Is Direct Drive Really Better?

Idler-wheel drives anyway (and big DDs to a lesser extent) clearly demonstrate, in comparisons, that mass/inertia alone does not overcome stylus force drag in belt-drives. Big DDs such as the SP10 MKII and big idler-wheel drives, such as the Garrard 301/401 and the Lencos, are clearly superior to belt-drives in terms of bass depth, power and speed, and no one disputes this. This underlines a weakness in belt-drives: regardless of the mass of the platter, stylus force drag is exerting a force which is never entirely wiped out in belt-drives, only mitigated to a certain extent, which brings with it other problems, such as loss of PRaT, rhythm, timing, gestalt. This means it takes torque, an active force, a bigger motor, to combat stylus force drag, that simple mass is quite simply insufficient. Now what is clearly audible and demonstrated in comparisons between belt-drives and idler-wheel drives or big DDs - first and foremost in the bass - MUST be audible across the frequency range, and it is: dynamics and speed and attack are clearly superior, again something which most would not dispute. Now this difference in attack and dynamics is less large between belt-drives and big DDs than it is between idler-wheel drives and belt-drives, showing that idler-wheel drives go further down the road to perfect speed stability than either of the other two formats. I and others in my area (and around the world) have done repeated tests using a very high-mass Technics SP10 MKII vs various Lencos and a variety of high-end belt-drives. And no, rumble is not audible from such more highly-developed idler-wheel drives as the Lencos. Anyway, I posted reasons on "Building high-end 'tables cheap at Home Despot":

"So in a nutshell here's why I believe idler-wheel drives are simply superior (apart from the actual empirical testing which clearly demonstrates this so far ;-)). Belt-drives have belts, and these stretch and contract, and if they are not stretchy, then they slip. Not only that, but they use dinky little motors which spin at relatively low rpms, so they have neither the torque nor the speed stability of the high-rpm idler-wheel motors. Now, belt-drivers claim that simple mass in the platter wipes out stylus force drag, but since both good idler-wheels and good DDs clearly show superiority in the bass, then this quite simply shows this is not true, else belt-drive bass would be as good as that from Garrards or Direct Drives, kapish? This MUST also be audible across the frequency range, and it is, as a relative softness and lack of attack and dynamics as compared with both DDs and idler-wheel drives. The turntable with the best speed stability in practice should, given a decent platform, quite simply be superior, but belt-drives show weaknesses in all kinds of areas, therefore they are at the bottom. The finger demonstration shows this clearly ;-).

Direct-drives are saddled with low-rpm motors. Therefore, while they have superior torque and so are less susceptible to stylus force drag than belt-drives, they are at the mercy of the motors (and their imperfections) to a far greater extent than idler-wheel drives or belt-drives. The platter mass serves to counterbalance the very slow and jerky rotation of the DDs, and in comparison with idler-wheel drives, there is a consequent "dryness" and dynamic constriction of the sound which is clearly audible (the Lenco and Garrard sounding quite a bit more liquid and dynamically open).

Idler-wheel drives have motors which spin at roughly 1500-1800 rpm, meaning that the very high speed serves itself to smooth out its own speed imperfections. But when securely coupled to a flywheel-platter via the idler-wheel, the platter regulates the motor's behaviour, smoothing things out further, while the powerful high-torque high-speed motor pushes the platter through all the passages, so that stylus force drag is truly eliminated, by a combination of brute force and elegant flywheel effect. Idler-wheel drives were created specifically to combat stylus force drag, from the days when cartridges tracked at 10 grams. The largest consequence of idler-wheel drive superior speed stability?: there is simply more magic and vigour in vinyl spun on idler-wheel drives. The rest, detail, bass slam, etc., is all there, but the ability of a Giant Lenco, for instance, to draw one into the music is downright spooky, incredible, amazing. It transcends the equipment, all the way down the line. Since music is the #1 consideration in reproducing music, then the most potent music maker is the best 'table/system, the end (and yes it is superior as well with respect to detail etc. yadda-yadda). I am still agog.

The issue of whether or not one system is superior to another can only be settled by testing. With high-end designers getting into the Lenco game, then expect to see rebuilt Lencos begin to appear at high-end audio shows, and perhaps one day, me along with them."

And to corroborate this, some independent published findings at http://www.clarisonus.com/blog/?p=18

Endlessly trumpeting that all systems have compromises ignores the degree and number of compromises, and assumes that each compromise is equivalent to another, such as, for instance, speed stability has equal importance as silence. Wrong: speed stability is the single most important aspect of vinyl playback, and how can it be otherwise? Records are engraved at 33 1/3, and must be replayed at 33 1/3 to get the full intended result. A compromise here outweighs every other consideration, which can be addressed anyways by a variety of means, such as mass-loading idler-wheel drives to eliminate noise (the traditional approach), neither difficult nor especially expensive. Belt-drives, however, will always have belts, and yes, you're right Macrojack, much was made of the isolation from motor noise of belt-drives, but the much cheaper manufacturing costs of belt-drives (at least in the old sensible days), and thus increased profits, were not trumpeted. Plus, when the Linn first came out, it had more measured rumble than a Lenco by a significant amount, and yet the press trumpeted its increased silence, on "principle."

Hmmm....lots of misunderstandings here. First, to 4yanx and high-end designers. I don't mean high-end turntable designers, but designers of other equipment for which they want the best source they can find in order to demonstrate their wares to best effect. Of course a high-end turntable manufacturer won't be interested unless they use titanium nitrate and high-pressure ceramics developed for NASA to justify high price-tags, as you say. But when the high-end designers, of amps, preamps, speakers and distributors of the same start to use Lencos, Garrards, or other large idler-drives, because they don't sell turntables and don't give a rat's ass what they use as a source, so long as it makes their products sound as good as they can get them to sound, then people will sit up and take notice. This, unfortunately, is the situation, and so I'm opening a new "front". My concern is strictly with the truth, or more accurately, empirical reality. By your own honorable admission - and caveats about getting it set up right notwithstanding (this applies to all components, n'est-ce pas?) - the rebuilt Lencos beat belt-drives at several times their price, and I wonder if you have, in fact, ever heard a belt-drive, at any price, which could even match or beat a properly restored and implemented Lenco in a fair comparison?

Then there is your message here - "The best of our efforts will compete with turntables costing many times more, and we have friends that can attest to this fact. In some ways, they sound better, especially in the lower end and in that indefinable “pleasure” factor. I am neither an engineer nor a psychologist so I will not try to explain the “boogie factor” these tables seem to have." The fact that you can hear this, and it is repeatable from Lenco to Lenco despite differences in plinth materials, design and weight, points to something in the Lenco proper which accounts for this: it is superior speed stability, which in its turn underlines lack of same in belt-drives. It is, being audible, an empirical fact, and being audible there is a physical reason for it, no need for psychology beyond the human ear's EXTREME sensitivity to pitch (speed stability). It has speed stability which is superior to that of the belt-drives you have heard or compared it to. The rest, high frequencies and such-like, can be tuned by implementation, materials, tonearm/cartridge. And, since this "indefinable pleasure factor" is in fact beautiful music-making, then I submit that, this being THE most critical factor in building a successful stereo system and the whole reason we are in this game (not to reproduce boring and unpleasurable music), the Lenco and the idler-wheel drives it represents are quite simply superior to belt-drives, period. It's not about trumpeting the success of this design and "you have the wrong one", it's about deciding which is the best system. How many audiophiles buy one turntable and stay there? Yes, they are currently happy with their given belt-drive, but they will, down the road, spend likely several thousand dollars on another belt-drive, which is inferior to an idler-wheel drive, especially at music-making. If a large company with the resources decides to get into the game and start to produce reasonably-priced idler-wheel drives, we will ALL benefit. In the meantime, we can either get into a restoration DIY project, or get it done, still for far less than the high-end belt-drives which are their "competition".

And while it is true that Garrards 301s/401s and Thorens TD-124s have always had a following, my own thread was never about Lencos, it was using the Lencos which could be had cheaply, as bait to get the world to participate in testing out my claim that idler-wheel drive was a significantly better system than belt-drive and had been unfairly assassinated by a concerted effort of the press and industry (reminds me of digital). I being I think the first, and if not then definitely the most vocal and activist, to step forward and make the unequivocal claim this is so (and for which I get roundly criticized in the current politically-correct "no system is better than another" Western climate, but the battle is what makes it worthwhile ;-)) and challenging the world to a showdown to prove or disprove it (check out my first colossal flop attempt, flop), after which I devised the crafty Home Despot tactic. This is my contribution to the evolution of audio, not simply the discovery of the Lenco (important but not that important by itself without the attendant examination of the logical implications). I discovered the Lenco, actually, because I could not find the Garrards 301/401 I was in fact looking for after tripping over a Garrard SP-25 at a flea-market in Helsinki (I had never even heard of an idler-wheel drive at that point, before the internet), tweaking it, and finding it significantly better than either my Maplenoll (still considered one of the Great Belt-Drives) or Audiomeca turntables in all the most important ways (amazing even at detail)!

Hi Sean: let me use another word, as by "torque" I was thinking, indeed, in automotive terms, in terms of "applied" force, in the sense of an active force, such as a motor. The torque, as in stored energy/moment of inertia, is not sufficient to combat stylus force drag, it takes an active motor force to push the platter through the dramatically-cut grooves and the variable stylus force drag they cause: it will still slow, the belt stretch, and then contract, albeit more slowly as it has to drag so much mass, and the motors used in belt-drives are insufficient to push the LP through and keep the speed rock-steady. In the case of an idler-wheel drive, the motor is powerful, spins at high rpms which by itself tends to smooth out speed imperfections, and it is securely coupled to the platter/flywheel by the rubber wheel, which does not slip, stretch or contract, and which in its turn regulates the motor, making its rotation more perfect. These three elements - powerful high-rpm motor, grippy wheel, flywheel-platter (especially in the Lenco) - create a closed system which utterly ignores stylus force drag, or the cartridge and arm action. The belt-drive/high-mass/high moment of inertia is not a closed system, the stylus force drag will affect the speed to a certain extent, and the proof of this is in the listening. I had a Maplenolll Ariadne with 40-pound lead/graphite platter (the prototype for the Walker Proscenium), and despite the 40-pound platter, it could not equal the Lenco for PRaT, dynamics or even detail and focus/clarity, and this was in the old days before the Lenco plinth and design underwent all sorts of evolutionary steps forward, resulting in a LARGE improvement in overall sound quality over the old early days. Since, I have not yet heard the belt-drive which can even come close to a giant Direct-Coupled Lenco (which maximizes the plinth's noise damping properties and provides for even more stable speed), and can one say that a VPI TNT does not even come close to a Clearaudio Master Reference? Even if this is so, then the Lenco does too and it will be an interesting comparison when finally I get the chance to do it, or someone else. Again, the proof is in the listening, keep your ears open for idler-drives at your local audio shows! I know they are currently fashionable at European audio shows.

Hi Jack, the Thorens is actually a quasi-idler-wheel drive, as the idler-wheel drives a flywheel, which is linked to the platter/main bearing by a belt, so it's back to square one. Given this fact, I expect the restored Lenco to sound quite a bit better. But, the Thorens has a heavier platter, and a high-speed high-torque motor, which belt-drives do not, so the results should be extremely pleasing nevertheless. I am actually currently working on a perfect TD-124 MKI which I will sell on after my experiments, and it has the iron platter. It does indeed attract MCs (MMs no effect) with their more powerful magnets, but the way around this is by use of a glass platter to raise the record at a great enough distance to eliminate this effect, which I have. Anyway, I will build it into a similar plinth to the one developed for the Lenco, high-mass and inert, and report on the experiment on the Home Despot thread (you can get immediately to the last page by clicking on the double arrows at the end of the page numbers). And btw, the Lenco properly implemented (not so difficult, but time-consuming) is in fact quieter than any high-end belt-drive against which it has been pitted so far, the latest local convert commenting that his Lenco is quieter than his Rega P9 with RB-1000 tonearm (which sonically is not even close to being in the same league, in any respect whatsoever), which currently gathers dust. In fact, two things leap out in any demonstration I have participated in so far, ahead of the bass and astonishing lively dynamics: they are all astonished at the extreme quietness/blackness, and they can actually hear the incredible speed stability, not as a result of clarity or detail or what-not, but as actual clearly audible and striking speed stability! Now THAT's speed stability.

I see here a lot of simple prejudice: belt-drivers argue what things "should" sound like and why certain aspects "should not" make any difference, in the absence of having seriously tested and heard the alternatives, if at all. These defend their system simply because they own them and not the alternatives. Direct drivers - like Psychic animal - continue to declare DD the best, in the absence of having heard idler-wheel drives, though they feel free to make use of my findings and reasoning, to defend their own system, which they have invested in. In the absence of having heard the alternatives, like belt-drivers, they prepare to make major investments in their chosen system. Chris Brady continues to casually lump idler-wheel drives with belt-drives in the Inferiority Sweepstakes, again I suspect in the absence of having heard the reality, and he is coincidentally preparing to release a DD.

Theories must be tested empirically to verify the truth of a matter: if experiment contradicts a theory (i.e. proves it wrong), then theory must be abandoned or seriously altered. What I wrote up above: "Then there is your message here - "The best of our efforts will compete with turntables costing many times more, and we have friends that can attest to this fact. In some ways, they sound better, especially in the lower end and in that indefinable “pleasure” factor. I am neither an engineer nor a psychologist so I will not try to explain the “boogie factor” these tables seem to have." The fact that you can hear this, and it is repeatable from Lenco to Lenco despite differences in plinth materials, design and weight, points to something in the Lenco proper which accounts for this: it is superior speed stability, which in its turn underlines lack of same in belt-drives. It is, being audible, an empirical fact, and being audible there is a physical reason for it, no need for psychology beyond the human ear's EXTREME sensitivity to pitch (speed stability). It has speed stability which is superior to that of the belt-drives you have heard or compared it to." What Chris Brady then posted: "I have concluded that speed stability is one of the most important factors in turntable sound quality. For that matter it is also one of the key performance factors in digital audio. It is well known and accepted that digital jitter significantly degrades sound quality. What is remarkable about digital jitter is that such extraordinarily small timing errors could be audible at all. The message here is that our ears are far more sensitive to timing errors than with amplitude errors. With analog the principle and effects of jitter/timing errors are essentially the same. In both cases waveforms are being reconstructed and timing errors create similar distortions. Distortions that for some reason are much more audible than one might expect." Same thing, I have known about this since I frst heard an idler-wheel drive and have been promoting it ever since: i.e. I was confronted by the evidence, which is why I harp on about empirical science and experiment, not on-paper theories, which must bow to empirical realities, and not lead them.

Those who continue to blindly promote their own systems in the absence of experience are cheating themselves of an ear-opening experience, and those who invest in a system in the absence of context may find themselves backing the wrong horse, find themselves in financial difficulties, and with serious egg on their faces. Consider the following scenario: with much foofarah an expensive DD is released on the market, and a DIY Lenco shows up which simply crushes it at an audio show, thus crushing any hope for a financial future. Now you may doubt this, but such demonstrations are coming, and you'd better be prepared. I advise you to listen to the alternatives (making every effort to optimize and not rig the experiment by casually and sloppily setting up one system and perfecting the other) before making any decisions. Now, when I was converted to idler-wheel drive, I already owned two highly-regarded belt-drives, I had no reason to convert (in fact the reverse considering the investment in expensive belt-drives). I went out of my way to purchase and restore a Technics SP10 MKII, one of the best DDs ever made, and compare it to the Lencos. The differences were not small, and I have since heard comparisons several times. I have also tried several other heavy statement DDs. Has anyone here done the same?

From a similar discussion a year ago:

"In a word, the sound is "magical", and because, in two words: "speed stability". I will here plagiarize my own text under my "system": "The idler-wheel-drive Garrard 301 grease-bearing was the 'table used by Sugano in the design of his Koetsus, and the Lencos are far easier to repair and restore, and may in fact sound better (more refined while preserving the traditional idler-wheel strengths of unparalleled attack and bass speed and power), for a variety of reasons. Idler wheel drives in general were originally designed to overcome stylus force drag, as in their day cartridges tracked at 10 grams. As tracking forces diminished, idler-wheel drives became more refined, but retained their resistance to stylus drag. As time went on and VTF dropped to below 2 grams, it was thought stylus drag could be combated by the simple use of mass, and not the brute force of rumbly idler-wheel drives, which were discredited, even though their rumble figures were in fact better than those of the then-rising Linn LP12. If you remember your history, you will remember that CD as well was touted by the majority of the press and the industry as superior to the previous technology, vinyl. The Lencos do not rumble, and they prove that in fact it does take a certain amount of (refined) brute force to counteract the all-too-audible problem of stylus drag, which belt-drives are ill-equipped to combat, their Achilles Heel being their belts and weak motors. This is clearly audible in the attack of a Lenco (or large Garrard), the tremendous bass reach (bottomless) and bass detail of a Lenco (which affects both air and imaging), and of course its perfect timing and speed stability under real-world conditions (actually playing a record)."

Now I do not tout the Lenco and the idler-wheel technology it represents merely because I own one, I also own or have owned both high-end belt-drives (Maplenoll Ariadne, Audiomeca) and direct-drives (Technics SP10 MKII, Sony 2250) and a host of others, and so I have actually bought and owned the various drive systems available out there, at very high levels of performance: and the Lenco beats them all by a wide margin, which you should pause to think about, given the Law of Diminishing Returns (should high-end 'tables be so easily and completely and without sonic price beaten?). I am being very scientific, enlisting the world in a global empirical experiment, to decide the issue of which drive system is in fact better. Now while it is politically correct and nicey-nicey to go around saying there is no superior system and it is a matter of taste because there are always compromises and so forth, I say that's all very well, but is it true? Is no system in fact superior? Participants from around the world have declared the Lenco superior to a host of current high-end belt-drives which they in fact owned, and so like me had no reason to declare inferior. The experiment continues. It's cheap to participate and have fun with it! Cost of entry is minimal, give it a try!"

And before you proceed to crucify me, remember my messsage is simple: I do not blindly claim the Lenco is the best, I challenge the world to hear one for themselves and let their ears decide, I put my money where my mouth is, and I make gargantuan efforts to help people in the execution of the experiment so they can decide for themselves. My message is simply : try it first, and THEN decide. This is the heart of empirical science, the search for truth. Or you can continue to argue the superiority of your systems without actually investigating them.

I see this thread keeps on going! Actually Taviran, I didn't write that the Lencos were "as" accurate as SP10s, I wrote they were "more" accurate! Heard it in more than one system too. The Lencos are unresponsive to power-line tricks too, in my experience. But rather than encourage you to track the problem down, I'd rather you contact me so I can take them off your hands, especially the NOS one!

I'd add that with your experience you are by definition an audiophile, so logically I guess we can't trust you either. The French make a distinction between types of audiophile: those who love the equipment for the music they can produce, placing the music/software first, are called "melomane"; and those who love the equipment for the detail/information it can extract, thus focusing on the equipment more than the music/software (buying LPs based strictly on how they make a system sound is not "melomane" but equipment-oriented), are simply "audiophiles". Both know more about stereo equipment than your average bear, and so are forms of audiophile.

Hi Raul, from a quick Google: "scully lathes where made by larry scully. most of them where made in the 40ies and there are still lot of them working. nicely made. optical much more exciting than a neumann the quality was never comparable. althought most of todays "audiophile" records where cut on these lathes.
nice feature of the 1940ies scullys is the inside out leadscrew. you have 2 leadscews. one for cut normal and one for inside out cuts...
the first lathes where all fixed pitch with a gear box. lather models ha a very complicated "vary-groove" mechanism where tube electronics controlled a strange mechanism to varie the pitch.
the biggest disadvantage on scully lathes was the belt driven turntable. with a asynchrounous motor, 2 belts and a heavy clutch the turntable was never that strong and stable.."

Emphasis on "although most of todays "audiophile" records were cut on these lathes." Evidently the cutting lathe technology is no way to tell which is the superior system.

Direct drive is a recent development, early cutting lathes (used to produce records we still listen to and value) used motor-driven gears as well, and its use today in making master discs does not enlighten as to which is the superior system overall, given the presence of assumptions, and the need for the ability to minutely variate the speed of the cutting motor/platter: "Between 1953 and 1955, Neumann developed a method of varying the groove pitch depending on the recorded amplitude. To this end, an additional playback head was mounted on the tape deck. This additional playback head determined the groove amplitude to be recorded approximately one half-rotation of the turntable in advance and fed this value to the cutting lathe as a control signal via a corresponding drive amplifier. Of course, this also required a separately variable pitch drive. For the first time, this made it possible to extend the playing time of an LP phonograph record to approx. thirty minutes."

In playback speed stability in practice, not the ability to vary the speed to accomodate the creation of groove modulations in cutting grooves, is the key. The problem of distortion-inducing vibration/noise is a given and it is the responsibility of the purchaser to correctly set-up any turntable, belt-drive, DD or Idler, suspended or unsuspended, there is no magic bullet. Apparently Van den Hul has his turntable set-up on a concrete pillar sunk deep into the ground! The best way to determine speed stability given the problem of which measurements are meaningful, is the human ear. Back to comparisons in front of witnesses, i.e. demonstrations! Theories must be tested to be verified - or discarded - and the human ear is the final arbiter.

Once again for the Gipper!:
"If it measures good and sounds bad, it is bad;
if it measures bad and sounds good, you have measured the wrong thing."

- Daniel R. von Recklinghausen,
former Chief Research Engineer, H.H. Scott