Tables That Feature Bearing Friction

Dear Frank_sm, if you look real close, you will find that almost ALL bearings in turntables ( not just the old Well Tempered Turntable ...) AND gimbal bearing tonearms as well as ALL pivot tonearms do indeed consist of two surfaces contacting each other. Most of these do feature oil to lubricate the bearing and to decrease wear and noise - but in the end (aside from magnet bearings, pure air pressure and oil pressure bearings ( and all of these have to be horizontal AND vertical )) almost all (NOT all.....) bearings in use in audio components do indeed feature surfaces ( 2 or more..) contacting each other.

Please take into consideration in all discussion about what drive and platter weight that is is not alone about constant speed.
There is the "2nd system" (mentioned before ) and its energy transfer into the platter: - the act of extracting information from the groove by the stylus. There is more to the platter than (high) torque, inertia and constant speed.
It has to handle complex energy transfer (and/or damping) provided by the stylus demodulating the groove.
Bringing this into consideration will clarify some points which came up in the last posts by Berlinta and T_bone. The high mass platter plus the low tension thread made of aramide or similar will too give some answers, why there is no problem with vibration or resonance being transmitted or initiated by the thread.
As for the hypothesis of the high inertia (which is fully backed and put into "half-commercial" product by Jean Constant Verdier in his Magnum ) providing close to ideal constant speed, it would be helpful if Kirkus - who is respected by us all - could clarify or illustrate the point.
If I try it might soon become too dogmatic again.
I am on holiday now and will - randomly and infrequently - follow this thread, but I will make no personal remark to anyone anymore and will not answer to any directed to me either

The "air-pulse" drive (no pulse would exclude a problem) has some considerable problems while looking close to a theoretical ideal first. It not only will require considerably (really serious...) periphery, but indeed a "assist"-motor to bring the (high mass) platter to requested speed first and than de-coupling. The question is whether it really will provide a "better" drive mechanism - as fascinating as the idea itself is.

Indeed Berlinta, you did not get a direct response.
You did not ask for it either.
I layed out all the points the days before. I could again answer to all the points in your last 4 posts. But I do not see any attractivity to repeat myself over and over again. All the answers were already posted in this thread before the questions came up.
It will not be to the benefit of this thread - especially not right now as it is finally back to technical discussion again - if I post direct response. Rereading some of my earlier posts will show that the answers are already there. They just got "buried" in the interim when the discussion left the original intend.

I do have a file - 3" thick and 8 lbs heavy - of extensive test and data sheets to about 5 dozens different materials which at one moment or another were part of the turntable design pre-thoughts (some finally made it). However I remember that one particular poster stated yesterday:
"I don't need that you convice me, normaly I take the steps by my self to convince me about any subject that has interest on what I'm trying to achieve."
I respect that position.

Dear Rhljazz, a fascinating idea. This is something really worth discussing. You happen to have any links to technical exploration and the required periphery?

Out-of-center record hole. An important point. Still on holiday, but just a short note:
I solved that problem in my earlier design in 1992. Not with a complex motorized approach as Nakamichi did, but with a total mechanic approach - very simple and very effective. Everybody will find the solution himself following one simple hint:

- do decrease the diameter of the center spindle from approx. 7 mm to say 3-4 mm.

Now you have the option to adapt, with a small set of very simple - you can most likely even make it yourself at home - devices, to any excentricity of any given LP.
I will leave it to our "professional" TT designers to pick up the idea. Maybe the "german fraction" will find the solution in older reports about my old design. It was featured there.

Dear T_bone, I totally agree with Syntax and you. For the love of music - we do not need high end gear at all to appreciate music.
Beethoven string quartet op 132 will have its impact via an MP3 player or the car stereo as well as via a million dollar high-end set-up.
High-end is a nice playground to satisfy the longing of man for something absolute and gives us a microcosmos where each and everyone can produce his/(seldom...) her own dogma of something "best" in every subjective way possible. Today high-end is sold not only via sound - it is sold much more via the price tag (ask any high-end dealer in HongKong or some of the manufacturers of rather elusive components that they do not sell less when the lift up the price, but more) and the image related to it.
This is a very strange part of the luxury market.
Its not about quality - its about image, "face" and "show off".

All we need to simplify high-end is adapting some of the standards from the professional audio segment or PA. Matching impedance (600 Ohms for instance..) would make most super high-end cables and their effect null and void. But honestly - none of you would like to listen to a speaker with flat frequency response curve ..........

Flat impedance curve and easy load would eliminate in one moment 85% of all high-end speakers. Expect low power consumption and the next 10% will be gone for good.

We should accept High-end audio the way it is - a childrens playground.

The difference between the boys and the men??
The price tag on the toys.
Nothing else.

Dear Ebm, it depends - bearing friction doesn't necessarily means increased noise. In some of the smarter designs bearing friction is introduced by oil bath, eddy current and the like to increase speed stability and damping of platter. But some of the other semi-pro's here on Audiogon will (and have already during this thread) tell you more about this. If bearing friction goes with increased noise (= low quality bearing) however I do agree with you - thats a bad design.

Dear Livemusic, I have been involved in lateral/vertical air bearing for 5 years and given an air bearing with a large number of individual "openings" - a sintered material for instance - there is no problem with "safe landing" in case the air supply breaks down. Water, dust and micro particles, fluctuation and pump frequence are problems all solved long ago in todays high-end air-supply applications with the approbiate technical applications (3-way filters, surge tanks, air dryer etc. etc.). The vertial magnet bearing is applicated in the Verdier for several reasons.
That it still do feature a conventional lateral bearing - well, why not?
Today I see the most potential of improvement for high-end turntable bearings in oil-pressure conical bearings.