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?
1) Not hearing what you expect to hear, based on extensive personal experience with the records tested
2) Hearing what there is to hear, based on the fact that you just played the record at the correct speed, and know which one is which
3) Hearing what you do expect to hear, based on your preconceptions about what effect will be wrought by a 1% speed change
...or some combo of the above. The acid test of this perception would be to use unfamiliar recordings and a helper, having them played back for you blind at both the correct speed and 1% off, to see whether you can consistently identify which playback is correct and which is fast or slow. I think this would probably be an exercise in futility though, maybe even at 2% in many instances, or even higher with some other types of music.
Having been brought to my mathematical senses, I concede the point (obvious to all but me) that harmonic relationships do not change with an absolute speed change, provided the speed is stable of course.
Makes me wonder what we're hearing though. We're doing a few experiments and (gasp!) measurements. Stay tuned.
"...in the TT subject and from the objective approach it is a fact that we can only 'work' with the 'numbers' that are on hand: there are no others!"
There could be others, they're just not taken or not published. But I presume there's no technical reason, beyond a lack of will or resources, why turntable reviews couldn't include detailed measurements of speed distortions, noise, and resonant behavior that take into account spectra and duration, not just simple amplitude, as well as frequency and transient response/distortion at the output.
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. 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.
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.
Dear Sean: +++++ " I truly believe in measurements and a scientific approach to audio, but often the most difficult thing is knowing exactly what to measure. " +++++
I agree with you.
Btw, in the TT subject and from the objective approach it is a fact that we can only " work " with the " numbers " that are on hand: there are no others!!!!...
Now, there is no single approach that is right: objective or subjective, we have to take from both and bring the best for each one to our priorities.
Raul: I don't want to beat, strangle, shoot, drown, and blow up a dead horse, BUT...
> I don't excpect you to be familiar with my collected works on Audiogon, but anyone who's read me around here over the years could tell you that I am hardly a pure subjectivist. I often raise questions concerning what it is audiophiles think they hear, what they prefer, how they arrive at those subjective determintations, and the influence of technical ignorance and psychology. I'm all for whatever degree of objectivity is obtainable or practical.
> I do think measurements are important, for audiophiles both as a check on quality and as information to help us understand what we hear, and of course for product designers they are essential tools of the trade
Having said that, I also think numbers can be misleading under several circumstances, such as...
> If there is little or no correlelation established between what is being measured and what we can hear
> If there is no test devised capable of measuring some aspect of what we can hear
> If the tests performed omit covering some measureable aspects which probably do correlate with what we can hear
> If a test measures something that bears little useful resemblence to playing music
> If the measurements we are comparing are those claimed by manufacturers under unknown or unverifiable test conditions, not independently obtained using a uniform test procedure
> When tests that measure the wrong thing, or fail to measure the right thing, are misrepresented as the authoritative determinants of performance
When it comes to the turntable specs you've listed, there are several pitfalls evident:
> These are manufacturer numbers, unverifiable and taken under unknown test conditions which it is reasonable to assume were not always uniform
> Even if all the numbers were valid, they may not be representive of all samples of these products that we might audition or pertain under all real-world conditions
> We do not know whether or to what degree the small differences between the numbers correlate with audible performance
> Numbers for wow, flutter, and rumble do not define the universe of possible quantifiers of turntable performance, they only relate to certain aspects of it
> And in any case, wow & flutter and rumble numbers tell us only about aggregate quantity -- nothing about the actual spectral or temporal qualities of the distortions. So, identical numbers for two different turntables can in fact represent different behavior and therefore possibly sound.
You wrote: "From a pure objective approach, the 'numbers' are what define which audio device is better, not if we can hear those 'numbers'." This is a fallacy, for some of the reasons I've listed above, and even if you discount the importance of being able to hear everything that is measureable. If you believe that measurements always objectively define what is better, then you simply don't know enough about the numbers, what they mean or might mean, and what they don't mean or might not mean. As the movie said, "A man's got to know his limitations", and that goes for a man's numbers too.
Dear Zaikesman: +++++ " or illuminate anything about what we hear or which drive method is "best". " +++++
I think that you don't read carefully what I posted about, here it is:
+++++ " Btw, from a pure objective approach the " numbers " are what define which audio device is better not if we can hear those " numbers ". " +++++
Come on!!!!
I respect your opinion but you have a misunderstood about. I'm talking of " numbers " ( objective approach ) in an absolute concept/terms and you ( like always ) are talking in a subjective point of view . Two very differents things.
At least and in an absolute concept/terms of objective approach: " numbers ", we have answers about this thread and with your subjective approach we don't have any.
Flg2001, in order to make such a blanket statement you will have to have heard every direct drive and every belt drive TT in existence. And then it would be your opinion against someone elses. I like both types and own both.
Have gone thru almost all the posts here, and was hard to me to find the insolation effect thet belt drive brings to the motor and for the platter. May that be the answer why belt drive units sound "better" than direct drive ones? (just guessing)
Just a thought. How many YEARS passed before it was recognized that one side of Miles' "Kind of Blue" was recorded and released off-speed? When the second side, recorded at the right speed, was available for comparison all the time? So much for our sensitivity to speed accuracy.
Raul, I'm in general agreement that measured numbers determine the accuracy, but I will take issue on one small nit-picky area.
Lumping of wow and flutter is misleading, because I suspect that the frequency distribution of the wow and flutter noise will have a very pronounced effect on the perception of sound quality, just as it does with digital jitter.
I could have a table that had lousy wow measurement at 0.5Hz, but I suspect it would be much more pleasant to listen to than a better measured table with wow around 2kHz, right in the midband.
I truly believe in measurements and a scientific approach to audio, but often the most difficult thing is knowing exactly what to measure.
This has been a really fascinating debate, by the way, and I hope one day I'll have the time and/or the money to try a few more of the tables out there.
Albert, I think that's a tremendous observation. A lot of people bickering about a subset and we've perhaps forgotten that we are all talking because of our agreement on a larger point which is the benefits of analog. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
Its not possible to rule out all the variables in this audition. Even assuming the Walker and GP with the EXACT same cartridge (my Koetsu Jade Platinum Signature), one of these tone arms may favor the Jade more or less than another.
Then, add in my personal taste as well as how my own system is tuned with my current Walker Proscenium as the reference.
I've always loved linear trackers, owned at least seven 'em. Of course everyone says the latest designs from Schroeder and Morch are supposed to give linear track a run for their money. Factor in cost and we have an impossible task.
I think the best I could do is explain what I hear in my system and let everyone decide if it means anything or not. What's important is we are all discussing how great analog is. I think that's more important than WHICH system work for each person.
Cool. Of course, even with a linear arm there'd still be the difference of air-bearings vs. conventional bearings. And at this level, I'd frankly expect resonant signature to trump drive type overall (you'd think that would be a strong point for anything from Grand Prix), but suspect each will have its strengths. If it's even close to a draw though, that would tend to support the view that DD can't be dismissed on nothing but facile principle. If it's not even in close in favor of the Walker however, it would probably be unfair to draw general conclusions regarding drive type.
Albert? You getting one of these for review to go with those racks? Now there would be a DD vs. BD showdown for you.
The answer is yes. I am assigned to do the advertising photography for Grand Prix Audio for this new turntable. I will do a review too if it sounds really good.
Although, to make things fair, I wish I had a Kuzma arm to mount on the GP. Two linear trackers and belt versus direct drive. As it stands I could get a Schroeder, an SME and maybe a Morch. Will have to wait and see.
Raul: Sorry, but the only thing one can "judge" from that list is that you spent much time and effort collating those numbers. You can list claimed specs til the cows come home however, but for many reasons it still doesn't amount to an argument (scientific or otherwise), or illuminate anything about what we hear or which drive method is "best". It just doesn't. Appreciate your witholding the "wrath of Raul" however!
Doug: Hey baby, don't go all brain-masturbatory on us now! ;^) I have to side with SDT99 and Jyprez on this one. I too have never understood the 'damage to harmonic relationships' argument, since everything changes proportionally and in unison. A 1% deviation from the way something was performed on a recording is still well within the range of variation in tempo and tuning encountered in live performance, as well as the unique harmonic structures possessed by individual examples of instruments. Personally, I think you usually have to go to a 2% - 3% deviation for the music to start sounding a bit 'funny' in absolute terms, but I grant you that system fidelity and program material selection will have an impact on that threshold. I can't quibble with your opinion of what you hear, but my own suspicion is that if you didn't play a recording with which you were already familiar, or didn't play one in close proximity to hearing it at the correct speed, a 1% steady-state error, while audible in relative terms, would not call attention to itself in isolation. This is something that of course could be blind-tested for pretty easily, and I'd lay money on getting negative results.
Hi: SM?, good point. Btw, from a pure objective approach the " numbers " are what define which audio device is better not if we can hear those " numbers ".
Here are some of those " numbers " and you will be the best judge:
Manufacturer wow&flutter speed accu.% signal/noise ratio
These are the best TT " numbers " . The Idler Wheel have really poor " numbers " and the Rega and the like very poor too, on many others there is no single " number ", sorry.
Btw, it will be nice if Teres and Galibier could give us their " numbers ".
I would agree with Sean on this. The standard of 440Hz for A is a rather recent development as any performer of Early Music will tell you. But a minor third has always been a minor third, so it would seem (and here I risk the wrath of Raul) that pitch stability is more important than accuracy.
"Speed-stability is the crucial issue, not speed-accuracy within reasonable limits."
Zaikes ... I agree with you. If speed accuracy were more important the CD vs LP debate would have died long ago. Speed stability is what really counts.
Regarding the limit of discrimination this reference has it at 0.5% http://www.indiana.edu/~emusic/acoustics/pitch.htm
So you could argue that the difference between 0.001% and 0.01% is academic. I would even argue that the orchestral players are not able to tune their instruments to better than 0.1% so you are fooling yourself if you think a turntable needs to be substantially more accurate.
Since speed stability problems cause direct distortion to the waveform they are much more noticeable.
Doug ... how does an absolute speed error break harmonic relationships ? If we are 1% fast then a lower A is 444 Hz (instead of 440Hz) and an upper A is 888Hz instead of 880Hz. The doubling of frequency per octet relationship is still maintained, just shifted slightly 1% up in frequency.
Phd, the SP10MKII is an upgrade from the Technics SP10MKII that has a 28lb bronze and aluminum platter and an outboard power supply with speed control.
Even a 1% static error alters the essential character of the music only very slightly, and even then usually only in direct comparison with the correct speed.
Alex,
That's the first statement you've made that I'll specifically disagree with. Given sufficiently transparent yet harmonically complex music, a 1% static speed deviation is quite audible. The music's harmonic structure will be damaged.
I'm not referring to anything esoteric. Mozart's orchestral scores are a good test. Nothing seems simpler, but his harmonic relationships are far more tightly inter-related that is usually appreciated. Change playback speed by 1% and they fall to pieces.
To be fair, this does require a very transparent sytem to be audible. Bloat or overhang from any component will readily mask the harmonic damage from a 1% static speed error. My old c-j and Bent components did. So do Aesthetix and Supratek, for that matter. Dan_Ed, Jyprez and Swampwalker could attest that our Nick Doshi stuff has the requisite transparency. When they visited recently I didn't specifically demonstrate the audibility of a 1% TT speed error. But I could have.
Anybody seen the new Grand Prix Audio Monaco DD described in April's "Analog Corner" CES report? Quothe Fremer: "Ultra-compact...magnesium platter...bronze flywheel...CPU-controlled...5,000-point optical reader...platter which is also the rotor (sound familiar?)...only mechanical attactment point is the bearing, no contact in the horizontal plane...composite polymer-damped plinth...aluminum billet armboard...$15-20K? Albert? You getting one of these for review to go with those racks? Now there would be a DD vs. BD showdown for you.
Raul: "BM" for "brain-masturbation"? (Well, I guess those who've got... BTW, "BM" is already taken my man, or didn't you know? Or maybe you meant it that way? Classy!)
Look, it's regrettable you can't handle being disagreed with in good grace, but I stand by my comments. Speed-stability is the crucial issue, not speed-accuracy within reasonable limits. IMO.
Of course it's better to be more accurate, and 0.001% is speed-accurate. So is 0.01%. So is 0.1% -- that equals a mere 1Hz error for a 1,000Hz tone, which if constant has zero perceptible impact on the listening experience. Even a 1% static error alters the essential character of the music only very slightly, and even then usually only in direct comparison with the correct speed. 0.001% vs. 0.002% baseline inaccuracy means nothing, you cannot hear the difference. And it's not even worth getting into how valid or comparable the claimed specs you're throwing around here are anyway -- probably half of those quoted mean nothing as well. Judging from your posts, you seem to think that listing specs somehow qualifies as "scientific" as you say, or is a substitute for making a cogent argument. Guess we could call that "SM" if it hadn't already been taken. "With all respect", Ciao.
Another thing, one only has to look at the specs between a belt drive & direct drive to see a clear improvement in wow & flutter specs. I would think that when the platter is part of the motor which is the case in direct drive, this would be the kiss of death.
Phd- Isolation has improved as we have become more aware of it. Your direct drive experience might have been due to feedback. Or it could have been an inexpensive direct drive. Several posters have noted that cheapo DD tables tarnished the rep of the genre back in the day.
Ok I'll rewind. A few years ago I owned a direct drive turntable, couldn't get much volume due to rumble, I thought the speakers were going to come unglued. Switched to a belt drive turntable & life was much better. Maybe more current direct drive designs have improved.
Phd- That's a very old story and it is not supported by rumble figures as far as I know. I've read that the resonant frequency of the drive motor and bearing in a good DD is like 5 Hz or something. It's supposed to be too low for the cartridge to pick up. I also remember a tale about ID tables developing a flat spot in the rubber idler wheel if left idle and engaged for too long. I think that last one was started by the tooth fairy.
Direct drive is better if your a DJ/rapper. Direct drive transmits more vibration to the platter where as in a belt driven turntable this vibration is isolated by the rubber belt itself.
In my opinion first we need speed accuracy and the second most desired characteristic is speed stability.
My ears need both, equally.
Raul, Please do extensive research on "brain masturbation" before posting about that topic again. We need clear and precise information on the subject, not speculations that cannot be corroborated. Lab-tested specifications from the manufacturer would be best. You probably have access to them!
Dear Zaikesman: +++++ " Raul: I think your focus on speed-accuracy may be overstated. IMO speed-stability is the more important factor, beyond a certain point of competence concerning accuracy. Accuracy isn't that hard to achieve, stability is. " +++++
No, definitive I don't agree with you: ovbiously speed stability is a critical and very important TT subject but first than all we need speed accuracy, that's mean that first we need that the TT drive system runs exactly at 45 rpm ( example ) not at 44 or 46 rpm. It does not matters that a drive system has good speed stability if not has speed accuracy. In my opinion first we need speed accuracy and the second most desired characteristic is speed stability. I don't agree too with : ++++ " Accuracy isn't that hard to achieve " +++++. I think that you are only " talking " ( with all respect: brain-masturbation . ) with out any scientific info that can confirm your statement. If it was not hard to achieve then we should have several TT with a speed accuracy of 0.001% and we only have two of them. Where do you learn or which are the facts that confirm your statements?
Here it is another of your BM that have no value at all because this BM can't be corroborated for any one ( you are accelerate your " car " in " neutral " . ):
+++++ " If a TT slows a bit when it encounters increased stylus drag, then a lathe must also slow when it cuts more highly modulated passages into the blank lacquer. To read the information as accurately as possible, the playback should read those grooves with speed distortions that correlate with how it was cut. " +++++
I'm not saying that you can't have all those BM that you posted and many more, what I try to explain is that those BM don't permit to any one to go any where.
I suggest that because you are very interested on this thread make a extensive research about your statements and share with us the facts that you find it.
Dear Zaikesman, you statements in their today status confused to many people and what all we need here is to have a clear and precise information on the thread subject with out speculations that can be corroborated.
Expounding a bit: Viridian, your last question I think may really concern phase. You might be thinking of "flanging" as an analogy, or the way loudspeakers behave regarding crossovers and multiple drivers or reflective room surfaces. If so, that would not apply to this situation, it seems to me -- that sort of reinforcement/cancellation phenomana requires mixing of more than one sound source, which I think the encode/decode of vinyl playback doesn't qualify as. You are right that pitches are affected, and the resulting pitch distortions will derive from addition and subtraction, but I don't believe there is any constructive/destructive reinforcement going on as I understand the concept. For instance, to "flange" as they originally did in the recording studio, you need two reels of tape both with the same signal recorded on them, played back in synchrony, which is then modified by applying friction via the engineer's hands to the reels' flanges. But if you recorded one reel of tape while altering the pitch by applying drag to the flange, and then played that pitch-altered reel back while doing the same thing again, the "flanging" effect would not be the result, just further pitch distortion.
MJ and V: Obviously we can't achieve a correct 1:1 correspondence, or probably even seek one realistically speaking. (Although if that were the goal, then you could make the argument that going with a Technics SP which used the same motor/controller as a Matsushita disk-cutter would be a reasonable strategy. However, lacquers aren't the same as vinyl, cutter-heads aren't the same as cartridges, and of course inscribing a groove isn't the same as following one.) The real point may be that, even were we able to achieve "perfect" playback with zero speed distortion (which we can't), if the record weren't cut the same way, you'd still wind up with speed distortion. Boiled down: You'll always have speed distortion. But we already knew that.
As to Viridian's observation, if our theoretical turntable suffers less dynamic drag on transients than the cutting lathe (maybe not as unreasonable an assumption as it might seem, given the presumably much greater frictional resistance encountered by a cutting-head in inscribing the groove as opposed to a stylus merely reading it), then pitches will go slightly sharp on transients. If the turntable suffers more dynamic drag than the lathe on the other hand, then transient pitches will go slightly flat. All in all though, I don't think it's completely unreasonable to speculate that these speed distortions at the mastering and playback ends might indeed have some rough natural correspondence which tends to mitigate the problem more than exacerbate it.
Macrojack, I built an idler wheel table from a Lenco and I would not consider myself to be a DIY guy (although I am getting better) - it's not that hard if you have the time to do it. You cut some plywood and MDF to the same size, cut out the cavities for the guts of the lenco to fit inside it, glue the layers together, bolt the lenco onto the plinth, finish with self-adhering veneer or stain it. The veneer covers a lot of the mistakes. If you use the right arm or turn the thing 90 degrees, you don't need to cut the base plate to set the arm. You clean the motor and the bearing, stick some dampening under the plate, and for $500 you're stunned.
I don't have an opinion about which is better in the drives, but I will say without any reservation that I have enjoyed the hell out of mine. If like me you really get turned on by value, well, this is a real value in audio.
Plus you get to tell people "I built a turntable" and that in and of itself is worth the effort.
Lenco's are on ebay all the time - there are some specific models to buy and some to avoid. I used an L 75. I think the 69 (someone correct me if I am wrong) is also good - these have aluminum idler wheels rather than plastic.
So, if you really are curious, I am your role model. If I can do it, you can do it.
Zaikesman, I think I understand your point. Recreation of the original performance requires retracing the original steps at the original pace. Or in other words the duplicate must be exactly symmetrical to the original in order to precisely mimic it in reverse -- mistakes included. The concept is simple enough but saying it so that others can understand my meaning isn't quite so simple.
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.
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.
