Brinkmann vs TW Acustic

Many thanks Sunnyboy... :) :)
Had a superb extended vinyl session on Friday and attended "Record Store Day" yesterday.:D

Speaking as a Raven One user, I do not feel the Brinkmann is any less well made. Indeed, I’ve often admired the manufacturing quality of their product and tend to see them as a reference for good manufacturing.

One of the items that has emerged from the discussion which I suppose relates to all turntables to a greater or lesser degree is neutrality.
What should one consider to be the design properties of a neutral turntable?

Since we appear to have been focussing on them, the Raven/s consists of -
- Heavy, essentially non-resonant chassis, comprising polymer/metallic components.
- Heavy, inert, sonically dead platter, closely matching the impedance of vinyl.
- Large, closely toleranced main bearing made to within 10 microns or so.
- Unsuspended construction which “grounds” any internal vibration (albeit, typically of unsuspended, allowing ingress in the opposite direction…)
- Speed stability which is relatively beyond reproach.

Given these characteristics, one wonders if neutrality is as questionable as has been suggested if indeed the above factors are important/relevant in achieving the ideal of Neutrality?
(Which returns me to my original question – what are the salient mechanical properties of a neutral turntable?)
I would have thought tonearms would offer a great deal more opportunity for colouration and resonance than an inert platform?
Indeed I would suggest that such construction offers the chance to hear the differences between those tonearms and the discovery of where their unique resonances lie?
Better a well damped design than to have metallic resonances circulating around a suspended closed loop with nowhere to go?
Just to put things in perspective I am also an avid fan of what the Acutus does (pardon the pun) but it is one of the most expensive suspended T/Ts around so I would demand exemplary performance for such a price. The Acutus has its own ways of managing resonance. Even at its price point it is hard to beat but no turntable is perfect.

Turntable choice is and always will be a personal one. All turntables sound different. Each turntable accessorised differently will sound different again. Good examples of perception changing accessorisation consists of supports and platter mats. Platter mats e.g. Ringmat vs Achromat, are capable of changing the sound of a turntable from Dr Jekyll into Mr Hyde (which is which will depend on your preference). 2 radically different sounds from radically different mats – undamped vs damped.
50% might buy a turntable with one but not the other.

I should also give Stillpoints a mention. Several years ago I discussed the usage with the Company and they defended the rules of use i.e. loosely not tightly screwed to the underbody of the turntable. Odd but true. The object is to use the screw as an additional form of decoupling. IMO the greater the overlapping area the more energy gets sunk (or sourced). Once weight is applied to the thread (reportedly) it locks and does not micro-rock. For this reason I tend to see Stillpoints simply as a multi-stage minimum-coupling mechanism. 3 stillpoints must be better than 4.
Kind regards,

Dear Syntax,
Are you suggesting then that Timeline is more successful with DD than BD?
If so doesn’t surprise me.
If I recall the interviews correctly, TW’s original design brief was to make a BD “almost as accurate” as DD?
I’m not sure if he was proposing he could match it precisely…but the objective was to try…..?

I enjoyed your BMW tale and it illustrates the depths of depravity which even major companies stoop to.
In this case 15% underpowered was mis-selling and grounds for a full refund or new engine.
(Mind you, as insurance I would always read various magazine's lab tests to ensure that the manuf meets the requirement - and I did this with my T/T...)

Unfortunately small hi-fi manufacturers are not BMW, who can afford to spend hundreds of millions of Euro/$$$ on design & development for a single engine alone!
I don’t need to list these small manufacturers, I’m sure you know who they all are.

Small hi-fi manufacturers are mostly reputable, usually back ordered for 6-12 months and invariably do their best to support their customers despite the workload and financial strain (as witnessed by unlimited testimonials in the Forums).
These people are the heart & soul of the Audio industry. Much of what they do is a labour of love rather than money. The WWW being such a powerful tool, it wouldn’t take much of a push to put these guys out of business.
So how small a sin does such a manufacturer need to commit to justify the ultimate punishment? 15%....0.01%?....Less?

For sure, if customers need to be warned of a major infraction such as BMW committed then perhaps the Internet is the ideal place.
It’s unlikely to put those guys out of business any time soon.
Kind regards….

Dear Pani,
Regarding your experiences with “timing errors” and PRat? There is another, less obvious, explanation.

If one loudspeaker displays a few db channel imbalance allied to frequency irregularities, e.g. due to the speaker-room relationship, it can not only affect timing but also tunefulness and the ability to follow the musical flow.
Imagine a gradient from "sheer chaos" to "slight confusion" depending on how severe a frequency/amplitude imbalance might be in the average system?

I use electrostatic dipolar speakers and one side of my room is naturally “weak” by a few db or so. I routinely spend the first 15 mins of each session (whether CD or LP) rebalancing and ”tuning” the room’s absorbance to get the “weak” side to match.
Once this happens, the magic flows and order is restored.

So depending on what type of speakers you use and what kind of drive units exist within, with a poorly optimised room I would think it possible one may experience this kind of “disorientation”.
It shows how easily the musical balance can be upset.
It’s a minor inconvenience, but the turntable motor unit and tonearm were NOT the villains. (At least in my case)

Please note that the room is not necessarily symmetrical to achieve balance. No room is capable of absolute symmetry anyway, even if it looks symmetrical. 
Walls/floors/ceilings can be irregular/odd-angled and nothing will ever change that, however much we wish to believe they are perfectly parallel and flat.

Most importantly it’s conceivable that any signal imbalance within source LP/cartridge/electronics/speakers could, perhaps(?), combine to aggravate this situation.
Sadly, it’s not the first answer that springs to mind when we look for explanations.
Kind regards………..

Dear Syntax,
I appreciate your kind feedback. Clearly you are interested in increasing knowledge and capability. That was a Lyra "gorefest" you had on display there(!)

This Thread has given me pause for thought even in my comparisons of turntable mats. Although I always accurately compensate for VTA and therefore ensured the VTF was consistent, I've never adjusted for slight differences in WEIGHT, however marginal they might be.

It also triggers thoughts of -
- Different vinyl weights effect on speed.
- Mat drag or lack of it. (Some mats have shiny low friction surfaces. Not using a clamp for each may level the playing field but disadvantages certain mats.)
- Need for a clamp or not, and its weight.
- My Keystrobe disc's weight may encouraged wrong active setting.

The Au strobe disc I use is similar to a double-sided etched printed circuit, but it is quite a heavy material. Because it is label sized it can be easily used while playing the LP entirely. I don't think a high torque motor arrangement is likely to worry too much. I would have reservations about designs that use minimal torque (that need manual startup assist) and then ride the borderline of the limits of tolerance? :(

Keystrobe link here :

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/KeyStrobe-au-Gold-disc-KeyStrobe-duo-strobe-light-/281090859277?pt=Turntable_Parts_Accessories&hash=item417252210d

"This is a cardinal sin of bad belt-drive turntable design. (The commercial product analog is to use a suspended chassis bearing the platter and tonearm whilst the motor drive is fixed to the inert plinth.) This results in some of the most obvious "wow" that I've ever heard in vinyl reproduction. The original AR turntable was guilty of that infraction, as were the early SOTA turntables. Especially, to put the turntable on a Vibraplane or similar device and the motor on an inert shelf system is asking for trouble."

Good point Lew...
My previous T/T (an LP12) was prone to a phenomenon some referred to as "breathing". (Note this could also be related to platter balance issues)
If you positioned your eyes level with the platter and checked the top plate clearance you could see the platter edge/clearance oscillate due to the pull of the belt.

The turntable sounded very musical despite this effect :)
Kind regards.....