Direct drive vs belt vs rim vs idler arm

Zd542, You are of course entitled to your opinion, as is anyone else, but it would be well to keep your facts straight. Like it or not, in a DD turntable, the motor is not "attached" to the platter in the way you seem to think. Rather, the platter is part of the motor. Typically, the platter is attached to a permanent magnet that revolves around, but makes no contact with, the motor's coils. Thus, nothing at all is in contact with the platter except the bearing, not even a belt. Any well designed DD turntable can compare equally or favorably to any BD turntable, in terms of noise. (In a BD turntable, there really IS an external motor connected to the platter by its noisiest part, its drive shaft, via the belt.) You may still not like DD turntables, but find another reason. Perhaps it sounds better if you use the term "magnetic drive", which seems to be all the rage among hi-end BD turntable makers these days. They are one and the same thing.

I agree with Viridian, execution of whatever design philosophy is the key, not the philosophy per se. Then comes the ears and brain of the listener and all the other things in life that bias us to prefer one thing vs another. (I find that I prefer brunettes, for example.)

I think of "rim drive" as a variation on the idler-drive theme, nothing to do with DD. Only, unlike the classic idlers, there is no discrete idler wheel in the energy pathway, which in my view makes rim drive more likely to transmit noise into the platter.

Zd542, IMO, the SL1200 is a "nice" turntable, for the money. And by all means, give one a try. But I think you need to go farther up the ladder (or farther back in time; either one) to get a good idea of what the best of DD turntables can do.

Dear Lohanimal, I realize your generalizations regarding the virtues of each type of drive system are thoughtfully arrived at, but even they are open to question. I agree with the others, who agreed with me (no surprise), that execution is paramount.

I WOULD say a word in support of the unpretentious Lenco L75; it's absolutely amazing what you can get out of that turntable after bearing and chassis upgrades, a well-designed plinth, and a TOTL tonearm are added to the mix. Even though those extras may add up to a few thousand dollars in expense, the Lenco is definitely my choice for "bang for the buck".

Jeremy bearing is terrific. I have an early Super Bearing with the clamp mechanism underneath the plinth. it costs as much as my Lenco but worth it.

Truly, as Rhett Butler said, I don't give a damn.
I respect all of our opinions, and really being happy with one's turntable is all that counts. For me, in practice, there is such a thing as "good enough". The theoretical discussions are a separate bit of play.

For a definition of "belt creep", which is a factor for any conventional belt-drive turntable where the belt travels around a pulley that is some distance from the edge of the platter, go to Vinyl Asylum and search on the phrase. There you will find Mark Kelly's explanation. To a large degree, the phenomenon can be mitigated by having the motor pulley as close to the platter as possible, a la Nottingham, or better yet by having the belt completely encircle the platter, or nearly so. I believe the DPS or Artemis table (one or the other) nearly achieves that by employing a separate capstan. Also, the 47 Labs tt takes a shot at it.

By the way, Mr. Dover, where did you get an AC motor that doesn't cog? Can you describe it?

Quite a difference between Nottingham and Linn tt's. The former use massive platters with a low-torque motor. The latter use a light weight platter with a low torque motor. The Nottingham philosophy has merit, IMO. Quite a few very expensive turntables are of the high mass/low torque type, including Walker Proscenium, etc. There are even a few direct-drives that ascribe to the low-torque/high mass approach, e.g., the Kenwood L07D. This can work very well if well engineered. I am not a "Linnie", obviously.

I would posit that one cannot argue from principles alone that one way to drive the platter is superior to another. I say this, altho I do agree with Syntax that idler drive turntables must deal with the issue he cites. Other drive systems have other issues. Tony, what you claim as a merit of belt drive is also a demerit. If the belt is elastic, then you have speed instability due to that. The big fat platter does provide inertia to minimize that problem. If you have an inelastic belt, then vibration (and cogging?) from the motor have a pathway to the platter, and "belt creep" occurs nevertheless. Any deviation from perfect roundness (or flatness) of the belt also can introduce speed instability. I say all this only to support my opening statement; they are all flawed in one way or another.

Tony, Is Dr. Feickert a psychiatrist? He must be, to play with the minds of audiophiles in such dangerous ways.

Richard, That was a great post. Very informative. Answers a question I have been privately asking myself: Several of the latter day DD turntables, and I believe one or two of the new rim drives, tout the lack of a servo mechanism as a selling point. You can guess the rest...

However, those of us who have been around here for a while have in fact addressed the question of instantaneous speed variation that could go undetected by any measure of "average" speed. Whether the Timeline is any better than the KAB strobe (the best of all strobes, IMO) at detecting such short term errors, I do not know.

Mosin is too smart to post any lists here, and who could blame him for not doing so?

Palasr, I am fairly certain the Timeline flashes more than once per revolution. (I cannot recall the exact frequency; maybe Mosin knows.) Thus it may detect short term speed instability, in fact, altho with what accuracy I cannot know unless I know the frequency.

You would think that the KAB strobe could also hint at short term speed instability, as the "33" would waver or even flicker back and forth while under observation. But I don't know how sensitive it would be to such aberrations.

Dover, That Carol Kidd LP in the Linn label is a pretty good "audiophile" recording. Don't damage it on our account.

A few years ago, I was in Tokyo and visited a well-stocked audio emporium. Here they had in one room pretty near all of the most expensive digital equipment in the world, to include Meitner, Accuphase, Esoteric, Linn, and Burmeister. The sales people left me alone to listen to any and all of this gear, using the very same Carol Kidd recording, the CD version. I sat there for a few hours and got a very good feel for the differences and similarities in SOTA digital at that time. (I was not blown away.) On the way out, I noticed that the store had for sale the LP version of the Carol Kidd recording; so I bought it. When I got back home, I was astonished to perceive how much better the LP sounded on my system compared to my memory of the CD, even when the CD had been auditioned on such high end equipment. This is not to brag on my system. This is to say that with all its faults, even with the faults under discussion on these interminable threads, analog still "rules".

Incidentally, I do believe, if memory serves, that Mark Kelly showed that belt creep can occur even with a non-elastic belt. Also, a sophisticated AC re-generator for a 3-phase AC motor does not eliminate cogging, as cogging is formally defined. Such a controller can reduce or eliminate motor vibration and noise, where motor vibration and noise are due to phase anomalies in the AC delivery. "Cogging" can be reduced by the other strategies you cited, however. At least this is how I understand the art, and I am no motor expert.

Dover, Sorry for being such a "creep". I do recall your citing Kelly's formula. It just seemed to me that he later modified his ideas. As I said, I may be wrong. If all I can do is to try to remember what someone else wrote, I am no authority. Anyway, from now on I will wear suspenders.

I just did some review of Kelly's posts. The missing link, I think, is the fact that he would say there is no such thing as a perfectly inelastic belt. (Such a belt would not bend around a pulley.) So there is no case where E = infinity in the real world. He does say that string drive and mylar tape significantly reduce the problem of belt creep, probably to insignificance but not zero. (I pursued this only to reassure myself vis my memory, not to critique belt drive turntables.)

FWIW, I use a "Jeremy" bearing on my Lenco. Jeremy is in England and makes several different versions of replacement bearings for Lenco and possibly for Garrard. I have his "Superbearing" with an accessory clamp that attaches underneath the turntable chassis to keep a firm grip on the bearing housing. The whole assembly really works. Note, I have not compared the Superbearing to any other aftermarket bearing, just to the stock Lenco bearing assembly.

Manitunc, Don't sweat it.

I was trying to be supportive. I think the availability of the Timeline has created a furor that is completely out of proportion to its real significance. A case of too much information.

Dear Dover, That was a nice post. But as regards your "old" Sota Star, I had a different experience with my old SOTA Star Sapphire Series III. I owned it from about 1990 to the late 1990s. This was the turntable that made me a believer in the potential deficiencies of belt drive. I could easily hear the pitch instability, particularly on jazz and classical piano LPs. For all that time, I put up with it, because I thought that the distortion I was hearing was on the master tape from which the LPs were made. (There was no internet in those years to tell me I was wrong.) Then I bought a Nottingham Hyperspace, which is not too different from the SS in design philosophy but is worlds better in its accuracy of reproduction of piano music, i.e., pitch stable, elastic belt drive notwithstanding. When I added a Walker Precision Motor Controller to the Hyperspace rig, everything went up a notch further; the Walker made a huge improvement in what I already liked quite a bit. These experiences led me to begin to appreciate the importance of drive mechanisms and the proper job of a turntable. I hasten to add that, from what I have gleaned second hand, the modern SOTA turntables are also much improved over my old Star Sapphire. I mean no slur on their current products.

I don't think "cogging" had anything to do with the wavering pitch of my old SS Sapphire. Possibly the mounting of the motor on the plinth whilst the bearing and platter were suspended did have something to do with it. I think that cogging, if indeed it is audible at all in any well designed TT motor, would give a "regularly regular" type of distortion and would probably not affect pitch so obviously. I actually heretofore thought that what I heard with my Sota was due to the old stylus drag/belt stretch bugaboo, but that's just an unsubstantiated guess.

Interesting to note that the original AR turntable, which I used for years, also had the motor mounted on solid ground and the platter suspended. Yet it is touted as a "classic". I can't even remember whether it gave an accurate rendition of piano notes.

Yeah. The bass on mine was muffled as well. (I totally forgot about that issue.) Could be I had the version you are talking about. But when you say "we", do you mean to say you were a SOTA dealer or otherwise involved with SOTA?

This is the way of the turntable world: manufacturers have made their choices between hi and lo mass and hi and lo torque, and between direct-drive and belt-drive (and idler-drive). Then comes the technical justification for what each has done. Techdas, as you know, is by far not the first manufacturer to choose hi-mass platter combined with lo-torque motor. I think the first guys to go all the way with that were Lloyd Walker and David Fletcher (Nottingham Analog). The consortium in the American West that gave rise to Teres, Galibier, and Redpoint can also take some credit. It is merely up to us to listen and choose. Chronologically, I don't know where Final Audio fits; perhaps they were leaders too in implementing that idea. (Is "Techdas" coming from Dertonearm, by the way? I had not heard of this new brand, but I do know DT announced plans to bring a turntable to market, and he does preach very high mass/low torque.)

"The torque ripple or cogging torque will be lower"... I think a better way to put it is that the cogging of a motor spinning at 1800 rpm will occur at a higher frequency, for a given number of poles, and perhaps (really, perhaps) is less likely to be audible for that reason. But on the other hand, such a more rapidly spinning motor will be more likely to emit vibrations and noise, due to structural imperfections. Enter the belt-drive. Further, Kenwood, Pioneer Exclusive, Dual, and a few others back in the day used coreless motors to minimize if not eliminate totally the issue of cogging in their direct-drive turntables. Another wag on these pages or on VA has opined that cogging is essentially inaudible. I have no opinion on that.

Do you happen to know what is the rotational inertia of the L07D with the optional peripheral ring weight installed? I am using it with mine. Interestingly, when one uses the ring, one is also told to flip a switch on the outboard PS which I guess changes the servo so as to recognize the additional mass.

If you prefer your thread drive to any and all direct-drives you have ever heard, that is all well and good. I am sure it is superb. But I don't think you can prove from first principles that it is inherently superior to all direct drive.

I looked it up and now know Techdas is Japanese. "Techdas" sounded German to me.

Halcro, I am interested in your response re "platter inertia", which is to say, are you using an aftermarket platter mat that adds significant mass?

Would be interesting to look at the audio output waveform, to see whether those notches in the peaks are also present there. One could just put a 'scope on the output of the phono stage. 1000Hz is a good frequency to look at.

Now that we are adding a touch of real data to the discussion, things become more interesting and cordial. Thanks, Henry et al.

Dear Dover, I have no issue with anything you say, where it's a matter of opinion. And I believe you are totally honest when you relate to us that there is something about the "sound" of the direct-drive turntables with which you are familiar that you don't like, or you don't like as much as you like your Final. Quite apart from what Richard says, my problem with your statements is that you are relating whatever it is you don't like about DD to a known issue with all motors (cogging) or to servo effect. As audiophiles we all have the tendency to impute cause-effect relationships like this, when in fact few of us ever do the necessary experiments to prove the relationship. You may dislike DD; that's fine. But you don't know that what you don't like is directly related to cogging or servo. (In fact, which is it, cogging or servo action? You change the tune on that with regularity.)

In my system, I have a highly tweaked Lenco, a Technics SP10 Mk3, and an L07D, all set up side by side by side. They are each very different from one another in the method by which speed is "controlled". (As I have mentioned previously, the only meaningful attack on cogging is the coreless motor; L07D has that feature. But the Mk3 is just as good if not a touch superior to the L07D, with its monster "cogging" motor.) They are all superb turntables; they are more remarkable for their similarity in "sound" than they are for their differences in sound.

I hope that the DD turntables upon which you have made your judgement were properly serviced and adjusted. Leaky capacitors and the consequences of same (blown solid state devices in the speed control electronics) can take a toll on the performance of DD turntables that is not readily apparent, i.e., the table may still "work" but may not be working to its max.

Richard and Henry, Well actually Henry has made a change to platter inertia, in the downward direction, by removing the platter mat. I am guessing, based on my DP80, that the Victor OEM platter mat is a rubber one. If it's like the DP80 platter mat, it weighs a bit more than half a pound. The pigskin mat probably weighs far less. Now that Henry has this measurement system up and running, it would be very informative indeed if he/you could repeat your experiment with the OEM rubber mat in place, so see what happens to those notches. Then also you could do experiments with some of those very heavy aftermarket mats, e.g., the ones made by TT Weights if you have one lying around, to see just how much and at what point extra weight affects the servo. (Or just stack a bunch of LPs on the platter.) We've been talking about the possible effects of hi-mass platter mats here for years, with no actual data.

This is all about speed stability, servos, and the like. I have no doubt that the TT101 probably sounds better with the pigskin mat than it does with its OEM mat. Same holds for the DP80, on which I use a Boston Audio mat.

Dear Ct, The copper mat cannot really "damage" the servo permanently. It's just that the servo is operating suboptimally. Excessive platter mass can only damage the bearing in the long run.

Henry, If you tell me how to do it, since the photos are on my desktop, not on the internet, I will post a photo of my "new" 1959 Alfa Romeo Giulietta Spider Veloce.

As you may know, I have owned (in the past) just about every model of 356, up to a Carrera GT Speedster, and finally a 550RS Spyder. But I have been bereft of old cars for more than 10 years, until now.

You guys are making me feel.... normal.

Off the deep end will be when someone here says that a power cord made a difference in turntable speed accuracy. Which is both on- and off-topic.

Dear Win, I place you way above me in experience and knowledge, when it comes to turntables. However, this is the first time I find myself disagreeing with you AND thinking that I have some personal hands-on experience to back up my quibble. Specifically, I would take serious issue with your contention that the plinth is not so important for direct-drive turntables. In my home system, I have had a lot of experience listening to different DDs in different plinths, meaning, the same motor mounted in different plinths and/or different motors mounted in the same (type of) plinth. The plinth is so "in the picture" and can do so much harm to DD sound that I have some empathy for Halcro, et al, who espouse the no-plinth approach to DD use, because a "bad" plinth does much more harm than no-plinth. (However, I maintain my position that, even with all the sonic problems a plinth can introduce, one is still necessary; it just has to be really carefully designed and built, and there is no substitute for trial and a willingness to admit error.) I would posit that what you do not like so much about DD's you have auditioned is largely due to plinths or to subtle suboptimal function of the drive system.

Hey, I love idlers too, as you know.

Dear Thuchan, Once you get all the way to a "5-way" horn system, I should hope there would be good response at the audio frequency extremes. Most horn lovers insist on making do with one or at most two drivers for the full range, as I am sure you know.

Dear Dover, There you go again. Trying to "prove" that one drive system is "better" than another (or in this case, "worse") by arguing from first principles. First, I think there are a lot of holes in your arguments, and second, have we, or at least most of us, not agreed that execution is paramount? That each drive system has its failings?

By now I get it; you don't like direct-drive. You do like your Final Audio TT. Live and let live.

On terminology: Motor "slip" is a term I have only read in connection with induction motors. They must slip in order to generate torque. This would apply only to idlers, as the older idlers are the only TT's I know of that used induction type motors. Induction motor combined with eddy current or other type of "braking" can make for excellent speed stability. Also, "jitter" has a specific meaning in terms of digital to analog conversion. Let's not confuse matters further by using it to describe a phenomenon related to what? Cogging or servo correction? These two phenomena are entirely separate and independent of one another, and yet they are being lumped.

FWIW, The top end Denon DD's used 3-phase AC synchronous motors. The top end Technics DD's use what you would call DC motors. But Bill Thalmann told me in conversation that if you look at the actual circuit of the Technics, the distinction between the two is not so great. DC motors are used in some of the most expensive BD turntables, as well, and the manufacturer's tout the fact.

I guess the propensity to assign cause and effect without data to connect the two is inherent in human nature. This is why we have... religion. Because one knows there is a servo in action, and because one hears a coloration - this is not enough information to say that the servo causes said coloration. I think I know what coloration it is you are talking about vis the SP10 Mk2; I heard it too. I found that it can be ameliorated or aggravated by the choice of plinth. So, how could the choice of plinth influence servo action? Maybe there is a way that could happen, but one has to test it before jumping to conclusions about cause and effect. Plus, we have the (correct) testimony of Richard that the servo does not operate like a full "on", full "off" switch, which might indeed lead to a kind of incoherency. The servo is more sophisticated than you (and certainly Dover) think. Yet despite what Richard wrote a few weeks ago, we have reverted to talking about servo mechanisms as if they are nothing more than on/off switches.

What about the latest megabuck DD turntables? I think the one from the Northwest (NVS) does not use servo correction. Is it free of the sort of coloration we are talking about? Rumor has it that it does not pass the Timeline test. The carbon fiber Grand Prix Audio Monaco uses a very advanced mega-fast modern state of the art speed correction system, yet it is not widely loved. Why is the SP10 Mk3 very much more natural sounding to my ears compared to the Mk2, if this is only about servo problems? (I don't imagine there are major differences in servo design between the two, but maybe.)

Dover, This is what I fear as I grow older: "continuous shrinkage". If you can help me avoid that, please do send the relevant information.

Oh yes, I meant to add that the gibberish you (Dover) quote from the NVS website does not really tell us for sure whether it uses a servo mechanism. Could be that they are talking about the ways in which they assure the synchronicity of an AC synchronous motor controller, to compensate for drag of any kind, stylus or otherwise. I had read from another source that they don't, in fact, use a servo.

The difference, in my mind at least, would be that a sophisticated controller for an AC synchronous motor (which may be what NVS does) would affect the motor's ability to sense that it had been slowed or pulled out of AC synch by some external force and correct for that. Whereas, a servo would require a speed sensor at the platter end that would tell the motor that the platter had deviated from the programmed speed. Then the motor fixes that by applying enough torque to overcome whatever new drag had been introduced. Both cases are a form of negative feedback. You might analogize this to the difference between local and global NFB, respectively.

(I don't much care for NFB in my power amplifier.)

"Ultrasonic". I don't doubt you for one minute, but WTF does "ultrasonic" mean in this context? Stereophile reviewers are notorious (in my mind anyway) for uncritically re-stating just about any pile of BS given to them by the manufacturer of a product under review. Sometimes the verbiage in the review is taken right off the manufacturer's website or sales brochure. But in this case, none of that would matter, as the only issue is servo or no servo.

I could have sworn that one way in which NVS claimed superiority over the "old guard" DD turntables (e.g., Technics) was that they had eschewed the use of a servo mechanism. I thought that was mentioned in that thread on NVS that eventually got deleted from this website. I must be incorrect.

Dear Dover, You are probably correct, and the discrepancy is probably one of semantic nature. Maybe the Goldmund spec is "per minute", for example. That would make the GP Monaco much faster than the Goldmund, which we agree it should be.

But I do take the point, which I myself realized after posting, that the term ultrasonic must mean that the correction rate exceeds the highest frequency of what we deem to be the audio spectrum, 20kHz.

As to servo or no servo in the NVS, I went to their website, Dover, after you quoted from it. In fact, I do not see the word "servo" anywhere. Did I miss it?

So, Richard, are you inferring that the GP Monaco claims for the speed of their speed correction system are not so earth-shattering or envelope-pushing as one was led to believe, given what Goldmund did two decades earlier?

The Reference was always an awesome device in my book, but the Studio, which I actually got to listen to, underwhelmed me.

Ketchup, In response to your question, which I think was aimed at Dover, I wrote after Dover's post that I visited the NVS website and did not find the word "servo" mentioned there, which still leaves open in my mind the possibility that they don't use a servo. They may have said they use a "laboratory grade" power supply, however. If I just missed seeing the mention of a servo on the NVS website, I do not mind being corrected.

I have a laboratory here, albeit a biological one. In my lab we have many power supplies that are used primarily for electrophoresis. We don't generally use Lambda brand, but I have seen them in other labs. The voltage regulation required for a lab grade power supply used for electrophoresis is probably not as stringent as that needed in audio amplifiers and preamplifiers, or in the best AC motor controllers. I have always meant to bring in one of my meters and determine how much AC is present for a given set DC voltage put out by one of our lab units, but I have never done so. However, in other kinds of laboratories, especially where physics and chemistry are the subjects, I could imagine that voltage regulation is far more stringent. So, the term "laboratory grade", by itself, is fairly meaningless.

Dover, Please lighten up. I am probably guilty of not studying your posts with the dedication that they deserve. Nor am I guilty of criticizing you if you might have been incorrect about whether or not NVS uses a traditional type of servo mechanism (meaning one where there is a device that directly monitors platter speed and feeds information back to a controller for compensation). You apparently inferred from the term "17 degrees of freedom" that they DO use such a servo. My error is apparently that I quoted you as having actually said that THEY say they use a servo, which perhaps is not the case(?) I am still not certain how the NVS works, but it is not a matter of great concern to me either way. As for "Stereophile Review", puh-leeze! I am sure you can find a better independent authority than that. As for believing "black is white", where did I do that? I am speculating, not believing.

Peter, Basis turntables are suspended? I guess the top models in the line have pneumatic feet. I usually think of such turntables as un-suspended.

Dover, While it's true that both the L07D and the Mk3 have heavy-ish platters compared to most DD turntables (the Mk3 having the heaviest platter I know of among all DDs), the two turntables are otherwise about as dissimilar in design philosophy as any two DDs can be. The Mk3 uses a mutipole cored motor and very tight servo control. The L07D uses a coreless motor and really very "loose" servo correction. The two turntables do sound different from one another.

Can't speak to Syntax's dismissal of the SP10 Mk3 without knowing the condition of the unit that he auditioned and what else was in that system. What Syntax may not have liked about a stock Mk3, even assuming it was working up to spec, is addressed by the Krebs mods to the Mk3 (and to the Mk2). Anyway, if one does not like DD turntables, one may still be a good person. And vice-versa with respect to belt-drive.

Dear Dover, You wrote, "As an aside the Technics based cutter lathe SP02 motor had significantly more torque than the SP10mk3 motor, and used a 60lb flywheel in conjunction with the higher torque to achieve stability."

Yes, the SP02 motor is even larger and has more torque than does the Mk3 motor, so what? The SP02 is designed with a different task in mind, that of driving the cutting of an LP. That said, the Mk3 motor is still the "torque-ist" motor among all the vintage Japanese DD turntables. I however would not use that fact to claim that the Mk3 must therefore be the best of the bunch; the Mk3 motor has to motivate a platter that is the heaviest of the bunch, and I would think that the high torque was deemed to be required to deal with controlling that excessive mass.

Now, as regards your dismissal (or seeming dismissal) of the Krebs mods, it would seem you misunderstand the intent. The Krebs mods are designed in part to stabilize the relationship between the rotor and stator of the motor. When a servo correction occurs that invokes a speed correction, this applies a force that can momentarily disorient the relationship between the two components of the motor (Newton's Third Law of Motion, again). This phenomenon can then induce a "false" signal for servo correction, and so on and on. The net result is frequent servo corrections that emanate from the instability of the rotor/stator interface. Perhaps this is responsible for the coloration that some do hear with the Technics SP10 Mk2 and less so with the Mk3. (I certainly heard it with an unmodified Mk2, much less with an unmodified Mk3 in a 100-lb plinth.) Richard Krebs has devised some methods to stabilize the motor structurally that largely ameliorates the problem and thereby reduces or eliminates it, resulting in much less frequent servo activation. Also, you are not correct in saying that there are no changes made to the power supply/servo module. Bill Thalmann has devised several updates that are part and parcel of a "Krebs mod". And finally, we were not exactly living in caves back in the late 70s and early 80s when these products were devised and marketed. The major improvements in servo technology have more to do with miniaturization than anything else.

Here I feel the need to repeat myself; none of the above is meant to imply that DD turntables, as a class are superior to BD turntables, as a class. I am sure your Final Solution TT is excellent. And I too love idler turntables; I would not ever give up my heavily tweaked Lenco. But I also adore my L07D, so I would like you to amplify on your critique: "Kenwood L07D had a bottom end/midrange/top end that was discontiguous". For example, did the unit you auditioned have a EMI shield between the motor and the underside of the platter?

I asked my iPhone, "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" Siri then went into a lengthy dissertation on angels and arrived at the conclusion that angels are non corporeal and therefore have no dimensions in space; ergo an infinite number of angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Dover, I am gratified that you've apologized to the L07D. Yes, the stainless steel "platter sheet" ought to go a long way to block EMI from the motor, but the addition of a second shield (ERS cloth, mu metal, TI Shield in my unit) under the platter sheet removed a kind of subtle glare that I did not know was present until it was eliminated by the added shield. The idea to try it came from the L07D Owners website; it turned out to be worthwhile. I don't know what was in the rest of the system that caused you to blame the L07D for a loss of "contiguity" among bass, midrange, and treble, but it would have to be a system (from cartridge to speakers) with which one was otherwise very familiar, in order to be able to blame the TT. Good point about the increased speed of modern day chips, but what is the evidence that these parts make a meaningful difference in design of a servo for a TT? The Grand Prix Monaco is state of the art in servo design, and no one is knocking down the doors to buy one (so far as I know). Bill Thalmann is much better equipped than I to discuss the servo mechanisms in these tt's, but I take his word that the circuitry is pretty sophisticated by modern standards, and in some cases he is able to upgrade discrete transistors to "modern" equivalents.

Otherwise, I am on the side of both Chris and Richard, although they are professionally competitors with each other. Both are fighting the good fight, IMO.

A close friend who lives in France has a Platine Verdier which he just recently replaced with one of the new Kronos turntables, the belt drive with a counter-rotating platter underneath the top platter. He put his Verdier up for sale immediately upon hearing the Kronos. The major problem that I saw with the Verdier is its top heaviness; you have a huge massive platter way up at the top with a rubbery set of feet way down below. It's bound to wobble, even if microscopically. I know there is a heavy granite base too, which probably serves to ameliorate the problem, at least mostly. And then there is the motor, mounted several feet away on a stationary platform; not such a good idea, either, IMO. On the other hand, when I have heard the Platine at shows and in showrooms, it sounds very "nice".

Fleib, Your points are well taken; I am no fan of suspended tables, but suspension vs no suspension is yet another choice, in addition to, not instead of, belt-drive vs DD. As you note, a suspended DD turntable would not be subject to the belt stretch you mention. But in fairness to TT's of the suspended/belt-drive class, none of the current examples that I know of still mount the motor on the base, rather than on the suspended element. The old SOTA tables were guilty of that flaw; my Star Sapphire Series III was just awful on sustained piano notes, as a result. For years, I thought the muddy piano sound was part and parcel of vinyl reproduction. Modern SOTA tables are no longer built that way, and old ones can be modified, according to my reading.

Peter, I can have no opinion of your SME, because I have never even seen one in the flesh. By all accounts, it is excellent.

Fleib, I was saying that the modern SOTA tables (e.g., Cosmos and Millennium) no longer suffer from the sin you and I described (mounting the motor on the unsprung plinth whilst the belt drives a suspended platter). So, I would also say that they have taken their corporate head out of the sand, for the past decade. If I am incorrect in that assumption, please let me know. I owned the SOTA Star Sapphire Series III, with vacuum hold-down, for several years starting around 1990. Thus it was a later version of the Star Sapphire series but still very guilty of the flaws you describe. I went from that to a Nottingham Analogue Hyperspace, which even with all its possible other shortcomings, was nevertheless a revelation by comparison to the SSS III. The vacuum hold-down and felt mat added yet another form of coloration to the sonics; in the end I was not using the vacuum at all, just the excellent SOTA clamp.

Dover, I quite agree with you on the desirability of "loop rigidity". We've spoken of this issue before. My 100-lb Mk3 plinth is home-made with a view to establishing just such a mechanical linkage. As we've mentioned before, the L07D was built from the get-go with a very effective mechanical linkage between bearing/tonearm. I noticed the other day that my friend's TOTL Galibier table is beautifully engineered with that in mind, as well. In fact, it seems to me that the high end Galibier (belt-drive) is very close in concept to your Final Audio. You wrote, "There are only a handful of exceptional turntables out there in my experience." Wouldn't it be more fair to say, "There are only a handful of turntables out there that I find exceptional"? After all, it's your opinion in the end, albeit a well informed one.

Syntax, My friend who is switching over to Kronos from Verdier lives in France. Has visited with Mr Verdier, before that gentleman unfortunately passed away. My friend's Verdier is "real", if you or one of your friends cares to buy it. I have no opinion as between these two turntables; I was just reporting second hand what my friend hears in his listening room, in France. Anyway, I don't know how the sourcing of the magnets between the platter and base can ameliorate the other hypothetical issues with the design. But, again, none of this is to say that I don't like Verdier tt's or that they are not good sounding.