Is one TT type inherently better than another? I see the rim drive VPI praised in the forum as well as the old idler arm. I've only experienced a direct drive Denon and a belt driven VPI Classic.
I have learned allot first hand over the past ownership of numerous tables including the different designs mentioned and the ones I have tried I have been absolutely shocked with their lack of speed accuracy which at the end of the day all of these table designs all have in common and should have.
I could hear such in my own set-up prior to using this TimeLine tool to check such but was being brain washed by others including the manufacture suggesting this and that, suggesting it wasn't important.
I know there is allot more going on than just operating at an accurate speed but if you can't get the speed accurate from the get go then the rhythm and pace is effected "off" so the rest afterwards really doesn't matter, to me anyways and once you have heard it well ....
It's simple, your table using the TimeLine is either accurate or not.
I have found it seems that many are in denial, some don't even want to try this TimeLine in fear suggesting this or that works for them but in the end this is the real deal and so simple to use to truely view what's actually going on with the speed of your table so why fool your self in believing different.
Buy or find someone with one and check it out and maybe the manufactures in the end will work just a little harder ensuring theirs will be accurate.
Would love to see a REAL list made up of actual tables that can actually show they are holding an accurate speed for the entire side of a record both playing and not with an actual video with a time stamp on it.
The distance behind the tables all being the same just using a pce of tape with a BOLD line on it so one can see the laser location easily.
I won't mention the members name because that really doesn't matter, this person ownes the same table as I once did some time ago and was adamant his was running accurate when I suggested mine didn't and wouldn't, when I went over and checked the table in question with the TimeLine in hand which was really simple we found his was also off and in the end we couldn't get it to run accurate on both speeds either.
If your table doesn't have the capability of adjusting the speed like a SP10 MK2 I had on hand won't be an easy correction, if such in the end can even be done.
Lets not debate or get pissed off, instead lets work on that list of tables as per above with proof.
I would personally love to view such and there are allot of owners with different tables just reading and posting on this specific thread.
I may be even more cynical than you! I believe the overwhelming bulk of merchandise made is created mainly for profit, with the case being the part which receives the most attention. For example, one very famous turntable maker that almost everyone has heard of uses a $56 AC motor, and that's assuming you buy one, not a quantity. Well, we bought six of them, and they all cog an unbelievable amount. Even worse, spindle diameter wasn't at all consistent. The bottom line here is that some manufacturers build only for price points and marketing spin, yet audiophiles continue to eat it up.
However, I also know of manufacturers who live audio, and for them expanding the art trumps anything else, so hope springs eternal because they manage to find like minded customers.
I have never had a chance to try the Timeline device. Some have reported very impressive results with the Timeline. They have seen zero drift of the red line playing the entire side of a record. That is approx. 833 revolutions. I figure if my tt looses one revolution out of 10,000, I would be ok with that. That is 0.01% accuracy. Does that seem reasonable? Well, if so then that would translate to a 30 degree drift of the red line from the Timeline after playing one side of a record. I would still call that good.
Ptm, I tried your "interesting test" on my SME 30/12 belt drive. Not easy as the motor pulley is under and very close to the large platter. The rubber belt has only 1" of exposed length between the driven pulley and the platter. I felt none of "the vibrational energy being transmitted to the platter" that you mention. Perhaps the massive SME is built to a different standard than the VPI. I do notice though that the SME has a much shorter "free" belt length than most other belt drive tables - even Syntax's beloved Basis table. I've often wondered about the effect of belt length on these designs.
I don't know of anyone who has tried thread or tape drive on an SME table.
As far as the quality of the belt itself is concerned, I have not directly compared the SME belt to the Basis belt which is purported to be one of the finest in the industry. I agree with those who have written that each design has its strengths and weaknesses so implementation of a proper design is critical to the end result.
Here's an interesting test for those of you who have belt drives, especially those with rubber belts like the VPI's.
Right, but this is based on VPI's ultra low quality. But you find that very often with the stuff from other Manufacturers, too. Ever checked a Raven belt? The word "Precision" you find mainly in their advertising ads. Try that with a Basis belt :-) Or try a Timeline, it is a disaster for the majority of Manufacturers, they aren't able to offer a proper motor, even when you can buy 3 of them. Based on that inferior Design solutions I agree that a direct Drive can give better results. But this is not based on its Design, it is based on the low quality from the others even when they are very expensive. The majority of owners believe that the offered product (whatever it is, Tonearm, Cartridge, Speaker...) is simply perfect form the Design, the Manufacturers and his cohorts are directly sent from God to bring joy to everyone and it can be made better, maybe only with more money, but they don't even think about the correctness of the Design itself. Or what they really get for the money. Most learn by spending money, but even that does not educate generally.
Here's an interesting test for those of you who have belt drives, especially those with rubber belts like the VPI's. Place your finger lightly on the belt where it leaves the motor capstan and is being pushed to the platter. Feel that vibrational energy that's being transmitted to the platter? You don;t feel it as much on the other side of the belt, where it is being pulled off the platter to the capstan.
A simple solution is to place something fairly heavy and smooth up against the belt between the capstan and the platter to help dampen and absorb that vibration.
I don;t feel any of that with my silk thread, and I would bet there is little to feel also with mylar tape.
I'd say that high mass would be something like 100 times greater than the mass of the record. That would be about 15 kg. This discussion got me in the mood to check my platter speed again. After playing several records the tt was warmed up and I know from measurements before that warmup is critical. I had a small bit of drift (about 0.5Hz out of 3150 Hz) after setting the speed several months ago. I dialed speed back in and had some good results: -0.01%/+0.02% Wow&Flutter and the speed plot over time shows a sine wave with a 5 second period. I believe the +/- speed variation over 5 seconds is the control system holding speed about the setpoint (At any rate I feel these values are well below audible detection and are an order of magnitude better than the records themselves.) This app is a very good objective measurement tool, I think, for dialing in speed and checking to see if your tt is operating within the manufacturer's specifications. No more, no less.
First, belt drive tt's in general have high mass platters.
Tony, some belt drive decks have high mass platters, but MOST? Some certainly do, but I would venture to say that most belt drive decks on the market, both new and used, do not have or were not designed with platters that I would characterize as high mass platter.
But I guess it depends on what you consider to be "high mass".
Mosin - no worries. The silk thread I use only seems to slip fractionally on start up, but the 20kg platter can be up to speed in less than 1 rotation, depending on how I tension it, which I think is pretty good considering the pulley is only about 10mm versus the 20kg platter. This suggests the silk has very good grip. With the high mass platter it does drive the motor pulley as well. If I turn the motor off, the platter/thread will drive the motor for a while. The designers original intent was that the silk should be "chalked", I presume for a controlled slip, but I prefer direct. The silk lasts a long time as in can go for a year or two. The only breakage I've had in 20yrs is when I've moved the deck and once when I went on holiday for 6 weeks and left the TT running ( I think high humidity weakened the silk fibre ). Timeline speed checked on playing records inside/out etc and it's rock solid. These things all come down to the quality of the implementation, whatever direction is chosen.
I stand corrected, I think. This is where I got tripped up on your post with the word "and" being key. "I said it is an assumption and that if the belt doesn't stretch then there is no creep."
More from Mark Kelly:
"Some form of tensioner (always on the "non-drive" side) will eliminate slip, but it won't touch creep. Creep is necessary for a belt drive to work. The mechanism of creep is how the belt transmits force from the pulley to the platter, so no creep = no rotation."
Mosin - please re-read my post. I did not say that elasticity causes the belt creep. I said it is an assumption and that if the belt doesn't stretch then there is no creep.
Mark Kelly's calculation of belt creep is :
Creep = T/r x A/E
Where T is torque transmitted, r is pulley radius, A is belt cross sectional area and E is the elastic modulus of the belt material for small strains. Thus a torque of 1mNm on a 10mm diameter pulley using a belt of 10 mm2 and made of rubber with a modulus of 50MPa will display 0.4% creep. If the torque reduces by half so does the creep so the speed change on load for a 0.5mNm load variation is around 0.2%. The 0.5mNm load variation is pretty typical of the stylus drag changes found on turntables.
If the belt has no elasticity, then the Elastic Modulus (E in the above calculation ) is ∞ ( infinity ), and Belt Creep will be effectovely 0 ( zero ) exactly as I said.
To give some examples of tensile strength : Rubber 15mpa Human Hair 380mpa Silk 1000mpa Aramid fiber 2557mpa
These are single fibres only. Here are the calculations using Mark's example, and assuming the cross sectional area is arbitrarily 1/10th the size of the rubber belt.
T R A E Creep 1 5 10 50 0.04000 1 5 1 380 0.00053 1 5 1 1000 0.00020 1 5 1 2257 0.00009
On the subject of thread drive TT's, they do have to be designed properly, as in the Final Audio. The Final Audio uses an AC synchronous motor with precisely controlled regenerated sine/cosine waves for the motor and variable voltage regulation to optimise the torque applied to the moving high mass/high inertia platter. In addition to this the pulley profile must be designed for a thread rather than a belt. If I recall correctly the pulley should present a concave hemisphere to the thread.
As to Dover's post, belt creep is not caused from stretching the belt. Find Mark's writing on the subject because he explains it far better than I ever could, and he backs it all up with the proper math. It is a physical limitation of a belt drive system that generates an inherent tracking error.
As far as I know, Mark doesn't address tape drives or string drives, however. I don't look at a string drive the same way as a belt drive, but tape may be a viable way to avoid the problem. String drives have a limited slip that has always intrigued me.
Syntax discounts the idler drive out of hand, but I assure you that all the problems that he mentions have been addressed. It has a lower tracking error than a belt at around one part per million, and it has fewer maintenance worries than a string. Not only that, but with a proper controller it is more speed accurate. However, that's not to discount the string because I believe similar outcomes can be reached with a string when the system is designed correctly and built well. It can be fiddly, though.
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.
Well said, Lewm, and a welcomed reality check in a discussion verging at times toward angel-counting on a pinhead.
I also meant to mention that by setting platter speed with this iPhone app, it significantly improved the PRAT of my tt. I had been using the little strobe disc for years to set platter speed. The speed was off by a significant amount using the little manufacturer supplied strobe disc.
Motor speed control circuits have to be designed for the various types of drives. For belt drive tt's the circuits must likely be tuned specifically for the belt compliance/platter mass being used. DD tt's must have altogether different speed control circuits as compared to idler or belt drive. Back to belt drive; I think changing belt types on a tt affects the sound because the spring rate of the belt has changed thereby affecting the dynamic response of the system. The speed control circuits are designed around a specific set of parameters including the belt type. Changing belt types alters the spring rate side of the equation and may make the table sound better or possibly worse. It might be hit or miss. The same goes for adding mass to the platter. You have to try the Dr. Feickert Analogue iPhone/iPad app. I think it is a killer app. You need a test record with a 3150Hz test tone. You can order one through the maker of this app or in my case, I have a test record with a 3150Hz test tone. This app does three things; it lets you dial in platter speed while the cartridge is tracking in the groove, it analyzes and computes your table's Wow&Flutter (it automatically filters out the record's runout which can accentuate Wow&Flutter) and it charts your platter's speed over time. My particular tt has Wow&Flutter measuring +0.02%/-0.03%. That is within specifications. The speed plot over time shows a small, smooth sinusoidal wave. That might be motor cogging smoothed out by the platter mass, but I think it might be the motor speed controller cycling about the setpoint. I measured the speed of an old Oracle tt and it did a little better than my tt. It had a Wow&Flutter measurement of +0.01%/-0.01%. It also had a smooth, low frequency sine wave for speed vs. time. The Oracle was harder to adjust and dial-in an exact speed of 33 1/3. I would really like to hear from others how their idler drive and direct drive tt's compare with the speed vs time plotted by this app. It might give us some insight into why the different drive systems sound different.
The belt creep that Mark Kelly expounds assumes the belt stretches and thins slightly, ergo if the belt doesn't stretch then there is no belt creep. Japan. Big and round. There are lots of ways to reducing or eradicating cogging, varying the ratio of slots to poles, angled slots or stators, variable drive applied to the motor windings, running the motor at high speed etc In the Final Audio it uses an AC synchronous motor with precisely controlled regenerated sine/cosine waves for the motor and variable voltage regulation to optimise the torque applied to the moving high mass/high inertia platter. I can actually dial in cogging via the torque controller if someone likes to listen to that.
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.
Lewm - he didn't say elastic belt drive, he said belt drive. My silk thread "belt" does not stretch, the ac motor doesn't cog, and I dont get belt creep whatever that is. According to both the Timeline and KAB the speed on my deck is rock steady. I have dispensed with both a 301/401 so I know what those idlers sound like - musical but far far away from state of the art in resolution & transparency. I agree with you they are all flawed, but which has the least flaws.
I never said that the Linn and Nottingham are the same - I was saying they have the similarity of being low torque designs and sounding excellent 'IN THEIR OWN WAY'. I have to say I was never a Linnie myself, however, I heard one with all the Funk Mods and thought it sounded wonderful - I never thought I would ever say that.
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.
I'll take belt drive over the over versions and here is why. First, belt drive tt's in general have high mass platters. That provides not just speed stability but also dampening; dampening not just external vibrations but also motor cogging. The mass of the platter provides inertia to help keep the speed constant. For example, my tt has a 14lbs (6.36kg) platter. A 1 gram change in stylus drag (assuming a drastic change in the record groove) generates 0.00155Nm of torque at the outer rim of the record. Assuming all else is constant except for this torque change, the platter is going to lose 0.29% of its speed in 1 second. Of course the motor is going to increase torque to compensate, but for this analysis you can see the impact of stylus drag on the platter. The deceleration is proportional to platter mass, so if your platter weighs 28lbs, then the speed loss would be half or 0.145%. Conversely, the stylus drag will have a proportionally larger impact on lighter flywheels. Motor speed control and belt compliance play a larger roll in speed stability than inertia, but I wanted to point out the value of higher mass platters. Now imagine a low mass platter directly coupled to a motor. Not saying it is impossible, but it is definitely an engineering challenge to smooth out the torque ripples from the motor and isolate the record from external vibrations.
I am always fascinated from technical solutions and an idler drive is THE best (by far) way to transform any vibration and smearing from motor to the bearing and platter. These distortions are called Rhythm (well, the" Subway below Kingsway Hall" in every record), the loss of High frequency information is a result in better Bass (like a compressed MP3 file to the midrange). Most record stations replaced those units as fast as possible. Personally I think, the audiophile world waited for them. Here is a version with an updated motor.
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.
What is quite interesting is that there is a clear shift in the direction of higher torque designs. Do bear in mind that Nottingham Analogue go for a high mass low torque design that transmits as little vibration as possible. Likewise the Linn LP12 is not exactly a high torque motor, nor is the one on the townshend rock I recently acquired. That said all three of these decks sound excellent in their own way. A truly circular (hope you don't mind the pun) discussion. As I have said earlier my hearing has changed (or the grass is greener on the other side) and i am beginning to favour the high torque drive and boogie woogie of an idler.
You cannot beat a well designed and implemented idler drive. Maybe some people should listen to an EMT 927 before writing about idler drive. Yes this is the drama with amateurs :-)
Phil, Finally some words of wisdom. I'm doing exactly what you have suggested- I have Technics SP-10 MkII in Porter Plinth, and just bought J.C. Verdier La Platine Granito (still installing). I will report my results in due time.
Ok I have to add that all these drive systems are "a little bit off all the time." just with different characteristics of deviance. The thread drive proponents usually depend on high platter mass to mitigate slippage and motor-derived speed instability, and this can produce a very quiet result and a certain relaxedness at the expense of vivid presence available from other drives. The Acoustic Solid thread-drive turntables are very good and sound beautiful, for example. Artemis achieved an admirable balance of characteristics with tape drive, including a reel-to-reel deck's tensioner. Tape drive applied to a wider range of choices in materials for platter, plinth, arm mount, and footer schemes could prove capable of reconciling drive differences better than most.
Drive transmission elasticity, servos, pulley eccentricities, LP eccentricities, warp wow, idler eccentricities, power anomalies, stylus drag, bearing friction, platter or sub-platter eccentricities all contribute to all drive systems being "a little bit off all the time."
Meanwhile, the drive system is just one influencer. How your turntable is deployed -- what it sits on, its footing scheme, its plinth and platter composition, whether it's coupled to or isolated from its resting surface -- can exceed the sonic differences between some of these drive schemes.
Listen to several if you can, and decide which drive's and implementation's imperfections least distract you from what's good about them in service of convincing musicality.
All these drive systems are competent, and all are poor choices, depending on implementation.
You would be hard pressed to dismiss the sound quality of a Brinkmann Oasis or a Dobbins Beat for being direct drive. You would be hard pressed to dismiss the sound quality of a Shindo or VPI Rim Drive for having idlers that transmit energy from their motors to platters. And you'd be hard pressed to dismiss the sound quality of a Rega P9, a VPI Classic 3 for being belt drive turntables.
And what about an EAR magnetic drive? Or a 47 Labs Koma loop drive? Let's start by saying that if the main bearing is excellent, and the mounting/anchoring scheme for the main bearing and tonearm is sound, drive choice is a matter of voicing, with convergence between them increasingly possible. That is to say, I agree that robust drive matters, so torque and speed precision can be delivered by all of these and yet they tend to sound somewhat different.
The early years of my hifi interest coincided with an emerging orthodoxy about turntables and the elevation of the turntable itself as an influence on sound. The orthodoxy favoring belt drive was led by Linn in the form of the Sondek by the early 1970s but there were other players in the consensue, including Empire and Sony (before their move to direct drive). In a few short years back then, once-revered idlers became toxic, belt-drive became audiophile religion and direct drive achieved mass market ubiquity. As speakers and amplifiers got better, the reputation of idler drive turntables was done in by too-frequent use in poorly-conceived and built plinths and old noisy bearings. Belt drive was elevated by its simplicity and layabout sound. Direct drive was undermined by shiploads of plastic wax rotators that couldn't sound great with *any* drive system.
My first discrete turntables were belt drive: Pioneer PL12D, Lenco L85, Transcriptor Saturn and Glass Skeleton, Linn Sondek. And then one day in 1976 I heard Luxman's then-new PD-441 and PD-444 direct drive turntables. At a time when a Linn Sondek cost $350, the Luxman PD-444 cost $800 and had two tonearm mounts. The smaller but same design PD-441 cost $500. Both before figuring in the cost of a tonearm. In the latter '70s this was real money. I had no real complaints with my Linn and Transcriptors until I heard the vivid but even tone of the Luxman.
I bought one, and later another as I began running two systems. In parallel I had Linns, Pink Triangle, VPI and Thorens in and out of my systems but the Luxman PD-444 always won out. I still have two of these turntables today. And to give you s perspective of the relative role of drive system in sound quality, in the last several years I achieved a greater improvement in the Luxmans by changing out the entire footing scheme than the Luxmans themselves offered over other good turntables with different drives. I repeat: The replacing the original demi-suspension feet on my Luxman PD-444 with a multi-layer mechanical grounding scheme yielded more difference than drive system differences. And how would I know this? Because the Luxman PD-444 and the PD-555 had the same physical plinth and footing but the 555 was belt drive and the 444 was direct drive, and I have had the chance to hear them side-by-side with same tonearm and cartridges.
It's probable that if Luxman or anyone duplicated the 1970s PD-444 today, it would cost something on the order of a Brinkmann Oasis and yet I can't say it is the only way to go.
I recently heard in my own system a Technics SL-1200 that was aggressively treated for resonance control by Sean Casey at Zu, and which I further modified by changing out the stock feet for 1 lb. solid brass cones. It also had Sean's custom-machined arm mount for Rega-gemoetry tonearms and in this case was fitted with an Audiomods arm optimized for the Zu103 cartridge. The platter was epoxy damped and balanced. The plinth was aggressively treated with a variety of internal damping materials. And of course the tonearm and mount is a massive upgrade over the stock Technics. The results were astonishing, especially coming from the prosaic Technics, much maligned and debated in audiophile circles (including here). That turntable was easily competitive sonically with anything on the current market selling for $3000 - $5000, once the stock mushy rubber and plastic feet were tossed aside. Want to make it better: there's a $695 super bearing available online, user installable.
And yet a $1295 belt-drive VPI Traveler is sonically convincing, as is a Rega RP6 and they can be had for under $1500 with an entry cartridge.
Meanwhile, I have a virtually NOS Garrard 401 idler drive turtable mounted in a Loricraft-style plinth crafted from solid teak blocks. Whereas my Luxman 444s are appliance-like in their consistency and reliability, the Garrard requires some attention and tweaking to keep it quiet. But it's worth it when I lower the stylus. With a Thomas Schick arm and either a Zu103 or Ortofon SPU cartridge, sound explodes from the speakers with energy and projection no belt drive equals and that most direct drive can only muster with perception of more distance between you and the performance. Same arm and cartridge, same surface, same vinyl, different drives/plinths -- big differences. Which one is right? Well, that's why I have both.
What I don't have, presently? A belt-drive turntable. I won't say I'll never have one again. The 47 Labs Koma uses an elastic cord to drive both its playing and counter-roatating platters. That and the DD Brinkmann Oasis are the two most interesting successors when my 35 year old Luxmans die, or maybe one of them finds its way here sooner.
Been out of town visiting elderly mom and came back to enjoy the input. Appreciate your thoughts. I own a VPI Classic 1, but was toying with the idea of getting a vintage table from Artisan Fidelity (which drove my original question). But upon my return, I've decided to trade in my VPI Classic 1 for a Classic 3. Figured I can't go wrong. The 3 should be sitting on my shelf the first week of January.
I was making generalizations, and i have to say that the DPS 2 has superb timing for instance, plus excellent imaging. The SME 10 and 20 (not heard the 30) are 'neutral' so to speak. Of course certain decks of course cross boundaries. I am currently awaiting a Jeremy Marine bearing for a Lenco L75, and am gonna either: get a second hand Townshend Avalon so I can steal the trough, or alternatively I might get such a trough machined for me. I personally think the Townshend trough is just revelatory.
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".
From my many, many years of experience it really is all about the execution. From my 1st AR table to my current direct drive they all had something I liked. The belt driven Simon Yorke had incredible PACE (and looks IMHO) but lacked ultimate bass depth. The only table I can say for sure that didn't meet my liking was a TTWeights table which couldn't hold it's speed. I've now gone to DD and my journey is now over and I'm enjoying the music and forgetting about the gear......finally!
Dear Rockyboy: +++++ " Is one TT type inherently better than another? " +++++
my experiences on all TT drive systems but the rim one tell me that no one is better than the other.
Syntax posted: ++++ " The worst - by far - is idler drive, followed from DD and best is Thread Drive (when done right). " +++++
but he did not say why?????. He said: " best is thread drive ( when done right ) ". What about a DD " when done right "?
Albertporter posted: +++++ " All systems at their ultimate execution, direct drive is best. " +++++
neither here he said it why??????
So, seems to me that all about is about: " personal preferences " on what we have/are playing in our audio system.
The kind of TT drive system is only one factor/characteristic on a whole TT design and perhaps not the more important one or at least not the one that could define which kind of TT is better.
A TT as a tonearm IMHO must be analysed against which kind of audio item is using it which kind of audio item " depends " and how of the TT or the tonearm. These two analog items are " slaves " of the phono cartridge that IMHO is the analog item that has the hardest task on analog that's: TO READ THE LP GROOVES INFORMATION WITH CERO DEGRADATION. ADDING AND LOSTING NOTHING OF THE PRECIOUS RECORDED SIGNAL.
IMHO THE FIRST TWO " FOCUS " THAT GOES AGAINST THAT STATEMENT ARE THE TT AND THE TONEARM. ( obviously the tonearm internal wire and connectors. ).
The TT, independent of what kind of drive system has, is a " tremendous " focus of cartridge signal degradation even if always runs at 33.1/3 rpm and mantain 100% of speed stability in the very short time: no speed variations not even tiny variations. In its best design any TT drive system can fulfil the whole speed subject and even to have the same posibilities to share in between same specs about: ruble, signal to noise ratio, wow and flutter or speed stability numbers.
Main differences IMHO comes how a TT design handle internal vibrations/resonances at different levels as: bearing, motor, plinth, belt, platter, etc, etc.. In the very first second that a TT start to run in that very first moment are generated vibrations/resonances ( that we can name it: distortions, that will be pick-up by the phono cartridge. Distortions that are not on the LP grooves. ) due that a TT is a dynamic " circuit ": the platter mass in movement generate a dynamic tiny vibrations where different platter mass/weight generate different vibrations/resonances and these kind of distortions depends too on which TT build materials were choosen by the TT designer.
Now, the TT plater generated distortions has to be added to the TT bearing distortions, to the TT motor distortions, to the TT arm board distortions, to the TT plinth distortions and obviously to all kind of vibrations/resonances generated out side the TT that affect the cartridge signal.
I posted several times that till today ( and I'm not heard all the TT out there but almost all. ) no TT design per se fulfil the cartridge needs and the main reason is not because the drive system but mainly because the build materials choosed on the TT design and more specific the build materials choosed for the platter/mat TT.
According with my experiences the " major " differences in the music we perceived trough the cartridge and all the way to the speakers is: the build material choosed for the platter/mat that is in direct touch with the LP and the LP with the phono cartridge and not because the TT drive system.
I'm not saying that the drive system is not important ( everything in a TT design is important. ), certainly it is but what is in direct touch with the LP is more critic/important and gives the TT " signature ".
I did not heard yet and analog rig ( in any audio system. ) where I can say: " this TT really works " dissapearing " ( by dampening or some other way. ) internal and external vibrations/resonances that permits the cartridge can fulfil its needs.
Some of the last DD designs are taking care about and I hope that in a near future we can have TTs that can fulfil the cartridge needs.
The name of the game: TT design build materials chosen!!!!!!, DD or BD is almost unimportant. Of course that first rate design execution is a must to have.
Oxford University entrance exam question: 1. If this is the question, then what is the answer? 2. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Or if you are torturing poor Dustin Hoffman: 'Is it safe?' The Rockport Sirius 3 was direct drive, and is often considered the 'final destination' of turntables - I have heard one and that was all too brief. Against this is the belt drive Continuum. I have said, in recent posts, that as my hearing changes, it has shifted from being obsessed with imaging and soundstage, towards timing to which I am more sensitive at the moment. I am convinced that each drive has a 'sound'. Direct Drive may be the most neutral - or what we think is neutral. Belt Drive the quietest and best imagers,idlers (from what I have heard so far' really do time brilliantly and have superb bass). I personally think that neutrality is quite possibly audiophiles most ludicrous and intangible concept. Most musicians I have spoken to say that all they want is for listeners to feel connected to and to enjoy the music, and if the medium of delivery achieves that, then that medium has done its' task. To that end we ultimately want a system that keeps us in our seat listening to music until far too late in the evening.
Whatever the table, it should have a robust drive. If you look at the vintage machines that have really garnered a following, you will see that they all have that in common: the SP-10, the Garrard 301, the Empire 208, the Lenco...
Wimpy drives seem to lack soundstage focus. My theory is that they are constantly off-speed, always correcting. This causes the arm to sway back and forth slightly due to skating forces. This is one of the reasons analog tape has such a following. But 'tables can have the consistency needed; you just have to have that robust drive.
If the ones mentioned so far the Technics SP-10 is by far the best in the drive department, but it also has one of the worst plinths. That is why you will see anyone serious about the table using some sort of hopped up custom plinth for it.
As stated by various posters above, implementation and execution is key. Idler drives, in my experience, unquestionably require the most work to get right, but if properly rendered are simply brilliant. Rim drives, unfortunately, face certain unavoidable hindrances and I have yet to listen to one which compels me to believe otherwise. After having the pleasure of owning several SP10Mk3's, Mk2's, Garrard 301, Lenco and Micro Seiki, and spending extensive time evaluating each, it becomes rather obvious to conclude all respective drive types have their own merits and strengths. Subjectivity, rather, individual preference comes down to the listener.
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.
Thank you. You actually read my post and answered my question.
When you list the big, well known names, (Sony, Denon, Pioneer etc) are you talking about vintage gear or current production? Also, would you say that a Technics 1200 would be in the same league as the ones you mention? The reason I mention the 1200 is that I can try one. My family has 2 nightclubs and that's what they use. There's 2, brand new, unopened ones in a storage room they keep for emergencies. Honestly, its not the kind of TT that I would have considered for myself, but since so many people seem to like them, I have nothing to lose from trying one.
Of all the DD turntables I have owned, I would say that three stand out as "best" in my mind: The Luxman PD-441, PD-444 and the Teac TN-400. The two Luxman decks share the same drive system, but the latter with a larger plinth to accommodate two tonearms. The TN-400 is probably the most quiet drive system I have ever seen (heard?), but they didn't make many and so are fairly rare.
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.)
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
