I've been reading and hearing more and more about the superiority of direct drive because it drives the platter rather than dragging it along by belt. It actually makes some sense if you think about cars. Belt drives rely on momentum from a heavy platter to cruise through tight spots. Direct drive actually powers the platter. Opinions?
Teres: You *elected* to implement it with direct-drive. Why? Marketing (which I think may be a good move in a crowded BD universe), and/or something more?
PA: You lost me, I don't understand the meaning of your response to my wisecrack (which was only in reference to "watching women's palms" -- intended as a joke, though I'm guessing you're not joking about anything...)
And, that Denver trip is less than 10 days away! I'm salivating all over the keyboard just thinking about it!
Microjack, if you'll allow me an observation. I get the impression that your real motivation for starting this thread, and coming to some of the conclusions you seem to have, was to somehow justify doing what you wanted to do. Sell your current table and buy a table that you had your eye, or curiosity, on. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I'm much the same way. However, there is a pervasive theme through many of the well thought out posts here. That is, all of the popular drives have their benefits and short-comings, it still comes down to implementation of the whole table.
Personally, I'd be much more interested in a shoot out between your Druids and a few other well regarded speakers. Not trying to hi-jack the thread, but the Zu's do have my interest.
Those coming to Denver will get to hear the exact same table, arm and cart with belt vs. direct drive. It's a simple matter with the new prototype to switch between belt and direct drive. But I hasten to add that this still will not mean much about the debate at hand. The motor and controller topology is completely different. So people will be hearing motor differences along with the belt vs direct differences. I suspect that in this case the motor/controller differences will have a larger impact than the drive method.
There seems to be a lot of religion about drive methods, but I see it as just a small part of the equation. The motor/controller design and characteristics are at least equally important. Rather than taking our direct drive development as an endorsement of the drive method it would be more accurate to say that we have developed a promising new motor and we are implementing it with direct drive. A suble but important difference.
Drubin, You've hit upon a great idea. Talk about a crowd attraction. Denver is pretty central in terms of U.S. geography and RMAF in October would be a terrific site since it is likely that the principal competitors might all be there anyway. The only hangups would be classification and maybe ground rules. Should we start a new thread for this topic or just keep going here? Obviously we would see older and probably reconditioned models for Idler Drive and no holds barred new stuff for belt. I imagine that it would be NOS DDs unless the Monaco might show up. Who are going to be the judges? Will it be a panel like in the Olympics where each judge holds up a card with their score and then we average them? More comments and ideas, please.
It wouldn't prove anything I don't think, but it certainly would be interesting. You would want identical arms and cartridges, equally broken in and meticulously set up to the same exacting parameters. But even if you couldn't manage that, you would probably discern the differences in overall sonic character between the three. Doing it blind would be a good thing since many of us clearly carry expectations with us when it comes to this topic. Does anyone here have the wherewithal to organize such a comparison?
Thanks. Very interesting. It'd be fun some day (this is pure fantasy) to have a show-down of the three formats (idler included). Everyone bring their tweaked, DIY examples, categorize them by some leveling criteria (price?) and let it rip. Of course, we'd have to hire enough security to keep things peaceful, but it'd be a hoot to hear the show. And congrats for nurturing a most entertaining and educational thread.
Chuck, Initially I posed the question because of curiosity and an instinct that perhaps DD had been sent away prematurely by a trend that was propagated by an audio press I distrust and by a need for isolation which was addressed by suspending turntable chassis rather than evacuating unwanted energy. The suspended turntable trend naturally favored BD. With the subsequent development of isolation platforms and vibration control, I wondered if it might be that DD is really superior after all and should be revisited. What I've gotten from this is a strong awareness of controversy. There are strong arguements on both (actually three) sides so I would be less sure than when I started if not for learning about the Grand Prix Racing Monaco and Chris Brady's plans to develop a Teres DD. I mean, look at it, one of the pre-eminent BD designers says that after extensive experimentation he has concluded that DD has greater ultimate potential. Who among the respondents to this thread brings greater credibility? So I am selling my Well Tempered Reference Table that I have used for 12 years and a slew of DD tables I don't like as well as my Luxman PD 441. There is a Technics SP 10 MK II, an SL 150 MK II and a Technics SL 1100A. They are all strong, stable and good sounding but I like the look and feel of the Luxman better and it has more of a sense of pace and drive. I also have a Yamaha PX-2 which is well made and beautifully designed with tangential tracking but it is a bit too gizmo for me. It might go to my kids since it is fully automatic and you can do everything except change records with the dustcover closed. I think that, as it stands today, high end vintage DD on the used market represents the most bang for the buck in analog playback.
Macrojack, after reading this thread (much of which I don't have the background to understand) I am curious about a few things. What prompted the question to begin with? How did the thread influence your thinking - it seems to have done so if you're selling off 'tables. What are you selling and what are you keeping and why? I hope these questions aren't intrusive, but your actions and your "WOW" made me really curious. Thanks, Chuck
Psychoticanimal, I have read that the Constitution and Declaration of Independance were both written on hemp paper. At one time farmers were required to grow the stuff to help pay for the war. Another interesting fact is that the war effort was equipped and capitalized by the harvesting of native Ginseng. Seems the stuff that grew wild in Virginia was the best in the world and we were able to trade with Asia for things we could not produce. You know, like cameras and televisions and cars. Currently we are returning to those days when we imported almost everything. Can I get a witness?
It seems that we all agree that no turntable and no drive system can accomplish theoretical perfection, and some of us feel that today's best are good enough. I'm in that group because I have been impressed throughout this discussion with the knowledge that I can't afford anything appreciatively better than what I have. Fortunately I like it.
Of all types of TT faults, speed error and wow and flutter are the easiest to evaluate. A strobe disc and a neon bulb will verify that average speed is at least as good as the power line frequency (which is very good). Actually, quartz controlled DD turntables will be better than the line frequency. Test records have tracks with test tones that are designed to make wow and flutter evident. If you can't hear a problem with the test record you will never hear it with musuc.
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.
Vitality is vital. Essential. Quintessential. I never have heard any turntable I own wowing, fluttering or hunting. Perhaps I'm not critical or astute enough to observe these faults but I suspect I am happier being unaware of them. Like that burned out pixel, it doesn't bother you at all until you notice it and then it can't be overlooked. Seems like the more you train your ear, the more it costs you. I think I'm going to sell all my turntables except one direct drive. WOW!
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.
"If any of you guys would meet me in person and looked at the palms of my hands you'd understand"
Uh, that's OK, thanks anyway...
But getting back to the subject at "hand" (ahem), as far as I know there's nothing about implementing a quartz-referenced PLL that couldn't be done in turntables using something other than direct-drive, if one wanted or needed to.
Yet to be addressed is the subject of quartz lock. Quartz is an alchemist's dream come true. Quartz has no comparison to a wobbling belt nor the brute force exercised by an idler wheel rubbing against a platter.
Quartz *resonates* electrically, giving timing and life to both man and machine. Quartz is a source of true metaphysical finesse wherever it's used.
If any of you guys would meet me in person and looked at the palms of my hands you'd understand. They are completely red from using a huge white quartz crystal for meditation and meridian resonance stabilization. My life force is distributed and timed with the help of quartz.
Has anyone seen those little quartz plum bobs sold at incence stores? I can place the center of my palm directly under the plumb and as I concentrate the plumb rotates faster and faster in ever increasing circles.
Nothing much to worry about, TWL. The existing stock of affordable DD tables is small and stable and the concensus here says that mass produced DD will never again be seen. So there really isn't much need for concern about buyers responding to a wrong impression about superiority. The reference to spec wars was funny. I still have a copy of the October, 1987 Audio Magazine Annual Equipment Directory(The Industry Bible) boasting on the cover that it contains more than 4,300products and over 75,000 specs. What a feast for numbers people. 62 Hz, 89 rpm, 16%. WOW! Doesn't that just give you goosebumps?
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.
I don't disagree with any of what Tom has said here, but I do think it would be reactionary to suppose that there is a looming "specs war" afoot regarding turntables. First of all, almost the entire market today for the type of turntables we are talking about consists of audiophiles, and that is not analogous to the situation with mass-market amps in the 70's. (In fact, I believe I'm correct in saying that the THD wars were one of the driving forces behind the true emergence of "the high end" as an alternative, and essentially separate, market for audiophiles.)
Secondly, just because specs were abused or misused once, and we learned to be wary of them, doesn't mean that all measurements are worthless (not that Tom said they were). The wow & flutter measurement could certainly stand some improvement as a protocol, but there's nothing wrong with the idea of meausuring turntable speed-distortion, both quantitatively and qualitatively, and trying to correlate that with audible performance and manufacturing and design practices.
And I think there's no quibbling that in theory, a turntable with lower and/or more benign speed-distortions is better *in that respect* than one with higher and/or more malign speed-distortions. Unlike with amp THD, I don't think there's anybody ready to argue that certain kinds of TT speed-distortions are actually euphonic or restorative in some way, or that designing to lower them will necessarily compromise some other area of performance. (In fact, all ultra-premium TT's are ostensibly designed to minimize speed-distortions, whether they succeed or not.)
Also, there's a difference between independent testing and "specs", given by manufacturers and often not worth the paper they're printed on -- especially regarding analog transducers (think speakers) -- in terms of reliability, stating of parameters, or use of a consistent industry protocol. Since turntables (and cartridges) have become such an essential feature of the audiophile landscape once again, the fact that none of these often-expensive components gets measured seems a dereliction of duty by the audiophile press. (Well, I guess by Stereophile anyway, but it seems unfair to single them out just because they're almost the only audiophile publication remaining that tests for anything at all anymore.) I think it would give particular insight to test turntable resonance, showing spectral distribution, amplitude and duration of inherent modes, and resistance to external stimulus.
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.
I couldn't agree more, I was only agreeing with what I thought Zaikesman was saying and that is that belt-drive zealots have been telling evryone that their "drive" is superior for awhile now and that they should not act holier than thou if things start to swing another way. (not that either camp would be "right")
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.
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.
That may be the milieu right now, today, Tom, but with all due respect, a few years ago, when I got back into vinyl, nearly everyone on this site was trumpeting the superiority of belt drives, uber alles, no exceptions (OK, except some VERY stratosphere-priced tables). Further, one was rudely ridiculed for even ASKING anything differently. It was the marketing line and MANY bought into it hook, line, and stinker. Now, I am not siding with one approach in all cases becasue I have heard the good and bad of all. However, to deny the Zaikeman theory regarding the belt-drive zealots is to engage in revisionist history. :-)
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.
"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?"
Isn't that basically what happened with belt-drive?
It certainly DID but, exactly, not basically!!
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.
This should be chiseled into tablets somewhere.
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.
"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"
I think "most" is "patently" not the word to describe the number of posters on this thread who actually disagree with your position here.
"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?"
Isn't that basically what happened with belt-drive?
"are we going to blindly fly out and buy some form of that drive system, like lemmings over the cliff?"
Isn't that basically what happened with belt-drive?
I appreciate your arguments and knowledge, and yes, the question asked in the thread-head is maybe a bit overstated in order to be provocative, but IMO defending belt-drive doesn't require setting up a straw man. I will be interested to learn what you think of the Teres DD when the time comes, even if you might not be a customer for one.
Dear Taviran: +++++ " resolution of a system, its dynamic impact or its huge soundstage, that the fact that the turntable was completely off pitch evaded their notice. This is why I think that at least in this department, measurements are mandatory. " +++++
This is a normal situation between all of us audiophiles: our ears are perfectly " equalized " to our audio system, many of us can't hear the pitch differences. One of my point about is that people not attend to live music concert frequently, they usually heard the music through their own systems or through other friend systems and their ears are totally system " equalized ": there is no space to " pitch ". Yes, I agree that measurements are mandatory., unfortunatelly no one TT designer cares about it: I wonder which were the TT design targets of those designers or against what they know that achieve it?. Obviously they trust in the " ears " that are really untrusty: ???????
++++ " Now from my experience, belt drives do indeed have pitch problems, but some more than others. " +++++ Of course. I already work hard with the power supply of my BD TTs to try to lower that problem. Certainly the SP 10s are better on this subject.
About the Lenco I appreciate the Johnnantais passion and that's why he think that the Lenco is better than the SP 10: Johnnantais bring with you your Lenco against one of my SP 10 and we will see.
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.
"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"
Maybe it's just the way you put it in translation, but to me this is a false distinction. All are audiophiles because all "love the equipment". (Personlly, I think I've passed the point where I can love my equipment for its own sake, perhaps only doing so when it's playing music the way I want it to, but maybe I just own the wrong equipment.) To me, the amount of information your equipment can extract, as you put it, from your recordings is a good 75% of the reason for doing any of this in the first place, with the other 25% falling to that equipment's intrinsic "sound" which is not on the recording. At least that's if we're doing this right.
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.
I would like to add my two cents to this forum for it seems to me there is an important assumption that is overlooked in the discussion. The assumption is that all people have (more or less) the same pitch sensitivity. So much so that we (audiophiles) can rely on each others experience and opinions whether a certain design is pitch accurate or not. Well, from my experience, audiophiles are less reliable than other people in noticing pitch problems (and, more generally, wow and flutter). I could try to explain this phenomenon but this is not my concern here. My concern here is only to say that when people claim that belt drive is better or worst than DD or idler wheel, they either rely on theory or on their own ears, and neither should be trusted too much. I have seen it happen that a group of audiophiles were so impressed with the resolution of a system, its dynamic impact or its huge soundstage, that the fact that the turntable was completely off pitch evaded their notice. This is why I think that at least in this department, measurements are mandatory (although people should also take heed of the fact that measurements are done on test records, not what we actually listen to).
The problem is made worse by the fact that there is another factor which affects wow and flutter: the compliance of arm and cartridge, and also, (what I have learned only recently), the vibrations coming from the turntable. So perfect speed stability of turntable might not be enough.
Now from my experience, belt drives do indeed have pitch problems, but some more than others. For example, I have a suspicion that some of the pitch problems I have had with my Nottingham Analogue Space-Deck are due to its LONG belt (people who are saying the NA is accurate notwithstanding since I have heard the same problems at my local dealers showroom). Shorter belt designs, like Linn and Rega, might have an advantage here, in my view, but this is theory so take it with a grain of salt. My experience, on the other hand, with the Rega showed it had a serious pitch problem whereas the only Linn I have heard was hooked to the Lingo, and it sounded quite accurate, as far as I remember. So Power supplies are also important, but I resent the fact that after you spend a few thousand dollars on a high-end turntable, you still need to add more to play it accurately.
As for the Lenco's mentioned above, I have now two 75's and one 78 (NOS) in my home, NONE of them plays accurately. I already cleaned and oiled them, put on a refurbished idler wheel (new rubber) and nothing helped. I mentioned the tonearm - compliance issue above: the flutter is most pronounced when I use a Rega rb-250 arm, a bit less with SME 3009III, and least with Lenco's own arm and cartridge. Go figure. Now my audiobody tells me I should use a power line filter but, again, I believe a good turntable should play accurately out of the box, so to speak. I am therefore somewhat puzzled when I read the comments above that the Lenco is as accurate as the Technics sp-10. Not the ones I have here, and this is quite a representative sample, I believe. .
No to DD's: the most accurate turntable I have heard so far is the Goldmund Studio. To my ears it is CD accurate. I sold it to my audiobody since my wife didn't like its coloration (yes, from the motor). Indeed, compared to the NA it is VERY colored. But the fact is that whenever I want to listen to accurate piano music and no jitter (from my CD player, that is, which does play perfect pitch) I go to visit my friend. I wanted to buy it back from him but he is not willing to let it go. He sold his modern belt-drive deck and seems to be happy with it. So this says something about good DD. And so Im still searching for a turntable that will be both neutral sounding like the NA, and pitch accurate like the Goldmund. I heard that (as some mentioned here) the heavy-platter ones are the way to go. But I still need to listen to one of them WITH MY OWN EARS. Sorry, I don't trust audiophiles anymore.
Dear TWL: +++++ " 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. " +++++
I totally agree. The price subject is really important for all of us and to have a different point of view about TTs: how much we need to paid for almost the same quality on a DD and BD system?
If we take a look, only with the " numbers/specs " that we have on hand, it seems to me that the BD system is more expensive than the DD systems ( other than Rockport ). We can have a SP10 for 400.00 with out base/tonearm !!!!!!!!
I can put on a contest one of my Sp 10s ( against any BD one ) where I invest around: 2K, this include: Sp 10, marble base, Pneumatic Audio technica footers, Vacuum Audio Technica platter, mods on the external power supply, tonearm, tiptoe like between the SP 10 and the marble base, etc, etc. This TT could be a " sound surprise " for many of us.
Dear Zaikesman: +++++ " There could be others, " +++++
I agree but that is not the point.
+++++ " The status quo however is that turntable reviews (and cartridge and tonearm reviews) include no measured test results whatsoever. This is unfortunate, because I believe there can be a salutory effect on the product marketplace stemming from public accountability for technical performance claims and the availability of comparison data. " +++++
I agree too. We need a come back to " Audio magazin e "!!!!
++++ " It might be interesting if Teres would be willing to share with us some idea of what kinds of measurements are taken as part of a manufacturer's design and testing process that aren't normally published for consumer consumption. " +++++
Yes, it will be interesting and not only from Teres but for other designers like Walker ( Rushton, Albert: Can you help about? ). Btw, for what I read about the Walker TT, including the very long and very interesting review-interview in 6Moons ( I think ), Mr. Walker never mentioned any Proscenium measurements ( top secret? ): Albert-Mike-Rushton, do you know if something exist about?.
Btw, I will be really surprised if those measurements exist not only from Walker but from other TT manufacturers and here I will be very happy to be wrong.
hmmm. Rega tables are positioned in the "musical" side of the audio spectrum, and run at a little higher speed than normal (+1%-1.25% according to some measurments in the audio press).
Technics SP10 are Quartz-accurate, and are placed in the analytic side of the same audio spectrum.
No Rwwear, I have not (and pray god will neber have the time to) listen ALL direct drive tables and ALL belt drive tables - I am one more that places my audio preferenes to understand why an artist decided to place in music emotions.
Agreed with Twl and other´s comments regarding vinyl format superiority above other available formats (many years since I have not heard 15IPS R2R), and arriving to the conclusion that this vinyl will become more and more a niched-market source among this industry.
More food for thinking - Differences in price on ttables reflect less a sonic superiority compared to CD players, meaning - a decent entry level table/cart/arm combo (let´s say $750.00 US) brings one closer to a great musical experience than an entry level CDP of say, the same ammount of investment, and Rwwear, I have not heard ALL 750 US CDPs and ALL 759 US tables. :)
Welcome elaboration on measurement process, equipment etc...
For me anyway, this thread has at least highlighted that better(relevant/reproduceable) measurements are desirable to help in evaluating performance. Few of us have the time, funds or inclination to properly test in an after-market environment. Reading countless personal opinions with limited awareness of setup variables or preferences makes user comments quite a gamble.
I would like one more considered on top of sound quality is drive quality(e.g. mean time between failures or failure rates and ability to FIX!). This may be one area where BD's provide another more cost effective attribute/convenience, er maybe not if they fail much more.
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.
