TW-Acustic Arm
Thanks for your responses, Audioblazer. I too am currently using the Dynavector XV-1S, but with the SME IV.Vi arm, with which there is a tight fit as well. The issue is mainly with the depth of the XV-1S cartridge...but...it does work. If I do decide to go with the 10.5 and have trouble with the supplied protractor, I will try using my DB Systems protractor. Shouldn't be a problem with it. I don't know if I'd be too concerned with the magnetic anti-skating device. I respect Jeffrey Catalano's opinion and generally don't bother with anti-skate anyway. Should I face any issues I'll deal with them at that time. Otherwise, it's nice to hear how pleased with the 10.5/XV-1S combo. Best wishes for your continued enjoyment. |
Audioblazer, can you confirm the anto-skate does work on your arm? Or simply you just has some concerns on how it works. If all parts intalled properly on Raven 10.5 arm, I think AS will work. The way it works I believe is that the magnet in the big AS screw will pull the front corner of the bearing house (on the side of armtube), but will push the rear corner. Both push and pull forces on the bearing house will result in AS force as a net effect. I don't know whether a detailed calculation was ever carried out, but in general, when the arm on the outer side, pull force is a bit larger than the push, when the arm is closer to the record label/spindle, the pull might decrease a bit since the front corner is moving away from the Big magnet screw, but the push force on the rear corner will increase since it is moving closer to the magnet. So overall, the average AS force during the LP play might not drastically change that much. But this is only on the ballpark not from calculation. Unfortunately, somehow the installation of magnets on my Raven 10.5 (bought used from a agon member)is reversed, so I have been puzzled all along about AS on Raven 10.5. What I experienced is not Anti-Skate but Anti-Anti-Skate, the result is over skate which has effect of skipping, channel out of balance (not by much). Waiting to be fixed. The fix is easy though. |
1 thing I have doubt about the raven 10.5 is the anti skate which uses a screw with magnet at the tip of the screw to create a magnetic pull on the tonearm. I wonder how accurate it can be when the magnetic pull loses it strength as the tonearm moves toward the inner grooves. Did asked Thomas , the manufacturer & he told me anti skate is correctly done. By the way both vidmantas ( reed ) & Thomas ( raven) are 1 of the best in the market. Immediate response & ever willing to answer any questions I have . |
Opus88, The raven 10.5 is much easier to set up. Sounded great with my dynavector xv-1s. However the tonearm pin a bit too long , making it a very tight fit for my xv-1s. Best combination from the various arm/ catridge combo that I have ie schroeder 2fw/ ortofon, reed/ortofon a90, raven 10.5/zyx omega gold . Even before burn in & when I first set it up, it thrashed the 10.5/zyx combo. So much so that 1 of my audio friends who is using phantom2/ zyx omega gold, immediate place an order for XV-1T. However I m not comfortable with the supply protractor. I don't really understand how to use it . I used a feirkert & mintlp protractor to set it up I used my reed with a separate reed tonearm base on my garrard 301 & it was not easy to set up effective length correctly. Whenever I change the VTA, the tonearm tower of reed seems to move ever so slight changing my effective length. It's seems to have the same issues triplanar tonearm has ( no experience with this arm but from my friend with such arm) . |
It's been almost a year since the last post from Paul. Having just acquired the Raven One, I'm looking at either the TW Acustic 10.5 or Reed tonearm to go with it. Previously in this thread Audioblazer indicated he owned both of these arms. I would appreciate hearing from him or any others, having access to both, what it was soundwise that determined your preference of one over the other. Thank you. |
Andrew From my time with the Phantom, I find the 10.5 is a bigger sounding arm with even better dynamics and cleaner bass. You probaly notice that first, with all things being equal. Its sound stage to me is more pinpoint without having imaging that are unrealistic, eg singers mounth as tall as a two story building, but that may be system dependent. The Phantom, I found is very good in its mid range in providing a lot of information, the 10.5 is at least on par with it there. I do like the tool Bob Graham provides for his arms. You no longer need a seperate phono cable with the TW 10.5, so that it nice. A very user friendly arm, a least with the TW AC. |
Darren The XV-1s is a tight fit, the headshell lead connectors are a bit long and the XV-1s is a long cartridge so it makes for a tight fit. I like how easy the TW arm is to setup. The VTA is nice and smooth, the anti-skate is very nice, and VTF makes changes a breeze. Let me know how the Titan i sounds on the TW, I am sure you can live without the SQ for a while. |
Paul, Want to try the XV1s on it one day. That should be incredible. I am thinking to move the Titan i over to give a try shortly. Off season is around the corner so I might have the time. It is just the SQ is such a pain to setup and I don't want to take a chance to damage a cantilever. The TW is easy but the SQ is beyond a pain. Takes about 2 weeks to dial in each time. But it is almost time. |
I have had my 10.5 for about a month now and I think it sounds and performs great. I first set it up wth my Miyabi 47 and heard music from my setup like never before. Bass extension, depth and size was the most I have ever heard in my house. Clean and full with that cartridge. I am now using the Dynavector XV-1s and it is even better overall. Clean top end and very nice mids with a lot of clarity. Bass has a better leading edge compared to the Miyabi. Either cart is very nice. |
Yes the arm is very enjoyable. I love it for many reasons but believe it or not primarily because it works perfectly with my Lift that automatically lifts it at the end of the LP. Mates perfectly w. the Allaerts MC2 Finish. No reason to play with it since it sounds perfect as is. One thing to consider for all you Baewald (Lofgren A) alignment arm users out there, this is Lofgren B which has a different sent of null points and distortion curves that will make it a perfect 2nd tonearm to have. For example the Phantom is Lofgren A (Baerwald). |
Best arm I've heard, and others I own are considered to be right up there as the best around. Ebm - totally with you on the wonderful fast bass - that's the immediate first thing I went wow about, then the detail, soundstage, and overall so-natural, pure sound. This arm is a perfect match for an ortofon a90. It took me a while to find one. |
TW Manual is available online. Nothing missing but if you want you can play with different counterweights (comes w. 3) for the best match with your cartridge. Sound is excellent. I particularly love the fit & finish, only missing the fine azimuth adjustment with a gauge. Your best bet is to get yourself a VdH style level for judging azimuth. Gives you the ability to repeat settings. |
How is everyone (who has one) getting on with this arm? I'm getting one so would be interested to hear from anyone who's had it a while now, and has got to know it, and also how it compares to other arms they've had - or still have? Also, any quirks or setup advice that owners have found that aren't in the TW setup guide? Ta! |
Dgad, As for Reed tonearm ( turntable .it) it is certainly the best looking of the 3 tonearms I have. Suppose to set it up on a reed isolated base (stand alone) n play on Garrard 301. Unfortunately waiting for a DIY PS that is already 6 mths overdue Anyway, the next tonearm I wish to have is breur or a talea. |
Audioblazer, I think we are both hearing the same things. Your liking the Schroder on vocals makes sense. What is the Schroder 2 FW. I assume model 2 w. F wood??? F being? Love to get some more information on the REED which to me seems similar in many ways to the Schroder but wonder how it translates. As for the antiskate on the TW, I assume it is something similar to the Schroder twisting th string to exert a progressive back force. For me I didn't hear much difference at different points of the LP for testing. And I did test for this specifically. AS being more of an issue towards the center vs. the beginning. I use minimal antiskate and did the test similar to you. I visually check the arms motion. I also use my ears on that one as it always shows up in the listening. As for sonics my SQ is amazing. You need a very good offer to get it from me as I love it so much. But it drives me crazy quite often. I won't rotate cartridges on it as each setup takes me hours. You adjust VTA and you lose VTA which loses Azimuth, which changes the Antiskate which changes the VTA again. etc. etc. etc. It is a cycle of trying to get it to lock in. Damping never stays set 100%. But setup correctly the sound is musical and it does something for Jazz and Vocals that no combination that I have tried can do. The TW arm is right up there with it. Doing almost all the same but exerting more control and showing a greater foundation at the expense of the wonderful musicality/ Color the SQ brings. That is fine with the right cartridge and not with the wrong one. A Koetsu on a Schroder need not apply IME (I tried it w.the Jade...too much of a good thing). I would give a Koetsu a try on the TW. Pairing the incredible control and bass of the TW with the juicy midrange and fluid highs of a Koetsu might be a match in heaven. It is with the Allaerts. It has that similar organic sound to the Schroder but less of the magic. But the music gains foundation. Go ahead and put a Koetsu or an Allaerts on it. Compared to some very popular arms mentioned here (I don't want to criticize any arms) the TW comes closer with the magic than any of them I have tried. But they all can be special with the right cartridge in the right setup. So caveats apply. All in all, the rules of tonearm pairing remain. It is all about the Cartridge / tonearm synergy. You can't choose a tonearm without considering what cartridge you want to use. The same applies in different degrees to phono stages... and then of course the system in question. Going to look up about the Audio Origami mentioned above. Curious. |
mmmmm. Sounds interesting. A non-TW and non-Audio Origami dealer has just told me to look at the Audio Origami PU7 and get that 'special' in a 10.5". He had a chance to hear both on a TW Raven AC and said the PU7 sounded far more convincing, better LF and more dynamic. The build of the PU7 isn't upto the precise Germanic workmanship, but then in sound terms it seems at this stage a better buy. I've yet to see a PU7 in the flesh. I've seen but not heard the TW tonearm - it does cost. If it sounds as good as the Graham Phantom then the 12" Ortofon is also looking like a REAL bargain as Thomas says the RS309D is about 95% of the Phantom which is 95% of his own arm. Now I am confused! |
I received my TW abt a mth ago. Certainly well packed with all the necessary accessories and the best instruction manual of all the 3 tonearms I have ( reed 2p-12" , Schroeder 2fw, TW). Set up was a bliss compare to Schroeder . Fr my set up, I find my TW + zyx omega gold more dynamics , better details and bigger soundstage compare to my Schroeder 2fw + ortofon A90. However I prefer the sweeter sound of Schroeder pairing for vocal. Both my cartridges are pretty new and I don't thk it's burn in properly . 1 thing abt TW arm which I don't understd is the use of magnetized screw to set anti skate. As I understd it exert a magnetic force on the arm tube n the nearer ( by inserting screw further in) it is to the arm tune, the stronger is the anti skate. My confusion is that as the arm tube move towards the label, wouldn't the anti skate change ? Fr my set up, I hardly hear any difference with different anti skate setting . In fact I try to set it with Cardas test record and I can't get it to glide slowly towards the label part of the record ( whether it's a right way of setting anti skate is another issue). Please advise |
Got a TW arm for a trial. Now granted I am a TW fan, but I have my biases. My tonearm/cartridge combination of reference has been (when it maintains its setup) the Schroder SQ and Titan i. It is just that good in my system. Mind you not the detail or dynamic champ. It just meets all of MY priorities. Now, to go on about how it excels, lets indicate that it throws a wide soundstage, with incredible depth and gorgeous highs. It just sucks you into the music. I can read any review here about any new arm etc, and know that they just don't know what they are missing. There is an art to setting up a Schroder. I have learned it over years and it is a lot, A LOT of work. You need to get the right wood, the right cartridge mounting plate and more. But once setup right it is special. No reviewer can have it for less than 6 months and learn its nuances. There have been weaknesses. Bass isn't perceived as resolved as some others and dynamics are not its strong suit. But in every other way it excels. The music is freed from the grooves. And no arm I have tried has been able to do that. I have not tried an linear tracking arm. so please take that into consideration. I have had many an arm/cartridge combination come and visit me and leave. None of them have freed the music from the groove into the room. None. Now for the TW Arm comes an initial impression. Just that and nothing more as I need time and don't have it to do too many comparisons. The TW arm posesses that same special ability to free the music from the groove. It also is a wonderful arm mechanically. So easy to setup and use. The workmanship is excellent. There are a few things I would like added and I am sure they will come. I want some calibrations on the VTA adjuster to know what settings I have. But it is up there with the best VTA adjustment ability of any arm I have used. It is easy enough to mark w. some nail polish but an idea. Also the same for antiskate. Now for a bit more about the sound. The dynamic contrasts that come from this arm are fabulous. The treble has full extension and the bass is solid goes down low. You feel a total neutrality without a desire to compensate for any shortcomings. It is just that good. I am using it currently w. an Allaerts MC2 Finish and the combination is just fabulous. The soundstage width is as wide as my room. Depth is a bit shallow compared to the Schroder. But every arm I have tried is shallow in depth compared to the SQ. Music sounds natural without any excess color. The SQ has a touch of gorgeous color that the TW does not. I wouldn't say either is better, but I do love the SQ color. It comes at the price of a very slight softness which the TW does not have. The TW is neutral but not a lean sounding arm. It does not sound fat though. Just not lean. Images have palpable size and feel present in the room with you. What I demand is detail which is not aggressive. Treble and Bass must sound smooth and integrated with the rest of the sound spectrum. If not I get irritated. My system excels in that area compared to detail. I have headphones for detail (and no speaker I have heard yet - but am still searching) can give you the detail of headphones. A few points that make the design excel in my experience. It has a single cable from cartridge to phono stage. It is also free of resonance. I am a big beliver that getting a cartridge / tonearm combination to have a resonant frequency as close to 10 Hz as possible is critical for accurate bass and smooth highs. The TW arm measured exactl 10Hz w. a few cartridges. If you tap it, there is not ringing as in some other arms. The counterweight is adjusted by turning (not sliding - what a pain). 3 different counterweights are provided for optimum matching (easier than changing arm-wands)and you don't need a fine VTF adjuster as the counterweight screws on and the threads are small enough to allow very minute adjustments of VTF w. ease. No need to lock the counterweight w. a screw etc, as the friction is perfect. Just the right amount. But don't trust me, try to get a listen yourselves. I didn't expect it to be that good. The dynamic agility of the arm coupled with neutrality and musical flow is something rarely combined. Especially in a non tweaky tonearm. |
Nolitan You are right, but would it not be best to have your own opinion on a tonearm from a brief audition than to ask someone here for an opinion. "Any new updates on the 10.5 tonearm ?" Comparison are great like you state above, but I highly doubt most or anyone shopping for a TW arm will have a dealer willing to setup an arm in a system, or anything else for that matter these days. Dealers have showrooms for that purpose. Unfortunately that is the way it is. Reviews and opninons stated here are just that. I would rather trust my own ears in a brief demo over what has been writen here or any other place. |
auditioning arms is best when done on your own system using the same cart, phono stage & the rest of the gears. Otherwise, its very difficult to judge how one arm is different to another especially if the arms are placed in different systems with different cart, etc. Also, minute details and adjustment of an arm can make or break the system sound... |
Mcds, let me quote myself as of January 25th in this thread: **** My new turntable? - I have sold 12 units of its forerunner (which wasn't much cheaper...) and have 3 blind orders already. So - no worries...... You will have a chance to hear it at the High-End 2011 in Munich. However - you will see pictures and find it in 2-3 systems descriptions here on Audiogon a few months before. So - rest assured - my big mouth is heavily at work already and since quite some time. ***** You see the date .. ? Would it have been 2010, you wouldn't have missed it. It would have been the talk and highlight of the show - at least for the analog audiophiles. |
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... |
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 ? |
. 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. _____ |
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. |
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 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. _____ |
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. |
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 ______ |
>>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. |
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. |
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. |
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 |
