New Kuzma 14 inch 4Point

[FlexibleAudio]

Yes Poj, I wonder about these issues as well. Speed is a critical parameter in the design of my system.

[tima]

Originally Posted by Pojuojuo

Not all is about geomtry, What about mass inertia of this big 4p? Maybe it hass poorer tracking abilities than 11", no as fast...

Pojuojuo you raise an interesting question. Those issues may be possible. Without more information I don't think we can know. All the more reason to have a speed accurate and stable 'table so as not to impact the arm it is driving. VTF should be within the same margins. More anti-skate? Both models share the same high quality bearings. Think lower compliance cartridges.

The effective mass of the 4Point 14" 'arm is 19g, or 5g greater than the effective mass of the 11" model. My limited understanding finds effective mass as a function of the moment of inertia on each side of the pivot. I think you'd need to know where the dimensions on the longer arm changed to dig deeper.

Versus idle speculation, there's no reason to think other than FK knows how to build the arm to the same (or better) level of performance found in the 11" 4Point. To build it in such a way that neither does it have tracking issues nor is inherently "slower" (whatever that means.) Send him an e-mail; he's very responsive to questions.

[FlexibleAudio]

Originally Posted by tima

Pojuojuo you raise an interesting question. Those issues may be possible. Without more information I don't think we can know. All the more reason to have a speed accurate and stable 'table so as not to impact the arm it is driving. VTF should be within the same margins. More anti-skate? Both models share the same high quality bearings. Think lower compliance cartridges.

The effective mass of the 4Point 14" 'arm is 19g, or 5g greater than the effective mass of the 11" model. My limited understanding finds effective mass as a function of the moment of inertia on each side of the pivot. I think you'd need to know where the dimensions on the longer arm changed to dig deeper.

Versus idle speculation, there's no reason to think other than FK knows how to build the arm to the same (or better) level of performance found in the 11" 4Point. To build it in such a way that neither does it have tracking issues nor is inherently "slower" (whatever that means.) Send him an e-mail; he's very responsive to questions.

To me with respect to an arm it would refer to the uninhibited ability to play life-like transients.....think of the marginal effects of uni-pivot versus gimbal.

[tima]

Originally Posted by tima

...

The effective mass of the 4Point 14" 'arm is 19g, or 5g greater than the effective mass of the 11" model. My limited understanding finds effective mass as a function of the moment of inertia on each side of the pivot. I think you'd need to know where the dimensions on the longer arm changed to dig deeper.

Versus idle speculation, there's no reason to think other than FK knows how to build the arm to the same (or better) level of performance found in the 11" 4Point. To build it in such a way that neither does it have tracking issues nor is inherently "slower" (whatever that means.) Send him an e-mail; he's very responsive to questions.

Originally Posted by FlexibleAudio

To me with respect to an arm it would refer to the uninhibited ability to play life-like transients.....think of the marginal effects of uni-pivot versus gimbal.

Okay, thanks Paul - maybe you can help me understand better. I have limited experience with uni-pivots so I'm not quite catching the analogy.

I'm trying to think through how a longer, heavier arm could adversely impact a cartridge's ability to render transients.

If the claim is that the longer, heavier (L/H) arm does not address resonance as effectively as the shorter lighter arm, I kinda understand how energy not drained or energy fed back into the cartridge motor might smear the signal or otherwise time distort it, such that the transient appears 'rounded' or otherwise less articulate.

If the 'arm was gimbaled (bearings), I could imagine a claim that a L/H 'arm caused bearing chatter or if it was a uni-pivot that a L/H 'arm caused less stability in the arm, with the conclusion in either case that the cartridge was some how less stable in the groove. But the 4Point design seems inherently to avoid those types of issues or at least be less susceptible to them.

Rather than rattle on further about what I cannot imagine, I'll stop while noting that I've not heard such a claim made against the 12" version of a 9" or 10" 'arms such as the Tri-Planar or SME V. What am I missing? TIA.

[Pojuojuo]

As 4point owner I don't miss more lenght in my tonearm. LP inside distortions are not critical and imho in the new 14" arm there are two problems: compliance compatibility (better for low compliance cartridges but worst in general) and inertias (less microdinamic attacks and dirty sound)

Another different point is the new use of different kind of phono cables. Crystal, Cardas, Audio Note, Nordost... It's really interesting.

[Pojuojuo]

Anyway I have no doubts about Franc knowledgement, when I saw this new tonearm at last Munich MOC show I talked with him and he was very proud of the design.

[tima]

Roy Gregory has reviewed the Kuzma 14" 4Point and you can find that here.

"...once you hear the 4POINT 14, it’s awfully hard to go back."

[DesW]

Indeed Typical Roy G review--and a positive one to boot

Maybe some time with the proof reader for couple of typo's

D

[FlexibleAudio]

Originally Posted by tima

Roy Gregory has reviewed the Kuzma 14" 4Point and you can find that here.

"...once you hear the 4POINT 14, it’s awfully hard to go back."

Thank you very much. I think I am going to do it.

[tima]

Originally Posted by FlexibleAudio

Thank you very much. I think I am going to do it.

Best of luck. Of course we'll want commentary and pictures. :->

It's good to have all requisite setup tools on hand prior to buying a new 'arm; that assures me that I can actually do a proper job.

Thus, it was interesting to read Roy's observations about setting the pivot-to-spindle distance (342mm) of the 14" 4P and the fact his SMARTractor P2S measurement tool did not read that far.

That led me to check. The P2S beam on my UNI-Pro protractor (big brother to SMARTractor) only went to 314mm. Apparently Dietrich Brakemeier is making a longer beam for the SMARTractor, so for owners of that tool, a solution may be coming. However the beam on the original (not the current model) Feickert Protractor goes out to 430mm. Perhaps the latest Feickert does so as well.

If the 14" 4P is like the 11" model, it comes with its own (rather unique) P2S measuring device along with a stiff paper protractor for fixing the overhang, etc. I used neither. The in-box P2S tool, imo, was less exact than taking a numerical measurement. While that distance is nominally critical, it is especially so with the 4P because small changes in its bearing assembly distance (the center of which is the 'pivot point') affect the distance by which the arm is able to clear the arm holder. There needs to be enough clearance for the stylus to land on the lead-in groove of records. Hard to picture, but obvious when making the actual setting.

Audio: it's always something.