I found the previous comment that the Kronos darker, more silent, most delicate v the TW Raven AC as more dynamic, in relation to the TW having greater torque than the Kronos VERY illuminating.
I found the previous comment that the Kronos darker, more silent, most delicate v the TW Raven AC as more dynamic, in relation to the TW having greater torque than the Kronos VERY illuminating.
I found the previous comment that the Kronos darker, more silent, most delicate v the TW Raven AC as more dynamic, in relation to the TW having greater torque than the Kronos VERY illuminating.
You are referring to belt drive turntables - we must see that the characteristics of the belt and moment of inertia of the platter can be much more important than something you have not been able to define and we imprecisely and generically are calling "torque".
Micro, are you saying the ability to push thru serious groove modulation, dealing successfully w stylus drag, is NOT a function of torque?
For not, what then?
Micro, are you saying the ability to push thru serious groove modulation, dealing successfully w stylus drag, is NOT a function of torque?
For not, what then?
(...) Bonzo brings up perhaps the key point: one must compare two turntables with the same arm and cartridge in the same system with the same music to truly understand differences.
But then you have to pick an arm and cartridge that shines in both turntables - otherwise you will mainly listening for arm and cartridge compatibility with the turntable. Remember when people compared the Linn Ittok with the SME V in the Linn Sondek and concluded that Ittok was a much better tonearm?
As it was very easy to move it between turntables (just a single small 1/8" hole) I tried the Eminent Technology II air bearing tonearm in many platforms. The outcome was surprising - I had great hopes in the Thorens TD124 and it sounded miserable, although unstable it sounded great in Linn and Oracle, very good in a Roksan Xerxes and poor in the Technics SP10. IMHO I was listening mainly to the interaction of tonearm / turntable.
But then you have to pick an arm and cartridge that shines in both turntables - otherwise you will mainly listening for arm and cartridge compatibility with the turntable. Remember when people compared the Linn Ittok with the SME V in the Linn Sondek and concluded that Ittok was a much better tonearm?
As it was very easy to move it between turntables (just a single small 1/8" hole) I tried the Eminent Technology II air bearing tonearm in many platforms. The outcome was surprising - I had great hopes in the Thorens TD124 and it sounded miserable, although unstable it sounded great in Linn and Oracle, very good in a Roksan Xerxes and poor in the Technics SP10. IMHO I was listening mainly to the interaction of tonearm / turntable.
What differences did you note in 124, Linn, and Oracle?
The 124 sounded terribly flat and boring, the Linn extremely dynamic and vivid - really enjoyable. But it could only paly half of of the record, because of suspension bounce. The Oracle sounded very clean, low noise and defined with good imaging. Please remember that tests were carried almost 30 years ago, with original unmodified turntables.
I still keep the ET II - currently one of the best tonearm bargains we can get if we know how to align it and have a good air pump. Many people report negative experiences with it because the original pump did not have an air pressure meter and the pump diaphragms can be now worn out. Not a problem - it is just a common good quality silent aquarium pump easily available.
Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |