Direct drive/rim drive/idler drive vs. belt drive?


O.K. here is one for all the physics majors and engineers.

Does a high mass platter being belt driven offer the same steady inertia/speed as a direct drive or idler drive?
Is the lack of torque in the belt drive motor compensated for by the high mass platter. Object in motion stays in motion etc. Or are there other factors to take into consideration?
I am considering building up a Garrard 301 or Technics SP10, but is it all nonsense about the advantage of torque.
I am aware that the plinths on these tables can make a huge difference, I've got that covered.
My other options would be SME20 or Basis 2500 of Kuzma Stogi Reference etc.
If I have misstated some technical word, please avert your eyes. I don't want a lecture on semantics, I think everyone knows what I mean.
Thanks in advance.
mrmatt

Showing 12 responses by hiho

The "whatever sounds good" opinion is a consumer attitude and there's nothing wrong with that but can never work as and apply to science nor truth seeking. I certainly hope people who do manufacturing has done more research than just "whatever sounds good" and came up with more educated decisions. Therefore I completely support the kind of work Mr. Mark Kelly has done and appreciate the time he spent in experimenting and, even more importantly, sharing his findings in print with us. Thank you Mr. Kelly.

I have experience with all three drive systems and they all can sound good but, right now, I completely reject using a soft rubber belt. If a turntable has to use something that soft to filter vibration and masking speed irregularities then it needs a better motor, period. In the last decade in belt-drive manufacturing, much has been belabored on fancy platter, thick and shiny, and bearing, thick and shiny, but little has been focused on the actual motor. Enough with wimpy toy motors already!
Platter is important but in my experience the motor is the most important and then combination of platter and bearing. After all the motor is the active component here, hence it's called TURN-table for a reason. It has the most demanding job and requires the most sophisticated engineering that involves electrical and mechanical skills. If you get a good motor, you are more than half way there. Of course, if you use a soft rubber belt to conceal the flaws of the motor then the platter is more important. I do agree that a record player should be seen as a whole system not just a collection of parts.
Axelwahl says, "One expert put two Micro-Seiki on top of each other --- and then waits 5 minutes for the darn thing to stabilize the speed."

I think the flagship Nottingham Deco took such approach, with a massive 64 pound that is as thick as a microwave and driven by an extremely low torque motor that you have to finger spin it to start. Definitely doesn't seem very user friendly to me. I had a Spacedeck in the house at one point, very quiet table but the sonic was so mellow that it put me to sleep.

I use direct-drive turntables. Sometimes I use them to (VHS)tape-drive a "passive platter". So the motor is any one of my dozen direct-drive turntables. I no longer see these DD tables as record players, they are motors with a 12" pulley, "active platter", along with a controller. The combination of two platters takes up a lot of table space for sure. But they sound good. The only time when I can't hear any improvement from this tape-drive approach is when I use a dd table with a coreless motor. The coreless motor DD table sound just as smooth as the tape-drive set up. I have yet to try it with my Technics SP10mk2 table. It will be fun. I don't have any Denon turntables right now but I would like to try them as they are the only company I know who use an AC motor for their DD turntables.
"But lack of 'slam' and 'drive' is more related to the drive then a platter-mat, in my current experience."

Totally agree.

I can't seem to understand how a platter mat can improve dynamics, slam, and "drive". No matter what mat I put on my Empire or other belt-drive systems, it aint sounding like my Technics SP10. I have smoother sounding DD tables than the Technics but none can surpass the bass dynamic and slam of the SP10 due its powerful motor. I also played with an idler table with an Ashland motor and it has huge dynamic. Again, the motor. From my experience is that small motor small dynamic and if it's a belt-drive even worse, the Nottingham is one example. I do believe changing mats can change the sound and the extra mass sometimes helps smoother rotation but the sonic benefit, if any, is more of a tonal one and signal to noise issue. Again, that's just my current experience. I would love to try some TTWeight mats.

I am, I guess, a "Technics guy" for 20 years. Briefly, I circumstantially became an Empire guy. I missed direct-drive so now I am back to be a Technics guy again, with a vengeance and end up with dozen other direct-drive tables. It's been fun.

If the speed of a turntable is off by 1%, which can happen to some Rega tables, you think a fancy platter mat(I am sticking to the term "mat" instead of pad just for conventionality, why change now.) can improve that? Enough said.

Can we get back on track talking about the genres of turntable drive system?

It's not that I don't believe the improvement of a turntable mat - of course they do - but we were talking about the TYPE of improvement, in what area the mat will improve the most and some of us simply question it will improve the "slam", "drive", or rhythmic quality, not tonal quality, that, we believe, has more to do with the drive system and, in my experience, particularly, the motor. I will be happy to be proven wrong that a turntable mat will improve across the board in every sonic area to the point where it even matches or surfaces replacing a mediocre motor with a better one. If there's cogging or speed irregularities or speed drift, wouldn't it make sense to address the motor, which is the singular active component in the entire system? For some reason, the thread ended up talking about turntable mats. Many stock Empire 208 turntables are a little fast, please illuminate me on how a turntable mat can make the speed spot on.

Back to motors or drive systems, shall we?

Question for Mr. Kelly. Is there a technical explanation on why, at least to me, most coreless motors in a direct-drive system sounds smoother to my ears? I know they've been advertised as having less cogging or coggin free and I have to admit they do sound silky smooth. They tend to have less torque and, again to my ears, less dynamic but I am willing to trade for smoother sound than just dynamics. Even on a cheap Pioneer DD table with coreless motor that I acquired recently I heard the purest smoothest violin sound from a turntable. Sonically, I am sold on this type of motor. Typically I choose a high torque core motor DD table to tape-drive my passive platter to equal the smooth sound of a DD table with coreless motore.

My experience with coreless motor is not limited to just the Pioneer as I have several turntables here that exhibit this silky smooth quality. The Pioneer is better to illustrate the distinctive quality of coreless motors even in an inexpensive model. I believe the later Pioneer models, the "L2" series of turntable, such as PL-50L and PL-70L all converted L2 to use coreless motor with the same specs, all employing their trademark feature "Stable Hanging Rotor" SHR, basically a fancy way of saying an inverted bearing. Anyway, I realize many top or almost top of the line models from various brands used coreless motors such as Kenwood L-07D, Sony PS-X9, JVC TT101, Yamaha GT-2000, PX-1, Pioneer PL-70LII, Sansui XP-99, et al. I owned neither so obviously I am drooling here. I am not saying only coreless motors are good. It's just that whenever I detect this kind of smooth sound, invariably it's a turntable with a coreless motor. JVC have some core motor tables approach the smoothness I crave for - I haven't listened to my SP10 for a while now. That's why I reserve the core motored tables for tape-driving purpose as the tape smooths out the tiny bit of cogging or whatever you call it for the passive platter.

Raul, I admire your forward thinking. Keep up the good fight. Yes, sometimes audiophiles got what they deserve, un-innovative products.
"I understand the theory of it (belt creep) being used in an attempt to reduce cogging but I think it's the kind of half baked idea propounded by people who really don't understand the mechanics of TTs." - Mark Kelly

I cannot agree more. Well said!

Once again, if a turntable needs a soft rubber belt to reduce coggging or noise from the motor in order to sound competent. Get a different motor or change to a different drive system. It's just that simple to me. Some think platter or bearing is more important because motors don't get the blink blink like a thick shiny platter and they are always tuck away in the back or hidden and do not get the attention they deserve.
.
Axelwhal,

Just because many so called "high end" - a relative and useless term to me - turntable manufacturers use soft rubber belt does not make it right or enough to overwhelm alternatives. These days turntable manufacturing is a cottage industry, compromise has to be made for ease of production. By the way, what exactly is your question or point, as you seem to reinforce what I said in my last post? I personally do not subscribe to heavy heavy weight approach as it will reach a point of diminishing return. I rather have a better stronger motor to get the dynamic I want than to get it from a high mass platter. To me direct-drive is the most elegant approach or belt-drive with non-compliant material or idler-drive with a quieter motor. Basically, all three drive systems can sound good with different approaches to compensate their inherent problems. That's why is called engineering, isn't it?

The Monaco turntable is the most desirable turntable for me if I can afford it as it suits me from a technical and aesthetic standpoint. It's elegant. I haven't heard the sound but I have a feeling I will like it.

.
.
Mark,

Sorry, I should have quoted you completely instead of edited. Can you elaborate on the difference between belt slip and belt creep? I know you posted extensively on a different forum. Care to briefly illuminate the less technical one here? Thanks.
.

"without a VERY good motor controller your wish is not going to be much of an improvement over a high mass platter - maybe quite the opposite!" - Axelwahl

I should be clear when I said "good motor" I also infer good motor and its associated controller as a system. Good motor system, that is.

My motor for tape driving is the Technics SP-10mk2 which I think is good enough for me.


"If the belt were equally stretched on both sides there would be no tension difference and thus no torque transmitted."

Thanks for the explanation. On my system, the active pulley is the same size as the passive platter so I would have to assume there would no or little belt creep, right? I use two identical turntables to drive each other via a VHS tape. So far this is the best sound I got from a belt-drive system and the only thing that can match it is a quality direct-drive turntable with a coreless motor. Since I am lazy, I like the convenience of direct-drive table with some automatic features. :-)