables do sound quite different. I happen to think the AF3P sounds more natural and I prefer it. There is more tonal color, more weight and body, better tone. The K3 sounds grey and flat to me, with very thin white cymbals. The K3 is more hifi sounding, the AF3P more natural and more like real music. Is the mic placed at the listening seat so that only the video portion is recorded by phone? I think these videos are going to become more and more popular with reviewers and dealers who want to increase exposure.
I prefer Turntable 1.
Pretty clear that the TechDAS delivers more punch and more well-rounded bottom end. Would be interesting to hear the "in room" differences with speakers.
It’s remarkably well preserved through speakers
You are a genius! Now, I can skip the fancy turntable and high end audio gear and just have you record the songs. Then, I can just replay it through my laptop and it's just as good!
Personally, I prefer #1. It sounds more balanced overall with nicer detail. Tighter lows, nice airy highs, instruments have more realism. The 2nd seemed a bit too laid back for my taste. Thanks, Michael.
I found it easier to follow Tony's solo on the OMA as the timing of the cymbal and drum hits seemed more precise. Differences in note volume and duration were clearer so his different statements of the theme were easier to follow. That hooked me immediately and held me rapt til the end.
Both tables are freaking awesome!!!
Wow I was listening to this through my DELL PC speakers while making breakfast 20ft away and I could hear a difference; the first demonstration had more impact the drum solo was very live sounding, a great demo, more please
I prefer #1 at least as much as I can discern via TH-cam. Great video!
The kick drum sound is phenomenal in both of them! I found both excellent in terms of speed/dynamics, transients and instruments separation and projection. Probably the Techdas a little bit more analytic... Thanks Mr. Fremer for this fantastic set-up in double dose!
The first one sounds like music. The second sounds like a fantastic recording of music.
What a great video. I'm no expert, had no idea which was which, and expected to hear no difference, but the first sounded better to me; the detail and separation were unreal. A touch depressing for us denizens of the real world, but food for thought at every level.
Second TT is the most tonally balanced and realistic🎵
Second one brings me into the music - more warm and dynamic to my ears.....did Mike switch recordings?
Same everything but TT!
I never thought that choice of turntable would factor into overall system synergy very much at all but the differences are pretty dramatic. There's no doubt the OMA is more 'hi-fi' & clinical sounding, while the TechDAS sounds more 'musical' to my ears (a plus or a minus based on preference). Really great concept, probably a ton of work but would definitely appreciate more like this.
Will be doing more for sure
I could hear a difference. The piano stood out louder and more clearly in the mix and the decay of the notes was more apparent on the 1st table. The drums also had more detail and crispness to them . The overall presentation sounded faster in my opinion. I wonder if the clamp was emphasizing certain frequencies and giving it that extra slam? The second table sounded slower and more smeared. It had a warmer more analogue sound. Thank you for the video and comparison. I can only imagine how great both sound listening in a chair at ear level in the triangle.
Yes, the first one sounds noticably better to my ears IMO.
Some of the difference I am hearing seem to possibly static/ discharge? e.g. 2:36 in there is some compression distortion right before a batch of what sound like static clicks. The same passage at around 8:41 lacks the compression distortion and following static clicks.
The belt drive turntable sounded "fat". I could see audience "fat hands" clapping at the end. Jonathan's turntable sounded precise without bloat. Thank you for setting everything up!
Number 2 sounds more open and I can hear the bass better. A lot of resonances.
Good point. Lots of decay. But no initial attack like the first.
This is great! I most likely will never be able to afford anything in this price range, but I always assumed there would be less variance between the highest end tables. The disparity demonstrated here is pretty vast! I'm recalibrating my preconceived notions.
Well, the disparity in price is vast too; I think the OMA is like 400k, while the TechDAS is "just" 40k.
you can get a good DD at much cheaper prices. a TOTL vintage Japanese DD table with plinth would be 2-3k. if you can find someone knowledgeable, $1500 would net you a good DD that would beat most belt-drives (assuming you liked the DD presentation) .
First one sounds like excellent transistor with mosfets or germanium and the second sounds like modern tube . Thanks Michael.
TT1 for me, TT2 sounds a bit polite by comparison. On TT1 the drums literally explode off the vinyl and Tom Toms and hi hat are more realistic. Bass on TT1 has better definition. I have no idea which is the more expensive TT and I’m surprised I find myself liking direct drive over belt drive. Maybe the vacuum pull down on the platter is sucking the life out of the music.
As I suspected before listening, a primary difference is in the bass. Specifically, the bass instrument itself had better definition to my ears on the second turntable. Way back in the day, I was a nightclub, radio, and party DJ. One time, I had to use a spare Technics Sl-1800 MKII in place of a broken 1200 MKII, and the difference in sound caused me to have to individually EQ one of the phono inputs while remixing a song (taking two copies of the same song and blending them to make the song longer, etc.). Both copies were the same pressing, and when I first brought the second copy into the mix, I could hear the bass quality changing, so I brought it out of the mix, eq'ed it in cue, and then proceeded.
I far more preferred the second table. Cymbals were much tighter and crisp, toms during the drum solo had more significant tonal differences one to another, and the piano was more realistic. This to my ears. As noted in other comments, different doesn't necessarily mean better. Wow! I'd like to try testing those two set-ups with some rock, folk (acoustic), and orchestral to give a full trial. No worries, I can afford neither.
The first had a more pronounced bass drum during the solo, while the second has a clearer tom-tom sound and the cymbals had less shimmer. Both sounded goo, but I liked the second one better.
When I listened to the tracks yesterday evening via my TV I thought that the OMA hat much more bass, but today I listened again with my computer via headphones and I could hardly hear any difference - maybe the OMA had a little more impact on the kickdrum, but that´s about it. The TechDAS seemed a tiny bit smoother to me which I personally prefer.
Also the TechDAS looks much better and we have to honor the late Nishikawa san.
The cymbals are much more real on the OMA, where they sound slightly rolled off on the top end on the AF3P - there's definitely something missing.
On the other hand, the piano sounds perhaps a bit richer on the AF3P.
Direct vs. Belt differences? Vacuum hold-down effect? Couldn't say.
But the difference is obvious from note one.
There are scientific explanations for why these turntables sound so different. There’s really no need for a demo but I figured it would make it more clear but obviously you need more.
What are the scientific explanations?
@@YuengsNwings Magic xd
I’m surprised how much more I enjoyed the music on the the Air Force. Tonality was lovely on both, but Hank Jones sounded less in control on the OMA and I could hear Ron Carter better on the second table. The bass drum had a fuller sound too, a touch more depth
Great video! Really impressed by the first one. It is the directness, the more real feeling of the recording venue, the punch! Second presentation sounds like kind of phase issues (not that you wired it wrong, it is in the signal). What is your opinion on the root causes for these differences, is it the drive concept? If so, I wonder if I made the wrong choice when I bought the 3-motor Feickert Firebird instead of the big Technics. Certainly there is more than just the belt.
at least one can argue the Feickert is almost 1/2 the price of the Technics ;)
Looking forward to a comparison of the Continuum Audio Labs Caliburn :)
I really enjoyed the comparison but my take away was the record - found a pristine copy in Japan and it was delivered today- now one of my new faves thanks!
While the direct drive tt, #1, obviously has faster transients the belt drive tt, #2, is far more musical as far a balance between instruments is concerned. All depends what you are looking for in a turntable. Would be fun to see a dd vs dd and belt vs belt showdown. The technologies are really apples and kumquats.
Hi! It is 2:30 am in Massachusetts. Yup when you are a nut you are a nut. So anywho… they don’t sound the same. The first one is more balanced, the second one is equally agile but the drums are more forward. Don’t know yet which one I like best. They are both wonderful. Although I honestly take a slightly more sympathetic view of the second one. But that is entirely subjective. This was fun!
the BD is more warmer less treble and attack than the DD. both sound great but since i prefer the warm sound signature my fave is the BD thanks for doing this senor fremer
1st turntable starts at 2:01
2nd turntable starts at 8:07
The OMA K3 was much cleaner sounding as a whole, while the AF III sounded "tubby" in the low frequencies and the highs sounded as if they were rounded off.
Huge difference, liquid, more clarity, warmer, more lively, punchier, the best drum sound on the internet etc All your raving comments make me feel like I'm deaf :) I really like the music though, Tony Williams' solo was exciting!
Thank you, Michael.
I noticed that TT1, the OMA, was used with a DS Audio ION-001 Anti-Static Vinyl Ionizer, and the second was not. Did that contribute to the differences between the two turntables?
Impressive and humbling for a youtube video.
Thank you, Michael.
I perceived the first one to sound more congested and brittle, but can appreciate how others might prefer what could be described as a more precise or analytical rendering.
The first one imparted a greater initial sense of excitement (PRAT), but eventually failed to keep me engaged per what I heard as reduced dimensionality (possibly due to digital/youtube limitations).
The second one was more "romantic" without sounding dull or thick, and was overall more inviting and let me hear more deeply into the music without feeling guarded, or developing uncalled-for tension in my body.
To the contrary, the engagement that I felt in my body while listening to the second one had me moving, even if limited by the headphone cable.
The timbre on the second one sounded notably more like the actual instruments than the first, and along with the better timbre was a natural attack, sustain, decay (dynamic envelope) that provided an overall greater sense of effortlessness and swing.
Also, more groove modulation (sometimes mistaken for wow) could be heard before the music began on the second.
I don't think I would would be fooled to think either was tape--in spite of the humorous irony that I'm attempting to evaluate analog playback through a digital medium.
Relative to tape the first one sounded rushed (versus "drive"), and the second one didn't have quite as much drive as I would "imagine" the tape would have.
Only Michael could say to what degree the digital transfer and playback through youtube compromised the comparison, or possibly highlighted certain characteristics of either table over the other.
Needless to say, my duty is now to find a good pressing and hear it in full analog glory in my home, free of "visceral robbing" headphones.
Wow the first one is on a different level! Sounds less fatiguing!
First is less fatiguing? Ok lol.
Michael what’s the name of the glass stereo stand. I’m looking for something. Will it hold an Air Force Zero turntable?
Thanks for this video. The OMA turntable is direct-drive and the Tech Das turntable is belt-drive. My first(I will be coming back to this video.) impression is that I like the Tech Das(i.e. the second one played) better.
Great comparison, thanks so much! Shocked how smoothed over the belt drive sounds in comparison. But those brass screw heads in the direct drive's platter would make me dizzy, if I owned a K3 (I wish!), I'd need to place it out of sight.
I couldn't finish the first track and was getting dizzy!
I actually scrolled down so the turntables were hidden while I listened, especially that hypnotic first one.
I prefer the 2rd one as it seems to have more mid-range. I would be happy with either one!
Yes seems more articulate and lively there. (Glad I dont spend too much time and money chasing down "perfection" )
I'm blown away by how different they sound. I think the first one sounds better, but I like the second one more because I have tinnitus so I'm responding to the darker sound of the second.
I found TT1 had more depth and realism and TT2 had more detail and was flatter.
I'd be happy with either, but my preference is TT1.
My preference is the second unit, not only do I think it would be less fatiguing but much more pleasant to look at. The first table was making me dizzy. 😵💫
I agree. The first one sounded uninteresting compared. Probably would be bored after a while with it. The drums are much better on the belt drive deck and much more involving although the music isn't my taste.
PRAT in spades on the OMA, lots of sweet smooth love on the TechDas. But I'm a jaded AF5 owner... :-)
In isolation the Tech Das is great but once you hear the OMA it's all over. The OMA is so much more in every way, just no contest...and for those of you that mention warmth, change the Atlas for an Epoch 3, now you got it all.
If you like the sound of CDs, OMA is the winner.
The Atlas isn't the cart I would use but I've herd both these tables in the flesh and the OMA is pretty special...i'm a Koetsu guy so ultra detail isn't my thing.@@JohnLee-db9zt
I felt like the first TT had more soundstage, because it was further back and there was more separation. The second TT sounded closer and more full, but less width in the soundstage. Killer music track, too! I especially loved the drum solo. I felt like the solo was more alive and more real with the first TT.
Great video, Michael. The k3 is definitely more natural sounding. I found the techdas a little beat fatiguing, specially on the cymbals. I have no doubt that turntables sounds different. Changing my VPI to Acoustic Signature was a huge difference in my system. However, others could argue that this difference perceived on your video could be caused by the arm setup.
No doubt they sound different, but which is better depends on your tastes I would think. Your point on the setup is an interesting one. Not sure how you eliminate that concern, perhaps by having multiple people do the set ups (or the same person do them multiple times) and then do multiple blind play backs.
Excellent video Michael. Please do more videos like this one. Highly informative and enjoyable. Many thanks for sharing
Second one for sure offers a nicer spatial presence of instruments I would say possibly closer to the live rendition. Thx for the comparison.
The OMA is brighter/quicker/higher resolution/more accurate but the TechDAS sounds more "analogue" - rounded off/damped/smoother. TechDas sounds like the standard 70's tape recording:). I think I like the TechDas for jazz but would want perhaps a little more of that DD magic. I guess the best way to go is to have two decks haha. I see a Lyra Kleos SL box in the back there - I currently use that one myself:) Thanks Mike!
#2 was more "alive" more realistic.....more musical.....
Michael, how was this recorded - with a microphone from your speakers or digitised from the phono stage?
Lynx HiLo A/D converter into computer.
Both sound excellent! It all comes back to what flavor you like ! Never heard the OMA but I’ve heard the Techdas many times ! It’s truly an outstanding table ! I’ve done head to head listening with this table and the legendary Nachamichi TX 1000 and it’s tough to choose.
#2 is much better, more dynamic and resolution...Nice job Mike
1st one sounded more dynamic and less hissy in the cymbals. 2nd one almost sounded distorted in certain passages. 1st one by far.
The TechDAS sounds muffled. Not my choice. Did not expect so much difference in the table alone.
Your point is well taken. Even at this high a level, there are differences. As to one over the other is like what coffee we prefer.
Actually fascinating that airforce w SAT seems so muted - yes easier to take but def leaving a lot of music on the table - so terrifying what my vpi classic sounds like in comparison
W its NJ craftsmanship
Thanks for the video. I prefer the sound of the Oma. It’s way more dynamic and “crisp”. The TechDas sounded flat all the way through. The drum solo part is super crisp and alive with the Oma whereas for me the TechDas the drum solo doesn’t sound special.
A few questions:
1. Why was not weight used with the TechDas? Is this a general limitation of belt drive turntables, e.g. that additional weight shouldn’t be placed on the record?
2. I’d be interested in seeing a spectrogram of both outputs, aligned preferably for easier analysis. Would you be able to capture and share those?
Thanks again!
I saw a tonearm like the one in the video on top of a building the other day. It was massive. They had workers in hi viz vests operating it. I guess the the turntable is too huge to be used inside
Lmfao
I like the second one.
In the seventies I owned a Thorens TD 124. It had a Grado tone arm, and I had a low end Micro Acoustics 2000 E cartridge installed. It had magnificent sound. To make a few audiophiles cringe, I used the phono input on an inexpensive Sherwood Receiver. Appreciate the comparison of the two turntables. To me they both sound very good each one with their strong points.
On my speakers and system I'll take the first one. The OMA? The difference was very apparent in the drums. They were bigger, more impactful and punchier and alive, especially the bass drum. I felt a greater sense of space around the instruments too, the piano was more colorful and richer sounding. Ron Carter's double bass had more weight too with the OMA. I never thought the difference would be this apparent to me. This is an eye opening experience.
The OMA is so much more open - instantly I hear it.. effervescent and snappin'. TechDas is organic though. Both are superlative! WoW...
I think the second TT sounded better because I like the smooth polished steel platter more than the TT with the brass bits, good sir.
Carry on.
Those are brass plugs. Each caps a channel filled with a liquid damping material.
@@trackingangle929 Ahhhh I see. Did I pick the right TT, squire?
TT 1 has a much greater sense of space. TT 1 by far for me.