Direct Drive turntables

....could define that timing then why three different TT: SP-10, Monaco and Walker ( I can't find the spec on the Rockport. ) with the same spec on speed: 0.001%, sounds so different?

add two zeros (accurate to within 10 parts per million) next to the decimal point for the Rockport. but more than speed it is truely steady and continuous because of the isolation and inertia combined with the speed and a perfectly flat record. it's the execution of design along with the design approach.

the Rockport technology is now 14-15 years old. it could be bettered and maybe already has been. bring lots of dollars though.

lots of sound logic (pun intended) in these posts. the last 2, from Teres and Radical Steve, ring true with me.

i'm a direct drive 'preferrer'....and also enjoy what a good idler can do for musical enjoyment with it's added 'spice'. i've heard many belt-driven tt's that play music wonderfully (but could be improved with well executed dd). so really it all can be good according to execution.

Teres' point about ranking sonic performance (belt -> rim/idler -> dd) and difficulty of execution as the motor gets closer to the 'music' sounds right, as does Radicalsteve's point about 'air bearings' and 'heroic' over-the-top solutions to minimizing the noise and resonance that also echo my personal experience.

i have the Dobbins Garrard 301 as well as the Dobbins Technics SP-10 Mk3. compared to belt drives in my experience there is a certain continuousness and sure-footedness on peaks that even very good belt drives cannot match. the high performance belt drives are good in these areas, but just not as good. these characterisitics live in the timing of the music and are not to be denied. when a piano or stringed instrument is properly recorded idlers and dd have valuable advantages.

then there is noise and resonance control. my direct drive Rockport has the eddy current true cogless motor with an air bearing. it has the 55 pound platter. then there is the active air suspension, the linear tracking air bearing arm, and the vaccuum hold down. you take the direct drive advantages executed to the extreme, and eliminate the noise. now you are at the edge of what is possible.

maybe belt-drives that have some of these other advantages have their own form of magic, but if i had to choose my priorities as one moves up the food chain......direct drive or idler (maybe rim) would come first before belts with air bearings. the timing of music seems most critical to the enjoyment level (my personal perspective--YMMV).

Raul,

Lp performance has many interconnected variables, we all agree on that. how an Lp is rotated on a platter is just one of those varibles. am i hung up a bit on this issue exclusively? yes and no.

notice i use the term 'preferrer' when descibing my perspective. i am trying not to make statements, only preferences. where i stray from that intention, forgive me.

Jfrech's post also describes my basic feelings quite well. over 15+ years of listening to lots of different tt's and related gear, there is a common attribute with dd and related methods of drive where a belt is not used. and i have found that pretty much without exception i would choose the attributes of a dd/idler over a belt driven tt of a few levels higher overall performance.

there is a point where the best designed belt driven tt's do surpass less refined dd and idlers in overall musical satisfaction. the best belt driven designs don't leave me 'wanting' for dd. OTOH when i hear a dd or idler with similar refinement i enjoy the dd more. no matter how you slice it; music is better (i prefer it more) when the speed is better.....every time.

--my digital player eliminates jitter (timing errors) from any digital input.
--my tt's....
--my Ampex and Studer RTR decks are considered the best transports.

am i hung up on timing? it appears so.

the best sounding musical reproduction gear always goes to elaborate lengths to get the speed right. it's always the 'hard part'. one can have an opinion on different electronic circuits that sound the best. but timing of music is not debatable as most critical. even tonality gets screwed up when the timing is off. and when the timing is approaching perfection then the musical magic really happens.

FWIW, I vote that agon creates a science first forum where opinions must be backed by data (or references thereto).

there are lots of forums where 'prove it' is dominant. in those forums few focus on listening, and it's interesting how the 'sceintists' rarely if ever post about listening experiences. they focus on why this or that cannot be true because of their expertise. and pretty quick 'listeners' find another forum.

it is a personal decision whether to trust one's ears. i'm not passing judgement on anyone else's way of looking at things. but having to 'prove it' with data is not my idea of a good time. it's fun to compare perspectives on the basis of listening to music. and if it's not (or when it's not) fun then i'm gone, i deal with facts 6 days and 55 hours a week.

i'm not anti-data. measurements have a place in their service of the art (music). i think the balance of posting perspectives here on AudiogoN is healthy. if someone gets off track there is feedback questioning that perspective. do we sometimes ignore science? i would hope so.

that said, if someone wants to do a bunch of measurements and present them no one is stopping them. knock yourself out.