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?
Pabelson, if you think that the whole thing boils down to speed accuracy and rumble, you are sadly mistaken. Internal resonance within the drive system and resistance to external vibration and the period and frequency of those vibrations are just three more of the various factors that come into play.
I'm not talking about "the whole thing"; I'm talking only about factors for which one drive system or the other has an obvious theoretical advantage. So if you want to convince me that I'm mistaken (and I might be--I certainly can't claim any real technical expertise here), then the first thing you have to do is offer a plausible reason why one drive system would be presumptively better than the other for each of the three factors you mentioned.
Even if the factors you mention are relevant to the belt/DD question, I suspect the speed accuracy/rumble tradeoff is still the dominant factor. If one drive system could be shown to be superior in minimizing both speed inaccuracy and rumble, I supect this debate would be over. I seriously doubt the factors you mentioned could tip the scales in the other direction.
Thanks, Zaikesman, I was wondering about that taste until you pointed to my foot in my mouth. I did, rather pointedly, ask for opinions. I've read some very good arguments on all three sides and it seems that not much has been determined about superiority or inferiority. As someone said, the head to head comparison is not something that can be done with any precision, measurements are just measurements and all sonic evaluations are subjective, so it seems to come down to one of those Joe Louis vs. Mohammed Ali debates where everything is based on projection and extrapolation.
I was fishing for a consensus of some kind and it appears that presently there isn't any but as I said earlier I sense a developing inclination back toward DD and maybe 4yanx is correct to call it "buzz". Nonetheless, it may be that the fracture in our ranks has something to do with "buzz" vulnerability. It may just be that mine is pretty high. I've been using a Well Tempered Reference table for 12 years but in the past month or so I have acquired an SP-10, an SL 1100a, an SL 150 MK II,and a Luxman PD 441 for evaluation. The WTT is for sale now and I'm looking forward to evaluating the buzz. A friend has predicted that I will find the Luxman to be the best of what I have. Has anyone else used one?
I don't see why at least a very close approximation of a controlled setting which would allow a one-to-one-to-one comparison of table/arm/cart combos could not be accomplished.
Of course THAT could be accomplished. But that tells you absolutely nothing about whether belt or DD is superior. It only tells you whether one combination sounds better than another. If that's all you want to know (and for most audiophiles most of the time, it probably is) that's fine. Just don't draw unwarranted conclusions from any such comparison.
No my comments had nothing to do with your posts. I had a look at http://de.geocities.com/bc1a69/index_eng.html after reading one of your posts.
My post is indicative of the frustration I have with folks who believe that a consensus (or should I say chorus) of opinions constitute a fact.
I have spent some time with an idler wheel (Thorens TD124) and the sound was really not up to scratch. Compared to a TD125 I had at the same time it was downright bad.
However, the after reading up on DD tables I think there may be something to them. The points laid out in the web pages and your posts do sound plausible. Personally my only preference is for sound I enjoy, not BD over DD. I need a project for summer so I want to see if I can lay my hands on something like a Denon DP6000 and see what they are about.
My only concern is that due to the fact that these tables have not been in production for a while, repairs may be an issue if the need arises.
Macrojack: Your last post, it seems to me, actually bears little relation to the question you appeared to ask at the top (reread it), or the debate you seem to have been encouraging since. I think a discussion of theoretical potential and pitfalls is totally appropriate, and in many ways a good chew over theory is the best thing you can read on a forum like this. It can teach you new ways of thinking about what you hear. If you expect to settle anything by people recounting their personal experiences and opinions, you're probably going to be disappointed. Online forums are about discussion of audio and batting around of ideas in addition to experience and opinions, and the whole activity is an entirely different animal from actually listening to music or gear. In any case, there are too many people here lacking both the carts and the horses to put one before the other... ;^)
Paul: I agree that the remarkable longevity and popularity of the SL-1200 says exactly nothing about either the worth of that machine to audiophiles, or the worth of DD in general to audiophiles. Now, that fact may say more about audiophiles than about DD (or the SL-1200), but the argument's a false sylogism nonetheless. Granted, perhaps not a lot of products without some sort of fundamental merit do as well over decades as the 1200, but a few do -- witness the Bose 901. But the 1200's endurance springs mostly from people who must depend on it in a professional context, so that the machine has its virtues is uncontested; the question is whether one of those virtues is actually sound quality. I have my inexpert opinion on that, but no "bubble" to burst, trust me, and I do not "bash" BD. If you count my response among those you classify as not being sensible or coherent, then that's your privilege.
So what we mostly have are reports from guys who've owned both. It seems noteworthy to me that among the A-goners who've given good DD a chance and also have experience with good BD, I don't think there are any who dismiss DD out of hand, and a few who specifically extoll the potential of the 1200. (If you want to take Psychicanimal off the table from the start, be my guest; we all know where [and how] Francisco stands, and still life goes on.) In the final analysis, online anecdotes mean less to me than what I hear in my living room, and that I find almost entirely satisfactory and beautiful, especially since the KAB mods. Which shouldn't necessarily say anything to you. Anyway, regardless of the motor/drive system, the 1200 still can't sound better than the basic competence of its plinth, platter, bearing, and tonearm, which *ought* to mean it can't bat in the same league as the big boys (but not because any of those things, save perhaps the platter, is notably deficient IMO). But please feel free to take a stab at any of the theoretical points in favor of DD I raised above.
Tom, my arguments address the conversation that deals with why one technology is better than the other, which has been the dominant conversation in this thread. That's not the question you asked, but it's where the discussion has gone.
I don't count myself among the audiophiles who do not care to ask why but just accept what they hear as true. It's a fine line, of course, but to abandon reason and critical thinking is unacceptable to me. If belt drive superiority proves to have been a distortion that the market adopted wholesale 25 years ago, it is partly because we accepted the erroneous arguments for why it was superior. Same will be true here if we buy into statements such as "pushes the platter instead of pulls it" without critically examining their merits.
Screw the numbers. Trust yer ears. I don't see why at least a very close approximation of a controlled setting which would allow a one-to-one-to-one comparison of table/arm/cart combos could not be accomplished. At least enough so that one could make a case for THEIR listening preference (what counts most). Many have done so informally and anecdotally. And, to the extent they are satisfied with their choices ends the argument in their minds. Personally IÂ’d rather sink my teeth into the music I hear than the numbers I see on a sheet of paper, but I understand you desire to have something more seemingly solid.
Goodness me, I never realized that intra-analog vitriol was just as rampant as the digital-analog variety! But I for one don't find the arguments particularly strong on either side. And I don't think it's even possible to do a fair listening comparison of these two drive technologies, because I doubt you could hold everything else in the system constant.
Isn't the DD-vs-belt debate really a question of which technology offers the better trade-off between speed accuracy and rumble? And while not everything can be measured, isn't it true that those two things can be? So let's see some numbers--preferably independently verified. Where's the belt-drive table that is the equal of any DD in speed accuracy, and bests DD on rumble? Where's the DD unit that can say the same in reverse? Granted, this wouldn't settle the debate--measurements never do--but it would at least give us something solid to sink our teeth into.
I know much less about the science and engineering of this subject than most of the excellent posters in this thread, but I feel the point I made above merits further exploration. Tom (Macrojack), your response, which is essentially that problems with the CD format obscure the big payoff it delivers in speed stability, is certainly credible, but I'm not willing to let it go at that.
What are the sonic benefits people ascribe to DD and IW? Better PRaT? What else? If this were due to better speed stability alone, surely we would hear at least some of this benefit from CDs. Do we? As piano is the reference standard for hearing pitch stability, shouldn't this be obvious from CD? (Some people think it is, but not all of us.)
My layman's hypothesis is that average speed variation from the reference (33 1/3) is more significant to sonics (and more widespread) than the very tiny moment-to-moment stability issues that are being argued about in this discussion. Rega tables run fast and -- guess what? -- they have great PRaT.
And let me toss out another idea. How stable, moment-to-moment, was the cutting lathe? And how close to perfect 33 1/3 was it? These issues confer obvious and huge advantages to digtial recording and playback, certainly on paper (listen up, Miss Pickler), but in actual practice they do not seem to be as significant as one would have thought. Ditto with inner groove distortion, the crude way in which stereo is extracted from vinyl (see an earlier thread about mono cartridges), and numerous other shortcomings of the vinyl medium.
"You can't grind steak into hamburger and then make steak again no matter how constant the speed of the grinder or the ungrinder."
Actually (in theory) you can. A sampled waveform, sampled at a frequency of at least twice that of the highest frequency in the waveform, that is reconstructed with a sin(x)/x filter will perfectly reconstruct its original signal. Once again theory says that digital can produce perfect sound. The problems are in the implementation.
This is truly a case of getting the cart before the horse ...and arguing that it belongs there. The real issue is what performs better in actuality and not what should sound better. If we find that we are getting better results from one approach, then theorizing about why is appropriate but speculation about which SHOULD be better is pretty useless. The question that started this discussion asked which IS better, not which should be.
The universality of torque aside, Walker's cut-belt demonstration was a bit of circus stunt. Of course the pitch and tempo of the record dropped during the 20 seconds -- that's a fact of nature -- it just did so slowly and not very much, so nobody noticed through their surprise. If they didn't notice that, then they didn't notice whatever effects of dynamic stylus drag were superimposed on that -- not only because of shock and awe, but because there was no reason for those effects to have changed much before and after the cutting of the belt. The massively heavy platter minimized those effects before the belt was cut, not the motor, and removing power didn't change that. Whatever dynamic speed modulation by the stylus sounds like, it couldn't be a gross effect, it probably manifests as a subtle alteration of textures or something, maybe a bit of clouding of the soundstage, who knows. Hell, there are ways in which you could predict *any* turntable would sound *better* without its motor interfering, if only they all could keep spinning away like the Walker. (Maybe cutting the damn belt even granted it some of the virtues of direct-drive for a time ;^) Point is, there was never any question that an 80lb. platter on an air bearing for $20K+ could help overcome dynamic stylus drag, the real question is if that's the only way, or even the best way. (I've always assumed the really massive platter jobs must have very low flutter but rather high albeit long-period wow, and maybe that's a smart tradeoff.) Or if any of that matters to the sound nearly as much as the resonant characteristics of the turntable -- if not, then use any drive method, just make sure the thing has good vibrations.
"Can people not see the equivalence of torque by stored inertia and torque by electrical energy (motor) ?"
No they cannot as they do not want to. If you look at the actors on this thread you will see they reappear numerous times on other threads bashing belt drive TT. I have posted questions like yours in the past and never got a coherent or sensible response.
A poster in this thread managed to name 4 DD TT which were reputedly good (note reputedly) and then went on to say that since a SL1200 is such a good seller that "these things point toward a degree of superiority". When I read that I gracefully declined to continue further conversation.
This simply yet another example of folks confusing consensus of opinion with facts. Sadly this is quite prevalent amongst audio folks.
As a hobbyist/DIY-er myself, I fully understand (and have empathy for) their passion for their idler wheel and/or DD turntables, so I will take no pleasure in bursting their little bubbles.
"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. "
Now re-read Rushton's post. If stylus drag is really capable of slowing an 80lb platter how could the walker continue to play with the belt cut for tens of seconds ?
Can people not see the equivalence of torque by stored inertia and torque by electrical energy (motor) ?
Again, I'm perfectly open minded when it comes to purchasing, but those who decry belt drive must first give some reasoned argument as to how a low torque, massive platter design is supposed to be slowed by a minute diamond dragging through a groove with a tracking weight of only a few gramms.
If this DD revival stays I'll be selling my modded 1200. Why? Because Matsushita will start making the Technics SP-10 MK IV !!! Oh man, a 10-12 lb copper and aluminum platter w/ 24 pole linear quartz lock DD brain--and a home made Caribbean Moca wood base. YES!!!
Agree with the viewpoint that, in principle (all other things being equal, which they probably won't be in reality), there should be no difference between torque stored as inertia in a high mass platter, and torque as applied by the motor -- at least in the moment of initial transient attack. But the dynamics of how the platter recovers lost speed in preparation for the next transient event, or during sustained peaks, may well be different, and maybe could favor the lower-mass/higher-torque model. (And/or also the model of active speed sense-and-control?) Anyway, there are clear advantages of price and ease of placement in not having to get a TT with a platter that's half your body weight. A lighter platter also eases the job requirement of the main bearing. A degree of flywheel effect is certainly desirable in any TT design, but to me there's something dissatisfying about the idea of always resorting to supermassive platters.
I'm not sure I can entirely agree with Johnnantais on a few other things, but he probably knows more about it than me. Still, I can't reconcile the blanket assertion that a motor turning at 1,500 RPM is intrinsically better than a motor turning at 33 1/3 RPM -- that high rpm "by itself" tends to "smooth out" speed imperfections. If we assume the same level (amplitude) of vibrational contamination for the sake of argument, the only difference, it seems to me, will be in the frequency and its harmonics, which will also alter the spectrum of intermodulation products. That will change the sound, but I don't know which one is better, or what might constitute the "ideal" RPM or frequency to superimpose upon the music signal (none would be nice). But I doubt it's as simple as saying "higher is better", especially when only one fundamental falls within the audioband (1,500 RPM = 25Hz, while 33 1/3 RPM is only about 1/2Hz). I'm not exactly sure if all this stuff is pertinent to the topic at hand though, maybe an engineer or physicist could elaborate further.
If we stipulate (correctly, I hope) that high torque is what pushes the platter through dynamic passages, then as far as I know, in electric motors lower RPM = higher torque (larger motor diameter does too, which DD's also generally have). I have zero experience with the big idler-drivers mentioned, so I'm guessing that for their motors to be both high-speed and high-torque, they must also be relatively large and powerful (higher amp). If so, wouldn't that increase the amplitude of vibrations vs. a lower-speed, lower-amp motor with equivalent torque? Obviously there will be a lot of other variables regarding how any two motors in question are made, but I wonder in principle.
However, it is undeniably true that the faster you spin anything that's not in perfect balance, the more violence will be imparted by its shaking. Can a motor be perfectly balanced? If so, I guess we wouldn't need to have this discussion. So, adding it up, I can't buy the notion that higher motor RPM's are somehow "better" for TT performance. I've always assumed one of the strengths of DD was the low-RPM motor: high-torque, low amplitude of vibration, low frequency of vibration. Somebody please point out the error of my thinking if I'm wrong. Absent the RPM argument, I haven't yet detected the theoretical case for why idler-wheel drive should be intrinsically superior to direct-drive. That it may prove subjectively superior among certain 'tables auditioned by certain listeners is another question.
Maybe I'm way off base somewhere here, but speed performance is measureable -- you don't have to depend solely on subjective listening impressions to find out about this particular factor. Does anyone know that idler-drive tables can have better wow & flutter numbers under dynamic playing conditions than a good quartz/PLL controlled DD? Are there any constraints that prevent a DD motor from being made just as powerful as for an idler-drive, if that's what one wanted? (Magnetic interference with the cartridge, perhaps? The platter's shielding ability may be limited, but I don't know -- I thought the Rockport DD was supposed to be terrifically powerful and nearly impossible to deviate the speed of. If you pay enough, you can get a high-torque/high-mass DD table, with the electronic control to harness both.)
To me, DD does seem to have several intrinsic theoretical advantages. One is that the motive force is applied without physical contact of the platter. If you use a belt or a wheel to transmit force to the platter, it must result in some added degree of motional friction, which must produce a characteristic resonance, much like road noise in tires (okay, so it's probably more like urethane skate wheels on polished marble tile, but the principle still applies -- it's still not silent).
Another is the fact that there's only one bearing, the ubiquitous main bearing. In any design with a separately housed motor, that motor must have its own bearings in addition to the necessary main platter bearing. Then there's shafts and pulleys or wheels -- they won't be perfectly concentric. DD does away with powered driveshafts, pulleys, and/or wheels.
I tend to think simpler is better (simpler, but not too simple! ;^) A TT doesn't get any simpler, mechanically speaking, than a DD: the plinth is the stator, and the platter is the rotor. In any other arrangement, the separate motor can and will move in relation to the platter, which causes variation in platter speed. In a DD the motor can't move relative to the platter, since the platter is itself one half of the motor.
Another thing: I don't know if this absolutely has to be the case, but as far as I know only DD's incorporate electronic sensing and control of platter speed directly, rather than control of motor speed (but typically without sensing, I believe) with a somewhat flexible linkage in between it and the platter. I know which arrangement seems like it would be better to me, but I'm open to arguments. Again, though, the results can be measured.
Along those same lines, there's the issue of how correct speed is established in the first place. With a PLL sensing system in place, it's easy to add calibration to a quartz crystal reference, a very much higher and more constant frequency than (and totally independent of variations in) the AC powerline. Who wouldn't want that if you can have it? And again, the results are measurable.
I've often seen an argument against PLL-controlled DD's that usually goes like this: They are constantly "hunting and pecking" for the correct speed, but never settle on it. I have never understood this. Any electric motor operates in what is termed a "kick and coast" fashion, dependent on the number of poles. More poles would seem to be obviously better than fewer poles, but I don't know that the number of poles possible is in any way linked to or limited by drive method. Anyway, it seems to me it's primarily this kick and coast phenomenon, dynamic stylus drag aside, that's primarily responsible for any TT not constantly rotating at exactly the correct speed, no matter how it's driven. Why this is blamed on implementing a PLL is something I want to know.
Another thing I want to know is why DD is often portrayed as constituting a "rigid coupling" between the motor and the platter (never mind that this doesn't make any semantic sense, since in a DD the platter is in fact part of the motor). At times I almost get the feeling that some audiophiles who haven't owned a DD visualize it as simply consisting of a belt-drive type motor -- meaning a self-contained unit with a housing and a protruding driveshaft -- with the platter stuck on the end of the shaft instead of having a pulley and belt in between. (If that describes anybody reading this, go to the website Viridian linked above and look at the platter-off pics of the SP-10.) Anyway, "rigid coupling" seems to imply that the platter can't "slip", which of course is 180 degrees opposite of the truth -- any DJ knows that only in a DD can the platter be freely spun manually when not under power, or manually deviated with precision from constant speed when under power, from which it will rebound when released. ("Rigid coupling" also implies vibrational transfer, which again to me is a conception misappropriated from the paradigm of separately-housed, self-contained motors physically linked to platters and plinths by compliant couplings.)
As I understand it, in typical audiophile belt-drivers, the elasticity of the belt, combined with the inertia of the massive platter, is supposed to mitigate the kick'n'coast speed variation from the motor. Of course this can't simply be "gotten rid of" -- the elasticity and inertia combine to spread its effects out in time, reducing the amplitude peaks, effectively averaging the variation in speed. Well, platters in DD's also have mass. The "slippage" and subsequent rebound that I described when a drag or an energy input is applied, isn't that functionally equivalent to belt elasticity? It seems to me that in a correctly designed DD, the PLL sense-and-control system, combined with the platter inertia and the natural ability of the platter to smoothly and infinitely vary from constant speed and then rebound without introducing mechanical friction, can constitute exactly the same kind of "averaging" mechanism that smoothes the kick and coast impulses in a belt-driver. The difference is you don't need a supermassive platter or the attendent pitfalls of a belt/pulley/separate-motor system to do it when you've got active speed control working for you.
I know many audiophiles regard the notion of any "servo" or "feedback" type of operation as something they're allergic to, whether it's negative feedback in amplifiers or servo control of subwoofers. As the saying goes, you can't correct something that's already happened. Same for many active vs. passive questions (though not always). I also know many engineers would argue with this attitude and say it's not that simple or universal a truth, that there can be well-implemented applications for feedback-type mechanisms that don't harm sonics in unintended ways.
I can't comment on all that stuff, or its applicability to DD TT design, with any authority (though I don't recall anybody saying that adding an outboard speed controller to their belt-drive TT made it sound worse). Yeah, I own a DD [KAB-modded SL-1200], but like I've said before, I lack the comparitive expeience to make pronouncements about relative superiority. But I also note, with no real satisfaction, that probably no audiophile, no matter how experienced, has ever had the opportunity to compare two turntables whose only difference was method of drive. As we all know, there's a host of other factors which affect TT sonics besides drive type. I also acknowledge that measurements, such as I touted above, often don't tell the whole story sonically speaking (which simply means we need other, better measurements to correlate with what we hear).
More important though are, as I see it, two questions: The one Drubin asks, i.e., do any of the DD's available in the moderate price range (current or restored) warrant consideration over the entry-level and next-tier belt-drive audiophile standbys (none of which are terribly massive due to their reasonable cost)? And the one Macrojack wants to know: Is it time for high end TT makers and audiophiles alike to reconsider the relative merits of the DD option -- could it be exploited to make even better tables than are generally available right now (and if so, at an attainable cost)? I admit I don't know the answer to the first, but feel the second has got to be a yes if at all possible.
Interesting comment, Drubin. However, it could be that CD does kick butt in the area of speed stability but loses out on other aspects of continuity due to "bits is bits" fragmentation. You can't grind steak into hamburger and then make steak again no matter how constant the speed of the grinder or the ungrinder.
I think I made this point once before. If the reason the Lencos sound better is superior speed stability, then CD should have kicked vinyl's butt long ago. I would look elsewhere for the reason you prefer the sound of idler wheels.
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.
Lloyd Walker tells an amusing story that some of you may have heard... he was demonstrating his Proscenium turntable at a show a few years back when some attendees came in to talk with him about why he didn't use a high torque direct drive design for his table.
Their argument was that only such a design could maintain the pitch stability and drive that music required and that any belt driven turntable (such as the Walker Audio design he was demonstrating) was fundamentally flawed in design.
Lloyd was playing a piano recording at the time (certainly a good test of pitch stability). So, rather than spend a lot of time arguing, he pulled out a pair of scissors and CUT THE DRIVE BELT.
The record continued to play with no discernable change in pitch for at least 20 seconds.
And thus ended the debate.
NB: I own a Walker, so I've got a bias. But I've done the belt cutting routine here just to test Lloyd's story. Amazing what a virtually frictionless high mass (80+ lbs) platter design can accomplish with an extremely low torque motor. (Agree with you on this Seandtaylor99.) .
Bob ... actually you and I are in agreement. The torque is either in the high mass platter, or in the motor, or it is in both. Where it is doesn't matter, what matters is that there is plenty of it.
I'd even go further and say that, I would expect the theory to favor a belt driven table of very high mass, and with a very low torque motor, since a revolving high mass not only has plenty of torque, but because of the low torque motor it should also have a very high degree of speed stability, and noise rejection. The difficulty in the high torque motor approach is guaranteeing that the high torque motor is low noise, and has an extremely stable rotational speed.
But I'd still like to hear a Lenco, Garrard and SP10, and I'd be happy to buy whatever sounded best to me, regardless of my theoretical preconceptions.
My experience has been that solo piano is the torture test for turntable speed stability, so a dose of Beethoven piano sonatas should be all that's required to find the best turntable.
Can't speak for Sean, but it seems to me that is the argument. For example, the Nottingham has such a low torque motor (but high inertia platter) that you have to give it push to get the platter going. That's by design.
Sean, you forget that the high inertia set-up, as you put it, also has high torque. Torque being force X distance from center, the torque being exerted at the distance where the stylus is from the center. Having inerta as an added 'store' of force, is a good thing. The fact that the motor is low torque is irrelevant since the torque is multiplied by the 'pulley' ratios. Put another way, depending on the polar moment of inertia of either system, the one with the largest moment of inertia will be less disturbed by quick changes of drag. The 'high torque' direct motor only delivers the amount of torque necessary to turn the platter at the constant speed under X drag conditions. Unless it can react immediately to the sudden increase in drag, it will be disturbed in speed. The high inertia platter however has torque stored, so-to-speak, as inertia and therefore is less affected by the sudden increase in drag. I guess that that is your arguement?
"I would surmise that the boulder would be slowed somewhat by your body since it was coasting whereas the car which is actively powered could be completely unaffected by your presence in its path."
I think you'll find both are slowed. Cars are slowed by headwinds, even though they are powered. A car is slowed when it hits a tree, even when it's powered. A large rock rolling down a hill can smash to splinters a tree that would stop a car dead in its tracks. Even if the incline is very slight, such that the gravitational force acting to roll the rock is very small the rock carries a lot of energy in its inertia.
All I'm saying is that I cannot see any way in which high torque/low inertia is inherently superior to high inertia/low torque, for purposes of speed stsbility.
Drubin, there has been a lot of buzz, in my opinion at least, for a couple of reasons. One, people love to argue what they like and/or know best. OK, true, but not the main reason. There are valid reasons for promoting idlers and DD's and for questioning why belt drives currently dominate the scene. Inquiring minds want to know if it is because they are superior or just good enough that one can't really tell much difference or because of some nefarious or market-driven reason. IMHO, when in doubt, bet on the market. That is why I am HIGHLY skeptical of the "high-end designers" sudden interest in idlers. Clearly there have been idler advocates for quite some time - the restored Garrard projects go back quite a ways. Only a matter of time before folks started using similar tables to similar ends. Kudos to Jean for trying it with the Lencos but, by his own admission, it isn't a novel idea. But, with all the current buzz, Garrards, Lencos, Rek-O-Kuts, Russcos, etc., etc. this is beginning to look like something that audiophile will BUY! Thus, perhaps, the apparent "suit" interest.
To answer your second question directly, yes I loved my Spacedeck. It is still in service, however, with one of my sons. I still have a Hyperspace and it is a great table. However, we (another son and I) have built now six Lencos. All sound terrific, frankly. The best of our efforts will compete with turntables costing many times more, and we have friends that can attest to this fact. I 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. They are good but, on the other hand, not everyone has the time, patience, skill, or whatever to rebuild one. Also, if not done RIGHT, they can be loud, rumbling messes (whether anyone who has built one wants to admit that or not). In other words, proper implementation is crucial. I have had MANY folks write to me wanting me to build them one because they like our plinth designs and because they want to do the comparison but don’t have one or more of the necessities listed above. Again, this will pique the interest of those wanting to cash in. We, ourselves, have deferred except to make a couple for friends. Given recent improvements in my back, this may change quickly, though, especially if we can help a few folks before these old ones are all gone and you can only find one from a high-end designer at a high-end price. Ha! :-)
4yanx, Your observations registered on this end as both wonderfully incisive and appropriately cynical. I think that the Chinese idler wheel turntable might appear if Schifter or Nudell or someone of that ilk finds the demographics are there to support such an endeavor. Perhaps we'll be seeing the Johnnantais Signature Model with the new Lega arm.
Johnnantais, I appreciate your contribution here. It's more like what I was seeking when I asked about this topic. I'm aware of your Despot thread but it's so huge now I can't even find the end of it. What do you think about the Thorens 124? I took an interest in that until I found out it has an iron platter that attracts cartridge magnets. Is that a valid concern?
Sean, Assuming nothing about relative sizes of car and boulder, and knowing nothing about polar moments (sounds like a phrase from a travel brochure) I would surmise that the boulder would be slowed somewhat by your body since it was coasting whereas the car which is actively powered could be completely unaffected by your presence in its path. What I'm imagining here makes perfect sense to me but that does not mean I'm sure it is supported by physics. Does someone out there have a background in physics and an opinion on this matter?
This is an excellent topic and discussion! What I find so intriguing about the resurgence of interest in DD and idler wheel designs is the retrospection it is prompting abou how the high-end has developed. Do you all remember Harry Pearson's first review of the Linn LP in which he described it as something that appeared to have been built in a Bronx garage? He took huge flack for that. He had been an SP-10 enthusiast, but gradually shifted in other directions as DD lost favor in the high end. Art Dudley's latest S'phile column acknowledges that he (and most of the rest of us) may have bought into a certain way of thinking about turntables that we perhaps we need to re-consider. This is fascinating stuff, don't you think?
Seveeral of the threads here about the Technics SL1200 (w/ KAB mods) compare it to belt-drive tables in the same price range. Okay, so it's serious competition to Regas and Music Halls. But tell me, Psychic and others, is it serious competition to the next rung up in belt drives: Linn, Nottingham, Basis, VPI, Kuzma, etc.? Forget about the Walkers and Rockports even, but in the segment around $2K - $4K do the DD's compete? David, (4yanx), am I right that you moved from a Nottingham, which you were very enamored of as I recall, to a DIY idler wheel TT? Has it been an unequivocal step up?
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."
The ironic juxtaposition of high-end designers with you along side them notwithstanding, do you or does anyone think that high-end designers will be satisfied with trotting out rebuilt Lencos at high-end audio shows?! Please. While they may allow this initially as a co-opting exercise to further whet the market's appetite and bring recalcitrants into the fold, the high-end designer is "high-end" by definition of being high dollar, not necessarily high performance. They wonÂ’t make diddly rebuilding Lencos and they will do NOTHING that wonÂ’t make them diddly. In their hands, the idler wheel will soon be a titanium/graphite composition coated with rubber from first-growth virgin Indonesian rubber trees, the platters of some exotic ceramic, and the plinths made from only the very rarest hardwoods taken from the deepest, most dangerous African forests and assembled in finished using strictly proprietary, superior (though unproven) methods. Why? Because ONLY with these combinations can you bring out the very best performance. And, we all want the VERY best, right? Old song, new verse. The only other way for them to profit at the levels they will expect will be to sell it as a super cheap alternative with the hope of totally cornering the market for those looking to spin a few oldies and not wanting to spend more than a couple hundred. Yeah right, THATÂ’s going to happen, that market demands good sound.
Clearly, the idler wheel tables have A LOT going for them, especially when thoughtfully and effectively restored and when compared against much higher priced tables. I’d even say that idler wheel tables have the ultimate edge on belt drives. Of course if one is happy with what they hear from their own table, who can argue? I, for one, do not really care which technology is used, provided joy is attained through listening. This hobby is FULL of folks wanting you to believe that “you haven’t heard your music till you’ve heard it on this”. And, that’s where dough gets separated from wallet. The beauty of some of the latest idler wheel and DD units and restoration efforts is that nearly equal, equal, or even better performance can be attained at a lower cost - which allows either more money in the jar or more money to be spent on music. I am not holding my breath that high-end designers will be promoting that ethos – now or ever.
Macrojack, IÂ’m not sure if this is cogent, but it is heartfelt and well considered. :-)
Do you feel a difference between being run down by a car (being actively driven by a motor) or a large rock rolling down a hill ? I would say that both will crush you equally, one using its motor, the other a very large inertia.
Sure, Sean, but you're asking the question from the wrong perspective. What if you wanted to run somebody over, which would you use? Seems to me that "direct drive" would be the right tool for the job!
"This means it takes torque, an active force, a bigger motor, to combat stylus force drag, that simple mass is quite simply insufficient."
How does the stylus know the difference between a high torque motor and a large mass with a large polar moment of inertia ? I cannot understand how a large polar moment of inertia is any less capable of overcoming stylus drag than a high torque motor.
Do you feel a difference between being run down by a car (being actively driven by a motor) or a large rock rolling down a hill ? I would say that both will crush you equally, one using its motor, the other a very large inertia.
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."
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."
Seandtaylor99, Please understand that I am not an engineer. What I pose here is speculative and lay in the extreme. Consider that your stylus is being driven through obstacles such as a narrowing of the groove or some groove pattern of exceptional complexity. Or it is being dragged through by a belt with the aid of momentum. It seems that at the point of immediate resistance a mass no matter how great will hesitate slightly when confronted with the aforementioned obstacle. I imagine that a large motor directly driving the platter would not hesitate at this time. Further it seems that at take up a belt would stretch a bit momentarily. As for vibration, I remember from my 1970s era audio sales days that higher end DD tables had rumble figures unimagineable to the belt drive units.
I'll chip in a bit here. I've been using an LP12. It was enjoyable even though it wasn't maxed out. I now use a Mitsubishi LT-30, which is both DD and with a linear tonearm. The Linn provided a more spacious soundstage and great rhythm (toe-tappin'). The LT-30 sounds more emotional to me and my wife.
The platter is still driven by a motor, and that motor is still subject to noise or vibration. One could argue that a belt filters motor noise.
Why would a lighter platter directly driven by a higher torque motor produce a more constant rotation with less noise than a massive platter driven with high inertia by a low torque motor ?
To me it is not obvious that direct drive has any advantage over belt drive.
I understand fully well that any approach can be mishandled or compromised by price point considerations, sheer ineptitude or misdirection. Let those units go. They are not intended to influence this discussion. Taking the best efforts in each of the various turntable drive options into consideration, do you believe any drive system to have an inherent design superiority. Is belt slack and take-up an insurmountable obstacle? Is there magnetic influence on the cartridge from the motor as your arm nears the center of the record on direct drive tables? Wouldn't it be better to rely on constant drive of the platter rather than requiring momentum for speed stability? How the heck can an idler wheel not transfer rumble? Is chain drive really dead? Can analysis be worthwhile........?
I posted in haste before and did not get my point across. I love the joking as much as anyone and don't mean to sound like a curmudgeon.
"I'm going to conclude from this meager participation that direct drive is a better performer than belt and few people are aware of the fact."
This seems more like a statement of what had already been accepted by Macrojack as fact. Since he is so quick to come to this conclusion I'm getting a sense that the point of starting this thread is something of fishing expedition, otherwise known as trolling. I'll stick with my original thoughts. That is, there trade-offs with all 'table designs. None is inherently better than the others, but the proof is in the implementation. There are good and bad examples of DD, idler, belt-drive, suspended, non-suspended, etc., and to dismiss all others for the sake of a chosen "golden" theory is short sighted, IMO. Kind of like the debate about whether or not digital is worth doing.
I've reread my last post repeatedly in search of the comment that triggered the Immodium and bloody shorts remarks.I guess I'm going to need an explanation. Immodium is for the control of diarrhea not for relief of constipation.I looked it up. As for blood in my shorts -- is that a gender driven slight? If so, you are addressing the wrong gender. And if you want to find a direct drive turntable that can beat a medium priced belt drive, I can help you with that and it appears that Psychicanimal can as well. What is it about this thread that is causing you boys to giggle and smirk? Where are the observations about the relative merits of DD versus belt? How about establishing some of the trade offs between the two. Someone earlier stated that there are definite trade offs. What are they? Have your fun, if you must but I'm looking for more than jokes. I already know how clever some of you can be and I enjoy the repartee but must it be either or? Aren't you deft enough to intermingle the humor with useful contributions. 4yanx does this well and Viridian typically splays adroitly. No one has seen fit to comment on my suspended tables theory. Doesn't it seem in retrospect that the entire consumer market has been swayed by a little postulation and a lot of press on more than one occassion? Do you think that Harry Pearson has done more harm than good?
More like a series of jokes. Sort of like the turntable with the schtick shift. And I didn't get ole CW making a prediction. He came across to me as condescending, as if my question had no merit. 4yanx, as usual, provided a cogent observation. This time it was his comment about buzz. I have sensed for a while now that there is a definite revival of direct drive in the works and I was fishing with my question to see who, if anyone else, had the same sense. Seems like there are a few.
CDs actually spin the same direction as LPs they just play from the inside out. But when you think about it, wouldn't it have been better if records played from the inside out? It would make a tonearm lift unneeded. The arm would just fall off the record when it got to the end.
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.
