If I may be permitted to point out something that seems to have been missed here, there is more to a turntable than speed stability, although speed stability is a very important requirement.
Another factor which comes into play is the effect of vibrations or other potential movements in the main bearing assembly(and thus the platter).
If stylus drag can affect the speed stability of a heavy platter or even a motor's torque, then it can also generate lateral movements of similar proportions, due to the angular nature of it's movements as it traces the groove. Externally generated vibrations can affect this also. Since any lateral movement allowed by the bearing/platter can materially affect the amplitude of the groove modulation being traced at the time of that movement, it can cause information loss or modification, based on that unwanted movement of the platter relative to the stylus. But wait, you say, the arm could be moved more easily because it has less mass, and I say that if the arm deflects, then you get similar information distortion as well.
Now, how does this affect our discussion?
Quite simply because direct drive motors generally(and I use that word advisedly) use their drive shaft as the main bearing, which typically does not have the precision tolerances of a belt-drive system's main bearing in a good turntable. In addition, making the platter part of a motor which has inherent vibrations as a natural characteristic is not conducive to ideal conditions for the stylus/groove relationship.
So, even if a direct drive does exhibit a slightly better measured speed stability, there are other factors involved besides that.
Also, wow and flutter are very different speed variations, and to lump them together as "wow and flutter" is deceiving at best. Wow is much less easily perceived by the ear than flutter, and 2 tables with the same "wow and flutter" specification can sound quite different, especially if one has mostly flutter, and the other has mostly wow component in that spec.
To sum up, all methods of analog drive systems have their pros and cons, and none is perfect, and implementation may be more important than basic concept.
To focus in on speed stability alone, with no discussion of other meaningful design aspects is incomplete and useless. I've heard very good sounding turntables of varying drive system designs, and also some terrible ones too.
Tunnel vision is not the most productive way to analyze componentry. |
As I mentioned before, I think that the quality of implementation of the design can have as much, or more, effect as the design itself. Especially in these very high end tables which will all exhibit very good performance.
If a manufacturer does well at overcoming the basic flaws of any design, it may well outperform a one of another equally good(or better) design that is less well-implemented.
Also, I reject "wow and flutter" statistics, unless the separate "wow" and "flutter" components are individually stated, because they are very different types of speed variations, and should not be lumped together in a single specification.
Regarding my earlier posting statement about "tunnel vision", I still say that one cannot make a meaningful conclusion about a turntable's performance by one factor alone, including drive system. I could say that a Saturn V rocket can go faster than a Ferrari, but you can't drive a Saturn V rocket on the road. All aspects of the design must be considered.
If you want my answer, I can say that all forms of drive systems have the capability of being "the best", depending upon how well they are designed, and how well they are implemented. However, they may require very different approaches that are required to deal with the very different problems associated with each type of drive system.
In the end, it is the one that provides the most pleasurable musical experience for the listener that owns it, that will be "the best". And that also includes the price range, because if a listener cannot afford it, it is of little consequence to him how great it may be. |
Just a question about this discussion.
Let's say that we somehow determine what kind of drive system has the best speed control. Determined through accepted measurements which group wow and flutter together. Even though it is patently apparent that most here do not even differentiate between the very different nature of wow or flutter components of these speed variations. Or what ramifications are involved with either of those variation types, as regards our hearing sensitivity.
What are we to do with that information?
Are we going to extrapolate that all forms of that type of drive system are then superior to all other forms? Or that no other type of drive system can compete, even at various levels of price?
And then are we going to look at all the other things that encompass a TT drive system, which are all equally important as the speed control? Such as vibration-induced information loss or exaggeration? Main bearing design? Platter construction? Etc?
Or are we going to blindly fly out and buy some form of that drive system, like lemmings over the cliff?
And, mind you, that what may measure best today, may be exceeded tomorrow by something else. Life at the top is fleeting. And remember, measuring the best very often does not equate to sounding the best.
I've lived with components in my system which are all far below the pinnacle of performance for many years, and still do today. Am I disappointed with my system? No, to the contrary I'm very happy with it because it makes music very nicely.
Unless you are willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars chasing the end of the rainbow(that you'll never reach), I'd suggest finding a nice group of components you can live with, and enjoy your music on them.
Lately, the audiophile climate is reminding me more and more of the late 70's and early 80's, with spec wars and the resulting poor performance that came with them. |
No, I really don't think that is what happened with belt drive. And, I'm not really "defending" belt drive, as much as I'm being cautious about placing too much emphasis on one spec that is taken "in a vacuum" regardless of other important issues that are involved.
Regarding belt drive, and its adoption to the "head of the class" during the period just prior to the introduction of the CD, I think it is quite apparent that these certain belt drive turntables proved their mettle against the crop of direct drive tables of the period. With the lone exception of the Goldmund tables, the belt drive tables "ruled" for sonic quality.
Now, obviously, since the Goldmund and some other direct drive tables have showed excellence, then it cannot be said that any one particular drive technology was "best". However, after the introduction of the CD, when most turntables were being made by small manufacturers, it was easier and probably less costly to implement a good quality drive system with a belt drive, than it was with a direct drive. Making a good direct drive turntable is costly, or else it must be made in enough quantity to mass-manufacture, such as was done by Panasonic in the late 70's with the Technics tables, and to some extent the Denon turntables were also mass-manufactured. This allowed the direct drive tables to have the cost amortized over larger numbers in sales, and provided the costlier direct drive technology to a more "budget-minded" clientele.
In fact, exept for the Goldmund, all the top audiophile tables up until the Rockport were all belt drive tables. Even with the introduction of the Rockport, it was still a tossup between whether the Rockport or the Walker(or a few other high-dollar belt drive tables) was actually preferred.
Even with the Walker being over $20K, it was still 1/3 the cost of the Rockport. I know several people who preferred the belt drive Walker over the direct-drive Rockport. So, even at $75k, direct drive was not a "clear winner" over a belt drive table costing "only" 1/3 as much.
So, what do we have here?
We have a muddle.
Some belt drives are better than some direct drives.
Some direct drives are better than some belt drives.
And let's not forget Jean's beloved idler-wheel drives, which some like better than both direct drive or belt drive.
What is the answer?
The answer is the implementation of whichever technology is selected.
You can't make a decision about the superiority of any one type of drive system alone, without considering the overall implementation(which also encompasses many other things besides just speed control and it's way of being measured).
One specification "in a vacuum" without regard to all the other important factors is useless, except for the entertainment of the debaters. |
4yanx,
I certainly agree that the "belt drive zealots" do exist, and I number among them, although I am quite willing to consider any table that sounds better than what I have now.
However, it would have to sound better, and not just have some particularly low "wow and flutter" measurement to get my attention.
Perhaps I'm calling this incorrectly, but it certainly appears to me that there is an underlying meaning to this measurement activity(and maybe not so "underlying" at that). Generally, the root of it is to make some specification be the determining factor in purchasing, so as to "make it easier" to decide what to buy. Such as, "this turntable 'X' has incredibly low measured 'wow and flutter', which certainly would mean that it sounds better than a turntable with some slightly higher measured levels". That's what is concerning me.
At least, that is what it led to in the past, and to some extent, it still is used by some for that.
Please let me elaborate.
When measurements become the benchmark for purchasing decisions, companies then build their equipment to do well at the measurement protocol, and not necessarily to sound good. This is because when a "spec race" occurs, it means a better bottom-line for a manufacturer to appear very good at this spec, in order to make sales.
There is historical proof for this, such as the "spec wars" that occured in the 70's and 80's with the THD specifications in amplifiers.
The "THD spec" became the benchmark for what amplifier would be purchased by a consumer, with the ostensible "reason" being that if the THD was lower, or even virtually non-exisitent, that the amplifier would be the best-sounding one, or even "perfect" because there was virtually no distortion measured, IN THE MEASUREMENT PROTOCOL.
As we all now know, this protocol consisted of comparing signal-in to signal-out and the difference would be termed "distortion", WHEN TESTED ON AN UNCHANGING 8-OHM TEST LOAD RESISTOR AS THE OUTPUT LOAD, WITH AN UNCHANGING STEADY SINE-WAVE SIGNAL INPUT.
Please forgive the history lesson, for those who already are aware of this.
The result was that amplifier manufacturers began dumping huge amounts of negative feedback(local and/or global) into the amps, so that all the measured distortion became so ridiculously low that it was considered much lower than anyone could ever perceive, and thus the signal output was considered "perfect". Naturally, at no time did sound quality ever intrude into this quest for "the best specs", because whatever came out of a "perfect amplifier" would surely be "perfect", right? As we know now, that was terribly wrong.
The measurement protocols were not designed to measure the amplifier when it was playing music. Therefore, the feedback ruined the sound quality of the amps, and it became apparent that some amps that "tested terribly" sounded remarkably better than the "perfect" amps.
Trying not to get too verbose, going back into this kind of mind-set by "leaning" on artificial number specifications is a very dangerous road to embark upon. It leads away from the desired end of musical performance to the ear, and leads toward the end of maximizing to a test procedure.
Those who do not learn from history are destined to re-live it.
That is all.
Twl out. |
Zaikesman,
I agree, as long as everything is done properly in the testing, that a good turntable speed consistency is a good thing. Of course, also in keeping with all the other necessary attributes.
I only bring up the caution to not get into a "tunnel vision" approach to things.
Maybe I'm being paranoid, but I have been around audiophiles long enough to know that they tend to get "extremist" about certain things. I think it is important to emphasize good overall performance of the system as a whole. Because a very good overall implementation may very well outperform an implementation that excels only in one area.
Not trying to put a damper on things, but just trying to bring a note of caution into the discussion. |
It's not the "quartz-locking" timing reference that creates any problems in turntables.
It's the corrections that happen when the platter speed is determined to need "correcting".
Rhe method of "correcting" the speed requires alot of thought and engineering expertise. If corrections are done quickly, and using a light platter, then "flutter" occurs during the speed changes, as it tries to return the platter to proper speed. If corrections are done slowly, then it would be "wow" that occurs.
Certainly, there's nothing wrong with using the quartz-clocking mechanism for checking the platter speed as a reference.
Regarding quick speed changes with a light platter, as it regards stylus drag problems, often the heavily modulated passages which cause the stylus drag are relatively quick, and are over by the time the speed-control mechanism detects and make changes to compensate. This causes overcompensation, and then when this overcompensation is detected as too much speed, then it has to slow it down again. This is known as "hunting". Generally perceived as "flutter".
Regarding slow speed changes with a heavy platter, as it regards stylus drag problems, the inertia of the platter is great enough that it makes rapid speed changes impractical or impossible, so that most any changes needed to be made by the speed control must be slow, causing "wow".
So, it's not really the method of detecting the speed variations that are at issue, and many types of speed-monitoring technologies will work for this. It is how the engineer decides to go about the speed corrections that will make the difference of how we hear what happens when it is done. |
LOL!
I realize that in most turntables, the speed is well-enough controlled that you don't consciously hear the wow or flutter components of speed controls.
However, it may be registering in your hearing in a way that causes you to think that one turntable "sounds better" than another, for reasons that you have a hard time explaining or describing.
Typically, a person is about 10 times more sensitive to flutter than to wow. So flutter must be kept to a much lower level than wow must be kept, in order for it to not be easily perceived.
This may possibly be why very different turntables with very disparate measurements in the "wow and flutter" category may not sound discernably different, even though one table may measure 10 times less than another. It may depend on what component of speed variation(wow or flutter) is present in their drive control(and at what amounts). A table with primarily flutter in their speed variation must have about 10 times less measured variation, as a table with primarily wow speed variations, for them to "sound about equal".
Maybe not many people really care about this, as long as they sound fine, and that's great.
I'm just pointing out that no turntable system has perfectly controlled speed, and that there are variations which need to be dealt with, and that they may influence what you hear if they get beyond a certain level of perception. Engineers will need to be concerned with these things when they design a turntable, but listeners must only be concerned about what they hear as the result(thankfully!).
It seemed to me that some proponents of the various forms of drive systems wanted to point out some technical aspects of why their "favorite" sounded better, and why their "less favorite" did not sound as good(to them). I thought that some of this technical information may contribute usefully to the discussion. |
i think it is because turntable designers all have varying degrees of understanding of the entire turntable system, and place varying amounts of emphasis on "perfecting" the various aspects, within a certain price range, and possibly with different technologies and approaches.
It is definitely not a foregone conclusion that just because a company makes turntables, that they are "expert" in the field. And even "experts" have holes in their knowledge base. And even if they do know everything(impossible), they cannot implement perfection, or even close to it at any affordable price range.
So, what you buy is inherently a compromise.
What types of compromising, and how well the compromises work as a whole, will determine the results.
And, since different people have different listening tastes and sensitivities, different forms of compromise may appeal to different listeners.
That's why there are numerous manufacturers, who all provide a different set of engineering compromises, in an attempt to get the best result at the price range intended.
And it's the same with all other components, too. |
