Brinkmann vs TW Acustic

Dear Dctom: ++++ " Isolation is very important with TTs. " +++

agree, critical subject. We need " absolute " isolation/damp on TT/tonearm/cartridge combination. Seems to me that you are really near that " absolute " isolation/damping.

In other thread I posted:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I agree with you that if you already losed groove information you just can't recovery and then the main target down there is to recovery all the recorded information in the grooves and this can do it " only " by the cartridge and from here all what you want: from TT mat to tonearm board passing for different steps to damp everywhere the analog rig stopping that feedback Tonywinsc and you touched.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Btw, we need " absolute "/perfect isolation/damping at each step at each link in the whole system audio chain. As better damping as lower distortions we hear and as better quality performance level we can enjoy.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Suteetat
CT0517, I only have one motor. It takes around 13-15s for the platter to come to a complete stop when I timed mine (Raven AC-1 with BN battery supply)

SunnyBoy1956
Ct0517
FWIW my TW AC with BN PSU and 3 motor unit takes 8 seconds for the platter to come to a complete halt after pressing the stop button and with the tone arm at rest

Downunder
Cto517 My Raven AC with 3 motors. Two at the side and one at the back takes 6.7 seconds to stop based on 4 samples.

Suteetat, SunnyBoy1956, Downunder - thanks for the “audiophile approved” data based on real experience. :^)

I will be implementing a battery system for my TT. So the discussions here regarding battery observations interested me.

Recognizing that each TT design is different in its execution when it uses ‘infinite’ power from the wall – different considerations come into play with a battery system. I wonder how much TT designers would alter their design if they knew a greater percentage of audiophiles were converting to battery.

So we powered up the TT’s then hit stop with no tonearm engaged and counted the seconds. I did this similarly with my tables.

Again purely from a platter system load observation - meaning (platter-spindle-thrust bearing-no bearing-type of lubrication and type of connection to the motor).

The one belt Raven AC-1 takes 13-15 seconds to stop.

The TW AC with BN PSU and 3 motor unit reduces this time to 8 seconds.

Raven AC with 3 motors. Two at the side and one at the back takes 6.7 seconds to stop based on 4 samples.

If the platter systems are similar above, the one motor setup would seem to put the lowest load on a battery setup.

An observation based on numbers here only. I would assume a two motor TW would fall in between the above numbers ?
So adding motors decreased the time the platter turns. Therefore would consume more energy from a battery if all others things are equal. Again sonic changes from adding motors aside; just looking at this from a battery perspective which has limited power.

Some more numbers for example.

These numbers could vary a bit either way depending on the room temp/humidity. No center weights used.

My DD takes approx 18 seconds to stop. This is tested by pulling out the power plug; as hitting the stop button –
stops it immediately. I haven't disengaged the brake.

My idler takes 25 seconds to stop.

My String drive – the one I will be putting a battery in for - takes 35 seconds to stop. It also is very precise and very close to the number each time. The others vary each time. This tells me it is a controlled system while the others are free wheeling.

My past belt drives put more load on the motor compared to the other drive types. I did not do this actual test with them; but I assume the times would be similar to the TW times.

Now the interesting part for me. If I cut the thread on the string it spins for much less time; natural braking action of the opposed magnets. If I removed the belts off my previous tables and spun the platter by hand they would spin for a really long time. The string drive design with the string attached - requires intermittent power jolts (a hobbyist observation) to work. I can in fact shut the power off and on while in play (fairly quickly) - the effect is not noticeable to the listener. This is totally opposite from my previous belt drives where the power needed to be constant. And people on here keep calling this string drive table a belt drive....

Battery System

I want a system that will have enough power; will be consistent – ensuring its part in keeping “power” stability, and to ensure it provides this power stability for a long time – for an audiophile. Long time is probably a different number in hours for each of us – same as music preferences.

I am assuming the belt drive TW battery system must be very robust as it has to deal with a belt and up to three motors. It must be quite elaborate as well if they recharge as the music is playing. I have not seen or heard them.

Just some thoughts.

Cheers

PS.

EBM - I am sure your system sounds great.

Chill out Dude!!!

... when the Blind explains the Deaf which way he has to walk ....

Dev,

Can you tell me your opinions about the EA MM3s? I'm considering purchasing a pair in the used market, but still didn't find any...

Thanks.

I listened to the Brinkmann recently. I've started thinking about the Raven, so I thought why not revive this thread. I would consider the Raven GT, which I believe is priced in the same ballpark as a Spyder. This was certainly a long thread, but my guess is no one has done a fair comparison between TW and Brinkmann belt dive.