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

Seriously how can one tease out different turntables performance from the whole chain which involves different cartridges, arm,phono stage, pre/amp, speakers/room from listening to different setups at different times?
Must be gifted eh or...
maril555
i have a TWAC3 and a Miro Seiki RX1500, i bought the 1500 new in the '80's. the TW i bought 3 years ago.
different tables of course. the sonic difference is the speed and detail that the TW displays. it has authority that the 1500 does not have. the 5000 may do this better than the 1500, but my issue with them is the metal platter. the TW has a polymer platter that is warmer and faster that metal.
i would compare the micros with TT Weights tables. they are very well made, look nice and sound ok. the european tables have the same high quality machining, but their performance is head and shoulders above the tables that are just machined well, lacking the finesse in sonics that the europeans strive for. i read somewhere that the designer of the TW's tried 150 different materials for the belt alone, just to get the sonic signature that he was looking for. you know that back in the '80's when micros were made, that didn't happen!
i have never had any issues with my micro in the 30 years of ownership. if you want a true reference table, go for the TW.
Dear Thomas / syntax,

We all love your expert's assessment about vintage turntables. As well do we respect your marginally less knowledge about modern record players. Cobbler, stick to thy last. ;)

Yours sincerely
Blam!

P.S. Is that a picture of kha's Raven from 2006/2007? You have a very good long-term memory...
Ups, a Member of Anonymous Audiophile Assassinators here... say hello to
the Raven Fanboys :-)
Jaspert raises a real point here: short of setting up several tables in the same system, using identical arms and cartridges, it would be impossible to discern these differences in any absolute way. I suppose that if you heard some of these same tables in enough different systems, you could suss out what the table seems to contribute to the proceedings, but that is imperfect. You are relying on sonic memory to some extent. That said, folks seem to be able to identify the sonic signature of a Linn or VPI by certain characteristics. The Verdier is not a common table here in the States as far as I know.
I'm going to remain agnostic here, other than to note that the very well made Kuzma Reference, using a Triplanar, and Titan i, was dwarfed by its much more massive big brother, using the same cartridge in the same room and system, albeit with a different arm. The high mass turntable seemed to have bottomless bass and a far less noticeable 'aura' around the sound. In a word, it was just quieter, something I did not notice until the 'halo' disappeared. (The best analogy I could give you is like the ambient noise of a quiet central air-conditioning system- you don't really notice it until it shuts off). Not shilling for Kuzma here, as I said, but I do like what a big, high mass table does.