If I could afford, I’d purchase 100% Oswald Mills Audio gear

@lewm , I'm not inclined to think that form has any function but what do I know about it. Can't tell from the picture how the arm works but Mr Schroder comes up with very novel approaches and I can now tell you from first hand experience that he knows what he is doing. I also know for a fact that you are not buying one either. It's three failings are it's lack of isolation, a dust cover and vacuum clamping. Three strikes and...

@chakster , nice to hear.

Clearthinker, tell that to Malcolm Sayer:-) In the words of Enzo?

@cleeds , So nice to hear from you again.

Mijo, You wrote, in reference to the K3: "It's three failings are it's lack of isolation, a dust cover and vacuum clamping."
I think your orthodoxy is getting in the way of your logic.  If you read MF's review, you will see that instead of "isolation", which to you means springs, air, or the Minus K, the K3 uses high mass plus internal fluid dampening, in the plinth, motor, and in the platter.  So it is inaccurate to say the K3 does not give a thought to the dissipation of spurious energy, which after all is the purpose of a "suspension".  Further, how do we know it does not have a dust cover?  I have never known MF to display photos of TTs with their dust covers in place.  The only dust cover I find handy is one that protects the platter from dust when the TT is not in use.  They're easy to fabricate, but of course that would be beneath the dignity of anyone who can own the K3.  Further, further, vacuum clamping does not come without its sonic costs. (It certainly added an audible coloration with my SOTA Star Sapphire III, albeit that was 25 years ago, so I will assume SOTA does better with vacuum clamping these days.)  Note also that not every megabuck turntable is wedded to vacuum clamping.  So it is an arguable benefit or detriment, depending upon implementation.  There's a couple of vacuum mat accessories on the market these days, so anyone can have that feature if it is wanted. (I think OMA would go into shock if any buyer added a $1000 or so vacuum mat to that mammoth damped platter.)  My major point is that neither you nor I nor anyone else who has dripped vitriole on the K3 has ever heard it.  Surely you would not dismiss such a product out of hand just because it does not fulfill your 3 favorite fetishes. We dismiss it because it costs $360,000.

@lewm You make a very good point about the OMA being dismissed because it costs $360K! If the table was priced at say $20K or less, i would also question how many folks would still dismiss it? OTOH, the price asked is more than likely going to be unjustifiable to all but those with very deep pockets, and maybe even those folk will still dismiss it based on the competition. The question I have with a lot of this gear, and one that fails to ever really get answered, is why price something like the OMA K3 at only $360K, why not price it at $3.6M or more?? After all, the same buyer is going to be interested......and the rest will still have the same opinion.

as a consumer of expensive turntables, i’m a candidate for the K3. what does that mean? if sufficiently motivated, i could re-task some of my hifi system assets into the K3. (not suggesting that there are not others here that could also buy a K3, but i’m also committed enough to vinyl to actually pull the trigger).

but the K3 is not my cup of tea sonically. it does not sufficiently hold onto the the note sustain. it cuts it off. is that musical truth? what does truth mean?

i own 4 turntables which all deal with note sustain differently, and i tend to prefer the one that does it longest, then play the one least that does it least.

the lack of vacuum hold-down is not a deal killer for me, but the musical implications of the fluid suspension as opposed to other approaches only make the note sustain issue worse. and raise the noise floor which is also a factor.

i’m fine with the aesthetics, even the arm (i’m a fan of Mr. Schroder’s arms) and while Jonathan has not always played nice, i could move past that long enough to buy one if it sounded like it would have to, to justify my commitment to it.

for me it starts and ends with performance.

@mikelavigne You fall into the category of discriminating buyer who dismisses this table based on the ability of the competition. I question as to how many of these manufacturer’s really know who or what the competition is?...and more importantly how it performs. For example, I would acquire the Basis Transcendence in a heart beat before I would consider the new OMA K3....and at a fraction of the price! The Basis holds on to the notes (the recreation of sustain, which BTW has to be on the LP in the first place, and in many cases simply is not) in a far superior manner to any table I have ever heard...including my previous reference for this..the Clearaudio Statement.
I agree with you 100%, performance is the only arbiter to judge these tables by, not aesthetics....although it doesn’t hurt to have both.