Upgrade from TW Acustic Raven AC-3 to what?

I do prefer thread drive with calculated slippage over idler wheel and direct drive. This allows me to use the platter mass (static mass.... ) I want and know to be essential to go past the frontiers and I get an extremely constant (by using extreme inertia) speed for free. The high platter mass is a conditio sine qua non in my ears and eyes and sadly is contradictional to the principles of both idler wheel drive as well as direct drive. Both direct coupled drive principles imply direct control of the platters speed at every single moment. Really high inertia (I am talking about a 110+ lbs platter with 10" diameter spinning... ) is working against the control (and the needed control in these drive principles) in ID and DD TTs.
I do not question the fact that there are people who favor ID or DD and who think the sound they present is great and the best they ever heard.
Fine.
Yes, Alectiong has long moved on and our discussion is also long going in a direction which goes far beyond anything Alectiong wants to hear or talk about.
The discussion about drive principles will go on as long as TTs are build. As will the discussions about 9", 10" or 12"+ tonearms, MMs or MCs, tubes or solid state, full-range vs. multiple-driver and so on.
Everyone follows his ideas or the ideas he likes best for whatever reason.
Fine.
There is no problem at all. Some will continue with idler wheel drives, some with direct drives old and new and some with belt drive. Very few will go for thread drive with high platter mass and slippage.
Fine.

or maybe he wants to sell his Raven/Grandeeza first.

I guess, Alectiong has yet decided.
Until lately there was an offer of his complete Raven setup here on a'gon. Maybe it is already sold (seductive pricing).

Mosin,
there are many parts in the audio chain. With some of them "quality" can not be judged "objective" in any way, but is a matter of synergy or "taste". Well, a turntable may be a mysterious machine to some. The drive method - and you got me wrong in that point - is not paramount in any way. It is just, that certain technical features which are paramount regarding the ultimate performance of a turntable for phono playback can not be implemented with 2 of the currently in use 3 drive mechanism.
A turntable is no mysterious machine. It is a machine. Nothing else. No voodoo, no secrets, nothing supernatural.
Applying all the physical aspects in a correct - and consequent - way will always result in a very heavy device with a high mass platter and an isolation from mechanic periphery (underground) below 1 Hz resonance frequency.
This device will never come cheap. The drive mechanism will be a logic choice following the high platter mass and the resulting inertia.
I have listened to all turntables which I found worth listening to after inspection of their technical design. I do not believe in philosophy or implementation of "ideas" in turntables. It is all about constructing a machine with consequence. To do so I apply physics without taking into account whether it looks good in the shop or whether it fits a certain price range. Its about performance and consequence. Two things lacking too often in too many fields and minds. And the turntable is NOT a link in a given audio chain. It is the very foundation of the extraction of the audio signal from its mechanical matrix. Looking for synergy or compensation effects here is inconsequent and will means to abandon the search for maximum performance right from the start. What is lost here is never again found.
Others will have different point of views and different approaches and will certainly not share this view in some or all aspects. But that is not my problem. It is totally fine with me.
Cheers,
D.

>But that is not my problem. It is totally fine with me.
Cheers,
Dertonarm<<

If it's fine why do you continue the long lectures Herr Blowhard?