I own a TW Acustic Raven AC-1 and would like to make a few comments:
1) The table needs to have its speed set with the needle in the grove. I believe this has to do with the fact that it uses a DC motor. My understanding is that the speed is related to the torque. With surface friction applied by stylus drag, the table needs more torque to achieve the desired speed. If the speed is set without the needle in the grove, it is using insufficient torque to be at the correct speed. I set speed by placing a record underneath my KAB strobe disk and put the needle in the grove to set the speed. Since you don't have a lot of space you need to make adjustments quickly.
2) As others have said, being at the absolute speed is secondary and being slightly fast or slow doesn't affect the sonic quality of the TT at all. As such, the Timeline has very limited benefit in comparing TT's.
3) As others have said, what is more important is speed stability. That is how much the speed varies over short times (flutter) or over slightly longer periods (wow). This is perceived by the ear down to a certain level. I suggest going to Wikipedia for the wow/flutter definition to understand the impacts on sonic quality. I think that comparing wow/flutter values is better than using the Timeline to compare TT's. The Feikert Adjust+ software is what more of us should be using. Not sure how DGad uses his spectrum analyzer, but this will definitely give him the raw data to evaluate speed stability. Also, the higher the sampling rate the better resolution you will get.
4) As someone said earlier, the resonance characteristics of one TT vs. another has a lot to do with the sonic differences between TT's. Graham Tricker used the phrase "rotating resonance machines" to describe TT's. That is a great phrase. I agree with DGad who says isolation is important and Raul who says that TT mats and armboard materials/shapes can have a large impact on sound quality.
5) I have also found that using the supplied feet can create a less than stable and wobbly platform. I have the original Stillpoints on mine. I used to keep those tight and rotate the SS bases to adjust level. But recently I keep both the SS base and the stillpoints tight and secure. I level the table by placing small sections of business cards to adjust the level. I found this makes a big improvement. I would like others to experiment with this to see if they see similar results.
6) Lastly, I think the AC-1 is an excellent sounding TT and probably more neutral than you might think. When I got the TT I continued to use the TT with the cartridge set at the same VTF as I was using on my previous table. Years later, on a fluke, I ended up trying a much lower VTF (~1.88g vs 1.97g) on my Transfiguration Orpheus and the difference was profound. Much much better than before. Initially I complained of muddy, unimpactful bass and limited dynamics. That is not the case any longer!! Please also note I tried this lower VTF setting with my old table early on and it didn't sound optimal. Maybe this has something to due with cartridge age, maybe with the different resonance characteristics of the tables, or maybe the TW is so neutral that it allowed it to achieve a better level of performance from the cartridge.
Anyway, in my experience, the TW AC-1 is a great sounding TT and better than many out there. At the original asking price it is very competitive with much costlier units...I believe it still is.
Andrew
1) The table needs to have its speed set with the needle in the grove. I believe this has to do with the fact that it uses a DC motor. My understanding is that the speed is related to the torque. With surface friction applied by stylus drag, the table needs more torque to achieve the desired speed. If the speed is set without the needle in the grove, it is using insufficient torque to be at the correct speed. I set speed by placing a record underneath my KAB strobe disk and put the needle in the grove to set the speed. Since you don't have a lot of space you need to make adjustments quickly.
2) As others have said, being at the absolute speed is secondary and being slightly fast or slow doesn't affect the sonic quality of the TT at all. As such, the Timeline has very limited benefit in comparing TT's.
3) As others have said, what is more important is speed stability. That is how much the speed varies over short times (flutter) or over slightly longer periods (wow). This is perceived by the ear down to a certain level. I suggest going to Wikipedia for the wow/flutter definition to understand the impacts on sonic quality. I think that comparing wow/flutter values is better than using the Timeline to compare TT's. The Feikert Adjust+ software is what more of us should be using. Not sure how DGad uses his spectrum analyzer, but this will definitely give him the raw data to evaluate speed stability. Also, the higher the sampling rate the better resolution you will get.
4) As someone said earlier, the resonance characteristics of one TT vs. another has a lot to do with the sonic differences between TT's. Graham Tricker used the phrase "rotating resonance machines" to describe TT's. That is a great phrase. I agree with DGad who says isolation is important and Raul who says that TT mats and armboard materials/shapes can have a large impact on sound quality.
5) I have also found that using the supplied feet can create a less than stable and wobbly platform. I have the original Stillpoints on mine. I used to keep those tight and rotate the SS bases to adjust level. But recently I keep both the SS base and the stillpoints tight and secure. I level the table by placing small sections of business cards to adjust the level. I found this makes a big improvement. I would like others to experiment with this to see if they see similar results.
6) Lastly, I think the AC-1 is an excellent sounding TT and probably more neutral than you might think. When I got the TT I continued to use the TT with the cartridge set at the same VTF as I was using on my previous table. Years later, on a fluke, I ended up trying a much lower VTF (~1.88g vs 1.97g) on my Transfiguration Orpheus and the difference was profound. Much much better than before. Initially I complained of muddy, unimpactful bass and limited dynamics. That is not the case any longer!! Please also note I tried this lower VTF setting with my old table early on and it didn't sound optimal. Maybe this has something to due with cartridge age, maybe with the different resonance characteristics of the tables, or maybe the TW is so neutral that it allowed it to achieve a better level of performance from the cartridge.
Anyway, in my experience, the TW AC-1 is a great sounding TT and better than many out there. At the original asking price it is very competitive with much costlier units...I believe it still is.
Andrew