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
Maril 555,
for a good MS you don't need a new platter. Regarding extensions on both tables, MS and TW you need to work with (if you like), building up a nice solution and having fun and improvements by bringing in modifications. The other option is a plug & play solution which both tables do not offer.

regarding isolation platforms: it is a must. I would also go for separate platforms for the motor(s) and the table. If you do this there are no vibrations on original MS brass arm bases.
10-22-12: Thuchan
Pcosta,
I never made any negative remarks about the TW designs. I know Thomas Woschnik from the very first beginning he started with his first tables in Germany and I also followed the successful landing in the US market by the activity of Joe Catalano.

Has anyone ask Thomas Woschnik what he thinks is the best turntable?
Thuchan is right about neither table being a 'plug & play'.
With the Raven in particular........I have found that its sound can change depending on how it is supported?
If it sits on a stand located on a suspended wood floor.......it can be susceptible to structure-borne feedback, and sound slow and bloated as some have described.
Even on a concrete floor....if that floor is suspended and not 'on-ground'....again the structure-borne feedback can be intrusive.
Once mounted on a wall-hung shelf (or Minus K stand)....the table can be delicate and nimble.
With most mats I have heard......the sound can sometimes feel compressed and unexciting?
Placing the record directly on the copper platter together with a heavy weight will improve the apparent 'speed' and 'colour' of the sound.
Thuchan is also right about the three motors.
With the Timeline.......the constancy of speed via the 3 motors is inferior to that with only 2 diametrically opposed motors.
The speed constancy will never match that of a fine DD deck like my Victor TT-101 and I have tried many different 'belts'.....from various silk threads to Dertonarm's 'magic' string.
The Ravens however are designed with a Delcrin platter which requires the rough side of the rubber belt to actually 'grip'...to maintain its speed control.
The strings and threads just 'slip' too much.
When the Raven has been 'tweeked' to sound its best......if can sound surprisingly similar to my TT-101......perhaps the most neutral and accurate deck I have ever heard?
Albert , I did many times, but I will keep these personal discussions with me.
Halcro, Agree - you can make the TW sound very good.
In all fairness I have to note, that I like Albert's Technics with SME 312 S and Dynavector XV-1S.
As I've mentioned in my original post, I just want to try different design approach.
In the mean time, I'm focused on optimizing my room.
I have two JL Audio F112 subs on order, and then Steve of Synergy Audio& Video will be over to optimize the setup.
He's confident, we will be able to get rid of the residual room- related LF issues, improving bass performance at the same time.