Dear Dgad, honestly - I do not think you do Thomas W. nor his products any good in prolonging this dispute (if it is one at all) with Syntax. Syntax makes clear and sometimes too clear statements which very often do tease people.
Just think about it in a remote minute.
You are about to loose track in this thread - its not about Syntax and his non-preference of the TW TT's.
Thuchan was right - this is getting too personal and personal only.
Relax and enjoy your Raven TT - neither Syntax nor Thuchan nor me is envy you at all. |
Before getting into the car and on the road home.........
It might be helpful to re-read the initial post which started this thread.
It is not about "do everybody has to agree upon the sonic quality of the AC Raven in its various incarnations".
Alectiong did ask for any comments and sonic impressions regarding the AAS Gabriel versus the AC3.
So far only Syntax did provide what was asked for.
If some do not like his conclusion then it is certainly not his problem.
None of us can please all the people all the time ( and honestly - none of us want to either....) - not even me..... :-) |
....well, this is not the AAA.....(german audio forum compared to which Audiogon is kind of cultural paradise....).
And I hope it is not developing in that direction.
It would be a real shame and pity.
Several german audiophiles already left that forum for good reason and the last thing we need is getting virulent imports.....
So - on topic please.
Anyone having any further first-hand experiences with the AAS Gabriel vs. the Raven AC3/Black Knight ??? |
Thank you very much - Audiosix gives a fine example what I meant in my earlier post......
Indeed the bad virus from AAA.
As always - off topic. |
Great Audiosix !
You graced this community with yet another post packed with invaluable technical input and strictly on topic - as usual. |
BTW - I still do not believe that this exchange of sidekicks is in any way of any use for anyone. It is a waste of time.
Syntax has provided some personal experience and remarks.
Some didn't like those remarks.
Fine.
Just put some experience of your own against it - instead of concentrating on Syntax's remarks.
Those who do so should - from past experiences - know only too well how much Syntax does enjoy their fury and futile attempts.
Any chance we get back to the topic ?
Let me try.......
I had a close look at both the DaVinci as well as sampleTT on display there was big and certainly an eye-catcher.
As both - the DaVinci as well as the AC3 or Black Night are fairly simple belt driven TT's without any isolation from vibration they both are quite easy to compare. The TW TT does certainly do feature the better finish and more precise tooling.
In the current state the DaVinci has some charme, but I think Mr. Brehm will add some finishing touches soon.
Both TT's do NEED an isolation from vibration desperately to perform anywhere near the possible state of the art. |
Alectiong, you are right. I strongly suggest having a look at both - the Vibraplane and the Minus-K.
They are different - in function, resonance frequency and price - and you will have do decide which to use.
In any case - make sure that the motors of the Raven AC3 are NOT placed on the isolation platform together with the AC3.
You would ruin 40 - 70% of the result.
Rgds,
D. |
Downunder you would need a customized platform - or you increase the distance of the motors (a friend of mine did so with his AC-2 on a vibraplane with great results).
Minus-K does have fairly small sized isolation platforms.
As for the motors - they all vibrate.
As for the weight - the Raven AC3 is still TOO light to work on the smallest Vibraplane with anything near optimum results.
I would suggest putting a good solid granite or slade plate on the Vibraplane first and then the Raven on top.
The Vibraplane - as any isolation platform - does work best close to its maximum load. Only there the resonance frequency gets really low and thats what physics want.
All these do apply to the AAS Gabriel too. |
Sorry Downunder, but NO motor in high-end audio TT's is anywhere close to what is possible regarding quality and quiet regarding vibration.
It gives a really nice insight into the subject of micro-vibrations if one gives a close look into electron-microscope techniques.
They do require exactly the very same surround conditions as a high-end TT justifying the name.
But if you or others believe their motors are quiet and literally free from vibration - well this is of course fine with me.
And of course fine with the manufacturers of your TT's as they see that their marketing is successful.
Everything looks fine from the distance - and may display nasty details if looked at too close. Its like giving the skin of a beautiful girl a close look with a magnifier - it really can spoil the whole illusion...... |
Dgad, suspension in cars and isolation from periphery vibrating ground (shelves, floor, wall) has very little to do with each other.
While your thoughts do indeed reflect some popular high-end audio "theories", they are not on a solid physical basis and are not hitting the topic.
In resonance frequency and the isolation from parasite vibration "we" are - should..... - seek a resonance frequency below 1 Hz.
Check the website of Minus-K and other companies dealing and specializing in this to get some insight into this topic.
3 motors will introduce - as they can hardly be synchrozised - 3 sources of error into a rotating system.
To this just add the belts which do elastically speed up and slow down - i.e. introducing wow and flutter - the platter and you have a rotating system which is the very opposite of constant unaltered speed.
You don't hear that the TT sounds worse with multiple motors?
Most likely because the bearing is now force free if the motors are situated in a manner that the bearing is horizontal free of force or close to that.
As this will "better" the sound, most will credit this improvement to the multiple motor situation.
However - using only 1 motor and 2 counter-bearings in the positions of the other "motors" instead will further improve the sonic presentation.
Multiple motors is the very same conceptional error as with multi-tubes or multi-transistors output-stages. As the individual tube/transistor/motor is always NOT identical in all parameters to its "comrades" the resulting "signal" is itself not homogenous but "wobbling".
This is something to think about before telling me how wrong I am.
It has to do with strict logic and theoretical model without prejudice.
We should have some members here who do enjoy exactly these ........... |
Dgad, any isolation platform deals with mechanical vibrations only - airborne pressure (loudspeaker etc.) do of course need different measures.
A isolation platform with a resonance frequency below 1 Hz however does deal with microvibrations as well as footfalls. |
Dgad, sorry again - Stillpoints, Spikes and other direct (or via one or several hard components...) coupling devices have nothing to do with isolation from periphery vibration. You just have a different "coupling" to the underground, but the vibration of the underground nevertheless does enter your components and its cabinet.
Static vibration vs. dynamic vibration ? You mean ONE frequency of vibration with constant amplitude versus a multiple of frequencies with alternating amplitudes ?
An isolation from vibration worth the name has to take care of all of this.
Thats why high priced isolation platforms (bench-tops and complex frames alike) are either active pressure supplied (Vibraplane et al) or very complex (Minus-K).
Some Stillpoints under your CDP will of course make a difference due to the relatively low weight and not very rigid cabinet.
The Stillpoint due dampen the groundplate of the cabinet and do - due to their extreme hardness - kind of speed-up the component-born vibrations to leave the cabinet.
But it does in no way isolate from outside vibrations.
Putting your CDP between two fairly heavy blocks of slate will most likely improve the sound even more, since now the cabinet can't resonate that easy any more and if, then with much lower amplitude and much lower frequency due to the vastly increased weight and direct large surface dampening of it top and ground plate.
If possible - give it a try.
I yet have to see the CDP which does NOT benefit from that particular method of large surface dampening. |
...... or give a listen to a TT with a different concept. In other words - do audition a TT with comparable platter size and mass, but with a working low frequency suspension. The difference in low level resolution, bass speed, authority and "air" and the sudden lack of "grain" may give a completely new perspective on the performance and requirements of TTs.
Have fun on the journey! |
Braa........ make your selection, choose the names you like - look around on A'gon and the magazines. Giving names here would just mean taking position and raising new potential for dispute.
But - to give just one idea.... - J.C.Verdier does offer 2 TT's in the price range of the TW Raven AC1 and AC3.
You'll find more.....
Have fun,
D. |
Trying to "controll" a heavy platter in motion with 33 1/3 rpm by a "motor" is a nice try. You have a constant "war" between the inertia of the platter and the torque and regulation of the motor.
I am sure we will have several protagonists for this principle here on Audiogon and in the "audiophile" community.
But we will find no protagonists for this principle among technical engineers.
Why ?
Well - obvious reasons, once it is given a serious and undogmatic view.
Direct coupling with quartz or whatever controlled high torque and precise motor giving the "pace" will always work quite well with low mass (= low inertia) platter.
Never against inertia.
We would then look at constant "war" with lots of tiny speed changes and everything but really constant revolution. |
I know that this will lead to nothing but more questions, but nevertheless:
- operating the Verdier TT with a thread/string and minimal grip will minimize the requirements to the motor and maximize the benefit of the platters inertia to give excellent constant speed.
The one "key" to great results (very constant speed with literally no alternations) in high mass platters is "belt" (read: thread/string) drive with minimal grip/tension. The inertia does the job - and it does it better or the equal of the very best direct coupling/controller.
But it does so with the minimum vibration and literally no alternation in speed (due to motor/controller regulations, belt grip in conjunction with speed up and slow down due to belt inert velocity etc.).
There are 2 way to get good constant speed:
- low mass platter with low inertia driven by high quality and high torque motor/w controller (many examples - direct drive and idler drive and hybrid concepts by Denon, Sony, Luxman, EMT etc in the 1970ies/1980ies and later).
- high mass platter with high inertia and very low grip thread drive.
If you want to go with a low platter weight - fine.
But that will get you nowhere close to what is possible, due to the inner resonance of the low mass platter introduced by the tracking process itself.
You can try to dampen that with mats etc. - thats why so many TT's do benefit from tuning mats to a high degree.
Still - you won't get really dynamic low register, no "air" in the bass line, no real speed and a rather muddy and "warm" upper bass.
But many do like that. |
Axel, ...... back to the object of this thread: in terms of both - craftsmanship and tooling - I would go for the Raven (but I don't need to....).
Both - Raven (whatever incarnation) as well as Gabriel do both desperately need a working isolation to be able to show their merits.
Putting them "hard-coded" on any solid ground/shelf, rack means simply giving (rather throwing....) away 50% of the possible performance.
As for the RPM 9 with thread.
It needs some experience to get the right "feel" (if you don't have the right equipment) as far as the thread tension goes. Too much - pretty bad. Too less - pretty bad too...
"Right" tension - pretty amazing......
And yes - I would take the Verdier any time above the two contenders.
Preferably a Verdier made prior to 1993. |
Dgad,
yes - I did. About 18 years ago. First I was suspicious about this too. The big magnetic rings relatively close to the tiny magnets inside the cartridge,....hmmm.
However, - as the tests showed (and some measurements done at the technical high school Munich) the 2 magnetic rings are embedded inside two steel "rings" which do very effectively shield the magnetic field - at least from dispensing vertically towards the platter surface.
There was no detectable interaction with the magnets in cartridges nor did the test show any induced hum.
It performed flawless with a very wide range of cartridges from Ortofon MC-5000, Supex, Koetsu, FR, Grasshopper v.d.Hul, Dynavector,Kiseki, Ikeda EMPL, SPU and Miyabi.
The Verdier is a fairly "raw" concept and was from its very beginnings as a DIY-project introduced in the late 1970ies in the french L'Audiophile-magazine. It is however a smart design which gives - proper set-up - extremely good sonic results and has some very clever design features which all do work for the better in performance (if not in looks....).
The versions built prior to 1993 are sonically better to later production.
The versions with pure magnetic bearing in the horizontal plane - no added ball.
I am referring to the La Platine Verdier only. |
