Acoustic Sounds UHQR
Lyra

WAM Engineering

The Colossus

WAM's Colossus headshell for Kuzma 4 Point arms
By: Brian Fisher

September 4th, 2025

The WAM Engineering Colossus

Challenging Your Assumptions With J.R. Boisclair

It all started with guitars. Obviously, no one is born a hi-fi reviewer. And, I’m certainly not an engineer. But as a musician, I do have a good ear. I’ve developed it by listening and playing my chosen instrument for over five decades. There are plenty of people like me; that’s for sure. I’m truly never happier than when things are sounding great.

I remember in the late 80's guitar shopping as a teenager at Sam Ash in White Plains, New York. My friends and I would play all the new Fenders and Gibsons, and we’d always remark how the new guitars all sounded the same. When we’d con some mullet-haired, Iron Maiden T-shirt wearing clerk to pull down a vintage Les Paul Junior or a Tele, we were always struck by how different similar models sounded. And this was when “magic” guitars were born for me. Some just had “it”, while others were duds.

I wish I knew then what I know now (especially about vintage guitar values). After decades of collecting, restoring and flipping guitars, I’ve realized that very little of that magic is in the wood (but old wood certainly does have a sound) and old pickups (although they were all different and made by hand). A lot of what makes a guitar great is the setup and consistency of materials. What may be a dead guitar is really just dead strings or a pickup that is too far from the strings. Maybe the neck has too much relief. When you start challenging these assumptions about why certain guitars sound a certain way, you really need to sort out those variables and get them on the same playing field. Only then can you know what you are actually hearing. Then, and only then, can you start talking about “magic” instruments. A not-so-surprising spoiler: when properly set up, there are so many incredible new and old instruments to be had. In fact, with our climate crises, it may even be defensible to say that we’ve already made enough instruments for every person on the face of the earth. But that’s another story.

This is a headshell review, so what the hell does this have to do with WAM Engineering’s Colossus?  Well, I came into J.R. Boisclair’s orbit when he helped me sort out some problems that I was having with my cartridge and tonearm. He, unsurprisingly, was a saviour. He has taken up Walenty "Wally" Malewicz’s mantle as the head of WAM Engineering. This company has always made tools that allow music lovers to measure their audio equipment’s health and sonic optimization. I can’t imagine setting up a vinyl rig without WallyTools. The company's focus is on science, not snake oil. With J.R. at the helm, WAM is now introducing its first audio design in the form of the Colossus headshell for Kuzma 4 Point arms. It’s a specific product for a very good sounding and popular arm. And, yes, I have the 9 inch version, so as you can imagine, I was screwed. 

This may be a good time to mention that J.R. changed my listening experience in a dramatic way when I sent him my cartridge for analysis and geometric calibration in the form of his brass corrective shim that adjusts SRA and azimuth. Why would you buy a Lyra Etna Lambda and have it “corrected”? Well, based on my experience with other high end audio products, I made a personal decision to have my gear checked for tolerances because I purchased a few out of spec, nightmare products over the years that could have been flagged by J.R. before installation.

In the high end world cartridge world (in the entire cartridge world), these tolerances, particularly angular stylus error (which J.R. does not like to call "zenith angle error") can be within the +/-5% range, and in certain situations far more. So, when you fork out over 9k for a cartridge and hear your friend’s example sounding so much better, you’ll know why. As someone who experienced consistent issues with my “high end” audio purchases, I bought insurance in the form of evaluation and, in my case, correction. If J.R. found my cartridge to be optimal, I’d have the security to set it up and enjoy. But, my cartridge was 3° out of perfect 90° cantilever alignment. Admittedly, my cart was “within spec”. I love Lyra’s cartridges. They truly are magic. I just wanted to see how close to a measurable target I could get. And I wanted to see if that improved the sound. In other words, I was up for the challenge. Call me crazy. I’ll survive. 

J.R. returned my cartridge with a full analysis sheet and brass corrective shims to address the geometry. They were “pre-mounted” by J.R. to my Kuzma headshell. I installed the headshell and set my VTF (my arm had already been leveled using the Wally Reference tool).  I hate to use audiophile cliches, but (as you’ll soon read), there’s a reason why I ( and others) use them. It now still sounded like my cartridge, but massively more in all of its parameters. I now possessed an immediately sharper center image. That’s the first thing I noticed. It was razor-like in focus. I always had issues with this pre-optimization and now I know why: my geometry was off. Once I marveled how that was so handily fixed, I heard how much wider the soundstage was. I could feel the instruments spread across this width with such clarity and an effortless sense of air, but now they had spectacular weight at the same time. These contradictions usually let me know that I’m hearing something truly special. As a result, the bass presentation was more visceral and yet more detailed. The treble had more air, yet it had more body. That’s quite a party trick. I was convinced that it couldn’t sound better- that’s another common refrain, as well! But did that ever stop us? Of course I had to wonder what was responsible for these changes. Was it the new mass and rigidity added by the shims, or was it purely the angular correction? Turns out I wasn’t the only one who wondered this. I discussed all of this in my Tracking Angle feature entitled “Accepting the Gift”. But to summarize, I accepted my surreal sound and had theories about what was responsible for what I was hearing. I left it at that and simply enjoyed the far better sound. I was a satisfied audiophile…

However, a few months later, J.R. contacted me about checking out the Colossus headshell. If I’m being honest, I pushed back. I frankly had zero desire to send off my expensive, amazing-sounding cartridge, live without music for a week or so, and go through the evaluation process all over again. But, it was J.R. And he’s good- really good, so I agreed. And, boy am I glad that I did!

Satisfied, yes, but always curious. And I must say, the Colossus is aptly named. Upon arrival, I saw that it’s a massive hunk of rigid brass, and it perfectly fits the Kuzma tube. My brass shim had been added to the cartridge that J.R. then mounted to the Colossus. I should also add that the actual user-experience of the Colossus is better than my stock removable headshell. With so much more mass, it’s more surefooted and now with a confidence inspiring fingerlift. It looks great too. One minor niggle is that there is a slight interruption in the conical design of the tube as it meets the flat Colossus. I’m a design freak, and it doesn’t bother me at all, but it is worth noting. I’m not your therapist, so I won’t know how you’ll react. I attached the headshell in approximately 3 seconds, added his additional counterweight to my arm to balance the new high-mass design, set VTF, and was off and running minutes later.

Once again, this design has a perfect name because it truly does sound “colossal”. There is simply no denying it. It presented a massive amount more of everything I noted with the addition of the shims. When you hear the Colossus after hearing just the shims, you start to get an appreciation for what his high mass and high rigidity design is doing. My cartridge was already optimized, so all the tracking, channel separation and clarity remained, but the mass and rigidity spoke. My noise floor was so dramatically reduced that the full spectrum of sound gained definition, weight, air and transients all at the same time. J.R. will explain what is happening here in his own words, but the short story is adding this rigidity and mass simply allowed my cantilever’s pivot point to be "immeasurably still” and now the cartridge could do its job better. This is not tonal coloration or editorialization. You are not changing your cartridge’s signature or tweaking its design. You are allowing it to perform its function as a result of lessened mechanical interference. 

If you were beginning to wonder, here comes the guitar connection: why was this all working so well for my system? In other words, why did my system now have that elusive “magic”? Well, when arm resonance was studied decades ago, 8-12 hz was the gold standard. J.R. agrees with the upper limit, but the lower limit exists only to accommodate warps and poor turntable isolation which, as a consequence, results in a set of compromised tonearm design restrictions.  So, I now had to “clean house” in terms of isolation. This would allow the “magic” to happen. And since I had already owned a record flattener for years and loved using it, that was one problem down. Because I don’t have a vacuum hold down, having flat records seemed obvious before even knowing J.R. Warped records are a physical challenge to track, and they produce a low frequency resonance. Even for a non-engineer, this was evident. And because of all my past efforts, my large collection of vinyl has been flat and clean for quite a while. But, what about isolation for my turntable? Well, you certainly can’t say I haven’t tried to address this issue over the years. When I designed my audio console, I chose a 3-inch-thick maple top sourced from an old bowling alley. Why not an audio rack, you say? We are of a school of thought that believes that an audio system is a part of a home, not separate from it. We wanted our system to be something nice to look at and still function. Over the years, I have experimented with various turntable platforms made of wood, delrin, and other materials. I have gone through countless isolation pucks to help manage the vibrational challenges of vinyl playback. After years, I landed on the Isoacoustics DELOS platform, and we were immediately struck by its performance. That’s when I first heard much blacker backgrounds and a more solid presentation while listening. I was finally beginning to hear what proper isolation could achieve. But, of course, I wondered if there was more I could do. 

After staring at my turntable, I noticed that the metal feet of my Feickert Woodpecker turntable simply sat on the Delos. That didn’t seem like a great idea. Isn’t metal an efficient energy conductor and not an isolator? How do those metal feet and the maple platform mate? Pressure alone? Sadly, the answer was yes. And I knew this work needed to be measurable. I had just about tried everything. So, no more steel spikes or Stillpoints for me. After some research, I reached out to an acoustical engineer, someone who had designed products that could measurably reduce resonance and vibration: enter AV RoomService, Ltd.'s Norm Varney. After a nice chat on the phone, he sent me his wonderful EVP’s to try.

On his suggestion, I removed my table's feet and placed three of his EVP’s under my Feickert and laser leveled it. For the time being, I got rid of the isolation platform and simply used the EVP’s under my turntable and placed it on my cabinet. Immediately, I experienced increased blackness of background that I had never previously fully perceived. It was no subtle change. In fact, I got back so much high end detail that I was previously robbed of, that I significantly reduced my speaker's toe-in. I then realized that I had made an initial assumption when dialing in my system. Since I wasn’t hearing the desired high end detail, I compensated with toe in. I always felt that this solution helped, but it also sounded somewhat glaring and hard. Consequently, I realized that my toe in was a band-aid for a problem I didn't know existed. And now, with the EVPs more completely isolating my 'table everything immediately sounded so natural and lifelike .

Here came the transient detail of cymbals, guitars, human voices- you name it. Not subtle changes. So, did these EVPs color my gear or did they let it speak? It is most assuredly the latter. A simple knocking on the cabinet that supported my turntable confirmed this. Reducing the noise floor allowed my cartridge to better do its job. The result was clarity, focus, depth and a natural presentation. And it still sounded like my beloved Lyra Etna. I did experiment with putting my EVP-supported turntable back on the Isoacoustics DELOS platform and, wouldn’t you know it, I preferred the bass presentation with the combo. Tapping on the table revealed what I was hearing- the strikes were more subdued. So, in my experience, experimenting with combining spring systems can have a real effect. It worked for me and your mileage may vary. Norm did warn me that some unexpected negative consequences could ensue. It just wasn’t the case for my system. I’ll also add that there is no greater gentleman than Norm. He’s an incredible help and talent.  

These were just some of the assumptions that I challenged to allow my Colossus to work its magic. With warps gone and vibration-issues sorted, the mass and rigidity gave me the full performance promised by my Etna. I must admit that this process has given me a profound sense of deja vu: How many dead-sounding 1930’s Martins had I picked up and immediately put down, wondering what was wrong? Only later did I realize that the saddle was too low or perhaps the frets were loose in their slots. Maybe there was an incredibly alive sounding 1950’s Telecaster, one that made people’s heads turn at the first amplified strum but, after reflection, I now wonder if that “magic” pickup was simply at the correct height from the strings. Maybe some of those “duds” could have attained those mythical qualities if they were simply set up. And I’m sure that had I just purchased those problematic guitars without adjusting them, I would have compensated with strings, pedals and amps, never realizing the true source of the problem. Well, I guess late is better than never.     

A final note on the incredible Colossus headshell: there is an appropriate catch. And maybe you have even anticipated it. J.R. will not sell you a Colossus unless he has analyzed your cartridge. Sounds like a sales pitch? It most assuredly is not. If your arm and cartridge are even slightly misaligned, you may have applied a "band-aid" elsewhere in your system to compensate for the sonic impact of the misalignment. The Colossus reduces the noise floor of the transducer system and is likely to expose some of your systemic "warts". You must assure that your records are flat and provide proper isolation for your turntable in order to prepare for the reduced noise floor that the Colossus provides. And, speaking of guarantees, J.R. offers a full return of the Colossus if you are not satisfied with the sonic benefits. So, like anything else, rewards come with work. But when the work is this fun and rewarding, it's more like an education. The Colossus has changed the way my family listens to music, and I can’t wait for what else WAM has in store. 

Specifications

Rigid, high mass headshell designed for Kuzma 4 Point tonearms

Price: $950.00

Manufacturer Information

WAM Engineering, J.R. Boisclair

https://www.wallyanalog.com/colossus

Comments

  • 2025-09-04 11:55:54 AM

    John Brian wrote:

    So a $10k cartridge that then needs to be sent “away” to be adjusted for manufacturing issues what did that cost? Then to make it work better on your $10k arm you need to buy a $1k headshell? Maybe a better made carriage and tonearm would have solved those issues?

    • 2025-09-04 01:36:23 PM

      bwb wrote:

      the manufacturing issue is that the stylus may be rotated slightly on the cantilever. This is common with cartridges no matter the cost..

      As for your point about starting with "better" stuff.. the goal is is optimizing what you have. Everything can be improved. No matter how much you spend on "better" equipment it will not perform optimally unless properly set up. WAM offers a service to do that for you. It is up to the individual to decide if the cost of those services is worth it.

      so no, a better cartridge and tonearm would not solve the issues being addressed here, i.e. correcting for a slightly rotated stylus and getting it all set up optimally.

    • 2025-09-04 05:47:52 PM

      Brian Fisher wrote:

      Yup. It’s expensive. But it’s hard to find a better cartridge than an etna or a better arm than a kuzma. It’s a sad fact that I believe you can’t afford to not use WAM’s services when you buy gear at this price. If it’s lower priced, spending that much is insane. I agree. And maybe that gear won’t resolve like Lyra and Kuzma can, so it’s a waste. But if it’s high end gear and it doesn’t sound as good as it can, WAM is a miracle. I agree that it’s sad that we need to correct products like this at all. I believe WAM is holding manufacturers to task. They need to up their game. I’ll also add that this headshell takes things way beyond angular correction. It’s an astonishing improvement. I like the respectful discourse here. Thanks for commenting.

    • 2025-09-04 07:36:52 PM

      Michael Fremer wrote:

      I'm afraid you are not up to speed on what's going on in the cartridge world. J.R. Boisclair has discovered using high powered microscopy that many cartridges do not meet spec in this regard, and it's not price dependent meaning very costly ones have the same problem. What's more, the companies that manufacture the cartridge/cantilever assemblies guarantee tolerances to the ± mentioned in the story. So if you buy a $10,000 cartridge there's a good chance at best it will be plus or minus the percentage in the story and possibly way worse. The inspection service tells you first if your cartridge is within or close enough to spec to be compensated for in the set up and if so, the service supplies you with the information needed for perfect alignment. Or, in some cases, you're advised to return it for a better sample.

      • 2025-09-04 10:34:13 PM

        John Brian wrote:

        Well if I wanted to sell my after market snake oil I would say I have discovered a cosmic portal that can detect the defects in everyone’s $10000 plus phono cartridge and I am the only one who can save the universe and your cartridge. Don’t be so naive. He is selling bullshit. Just because you take a cartridge off your table and reinstall it it will sound different not because JR blessed it at the top of the mountain for many shekels.

        • 2025-09-04 10:45:54 PM

          WallyTools -J.R. wrote:

          You might consider reviewing the evidence and our claims before you accuse us of defrauding or intentionally misleading the public. I would be happy to field any attestations that run contrary to the evidence we lay out about how we KNOW what the four angles of transcriptions should be (or, at least for two of them, the acceptable range).

          Or, perhaps, you could wait for our scientific paper to be published to JAES. We are nearly done writing it. I hope your mathematics are solid and understanding of Fourier Transform is robust because you will need them both to draw out any problems with our findings.

          The only way to lay out evidence is with cold, hard facts; not insults and accusations without foundation or merit.

          • 2025-09-05 07:01:15 AM

            John Brian wrote:

            So let me use an automobile analogy. I buy a $350k Ferrari I give it to a guy who has never built a car but has a computer with super math in it and he plugs my Ferrari in and tells me why the Ferrari is no good. However he can fix everything by selling me tires. Then he says unless I have the math I know nothing and Ferrari know nothing only he can be right!

            • 2025-09-05 10:27:08 AM

              WallyTools -J.R. wrote:

              As you are deliberately attempting to misunderstand our efforts and distort what we do in a fashion that suits your proclivity to be abrasive, there is no sense in articulating those points again here.

              • 2025-09-05 10:49:08 AM

                Robin Wyatt wrote:

                So because I disagree with your efforts, with no prove of results, you brand me as abrasive!

                • 2025-09-05 12:05:58 PM

                  Come on wrote:

                  Confused...Robin Wyatt=John Brian...double account?

                  • 2025-09-05 12:35:52 PM

                    Brian Fisher wrote:

                    The timing of that reveal is funny. Anyway, back to the colossus! As a teacher, I complimented the adult discussion and it all goes to hell ; )

                    • 2025-09-05 03:48:30 PM

                      Come on wrote:

                      Well now you can chose how we address you ;-)

                  • 2025-09-05 01:54:39 PM

                    Robin Wyatt wrote:

                    Shit. I was hacked earlier today.

                    • 2025-09-05 01:55:33 PM

                      Robin Wyatt wrote:

                      It’s on my FB.

                    • 2025-09-05 01:57:41 PM

                      Robin Wyatt wrote:

                      Thanks bwb

        • 2025-09-05 10:52:34 AM

          Michael Fremer wrote:

          You are seriously misguided. No snake oil no cosmic anything and no one is using blessings here. Just measurements and actual results. You have an anger issue.

  • 2025-09-04 12:31:24 PM

    Jeff 'Glotz' Glotzer wrote:

    Great review of both products. I would think that the cartridge would need to be analyzed to the product much the same way a guitar's various parameters need to be, to each other. Norm's tech has been well reviewed by a few trusted sources and I am saving up for that for sure. His approach takes cork and rubber to a whole 'nother level. Materials and tuning make the difference. Ignore the haters- they only pretend to have an opinion.

  • 2025-09-04 01:27:14 PM

    bwb wrote:

    I am not making a value judgement , just thinking you should be aware of the total investment if you decide to enter Wally World.

    In addition to $950 for the headshell you need a $500 cartridge analysis and corrective shim. The standard shim is included but the brass upgrade is $275, which I would assume you would want if going all in. You need the $275 Wally Reference to level your arm. To properly set antiskating force, you need the $310 Wally Skater. Since he is mounting it I assume you can forego the Wally Zenith tool and protractor. This gets you to about $2300.

    In a world of where people spend $20K+ just on the cable from their $500K table to their $200K phono preamp, this seems like a pittance. The tools of course can be reused so not $2300 for the next cartridge.

    I do have and recommend the Wally Skater tool. My Brinkmann 12.1 sounded harsh until it revealed that the horizontal bearing was binding. After adjusting it for free movement and setting the antiskate with the aid of the tool it sounds superb. It also was very helpful in finding level for my Kuzma Airline arm. I know of no other device that can do what it does. Antiskate without it is pure guesswork. All in all, money well spent.

    I have no experience with the other tools or his services so no comment on those.

    • 2025-09-04 10:36:36 PM

      John Brian wrote:

      So how much did your Brinkman cost but was saved by JR? Have you seen Brinkman tooling? But it was the problem- ok?

      • 2025-09-05 12:16:38 AM

        bwb wrote:

        Retail on the arm is around $7K but that has nothing to do with this. The adjustment that puts pressure on the horizontal bearing of the Brinkmann was too tight causing too much friction. I bought it second hand so I can only assume the previous owner did this. The Wally Skater revealed this problem. I don't know of any other tool that measures lateral forces so it did not "save" my arm, it revealed a problem and gave me the means to measure when it was corrected.

        Not sure I recall any other angry trolls on this site. Do you have anything to add to the conversation other than accusations with nothing to back them up, or simply looking for a fight?

        I for one will no longer be feeding this troll. I suggest that others abstain as well.

        Good Day

        • 2025-09-05 08:10:46 AM

          John Brian wrote:

          I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings.

      • 2025-09-05 10:55:48 AM

        Michael Fremer wrote:

        Nothing J.R. does has anything to do with “fixing” Brinkmann’s tooling. It fixes cartridge manufacturing tolerances. Measurable, fixable and audible.

  • 2025-09-04 02:27:07 PM

    Come on wrote:

    I respect J.R very much, as there are countless tips and tools (for free or for money) which make vinyl sound better and a ton of information offered (constantly evolved or revised depending on the current state of knowledge).

    I also decided for the Etna Lambda SL (after comparing with the Atlas Lambda SL and Etna and Atlas non SL ) and I'm using it on a 12inch arm with really great success, so I can imagine that adding a bit of weight to a 9inch can improve sound. I flatten all my records anyway, but even if not, the 12inch weight with the Lyra works flawlessly. The question arises, when can more weight be too much? From my experience with other cartridges I can say it's too much (my interpretation) when the spring-mass system seems to get too soft and swings itself up, when for example tiny warps or off center records seem to produce quite strong pitch variations and listening to piano decay can be a pain. I guess the result depends on the weight of the cart itself and the cantilever suspension how far the additional weight can be pushed. For shure J.R. has his experience.

    • 2025-09-04 07:39:25 PM

      Michael Fremer wrote:

      and for Pickering too!

      • 2025-09-05 03:18:39 AM

        Come on wrote:

        Well I don't mean the VTF, if that was your point ;-)

  • 2025-09-05 02:09:59 AM

    Anders Sørensen Uth wrote:

    If rigidity is a main focus point, why even bother with removable headshell tonearms?

    • 2025-09-05 05:51:53 AM

      SeagoatLeo wrote:

      That's why I have a Brooks Berdan radically modified SME IV with it's non-detachable headshell.

    • 2025-09-05 10:30:08 AM

      WallyTools -J.R. wrote:

      I cannot argue with that, and rigidity isn’t even the only thing you have to be concerned with by adding a removable headshell. However, there are many things that constitute the performance level of a tonearm and the 4Point gets many of those other things done far better than most other arms.

    • 2025-09-05 10:54:14 AM

      bwb wrote:

      A simple reason is so those with Ortofon SPU cartridges can use them. Others like to swap cartridges in/out so much easier. if already mounted on removable headshells.

      I have used mine with both wands and can report that the J wand sounds superb using ZYX headshells with various cartridges. I have no idea, but I am curious how much less rigid (if any) it makes the arm? Makes sense that it would, but has anyone ever measured it or is it all just speculation? Audiophile Nervosa or a real concern?

  • 2025-09-05 05:33:30 AM

    Tim wrote:

    @JR;

    I have been following your recent comments about mass, compliance and resonance closely recently.

    I understand better now your position, especially with the additional insight you have given as to warps -> this makes sense.

    However, I would like to know the following;

    With adding more weight to the arm; especially at the 'cartridge end' does this not increase the instance and potential damage/stretching of suspension in more highly compliant cartridges when tracking larger than normal vertival undulations (perhaps unforeseen waps)?

    I can image the vertical tracking 'mean reversion' would place the suspension system under more stress should there be considerably higher effective mass?

    Do you think that the offsetting of the centre of mass (by placing the cartridge higher up relative to the vertical pivot point) reduces or negates this risk?

    • 2025-09-05 10:35:00 AM

      WallyTools -J.R. wrote:

      Agreed, increasing the inertial mass exacerbates all performance issues related to warps. Our point is that is as you eliminate the problem of warps, you can improve tonearm design to do what it is supposed to do: be a perfectly stable platform for the cartridge.

      Yes, Colossus will slightly increase the height of the COG of the arm but if you measure VTF at record level, worry not!

  • 2025-09-05 09:24:19 AM

    PeterPani wrote:

    I still use 4 Squash balls between the console fixed to the wall and the chassis of my Thorens TD124. I tried different isolation systems before. But it seems the TD124 ignores any isolation problems and plays his own (perfect) game, regardless of the surrounding conditions.

  • 2025-09-05 10:01:57 AM

    Asger Sigfusson wrote:

    Thank you for that review, i have been waiting for that. I see the headshell features several unbrako screws, but no explenation to what they do. As i understand it you buy the headshell it is bundled with the measurement+shims, only having to choose if you go with standard or brass shims. Then why the ability to adjust (i asume they are for adjustments)anything when it is delivered already 100% optimized? Best regards Asger Sigfusson

    • 2025-09-05 10:48:56 AM

      WallyTools -J.R. wrote:

      Those are milled brass angled washers which are used to accommodate the angle of the screw relative to the top surface of the headshell as defined by the corrective shim.

  • 2025-09-05 01:49:14 PM

    Juan Jose peso wrote:

    I am a 57 year old show & music producer from Madrid. Have the luck to work everyday with musicians and orchestras. Very used to timbres and real sound of instruments. Also a audiophile for +25 years. Have luck owning a recording studio and 2 dedicated high end audio rooms. Crazy for carts. Collection of 24 (of course less than Mr. Fremer’s spectacular collection. I have been using JR tools for last 2 years and also own already 4 pre-mounted Colossus for Kuzma (2 koetsus, Hana and Miyajima) Solved 2 problems in stickiness of kuzma tonearm with his tools. He is just an explorer. One of those few that make a area of research evolve and defy conventional wisdom. His tools which I own and the colossus Headshell are really spectacular and a steal for its performance. Besides a real gentleman. This Hobby and science, need more JRs.

    • 2025-09-05 04:36:19 PM

      Asger Sigfusson wrote:

      You need an open mind to be curios, to research, to conclude and hence evolve. I am on that ride, for sure. So many hifi-buffs are burried in old “truth’s” and will never hear the full potential of their gear, but instead rather ridicule over newthinkers like J.R. Lets see were this will take us… For my part i am cheering to get more out of this site and these newthinkers.

  • 2025-09-07 07:33:27 PM

    Come on wrote:

    J.R., would it be correct to say (due to the arguments for the Colossus), that you’d even more (or independently) recommend a 12“ or longer arm vs. a 9“?

    In a longer arm the distribution of the add. weight should usually be much more even and beneficial, as usually (at least in my experience and I think supported by theory) placing a counterweight further back and adding weight far away from the pivot point at the headshell rises sensibility for warps or off center records more that the same effective mass better distributed throughout the arm. But it’s certainly comprehensible that additional weight can’t be added anywhere than under the headshell and at the counterweight (or by moving it back).

    • 2025-09-07 10:38:29 PM

      WallyTools -J.R. wrote:

      I think the "benefits" of a longer versus shorter arm are overwrought amongst audiophiles. I've covered this issue in one or two of my videos. Longer arms add new problems such as reduced rigidity - unless, that is, the designer has modified the longer arm wand design so it offers no reduction of rigidity over the "same" arm at a shorter length. However, I'm am not sure I've ever seen this done in practice. I do believe that when people say they "like the sound of a longer arm" better that what they are likely (though not exclusively) reacting positively to is the increase moment of inertia and NOT what is most often attributed to that experience: less tracking error. Personally, I have a tough time hearing tracking error (though my main engineer is quite sensitive to it). We can both hear zenith error far more easily than tracking error. Of course, as I discuss in a recent video of mine, they are two very different types of distortions and the human auditory system is not equally sensitive to all types of distortion.

      Generally, I'd recommend a shorter arm for the rigidity and then add RIGID mass to complement it. Mass is like salt to a recipe: you can add more but you can't take it out. However, the devil is firmly ensconced in the details. It is easy to add rigid mass and create new problems. This is why we put the Colossus through days of testing with an accelerometer and multiple test processes. Add to that multiple beta testers giving us feedback, etc.

      • 2025-09-08 01:38:01 AM

        Come on wrote:

        Very interesting, thanks!

        On the one hand, it would be very interesting to hear from you, how to differentiate tracking error and zenith error distortion.

        On the other hand, an extensive review would be interesting, comparing two tonearm lengths of the same arm, the shorter once without, and with additional weight and all things considered, tracking error-, rigidity- and even or uneven mass distribution, as well as maybe better/worse headshell coupling effects.

        As there are even (at least partly well regarded) offers with a mixture of characteristics you might prefer or not (for example a Viv Lab Rigid Float arm, 7”, no offset, no antiskating), there seems to be room for any theory.

        As I think you’re possibly one of the very few who made such experiments with an open mind, it would be interesting, if your arguments even support shorter lengths than 9”.

        In any case I can imagine that for 7” or 9” users (tonearms), the additional weight (headshell and corresponding counter weight change) usually just a longer arm offers, will be beneficial. Due to the extreme mass distribution, they then may even have the effective mass of a 14” or longer arm, surely an extreme, but you tested it.

        • 2025-09-08 11:45:51 AM

          WallyTools -J.R. wrote:

          Did you watch one of my most recent Sound Bite videos titled, "Tracking Error vs Zenith Error"?

          There are so many potential controlled variable A vs B tests to record and release. I get so busy in the lab or travelling to clients that it just doesn't get done.

          There is A LOT I do not understand about mechanical transcription with way too many unresearched - or under researched - avenues to go down into. Time is the enemy.

          • 2025-09-08 01:06:38 PM

            Come on wrote:

            This is indeed the only of the recent ones I didn’t see yet…will do.