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.

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 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.

Both sound excellent - but preferred second one, sounds a little warmer

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.

Second one sounds way warmer and more alive, punchy. I'd want to have that one.

Normally when I get hi-fi comparisons on KZfaq I listen on my smartphone and usually I can’t tell difference between them , but this demonstration is incredible well done 👍 👌

THE 1st TT KNOCKS IT OUT OF THE PARK - IMHO.....

The first turntable sounds far richer with more depth and punch. That’s what I hear. This was a great simulation. Thank you.

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!

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. 👍

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

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?

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.

I prefer the third turntable.

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.

Not an audiophile, can’t hear anything between the two that would convince me to get one over the other.

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.

wow, they both sound very good. 1st one sounds like its 2 generations closer to the tape.

I prefer #1 at least as much as I can discern via KZfaq. Great video!

Great recording and magnificent choices. Thank You Sir!

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!

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!!!

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 😮

I believe the 2nd one is my preference. The clarity is much better than the first one is.

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.

First one sounds like excellent transistor with mosfets or germanium and the second sounds like modern tube . Thanks Michael.

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.

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.

Hi Michael, is there any way one could get hands on hi res files?

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

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.

OK to share both sound samples as two files? Thanks!

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.

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.

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.

Michael, how was this recorded - with a microphone from your speakers or digitised from the phono stage?

The first one sounds like music. The second sounds like a fantastic recording of music.

Wow the first one is on a different level! Sounds less fatiguing!

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.

Excellent video Michael. Please do more videos like this one. Highly informative and enjoyable. Many thanks for sharing

Dear Michel, how do you verify same VTA angle on both arns?

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?

I prefer Turntable 1.

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.

Second one brings me into the music - more warm and dynamic to my ears.....did Mike switch recordings?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

While I agree that the first table creates a more transparent, etched sound, I do think there is a larger point at stake here. Is anyone going to tell me that they wouldn't enjoy music through the second table - be moved by it, and indeed even astonished by how life-like the sounds it produces can be through a well-set up system? At what point, if any, do differences cease to mater - not in A/B comparisons but in terms of sustained listening pleasure? If the answer is - "they always matter" - then I start to wonder. Perhaps the pleasure comes rather from the capacity to afford each "upgrade." As long as you can hear just that bit more shimmer on cymbals, the financial sacrifice is justified, no matter if three months later, you are listening with no greater engagement or joy than before you made the change. If that is true, it would not, I think, the most noble definition of our hobby.

do the styli have the same hours of use?

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.

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.

Vacuum hold is the winner for me. Very realistic even on YT. Thank You! Great video!

The OMA is so much more open - instantly I hear it.. effervescent and snappin'. TechDas is organic though. Both are superlative! WoW...

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.

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.

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!

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!

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’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

Number 2 sounds more open and I can hear the bass better. A lot of resonances.

The Direct Drive is exciting to hear and the turntable that feels more rhythmically accurate but also sounds more dynamic too! WOW I'm sold on Direct Drive motor!

I prefer the 2rd one as it seems to have more mid-range. I would be happy with either one!

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.

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.

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.

Which one do you prefer Mr. 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.

With the second, the drums were louder, overwhelming the clarity of the piano that I heard on the first. Second sounded muddier. On both, I'm not hearing much bass. Funny, I had that album when it first came out. Very interesting test Mr. Fremer; hope you'll conduct more.

Second one for sure offers a nicer spatial presence of instruments I would say possibly closer to the live rendition. Thx for the comparison.

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. The OMA K3 sounds noticeably better in terms of clarity and liquidity. I didn't need the video to prove the proposition. The best part of the video was hearing your OMA K3. It's an amazing turntable. I would love to hear it in a side by side comparison with a Basis Audio Transcendence, Super Arm 12.5 and Lyra Atlas SL.

Brilliant feature Michael. Thanks

Hope you could add a top Idler wheel turntable to this comparison. Great job!

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.

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.

#2 is much better, more dynamic and resolution...Nice job Mike

What record is that?

The first T/T sounds much sharper and snappier, the second slightly warmer but both are very good.

7.12 1st table vs 13.18 2nd table snare roll. 1st table is quicker. Better separation on the 1st. Sometime the 2nd table seems more tuneful- bloom on the quiet toms . But at this level, as Zappa said "Who gives a fuck anyway?"

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.

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

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!

Hi Michael. Thanks for this wonderful comparison. The difference between this 2 turntables is astonishingly. Even by listening to the video on the iPhone it is obvious that the OMA is for example able to present the stupidly fast impulses of the drum kit more articulated than the TechDAS. I’m just wondering how much the record clamp on the OMA influences the result. To my experience it should, but I don’t have a clue about the significance. Keep up your outstanding work 👍🏻

The second one sounds more spacious and clear to me. Fuller dynamics? The first one maybe more analytical sounding. But one thing is for sure is they do indeed sound different.

Both sound Quite Beautiful on my Lowfi cell phone.... I Believe you about Different sounding equipment. I've experienced it on average priced Equipment as well. 😊

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.

Good stuff Mike..I think I liked the OMA...a bit more attack maybe? Great track and recording, too.

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.

First one, unbelieveble. Thanks, Michael! ❤

I can hear the difference on my computer speakers🙂....but as I have an every day player and a super high grade player I already know that. I once put the same cartridge on both and it was clear to me. Thank you for doing that.

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.

Enjoyed the video. But there is a HUGE difference in price between the AF3 and the OMA K3! imo: not a fair fight for the AF3 and easy pickings for the OMA K3.

Mike: awesome demo. For me, the first TT sounds better. More life in the music and the drum solo did it. It sounded so natural and full of life. The second TT sounded thin and lifeless. It would put me to sleep. To sum it up, I definitely heard the difference using my headphones. I wonder how the VPI HW40 turntable would sound in this demo.

1st is definitely better to my ears & my preferences 👍 also, love the new video ideas. Keep it up

So I listened to his Steely Dan video. $375000 turntable. Really impressive. Listened to the Stones video of the same turntable. Lacked a little depth. I'm thinking maybe not the best idea to make audio comparisons on KZfaq videos. Fun though. Thanks Micheal.