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
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.
Pani's take on the Raven TT : "BUT, to me it had an artificiality/coloration in the flow of music. The notes did not naturally bloom, hold and decay the way we know it should. There is a "rush", a little too much leading edge and not enough time to bloom. There was also a colouration in the timbre of the instruments as if to artificially make it sound "rich"."

I hear things differently with the TW Raven One partnered with the 10.5 tonearm in my system. Varieties of strings, horns and woodwinds do not sound artificial, but very much like I hear them in live concerts. Double basses and cellos especially resound with marvelous tones. I've also never heard percussion instruments like piano and cymbals reproduced with as much accuracy as I presently do. There is richness and bloom as well, with neither of those characteristics sounding artificial to my ears. Regarding the assertion, "...there's a little too much leading edge...", that is an interesting point. Before I learned to make the proper kinds of adjustments to the 10.5 tonearm, I was indeed hearing too much leading edge. That arm is quite sensitive to very slight movements. I don't know if Pani had the opportunity to hear it coupled with any of the Raven tables he auditioned. Even if he did, it's possible it was not ideally adjusted for lps of various thicknesses. My experiences making adjustments with this arm, aided by markings I have affixed on pieces of painter's tape have enabled me to "dial in sounds" that run the gamut from too much leading edge to dull edge. Yes, I can get lps to display the kind of balance that to me is indeed accurate AND musical, UNLESS a particular record was simply recorded badly one way or another to begin with.

Jaspert's statement above bears repeating because it rings with an air of truth: "Seriously how can one tease out different turntables performance from the whole chain which involves different cartridges, arm,phono stage, pre/amp, speakers/room from listening to different setups at different times?" I would also re-iterate the need for experimenting with and making adjustments.