Micro Seiki, or TW AC-1


I'm trying to decide between Micro Seiki RX 5000 and TW AC-1.
They are approx. the same price used (about $10K)
Both are belt drive.
Unfortunately, I don't have a first hand experience with either of the tables.
You can see my current set-up in my system page.
The reason, I want to make a change from DD TT to belt drive is just to try a different approach.
Also, I have a feeling, that the bass would be one of the areas, where MS and TW might have an edge over my current DD Technics SP-10 MkII
My endeavor into analog is fairly new, so I'm not sure what my final choice in analog would be, unless I try it in my own system.
What I'm really interested in is the following:
Sonic differences b/w MS, TW and Technics SP-10 MkII
Reliability
Service availability.
maril555
Dear Thomas / syntax,

We all love your expert's assessment about vintage turntables. As well do we respect your marginally less knowledge about modern record players. Cobbler, stick to thy last. ;)

Yours sincerely
Blam!

P.S. Is that a picture of kha's Raven from 2006/2007? You have a very good long-term memory...
Ups, a Member of Anonymous Audiophile Assassinators here... say hello to
the Raven Fanboys :-)
Jaspert raises a real point here: short of setting up several tables in the same system, using identical arms and cartridges, it would be impossible to discern these differences in any absolute way. I suppose that if you heard some of these same tables in enough different systems, you could suss out what the table seems to contribute to the proceedings, but that is imperfect. You are relying on sonic memory to some extent. That said, folks seem to be able to identify the sonic signature of a Linn or VPI by certain characteristics. The Verdier is not a common table here in the States as far as I know.
I'm going to remain agnostic here, other than to note that the very well made Kuzma Reference, using a Triplanar, and Titan i, was dwarfed by its much more massive big brother, using the same cartridge in the same room and system, albeit with a different arm. The high mass turntable seemed to have bottomless bass and a far less noticeable 'aura' around the sound. In a word, it was just quieter, something I did not notice until the 'halo' disappeared. (The best analogy I could give you is like the ambient noise of a quiet central air-conditioning system- you don't really notice it until it shuts off). Not shilling for Kuzma here, as I said, but I do like what a big, high mass table does.
I heard the TW Raven One and AC on four different arms and carts. All in the same system and at the same time. My impressions about the TT did not change. Some things are too foundational and if it comes through, you know it is the TT. The same room also had a Dr.feickert woodpecker and Nottingham Analogue hyperspace, I also auditioned them and they did not exhibit the issues I noted with TW. Of course they lacked behind the TW in some other ways. It was just an observation. For me it was relevant enough to pass the TW even though I was getting an amazing deal.
Pani,

You have me surprised as I owned the Hyperspace & Raven AC. The characterization you have given the Hyperspace is way off. And it contradicts reviews as well. If any turntable has a characteristic sound the Nottingham would be it. I still feel it is a great table but it does shed TW character through everything and you must choose the right cartridge to get a more balanced presentation. I just can't trust what you are saying.

And Syntax, let me just get everyone on the same page. Your mission in life is to bash a few brands and give your biased opinion about products you get deals on. It is well documented here so why don't you let it go. H I forget you can't. You have nothing better to do. Not even listen to music. I wonder why.