Kuzma 4Point Tri-Planar

For me the interesting comparison would be Graham Phantom II vs Talea. Two great unipivots, one with a wood arm wand, the other made of metal. Telos may be better than either (or not), but the price puts it in another category entirely, not that Talea or Phantom are "cheap". I heard the Talea with a ZYX on a Galibier table, in a system I know quite well, and I have to admit it was "unbelievable", mostly in the sense that I have never heard any analogue gear that sounded so holographic in the truest sense of the word. I felt that it might be possible for me to walk in behind the musicians, if I wanted to. Made me wonder whether I was being enchanted by some form of euphonic distortion. If so, give me more of it. The question in my mind: does the use of wood have something to do with this phenomenon?

Dear Doug, Thanks for your thoughts on the virtues of wood and why the Schroeder "sounds" as it does. But statements like: "Acoustic energies which flow into wood tend to be repeatedly scattered into disorganized packets with randomized frequencies and amplitudes. This makes it easier for the arm and armboard to dissipate them, rather than reflecting organized energy back toward the cartridge." are really hypotheses that you favor, not facts. Appealing ideas but not proven. We audiophiles, myself included, do this all the time.

I loved the Talea in the set-up I heard, but I note also that the piece of metal onto which the cartridge is mounted is affixed to the wood arm wand by one single bolt, which does not suggest to me that energy transfer from the cartridge into the arm wand is super efficient. Also there would be energy reflected back into the cartridge at the wood/metal interface. These structural elements tend to make me wonder to what degree your hypothesis is a real factor in the resulting sonic quality of the tonearm.

Hi Mike,
My remarks to Doug were merely meant to indicate that there is some question in my mind whether the cartridge vibrations have an unimpeded path into the wood arm tube in the first place. If the mechanical energy put out by the cartridge cannot get to the wood, then those properties of wood cited by Doug would not be of any benefit. Because the rudimentary headshell consists of a piece of brass(?) held at an angle against the flat surface of the wood, I wonder how efficient is the pathway of energy transfer. This all goes without saying that I heard the Talea in a system using speakers like mine (Sound Lab) and amps like mine (Atma-sphere) and absolutely did like what I heard, very much. So regardless of the physics and these airy discussions, the Talea does a lot right.

I read Romy's remarks referenced by Audiofeil. It's OK with me if he wants to blast Fremer, because Fremer is sort of in the public domain and is willing and able to defend himself. But his shot at Mike was unconscionable and unforgivable, not to mention senseless and unnecessary. So what is Audiofeil's motive here?

Doug, Just now after responding to Mike I read your two posts above mine. So the issue is what is the coefficient of energy transfer between the piece of metal (which appears to be brass) and the wood arm tube? Since Durand undoubtedly used a "hard" wood, and like substances wrt density usually present the least impedance, energy transfer may be good, or it may not be so good. Having only one bolt there does not suggest that one could attain a really tight boundary between the two, which would also facilitate energy dissipation. I am only thinking out loud here, and no slur on the Talea was intended. If Durand and his team found that this construction sounded best, and it seems they did, then I really don't give a darn about energy transfer per se.