TechDAS Air Force 10 Air Bearing Pivoted Tonearm Debut | Michael Fremer Reports...

From Fremer:
The new TechDAS Air Force 10 air bearing pivoted tonearm had its North American debut this past weekend, February 9th and 10th at The Audio Salon in Santa Monica, California. Store owner Maier Shadi's organization is also the North American TechDAS distributor.
The two day event brought to the store customers from around the country and featured from Japan TechDAS International Sales executive Motofumi Hirata, Tsutomu Horikawa, the new Stella, Inc.CEO and Hajime Shimizu, who as a member of the engineering team has for more than 25 years been involved in the R&D for all TechDAS products and worked closely with the late, legendary company founder Hideaki Nishikawa.
Also attending was The Absolute Sound contributor Jacob Heilbrunn, What's Best Forum's Ron Resnick, Dynaudio North America's John Quick and representing Wilson Audio Specialities Director of Sales (and world renowned recording engineer) Peter McGrath.
The new arm is a formidable design as you'll see in the video. It's a long video, so skip around if need be and understand that English is Motofumi-san's second language so patience please.
I was there to talk about and play "Rufus Reid Presents Caelan Cardello" and introduce a new double LP album for which I was the "vinyl shepherd", about to go on the RTI press, produced, written and performed by Patrick Leonard (who co-produced "Amused to Death", two of Leonard Cohen's final albums and Madonna's early Warner Brothers records among others). Among the guest players on this prog rock tour de force are Tony Levin, Martin Barre and Ian Anderson.
The arm's final price just announced is $45,000 for the 10" and $49,500 for the 12". Once you have a chance to see what it is and what's involved in its materials and manufacturing, its cost will be easier to grasp.

[@ptg01]

Stunning !!! An engineering beauty and work of art.. But I can never be able to justify it financially... Sigh....

[@scottbennett3119]

Love the intro! Thanks for playing it. Cool equipment and presentation... Thanks for taking us here.

[@elderinmoi1571]

The shop owner is hard ro liaten to. Aaaahhhm aaaahhmm ahh ahh. Unbelievable.sometikes aaahhmm is the only word in the sentence 😂

[@martinvegas1327]

Could you have this tonearm and the Sat tonearm on this at the same time?

[@trackingangle929]

yes

[@tombillard5264]

Halcro amps?

[@KSWong-xi8cd]

Iconic chassis. Australian company died and was revived.

[@costelloandsilke7321]

Can we get some 4K video to go with 4k sound...

[@trackingangle929]

I figured for this 1080 was sufficient.

[@YuengsNwings]

Hold on a second. So they set out to make something uber-expensive and hadn't considered the effect of the device cutting out? What is their qualification for even making this thing in the first place? Seems that this tonearm exists for no other reason than to be expensive.

[@HP_____]

Engineers are obsessive with a solution to ONE thing at a time. It's like medicine with side effects and then come up with another medicine for the side effects, so on and so forth. That's why science journals require peer review. Fremer just happened to catch a flaw.

[@PacificTimeSoul]

Great system for a hedge fund manager with lots of room but what about the rest of us?

[@Fluterra]

Be happy with a less expensive system. Or work harder.

[@HP_____]

Who watches gears for commoners?!

[@edd2771]

[POSTSCRIPT: Based on comments, many people are still upset with the idea I am proposing here. It seems there is a sizeable group of people who don't like even the mere idea of trying to determine if certain components (like in this example, tonearms) are audible/distinguishable from one another on a blind basis, and a fair number more who will not admit to the possibility that confirmation bias and/or the placebo effect exist. I've got to admit, this mentality baffles me, but there we have it]. This video was posted on another site and I made a comment that upset several people. I'd like to take a new approach here and see if I can get my idea across without upsetting anyone. I believe this hobby needs a better way to prove the value proposition of high-end products that are secondary or tertiary in the signal chain. Things like power cables, turntables (themselves-NOT the cartridge) and (as is the case here) tonearms. I'd like to stipulate up front that everyone involved in the making, advertising, reviewing and selling of this tonearm is knowledgeable, honorable, and truly inspired by making and promoting ever-better products for the hifi industry. With all that said, I have a hypothesis that were it to be proved or disproved would be of interest and benefit to many in this hobby- especially those who buy products at the high-end. My hypothesis is that for certain products (secondary and tertiary as I describe above) and at certain very high price points, it is extremely unlikely that the average listener can HEAR a difference between the high end product and a merely competent product(and after all, its about the absolute SOUND, is it not?). I believe the only way to make this determination properly is through blind comparisons between two products, where the test administrator is independent, there are enough listeners to avoid coincidental conclusions (I'm not a statistician, but lets say 10 people) and enough random A/B trials to avoid the same type of coincidental conclusions (again lets say 10 trials, but I'm open to what QC experts might recommend). Everything else stays the same-cart, cables, electronics, speakers etc. I would only suggest that a check is done to make sure the DB at the listening position is equal for both arms, as perhaps the arm wiring could impact the level. I am using this tonearm merely as an example of something that my hypothesis could be tested against. I am not impugning this product. I am merely using it as an example for the type of item for which this hobby needs a better, more empirical standard of "value" and "improvement". So here goes: This arm costs $45k in the 10" length. VPI, a very respected maker of tables and arms sells its highly regarded 10" fatboy unipivot arm for a "mere" $4,500 or one-tenth the cost of this arm. My hypothesis is that in a blind compare trial as i describe above, panelists will not be able to hear a difference between this arm and the VPI. If a majority of people in a majority of trials do, I will be very gratified that the my hypothesis was proven wrong. Its seems that no one in this industry is willing to do such testing on such items in such price ranges, and the cynic in me thinks this may be an anecdotal signal that my hypothesis is correct. I certainly hope not, but really, isn't this a question every thinking audiophile should be asking themselves regardless?

[@saint6563]

You want other people to decide what someone can spend their money on. Let people decide for themselves.

[@edd2771]

@@saint6563 Incorrect. I want people to be free to do what they want. I am only saying that the proving or disproving of my hypothesis might be of interest to people. It's obviously not of interest to you, and that's fine. [EDIT]: I do see your point though... Even if the industry were to introduce products accompanied by the type of testing I describe, I would never suggest 'outsourcing' the decision to some panel of people. For me personally, if I were deciding between two items that had the same function and had a cost differential of 10x and where the minimum expense is $4,500, I would make sure I got myself to Upscale Audio, or The Music Room or a local dealer who could facilitate me conducting such a blind test for myself. I think these dealers would oblige since the higher priced option is something that costs a much as a luxury SUV. However, I do understand that not everyone (even people with the means to buy such an item) can do this type of testing. But that doesnt invalidate the idea that a manufacturer can do such testing itself and make the results known. No one does though.. and it makes one wonder...

[@patl709]

@@edd2771I see nothing wrong with your point. If a product claims to be “the best” or “one of the best” it should be able to demonstrate that the claim has some merit. Of course, what is better is often highly subjective, even when strenuous efforts are made to provide a level playing field in any assessment. An obvious example is where the notion of product synergy maybe a consideration and it may have an impact on the results. To mitigate this would, if you were assessing tone arms, you have two or more turntables? Would you then also have to have alternative options throughout the systems chain? Suddenly what seemed like a relatively simple test starts to get rather more complicated as the number of permutations of equipment grows. As the numbers of different assessments grows the likelihood of listener fatigue or just the difficulty in accurately remembering and assessing the different results becomes an issue. In the end it is probably unlikely that an accurate and fair test could devised that wouldn’t be subject to reasonable challenge by any perceived loser. This is just one aspect that creates difficulties in assessing the relative sound quality of a product. The choice of music would have a bearing, as would the musical preferences of the people listening. Also the the size of the room and it’s acoustics would impact the outcome. Ultimately whether one product is better than another (assuming they meet a minimum standard) is a subjective evaluation rather an objective one, and this will always defeat any ultimate test to find the best product.

[@edd2771]

@@patl709 Such testing is not easy and quite cumbersome it is true. In the subject case I think the easiest thing to do would be to have a table with multiple arm mounts and use such table with the two arms each with the same model of cart. If one wanted to get crazy one could switch out the carts for a second round of 10 trials just in case the same cart model still had slightly different specs. And yes “better” is subjective but in a blind test as I describe the panelists would be first asked to identify which arm is which, not which is “better”. Job one is to see if a difference is discernible at all. Part two would be to ask panelists to identify which arm sounded “better”. Finally, I would ask each panelist if they ascribe a value to the “betterness” they hear (assuming they find the more expensive arm “better”) of at least $40k (the difference in the price of the arms). Again this is all awfully difficult I agree, but without this kind of validation, one cannot assume more expensive is better. I completely agree that one might find subjective value in the more expensive arm because they like it as an object- they appreciate the engineering and the ‘cool factor’ and it gives them pleasure worth $40k above the VPI for those reasons. No argument from me there. But that doesn’t eliminate the validity of trying to determine if one thing sounds better than another without impact from the placebo effect and/or confirmation bias. And I think this is especially true when the publication promoting the item is called “The Absolute Sound”’ not (for example) “The Coolest Audio Stuff”

[@patl709]

@@edd2771 When comparing a product that costs 10x the price of another product I suppose it would be reasonable to expect the 10x one to sound better in a reasonable test case. However, here is personal example of what I’m getting at. I purchased a pair of speakers that costs 4x more than my pre and power amp (or 2x if you combined the costs of each unit). On many recordings the sound was imo very good. However, on other recordings it sounded harsh. So I then compared my two amps with a pre/power amp combination that cost 4x my amps. Was the more expensive combination better than my amps? Well, yes and no. The the recordings that sounded very good on my amps did not sound as good with the 4x amps. However, the recordings that sounded less good on my amps sounded better on the 4x amps. So overall deciding which was better overall was very much dependent on what I wanted to achieve with my system and what compromises I was willing to make. In my case I went for the more expensive amps. But staying with the less expensive amps would have been a reasonable choice too.

[@thelonewolf666]

all this equipment to play a sheet of plastic

[@Oneness100]

great gear, but the room and the placement of the gear is awful. It's obvious that no one understands room acoustics, proper treatment and placement. Too bad.

[@ivodepievo9481]

It’s obvious that you have nothing substantial to say…..

[@trackingangle929]

It's obvious you've never been there and actually know very little about the subject.

[@Oneness100]

@@trackingangle929 I can tell by the measurements. I probably know a lot more than you. The person that I have dealt with does custom room designs and for the custom builds, he designs the walls, ceiling and even the floor (if necessary) so the entire room has low frequency pressure absorption where the end result is +/- 1 or 2dB throughout the entire room. But obviously those are for people with a BIG budget. They are insane rooms that you have never experienced until you go into one. Axial modes are the biggest problem in small rooms. They cover the entire wall surface, and it's between 2 parallel surfaces. So you enter your dimensions in AMROC, you look at JUST Axial modes and you click on each low frequency starting at the lowest and you see which surfaces that frequency problem is located. Then you cover as much surface area you can afford to put in and hopefully you can put in at least 50% to 70% surface coverage on each surface the problem is on. You also need absorption that will absorb enough at the required frequencies. Membrane pressure absorption is OK, but Diaphragmatic are MUCH better, but you can also have a dual front wall AND a dense and porous material inside the cabinet to absorb a LOT more than just a membrane. I know someone that's tested and designed and built his own units with a variety of different types of fill materials to see which one performs the best and he's also tested a lot of other products on the market to see which performs the best. Also, with the diaphragmatic designs, you can put some acoustic foam on the front of the units, so you have a unit that can absorb from 30Hz all the way up as the pressure based diaphragmatic does the lower frequencies below 100Hz and the acoustic foam does above 100Hz so it's a True full range absorption box in one. His membrane unit, I don't know if he can do that since he's relying on a membrane to move and putting something on the front might inhibit its ablity. Also, having an internal fill material will absorb MORE than if you don't have fill material. You can buy the build plans for his unique dual wall diaphragmatic absorption cabinets for about $40, and you can use whatever fill material you can afford, but if you want the best performance, you buy the fill material he sells, which is a specially treated Activated Carbon. he's got patents on it, and his AC is specifically used for low frequency sound absorption so buying garden variety activated carbon won't work. Also, surface coverage is KEY with ANY type of surface treatment. Remember, sound waves for low frequencies go EVERYWHERE, so if you only put a couple of small units, you have a LOT of surface coverage that's not treated, do you think that the low frequencies won't go everywhere? Seriously. THINK THINGS THROUGH. As far as velocity based absorption, you are dealing with reflections, again, surface coverage is key because whatever you don't treat, you will have reflections for the mid's and high's. Now, you treat according to the usage of the room and what desired RT60 times. With RT60, that's subjective, so it might vary in terms of how much treatment you'll want. For a control room, you'll probably want more treatment than just a listening room for casual use. For a Mastering room, you'll probably want more because you are doing much more critical listening, and reflections are a form of room distortion..

[@Oneness100]

@@trackingangle929 The corners are the WORST place for a sub. If that room was the proper dimensions for the full range speakers, and had proper treatment, etc. You might not even NEED the subs, and if you did, corner placement is the worst position for them. Subs in the corner will just increase the low frequency energy and cause larger peaks and dips. Small rooms ALL have low frequency problems. The issue with low frequency problems is that some frequencies are over exaggerated and some frequencies you simply can't hear, no matter what you do. Adding MORE low frequency energy isn't going to solve that problem, it must makes things worse. You have to get the room to be as neural as possible so you can hear what's coming out of the speakers and not have the room interfere with the direct sound. NO, I'm not saying he needs to have an anechoic chamber, those are for testing purposes, not listening rooms. So, what you have to do is fill the room with low frequency PRESSURE based absorbtion for the low frequencies under 100Hz. I'd pull the speakers out at LEAST 3 to maybe 4 feet from the front wall and then put the listening position in the room away from the rear wall so you don't have reflections off the back wall. That's for starters. The ceiling height is also a problem. Ceiling height in the 7ft to 9ft range have problems with floor to ceiling room modes in the 60Hz to 75Hz range and you need a lot of absorption that's about 7inch deep along at least the ceiling. For those speakers, a ceiling height (with proper treatment) should be more like at LEAST 12ft high or higher. That way, you can have added treatment to deal with reflections and other pressure problems and you could put quadratic diffusors to give a better sense of height so the sound is nice and big, as those speakers SHOULD be able to produce. The second MAJOR problem with their room is all of the gear. You have to think SYMMETRY. Meaning, the speakers are equally placed with equal distance between the side walls and still the gear BEHIND the listening position. They have gear all along one wall and nothing on the other side. THAT is going to product reflection issues and possibly spurious reflections, and other phase problems as the sound bounces off the equipment on one side of the room completely differently than the other side that doesn't have gear. You want as CLEAN of a setup as possible to prevent these sorts of issues. As far as treatment, since the walls aren't designed to absorb low frequencies, you either have to build a COMPLETELY new room with deep walls, proper internal fill material and THEN put a good acoustic foam to handle side wall reflections and then diffusion against the front wall and rear walls to give a bigger "presentation" with more depth, width and height to the sound emitting from the speakers themselves. The treatment in that room is nonexistent or not the right type, amount or placement with the acoustic problems of that room. Rooms contribute at least 50% of that you actually hear or don't hear. If you have the dimensions, room construction and treatment dialed in for those types of speakers and everything is placed in their optimal positions, the results are amazing, far beyond what they currently have. If you don't understand the concept of the room being 50% of the sound, then you need to do more research on room acoustics. I had my introduction to room acoustics and how much they contribute to what you hear back in the early 90's when I had an acoustic engineer come to my home and conduct a bunch of measurements, he explained what was going on in the room and we made a few adjustments so I could hear what he was talking about and then I furthered my exposure to more acoustic related knowledge over the years. I can say one thing wholeheartedly from what I've seen as far as the "audiophile" community, I'd venture to say that most "audiophiles" have a rudimentary knowledge of room acoustic and even less knowledge on how to figure out what room treatment to use, where to place it, etc. I have also found that the majority of acoustic treatment companies are selling crap treatment and still spewing falsehoods and half truths to the reality of what's going on within a room and how to property treat.

[@Oneness100]

@@trackingangle929 To get you started. What this video and the subsequent series called "Don't do this" from Acoustic Fields. They have a huge library that's continually growing on room acoustics, and problems within the room, setup issues, etc. It's a great source of REAL knowledge even if you can't afford their treatment. By far, they offer the best knowledge on the subject kzbin.info/www/bejne/kIKsh2ZqZq6Ieck I think there's 16 or more videos in the series Don't Do This.