Is this Marketing-Stage Number TWO ? what follows ? present-boxes for all customers? Do you have my adress?
No - hmmm
No - hmmm
TW-Acustic Arm
TW-Acustic has a beautiful looking arm. Does anyone know what it sounds like?
184 responses Add your response
Hello everyone. Well, I've been enjoying this all immensely! Please continue; nothing is better than watching cognitive agility in the service of, well... I knew that when people started describing the "output" of a tool (read: turntable) as one that engenders the experience of "beauty" (that it what Valin said on the TW TT, right?) that it would not be long before the priests-of-things would call forth their Krakens. "But maybe me [sic] concept of "quality" hasn't kept up with modern day view." My, there's a statement that deserves some deeper discussion. You know, and its just a cursory observation on my behalf, but my German heritage is wondering to itself whether the Will-to-be-a-Big-Me that I see derives in some way from a tribal Prussian past? You know what I'm talking about, that crazy, crazy evolution of collective consciousness reflected in hierarchies - from kin to clan to village to polis to state to nation-state - that somehow has not evolved enough just yet to know where it is, or that their are levels at all. Too busy looking at "things" for answers, perhaps... Which brings me to: As I understand empiric method, any injunctive engaged is necessarily subservient to the obsrevations of those injunctives. I mean, many scientific materialists who default towards looking for the determintive truth in the objects which they see (and wish to control through the formal operations of their cognitive mind, and which they believe IS the mind, if they admit "mind" exists at all...) invariably say that they only need to manipulate matter (make a tool) to know the truth of that tool's funtion - mechanic or aesthetic - in reality. Interestingly, it is also fairly well agreed that this worldview is a hallmark of a certain level of mind; one that must necessarily relegate all worldviews that would require it to examine the limitations of its default cognitive motion, and which, necessarily, produces a reflex negative reaction to all minds that threaten that materialist worldview. Jeez, have we observed anything like that lately? Anyway, maybe its just me, but the progression of the above appears all too symptomatic. Just as a side-note, as a writer, I don't know any writers who actually call themselves authors. Maybe its the translation thing, but I also don't know any writers who actually think that writing a technical paper is writing, much less author-ing. Oh yes, I "authored" a few TAS reviews myself, blah, blah... Do any of you remember me, its been a long time? Well, the moderators certainly do; I've killed too many scientific materials and they won't let me talk to them any more (you know, scientific materialists react badly when they don't get their way...). But, in their glowing knowledge, perhaps they will once more, oh just this once, let me through... You know, because, sometimes it is actually killing Dragons... |
Hello Asa, of course there is a steep difference between a "writer" and an "author". If you are only familiar with the first one - that's fine. Regarding the mind, it levels and materialistic "worldview" I strongly recommend reading two german authors' works: I. Kant's "Kritik der reinen Vernunft" as well as R. Steiner "Philosophie der Freiheit". They give answers to your questions. The once you asked - and the questions you may think about. Most dragons, as well as most demons, are only reflections by the back walls of once's own eye-lids. |
Dear Asa and Dertonarm, I am reluctant to debate the 'materialistic' view of scientific knowlege if this implys 'Phisicalism' in the sense of 'the same meaning' . I prefer to refer in this context to Harty Field's 'Physicalism and primitive denotation' (in :Reference,Truth and Reality). But I will begin with Frege. Frege started,so to speak, from Kant's distinction between 'analytic versus synthetic' in the context of 'knowlege'. But in distinction to all other 'philosophers' before him ,he put the 'sentence' ('proposition' or 'statement') as the 'basic' or primary unit for any logical,etc. investigation. So, according to him, one should never ask for the 'meaning' of an word 'outside' of an sentence. Only in the context of an sentence has a word an 'meanig'and reference(' About sense and reference').I.e. also an sentence has an reference: the truth values: the truth or the false. He refused the so called 'corresponence theory' of truth because he thought in the context of correspondence as 'identity relation'. I.e. there is no sence in 'identity' between linquistic (sentence)- and extra linquitic 'entitys'. So to explain this Kantian 'notions' he used the identity sentence: 'the evening star'= (the 'is' of identity relation)'the morning star'. The identity relation of 'the morning star = the morning star' is 'based' (Kant) on 'the same meaning' and is analytic. But the identity relation between 'the morning star and the evening star' is 'synthetic'.By empiric discovery we learned that those are the same 'star'. So this kind of discovery 'enlarge our knowlege'. For those interested in the 'sence or nonsence' of this distiction I must refer to Quine ('Two dogmas of empiricism'). I am particulary interested in the (contra) distinction between 'the author' and 'the writer' because our both 'dramatis personae' think that there is some 'huge' difference between the two,eh, say, expressions. Well B. Russel invented some identity sentences of his own by 'wrestling' and trying to improve on Freges 'fundations' (of math.) So he invented this: 'The aouthor of Wawerely = ('is' the same as) Walther Scott'. But: 'The writer of Wawerley'= must be some other person,according to our 'dramatis personae' because those 'expressions' have totaly different meanings. So, to give him a name, John Bolton. Ergo we have two 'authors' or 'writers' of the same book? I think that this is not sensible and to demonstrate how easy it is to be 'provocativ' and 'eloquent' at the same time I will also quote some Latin saying:'eloquentiea una sapientiea guta'. Regards, |
Dear Nandric, while I certainly enjoy your post and hold your attitude towards high end in high esteem, I think very few would like to follow us in the direction this discussion is now going. While the original purpose of either "party" for the ultimate goal of this thread is long lost and the thread as alive as a dead horse, I would nevertheless add a final comment from my side. My original intend - here and in many other threads I participated in - was, that everyone should at less show a remote interest in the art of deduction in the sense of looking close and with attention to detail to a new product. Without being - positively or negatively - biased in his view by name, image or price tag. I however realized that this in fact is the most dangerous mine-field of them all. Way too many audiophiles do give individual audio components a status, which they never deserve. This should all be about transmitting recorded music. Any high-end component is nothing but a technical device which should - in an ideal world - suit it's purpose and should otherwise "vanish" from the mind and attention. As this whole game is today a lot about money, buying power and image/status by owning certain (expensive) components this attempt is of course futile. Looking close, looking for plain results, performance and contend does today interfere in the most cruel sense of the word with the price tag and the status gained by owning a hailed and expensive component. Well - a brave new world. The world we deserve - as we apparently don't ask for more and so deserve no better. |
Oh come on you great modern philosophers, it is so much fun discussing very high priced items, not only in the world of high end. Look at watches, cars, ships, helicopters, business jets (I hope you are well stuffed with those... :-) So a rabbit needs to become a grizzly we have to have some respect when standing in front of it. This is the modern world we are all in - or do you like to walk without air powered, gel-filled and steam pressured shoes instead using the simple sandals of Pontius Pilatus...? |
Dear Thucham& Dertonarm, There is also much joy and fun in discussing in 'general' in this forum. I personaly enjoy to readLewn,Carr,Dertonarm,Mikelangvine,Doug ,Thucham.etc.etc. for pure,say, intellectual reasons. It is not only about analog gear. There are many 'technical subjects' that are to complex for me to comprehend. But even so I very much enjoy reading about them . There are many inquisitive minds in our forum eager to post their knowledge and experience. We are, I assume, thankful for this shering. But there is no need ,I think, to become skeptical or even sarcastic about our gear. The most of us are very awere about the price-quality relation. I.e. the most of us can't afford those prices. One can of course dream about winning the lottery and bay what ever one pleases but I don't belive that there are many who realy belive such an 'proposition'. So Thucham don't get 'sarcastic'. I have,btw, no worry about Dertonarm. Hi is 'indestructable'. Regards, |
Dear Thuchan, sorry to burst the bubble, but those plain and maybe quite uncomfortable sandals you are referring to, did conquer europe while covering the feet of the roman legions. They did it without air cushioned heels and they did it the hard way. With attention to detail, discipline and great engineering (first phonton-bridge over the Rhine, superb aqueducts all over southern europe - some still standing after two milleniae). So those sandals or the attitude going with them back then would just look great on some audio designers today. Yes, it is of course fun discussing our toys. But we are hardly discussing them. The attention today is too much circled around the toys "per se" and discussion means different opinions. Different opinion about a component means heading straight into the mine-field of hurt feelings. Quod erat demonstrandum in disputa ........... |
Dear Dertonearm, you have some sandals left for me...? Dear Nandric, pls. forgive me. It might look sarcastic but when you are listening to some of the very important people on this planet you will hear discussions about all those toys we all would never flog a dead horse. I like your philosohical view - this helps a lot, you don´t need the toys obviously, don´t you? |
It "killed" any desire to leave my listening room or listen to anything other than the new remastered edition of lou reed's metal machine music. The alchemy created by that arm and lou's greatest work have trapped me in an aural cocoon from which i can neither escape nor summon the desire for escape. Beware!!!--it will be the end of all human contact for those who dare to give that evil platter a spin under that magical arm. And with that--i sign off for good from this furious debate--remorseful i ever put forth my meager two cents. Still, the tw is one " killer" of an arm !!! And the graham doesn't suck either. The good thing is with this level of interest in something as esoteric to the rest of the world as a tonearm--our beloved vinyl doesn't show any hints of dying off anytime soon. Long live the magic black platter!!! |
To paraphrase heraclitus--the way up and the way down are one and the same. Or as eliot says, in my end is my beginning. Thus, the death of any one component is merely the birth of another. My problem with the graham was its inability to transmit the tragic urgency of Zoot Horn Rollo's maniacal glass finger guitar the way the tw arm does. It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing!!! |
I ran out of time, so I haven't read all the posts. While it's interesting to read about some ego stuff and discloser issues, since we have some very expert people posting on this discussion, I was wondering if maybe the experts could give us a little insider tips about turntables and tonearms. For instance, if it's a gimballed arm, what are the characteristics of that versus a uni-pivot? That was just an example, but any input(without giving away any secrets)would be appreciated. |
Shane, The big deal is that it needed tremendous amount of break in. I was told that the change from before & after break in is dramatic and takes a good 50 plus hours. I have personally had cartridges sound terrible and great depending on when I set it up. With a few arms it allows me to futz if I don't like it. So setup can always be an issue. It was described to me as holographic and dynamic. Nice to hear it mates well w. the TW Phono. Tempting but I am waiting to hear about the new Titan i. |
Read a new Titan i is coming out somewhere over here. It makes sense so I assume it is true. As for not liking a cartridge or not, I have learned that often some cartridges do need significant break in and that can vary sample to sample. IME some even sound bad while others sound amazing. This isn't specific to a single brand but can be with almost any. I remember my Universe needed completely different settings than the one I tried as a loner which was simply stunning on first listen. It needed 100s of hours to settle in but then was amazing. Shane, I trust your ears especially as they line up with several other respected members here. But... there have been quite a few products promoted here that have been "the flavor of the month" type. |
Hi Downunder, it sure was obvious - wasn't it? How could I missed that one - it was handed on a plate. But seriously - I am quite happy that finally he and me came to some terms and share at least a small common ground and point of view. The Munich HE show report.... ? Most feedback from Munich HIgh-End show made favorite mention of the Korean Audiophile displaying - and playing - 1940ies small Western Electric theatre short horns with Allnic amplification (as far as I remember it was Allnic ...). Since large picture horn systems are terra incognita for most German audiophiles not into vintage theatre sound, this did not fail to make a huge impression on a large portion of the visitors. A very different )if vintage...) sound which stand out and away from the "crowd" for various reason. Besides that - hardly anything new to mention. Manuel Huber showed off his Thales and Simplicity tonearms at Brinkmann's and TW of TW brought the white (?) labeled black bird to Munich. They all had their fans and admirers dropping in and out, - well, business as usual. On the whole scale there was less novelties compared to last year and the side show at the Meridien Hotel in the city centre was a logistic declaration of bankrupt (it wasn't great last year at Fleming's either, but pure gold compared to 2010...). Soundwise nothing really deserved to be mentioned - blame it to show room conditions, lack of interest, lack of abilities - pick either and you can not go wrong. In most cases a mixture of all. So - all in all, kind of disappointing. With European regulations seriously nipping (snapping.... with brute jaws!) at High-end's heels I really wonder what we will see in 2011. But the weather was fine the last 2 days ..... |
Over many decades of listening to vinyl, I've never heard a cartridge that changed so significantly that my opinion went from poor to great. And vice versa. IMO, a cartridge's sonic character/personality is very apparent during the first few hours. Sure, there are some refinement and evolution but never a night/day difference in my experience. YMMV |
Audiofeil, agreed. Leopards won't change there spots - no matter how long you expose them to bright sun-light. We have no ugly duck to white majestic swan metamorphosis in high-end cartridges. Then there are even a few cartridges out there ( mostly from former Pro Audio origin ) which do not need any break-in at all (which in Pro Audio would be a no-go anyway...) and perform their best right from the start. |
Audiofeil, I have had your experience as well. Waiting for a cartridge to break in and never opening up. Dertonarm, I should say a new page has turned and for once we agree. But lets agree that when we disagree it should be as gentlemen with kind words for each other and each others biases. On to the Titan i revised...if it can be one a combination of 3 things I would be so pleased. The detail and soundstage width of the Skala, the dynamics of the Titan but even more, and the magic of the Olympus all combined with a perfect window to the truth. I have a feeling the new version will reach 2 of these 3 and for that I am waiting. |
>>05-10-10: Dgad Audiofeil, I have had your experience as well. Waiting for a cartridge to break in and never opening up.<< Well thanks but that wasn't my point. What I meant to convey is a cartridge's sonic character does not change appreciably over time. Many become a tad more polished or refined but I can't think of a single cartridge I've owned in the past 50 years that has undergone a personality transplant after 25, 50, or 100 hours. Sorry if I wasn't clear. |
Dertonarm: "Besides that - hardly anything new to mention. Micha Huber showed off his Thales and Simplicity tonearms at Brinkmann's and TW of TW brought the white (?) labeled black bird to Munich. They all had their fans and admirers dropping in and out, - well, business as usual." The Thales Simplicity arm looks new and exciting to me. Here's a Raven on a TW table and a close up ______ |
Hiho, the Thales Simplicity looks surely exciting, but he is not new at all. Look in the Garrard archives and you'll know why I didn't labeled the Sinplicity "new". Garrard had a similar looking tonearm - and quite similar too in technical design - at hand when John Lennon was still alive. A common phenomenon - if a design isn't around for quite a while, it's return is often an all new invention for many. We have had that in speakers and poweramplifiers in the last 2 decades with the resurrection of field-coil, horn speakers and SE-OPT amplifiers - all techniques from the late 1920ies which weren't used in custom applications aside from Cinema or special Pro-Audio since the 1960ies. |
Hi Dertonarm. I agree with you about the common amnesia of recycling ideas. However, I haven't forgotten about the limited products of the pivot tangential arm genre through out history - recently I am accumulating data and researching on this genre. Yes, I am aware of the Garrard Zero 100 and I even owned it once but it was poorly executed. I meant the Thales Simplicity as new not in concept but new in execution with modern material. Sometimes the audio industry gives up on novel ideas too soon before it was developed into maturity. I guess that's determined by the market and various reasons but that's a different topic. I really enjoy tonearm designs and I have absolutely no interest in talking about the sound in pornographic prose as it's a mechanical device that I enjoy understanding the inner working and picking the designer's brain. It's an intellectual exercise for me. The Simplicity is exciting because for once we have a linear arm that does not involve a goddam air pump, at least for me. (I absolutely hate air pumps. No, I have no fish at home. Contempt can be the mother of invention for me.) I look forward to more products like that in the future. I am sure the Raven arm sounds excellent but for someone like me, there's nothing new. For others, it's the sound that matters and I don't blame them. _____ |
Hi Hiho, we have similar approaches to tonearm design. The Garrard Zero 100 could have been built in all details the way Micha Huber did it now. The materials, fine tooling - everything was there 30 years back. I guess it was more likely the overall approach and the missing care for detail which stopped the Zero 100 (... and a changing market ). My reservations with either tonearm is the amount of bearings and moving parts involved in these designs. My reservations here are about energy transfer and the rigidity. But I will soon have the change to work with the Simplicity in person, - as I have already done with its big brother the Thales last November. As for the Raven tonearm - whatever it sounds, my reservations were for the universal granted sonic laurels in advance. Before it was tested/auditioned. And then my question for unique design features or new solutions offered in this design were never answered. I too don't blame others if its the sound only which matters to them - but how could they knew when they actually hadn't any chance to listen to the TW 10.5 yet? |
Hi Jaspert, I have had the chance to listen to the TW 10.5 on two occasions. Both in private set-ups ( one on a Raven AC ) and with familiar cartridges (Titan i and UNIverse). However - I do not think that anyone here would really appreciate my comment. Looking back in this thread and reading some of the posts here we can generally assume, that I have little clue and certainly are unable to appreciate or judge a great component anyway. My prejudice was largely regarding the praise in advance - before any test or listening took place. Did it sound good to me ? It did not sound bad. Pretty balanced, controlled, good and fast upper bass, nice integrated lower midrange. Good staging, not too detailed. Reproduction of height was a bit limited, but width and deep pretty good. I wished for a bit of more "air" and inner detail. This could be an issue of internal wiring maybe. Bottom octave was not as good and fast as the upper bass - but then you rarely get that at all. And hardly any speaker or woofer can show the picture. It did however hold its own against a few other top-flight tonearms of today. But it did not outperform any of them either. |
. Dertonarm: "My reservations with either tonearm is the amount of bearings and moving parts involved in these designs. My reservations here are about energy transfer and the rigidity. But I will soon have the change to work with the Simplicity in person, - as I have already done with its big brother the Thales last November." I think that's the Archilles hill of tonearms like that; too many bearings and moving parts and the lack of rigidity. Having a pivot point right above the stylus have the potential to introduce unwanted noise, obviously. Another concern I have is the vertical geometry. I know the Thales Original arm (the designer certainly is inventive in naming tonearm names :) ) is capable of zero degree tracking error using the Thales theorem but a pivoting headshell can introduce vertical error, unless the record is absolutely flat, since at the armbase the bearings are not capable of compensating the constant changing headshell angle, unlike a gimbal arm with the bearing angled approximately 23 +- degrees, so it can be very sensitive to VTA and azimuth adjustment - because microscopically they are constantly changing - also compounded by the fact the armwand is very short. The guiding arm, part of the Thales triangle, which is very long and pivot horizontally AND vertically and the vertical plane has to be below the main arm to minimize skating force otherwise it would swing down, adding inertia. I believe the guiding arm is where a linear motion bearing might work better but the insistence on avoiding linear bearing is its selling point. Overall a very clever design and looks to be well executed like a Swiss watch, as the designer is, not surprisingly, a watch maker. The Simplicity is rather more elegant and only sacrifice a tiny bit of tangential error. Please report more of your findings on these interesting arms and preferably on a new thread. Sorry to hijack this thread with the post. I will quietly go away now. Please continue with discussion on the Raven. _____ |
Hiho, no need to leave - we never actually had a discussion about the Raven TW tonearm here. Your questions and remarks regarding the M. Huber tonearms were about the only ones about tonearm design in this thread. The Thales/Simplicity tonearms design do indeed focus on the zero tangential error. But to me it seems a bit like jumping out of the frying pan and straight into the fire. So far my impression is that the mechanical (and therefor the sonic ...) trade-off for close to zero tangential tracking error is way too high. The increase in moving parts and bearings does heavily interfere with energy transfer and rigidity. Yes, - how about someone opening up a thread about zero error pivot tonearms in general or the Thales principle tonearms in specific ? |
I will venture a comment on the Thales principle. It seems to me, neither a trained physicist nor engineer, that the best and highest purpose of a Thales-type design would be to create a high inertia mass at the end of a tonearm and hang a cartridge off it. If the high mass headshell mass had an EXCELLENT horizontal bearing, A-N-D the record was free of warps (and perfectly centered around the spindle hole), then the concept should work very well. The real problem is that... a) with a light headshell which allows the arm to deal with vertical plane issues, there are inherent weaknesses in the coupling of parts in the arm. b) with a very heavy mass and rigid arm structure, the cantilever of most carts (and the inertia of the headshell mass) would mean that warped records would have problems. That said, with vacuum-held flat records, or records put through the "Record Flatter" that concept has real potential merit (as long as the hole is not off-center). Nuf said for a guy who don't know... |