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
Glai, I experimented with flywheel arrangements. By doing so I realized that the motor management is very important and needs a precise steering. I found it in the VPI SDS. I use the MS Motor (SX 8000 II) and the HS-80 ( 8000 II) in combination to control the vector forces. From my opinion whether one uses a TW or MS he should look for good and precise motors and an exact and stable motor management. I would not go for a three motor design.

Regarding the quality of MS tables I have seen big differences on the markets, in Japan, Germany, France and the US. It depends on age, care and usage. the best samples I have seen in Japan.
Raul makes an interesting point about controlling vibrations both internal and external. As both the MS and the AC-1 are unsuspended tables, I'm curious if Maril555 has considered some kind of isolation platform.

I used one under my unsuspended turntable and it made a tremendous difference.
Every single resonance/vibrations of any type pass through that arm board/footers.
Raul has a point.....only if there is a direct connection between the 'footers' and the armboard support base?
It is not clearly evident to me.....that there actually IS a direct connection in either the MS or the AC tables (which share a similar armboard support concept)?
What IS clearly evident (in both tables).....is that the armboards are directly connected to (and supported by) the bases....ie plinths.
How much structure-borne feedback is allowed to travel through the supporting feet, into the plinth, into the armboard support and thence into the armboard itself....depends on so many factors that without supporting evidence......it would be a rash man who makes such a bold claim?
Nevertheless.....the fact that Continuum goes to so much trouble to 'isolate' their armboards from the plinth in the Caliburn and Criterion turntables.....indicates some obvious benefits in doing so?
In the absence of a really sturdy wall-hung shelf support for the turntable.....a Minus K isolation stand would always be an improvement for any deck...and owners of MS turntables seem to be unanimous in aclaiming the improvement from the use of such devices?
Maril 555,
for a good MS you don't need a new platter. Regarding extensions on both tables, MS and TW you need to work with (if you like), building up a nice solution and having fun and improvements by bringing in modifications. The other option is a plug & play solution which both tables do not offer.

regarding isolation platforms: it is a must. I would also go for separate platforms for the motor(s) and the table. If you do this there are no vibrations on original MS brass arm bases.
10-22-12: Thuchan
Pcosta,
I never made any negative remarks about the TW designs. I know Thomas Woschnik from the very first beginning he started with his first tables in Germany and I also followed the successful landing in the US market by the activity of Joe Catalano.

Has anyone ask Thomas Woschnik what he thinks is the best turntable?