There is no comparison between missile design and a turntable. A missile's ultimate aim is to travel along certain vectors hit the target then explode. It's fairly easy to know whether you've failed or not. :)
Neither is a missile sensitive to the minutest mechanical vibration.
Turntables, indeed any pieces of hifi equipment, are subject to human perception and we could write a book on that subject and still not hit the target. ;)
The variance of a turntable's physical situation coupled with the relative effects of feedback and the variability of ancillaries in combination, not to mention the adjustability of each, means that the mechanical behaviour of the system is far from clear cut. It can vary and may require tuning/optimisation, even though one is buying a series of finished products.
This is the nature of turntables and it has always been this way. Go on any Forum and you will see countless threads aimed at extracting the best from any turntable.
True some manufacturers try to remove uncertainty by incorporating the tonearm and even the cartridge but optimisation of that turntable's situation still applies. I've had variable results with "complete" suspended tables (e.g. Linn) depending on floor construction, what platform was used, how the cables were dressed and what mat was used.
(..and we're not even touching on arm damping or all the regular adjustment parameters.)
Because it is a sensitive mechanical system there is no limit to influences that can affect it so any extra effort is always worthwhile.
I don't own a Raven AC but my understanding is that it was designed to be used with a mat, and an appropriate mat is supplied.
Many turntable designs other than TW-Acustic also incorporate the mat.
Are detractors attacking TW-Acustic or the engineering qualifications of customers who use mats in general?
