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

Showing 9 responses by peterayer

As you have a Porter plinth and Albert's former reference arm, the SME 312S, you may want to check out his latest comments on his system page about his new tonearm. It may change your bass performance.

I would also think you could add some superior isolation like a Vibraplane to your existing table and hear quite an improvement. This would cost you much less money and you could always use it under your next table to which Syntax could attest.
Another high mass belt drive worth considering in the $10-15K range is the new SME 20/3. I have not heard one, but reports are that it is fairly close to the Model 30, though you would not be able to mount your 12" arm. Perhaps a used SME 20/12. Great sonics and little fuss from a very reliable company.
Dev, are you saying that you can tap the armboard or the spindle on the MS table while the needle is resting on an LP and hear nothing through the speakers? If so, that would mean the platter and tonearm are incredibly inert. Very impressive. I've not seen another table pass this test.

Halcro has also commented in other threads about the speed accuracy of his Raven.
Here are at least two of the many designs that Syntax owns that are "done right": Vibraplane and Source Odyssey RCM. Agreed, let's keep it fun.
Maril555 is also asking about the sonic differences between his own SP10Mk2 and the Raven and MS. Could those of you who have experience with the DD and either or both of the BD tables discuss some of the differences? I'm sure they go beyond just speed accuracy.

I don't have a lot of experience with different tables, but I have found that how a table deals with energy is very important. Both the energy generated by the cartridge traveling through the arm and into the armbase and plinth and also the internal energy generated by the motor and bearing and vibrational energy generated by the listening environment. I would think that shape, mass and materials are what matter here as well as drainage paths.
What does a "good sample" mean? If there really is a "Mexican Group", who besides Raul is in it? This thread is leading to more questions than answers.

I think the Maril555 should try to audition the two tables in his system, learn for himself what the differences are and then report the results back in this thread. Then we might get somewhere.
Raul makes an interesting point about controlling vibrations both internal and external. As both the MS and the AC-1 are unsuspended tables, I'm curious if Maril555 has considered some kind of isolation platform.

I used one under my unsuspended turntable and it made a tremendous difference.
Brinkmann is sold in US. The dealers recommend putting them on Vibraplanes for proper isolation. They had been sold with HRS platforms. I've heard the Bardo compared to the Balance in the same system. I preferred the belt drive Balance. I bound the Bardo to be a bit thin and lean sounding. The Balance sounded more natural.