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.
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.