Hi Andrew,
That cartridge was in the unnamed third room, which I won't identify here. We learned that lesson! (It wasn't a Tranny of course. Your Orpheus would shame it, though the other cart costs far more.)
I can't compare the Saskia and TW AC directly, since nothing about the two systems was very similar. All I can tell you is what the better one *didn't* do.
The Saskia maintained an unflappable rhythmic rightness and drive. It refused to distort any kind of time domain information, whether macro-dynamic big bass and drums or held notes over the fastest mandolin plucks or even the nano-dynamic textures from bow, resin and string (all from that Vivaldi LP). I expected it to handle the big stuff well. I was happily surprised that it seemed to handle the fine stuff just as well. I'd have to hear it with a faster, more resolving arm, cartridge and tweeter to be certain, but its speed errors might fall below my own threshold of detectability. (I don't think anything falls below Paul's, when he's on he's scary.)
The sound in the TW AC room was a tiny bit softer, but never "wrong". Paul gave it his overall best room in show. We didn't necessarily attribute that hint of softness to the table. There were too many variables. We were frankly surprised that a table with an elastic looking belt performed so well. I believe TW's belt material is proprietary, as it should be based on what we heard.
So, all I can say is that there was probably LESS artificial softening of rise times and transients from the Saskia than from any table I've heard.
Our own table (now more carefully tweaked and notably better what you heard during your visit) does pretty well. It has to, since when it's wrong it drives us batty. I'd have to hear two tables in the same system to make actual comparisons though. Tough to do with these 80+ lb. beasts.
That cartridge was in the unnamed third room, which I won't identify here. We learned that lesson! (It wasn't a Tranny of course. Your Orpheus would shame it, though the other cart costs far more.)
I can't compare the Saskia and TW AC directly, since nothing about the two systems was very similar. All I can tell you is what the better one *didn't* do.
The Saskia maintained an unflappable rhythmic rightness and drive. It refused to distort any kind of time domain information, whether macro-dynamic big bass and drums or held notes over the fastest mandolin plucks or even the nano-dynamic textures from bow, resin and string (all from that Vivaldi LP). I expected it to handle the big stuff well. I was happily surprised that it seemed to handle the fine stuff just as well. I'd have to hear it with a faster, more resolving arm, cartridge and tweeter to be certain, but its speed errors might fall below my own threshold of detectability. (I don't think anything falls below Paul's, when he's on he's scary.)
The sound in the TW AC room was a tiny bit softer, but never "wrong". Paul gave it his overall best room in show. We didn't necessarily attribute that hint of softness to the table. There were too many variables. We were frankly surprised that a table with an elastic looking belt performed so well. I believe TW's belt material is proprietary, as it should be based on what we heard.
So, all I can say is that there was probably LESS artificial softening of rise times and transients from the Saskia than from any table I've heard.
Our own table (now more carefully tweaked and notably better what you heard during your visit) does pretty well. It has to, since when it's wrong it drives us batty. I'd have to hear two tables in the same system to make actual comparisons though. Tough to do with these 80+ lb. beasts.