Turnable database with TimeLine

I suspect that the occasional blip in the red line on the video is due to the shutter speed of the video camera.

It IS a function of the shutter speed.
In reality...the dash is the same length every time.

Nice start Peter....
Obviously something is wrong with the Denon.....but the SME 30/12 puts in a solid performance....particularly for a belt drive which mostly find it hard to compete with the old Japanese 'super' DD models?

This should be a chance to see how the much vaunted big Micro Seikis like the SX/RX-5000 and SX/RX 8000 models compete?
Also Dover's Final Parthenon which he claims is 'spot-on' with the Timeline?

This would also be an opportunity for the 'modern' turntable manufacturers to display their credentials....particularly against the 30-40 year-old Japanese DDs?
How about the top Clearaudios, the Walker Proscenium, the VPIs, the Linn Sondek, the Continuum Caliburn, the Brinkmann, the Basis, the Feikert, the Verdier, the Kuzma, the TW-Acustic, the SOTA....and particularly...the new AirForce One?

And how about the modern DD turntables like the new VPI, the Wave Kinetics NVS, the Monaco Grand Prix?

I would also love to see how the old Idler/Rim Drives perform?
Like the Garrard 301 and 401, the Thorens, the Lenco and particularly the legendary EMT 927?

And then there's the new Idlers like the Saskia which reports excellent performance?

I know there is a lot more to a great turntable than keeping absolute and/or consistent speed 'under load'......but surely that needs to the 'a priori' fundamental?
If that 'objective' quality can not be delivered.....all the bells and whistles which some tables claim to contain.....seem slightly redundant?

Of course two problems exist in trying to add these tables to the DataBank.....
1. An owner/manufacturer needs to have or borrow a Timeline
2. They need to know how to video it and upload it to YouTube

Good luck in your quest.....

Also, watching Halcro's videos, it's interesting how some audiophiles just drop the cartridge on the record.

Perhaps you should buy a tonearm with hydraulic action lifting and lowering...as all my six arms have?
No human can lower the cartridge more gently that these.... :-)

Actusreus,
I wouldn't judge all tonearm lifters by the VPI one.......?

The Raven has a 'stepped' motor controller. This means unfortunately...that there is no 'analogue' control of the speed. It goes up or down by 'fixed' increments.
There is little doubt that the Raven could be made to run accurately with a different motor controller?
Perhaps that could be an upcoming up-grade from Thomas? ......please :-)

Do you hear differences in timing, drive, rhythm, clarity in transients,
etc? Which table do you prefer to listen to overall?

That's a difficult question to answer Peter.........
When I first acquired the TT-101......the differences to the Raven presentation were noticeable and preferable.
There was deeper, more solid and controlled bass presentation together with a more coherent rhythm and 'drive' to the music.
The high frequencies shimmered more and seemed clearer with greater extension....particularly of the harmonics?
What this did for me however....was to set a benchmark against which I tried changes to the Raven....to bring me closer to the Victor presentation?
The first changes were to the platter mat....which had been the Millennium Carbon Fiber sent with the turntable and recommended by Thomas Woschnick. It has two sides but neither one produced the linearity of the Victor. I then tried the Rega felt mat, the Victor rubber mats (2 types) as well as the Victor pigskin mat.
It was only when I placed the record directly on the copper platter surface that the performance began to match the Victor.
A heavy record clamp made it so much better......
I then attempted to achieve the best speed consistency as shown by the Timeline.
I tried it with one, two and three motors....and achieved the best consistency with two diametrically opposed motors.
This also has the benefit of greater belt/platter contact area as well as balancing eccentric loads on the spindle.
So the 'sound' of my Raven AC-2 has now been carefully 'matched' to the TT-101 although the TT-101 is still rather special to listen to....

When I switch back to the Raven.....it takes no time at all to relax and enjoy the musical presentation.....I don't 'miss' the Victor.
But making improvements in any part of our systems does not negate the enjoyment we derived before those improvements?
I never think back to my first Rega Planar 3 with Kebschull preamp and Perraux PM-1850 power amp....and think...."boy, what I was missing?".
I derived the same enjoyment then as I do now....

This test really just measure average speed accuracy. It does not tell us much about what is happening to the platter at the moment of a large transient.

I disagree.
I believe the Timeline tells us more about the performance of a turntable under 'load' than any device we have previously had.
The 'naysayers' I suspect.....are those who haven't seen the Timeline in action, are afraid that their turntables won't pass the Timeline test...or know that their turntables won't pass the Timeline test?

What piece of music is playing in your Raven AC-2 video?

Boy....I have had more response to this musical piece than to any of my previous posts :-)
It is La Folia
Better be quick if everyone who has contacted me orders one? :-)
It really has 'killer' sonics as well as being just magical to listen to....

It would be nice to see that in the videos, too.

You can see that with all three arms on my first TT-101 video....and you can also see and hear it on my second TT-101 video.

It is likely that the Goldmund would do well in the time line test, since it's average speed would be close to the mark.

Impossible to say this without actually testing it with the Timeline I would venture....?

I thought this thread was to be a database of timeline checked turntables - not a guessing session.

So did I……..
There are many other Threads where you can proclaim the ‘superiority’ of your choice of turntable…….
Instead of the subjective, emotive and mostly unproven claims often made in those ‘Mine is Bigger than Yours’ contests……this Thread was begun purely to demonstrate objectively (via the Timeline)…..the actual performance of turntables ‘under load’.

Videos and comments/observations about those videos are most welcome.

We have heard continually over the years….the claims of ‘superiority’ for the heavy-mass belt-drive turntables like the Micro Seikis and Dover’s Final Parthenon and I have no reason to doubt these….
We know also that both Dover and Syntax have access to a Timeline and we have seen evidence of Syntax’s abilities with photography and computer up-loads…..so it puzzles me slightly that neither of these individuals appears brave enough to simply post his turntable's performances with the Timeline on this Thread?

Richardkrebs,

For consistency, as you have done.....

This would be ideal in my opinion....
Neither Peter nor Syntax have shown the effects of the stylus ON and OFF the record with their belt-drive turntables...
I showed the effects of the stylus 'leaving' the record with the Raven AC-2....and it can be seen that the speed is stable in that situation whilst slightly 'slow' under load.
There are many on this Forum who claim that a belt-drive turntable with a high-mass platter and well regulated motor....will not be subjected to 'stylus drag'.
I am still skeptical about this....and we have seen no evidence with the Timeline that this is possible?
Hopefully someone will demonstrate such a phenomena?

Peterayer,
I wasn't including you amongst those who have said that a very high-mass platter on a string or thread-drive turntable would be immune to stylus drag as you have admitted the fact......
Dertonearm and Dover I believe in the past (amongst many others previous to the advent of the Timeline)....have made such claims.
Yet I have shown on my video of the Raven AC-2....the comparison when the stylus is NOT in the groove and I think that that gives a further comparison to both the motor, belt/string/thread and platter abilities of a belt-drive turntable......or ANY type of turntable.
Your comments (and Syntax's) about only being concerned by the performance when the stylus is tracking the record....is misleading.
I have recordings that have extremely modulated grooves and I have records which have very benignly modulated grooves.
I can adjust the motor controller to handle one or the other.....but unless the speed is manipulated for each and every record you play.......there will inevitable be a difference in the Timeline between different recordings.
This is why seeing the Timeline 'without load' in comparison to 'under load' is valuable.

Dinster,
I have the Feikert App and the 10" Test record to go with it and have done repeated testing on both my tables using my iPad and posting the relevant print-outs.

The important thing about scientific or objective testing...is 'repeatability'.
In other words....every time you or I proceed to test exactly the same thing....we should achieve exactly the same result?

With the Feikert App.....I achieved different results every single time I repeated exactly the same tests?
In some cases...the results even showed the Raven AC-2 giving better results than the Victor TT-101? :-)
The test record itself was a major part of the problem.....
Due to the fact that it contains a modulated groove of exactly 3150Hz....it is essential that the record hole is dead-centre.
This is simply unachievable to the degree necessary to avoid variations from that constant test tone.

With the Timeline......every test result is repeatable....

TT-101/3 ARMS
For the record.....not 3/8" shift :-)

Don,
Richardkrebs is right.....

Why is speed so important? As you know, the primary job of any record player, including turntable, arm, and cartridge, is to accurately reproduce the waveform of the music as it was originally recorded onto a vinyl record.
But how exactly is this job divided up among the turntable, arm, and cartridge? Most people would say that the cartridge has the job of reproducing the entire music waveform, and that the turntable and arm have lesser passive roles, merely responsible for being stable platforms for the record and cartridge, so the cartridge can do all the active work, reading the entire music waveform from the record.
That's wrong. The cartridge does not read the entire music waveform from the record. It can't.
Why not? Because the vinyl record contains only half of the music waveform.
Where then does the other half of the music waveform come from? It comes from the turntable. That's right. The turntable is fully responsible for actively supplying half of the music waveform, and the other half comes from the cartridge.
This puts turntables in a whole new light. If a turntable's job is to actively supply half of your music's waveform, then it had better be doing its job right, otherwise your music will obviously and dramatically suffer -- to an extent you wouldn't have imagined when you thought that music's entire waveform came from the cartridge.
What do we mean by saying that half the music waveform comes from the turntable? You know that music's waveform can be plotted on a graph or on an oscilloscope. The graph of a music waveform has two axes, as do most common graphs. The vertical axis represents amplitude, and the horizontal axis represents time. The music waveform needs both these axes to exist, since it is a two dimensional entity in nature. If one dimensional axis or the other were somehow missing, there couldn't be any music waveform, and there couldn't be any music. Music itself is a time bound art form, and its existence depends on the two dimensions of time and amplitude as surely as a sculpture depends on three spatial dimensions (but not on time in the case of static sculpture).
In a record player, the vertical amplitude axis of the music waveform comes entirely from the cartridge. But the horizontal time axis of this music waveform comes entirely from the turntable.
It's like a gentleman's agreement. The record manufacturer actually gives you only half the music waveform in the groove, for your cartridge to read, namely the vertical amplitude axis. You agree to supply the other required half of the music waveform, the horizontal time axis, by agreeing to employ an accurate turntable to play back the record manufacturer's disc. The turntable that you chose to employ literally supplies the time axis half of the music waveform, while your cartridge reads the amplitude variation half (and only that) furnished by the record manufacturer, as the groove is passed underfoot by your turntable recreating the time axis half on the fly.
We give a great deal of attention to making sure that cartridges are accurate reproducers, so that they correctly read the side to side swings of the record groove that furnish the amplitude information about the music waveform, and thereby do not distort the music waveform themselves. But that's literally only half the story. We should also devote equal attention to making sure that the turntable accurately furnishes the time axis half of the music waveform. If we don't, then the final resulting music waveform will be distorted, as surely as if the cartridge were contributing unwanted distortion by inaccurately reading the amplitude axis half in its side to side swings.
The lesson is clear. You could buy the world's most expensive, most perfect cartridge, that exhibited perfect accuracy in reproducing the amplitude half of the music waveform from its side to side swings in tracing the record groove. But, unless your turntable is perfect in creating the time axis half of the music waveform, the final music waveform you hear will be distorted. The right amplitude played at the wrong time will distort the music waveform as surely as the wrong amplitude played at the right time.

So Don.....as the above lucid commentary suggests....unless your turntable is as close to 'perfect' as possible in its speed consistency.....you are listening to 'distortion' without even realising it?

Peterayer,
The better performance with this video is probably due to the fact that I now keep the TT=101 'powered up' permanently whereas previously......the turntable's circuits were 'cold'?
The results would probably improve even further after a few hours of actual use as I made the video from a 'first play'.

Richardkrebs,
The music this time is Hymne a Saint Wenceslas circa 1237 from the album Rene Clemencic et ses flutes on Harmonia Mundi.
I agree with you...it is rather charming and the sonics are superb as with most Harmonia recordings.

The no load followed by some, ideally standard, heavy grooves is an arduous test. If it passes this it is likely that it would pass real world playback.

I agree.....
I thought this would be obvious to anyone familiar with the principles involved?

Lew,
If you watch my video of the Raven AC-2 with the Timeline.....you can see exactly what you suggest albeit in reverse.
You can witness the Timeline laser moving incrementally to the left as the record is playing.....whilst when the tonearm is lifted.....the laser is stationary.
This means that the turntable is spinning exactly at 33.33rpm without stylus drag....but runs slightly slower WITH stylus drag.

Is anyone else wondering what their highly accurate test procedure is?

Yes....good point.
Just more unsubstantiated Marketing Copy.....
This is one of the reasons I fear the 'use' of the Timeline by manufacturers...?
I simply don't trust them...
Videos posted by manufactures displaying 'superb' Timeline results could be 'fabricated'?
We really need actual owners of the turntables to post their results onto this Database....but that's easier said than done?
Anyone who invests heavily in a well-known brand (especially an expensive one).....may not wish to publicise a poor result?....or may not even want to face the reality themselves?
I fear those may be the reasons we don't have the NVS, the TechDas or the Caliburn submitted as yet?
We certainly know that certain readers of A'gon do own these decks?

03-06-12: Dover
Doesn't this discussion on DD servos highlight the question, does a very high mass platter, with very high inertia, driven by a high torque motor with a belt, thread or fluid drive with built in slippage, such that the platter mass will drive through any load fluctuations sound better than a DD with its constant speed correction.

Dover,
Perhaps your memory is fading?

You have mistakenly attributed the following quote to Richardkrebs.

No,,,,,I was responding to Richardkrebs answer to Don_c55 about smearing of the soundwave due to speed fluctuations.
If you...or anyone else thought that quote was attributed to Richard....my apologies.
I communicated directly with Peter Moncrieff and obtained his permission in writing prior to posting his entire article on these Forums nearly 3 years ago.
Perhaps you even read them here at that time?

Dover,
You seem to be full of suggestions for how people should submit their tests....yet you have not posted a single video of your 'famous' Final Parthenon performing with the Timeline in any fashion whatsoever?
Up till now....my videos and that of the Fat Bob turntable used in the Timeline promotion on YouTube....are the only ones to my knowledge which demonstrate the reaction of the Timeline with the cartridge both playing the record and being dropped and/or lifted from the record.
In both cases with a BELT-DRIVE turntable (as I have emphasised several times in this Thread).....there is a retardation of the Timeline dash due to 'stylus drag'.

There are many on this Forum who claim that a BELT-DRIVE turntable with a high-mass platter and well regulated motor....will not be subjected to 'stylus drag'.
I am still skeptical about this....and we have seen no evidence with the Timeline that this is possible?
Hopefully someone will demonstrate such a phenomena?

Did you miss the reference to 'belt-drive' again Dover?

Until you start providing the visual evidence of your many claims.....I would suggest a modicum of restraint in your 'rules and regulations'?

Dover,

yet you have not posted a single video of your 'famous' Final Parthenon performing with the Timeline in any fashion whatsoever?

You really need to work on your comprehension skills.
Your 'speed reading' abilities are flawed.....
Again you ignore the vital word....TIMELINE....?

Halcro - Did you miss the knuckle test I posted.

No...I got that one.
It's about as useful as demonstrating a turntable being able to perform under water?
It demonstrates a serious lack of appreciation for the actual forces involved on the stylus due to groove modulation and friction which are responsible for 'stylus drag'.

But FYI....the TT-101 passes this nebulous knuckletest.....not for the three paltry seconds on your video....but for the full 3 minutes with the TIMELINE....not the inaccurate strobe which you continue to use.

Dinster,
I have a good friend who owned a mint Nakamichi TX-1000 among his EMT927, Micro SX-5000 and SX-8000 as well as Continuum Criterion collection.
After a year or two....he became disillusioned with the sound of the TX-1000 in comparison to his other decks and sold it.
Centring the hole of the Lp does not guarantee consistent speed control of a particular turntable?
It simply removes one possible cause of distortion when playing an eccentric record on a turntable WITH perfect speed consistency.....

Don,

Then listen closely at these different speeds, on records that have light and heavy modulation, and try to hear changes in sonics.

I think you're talking here about speed 'consistency' rather than 'absolute' speed?
I have no doubts that you are correct in the fact that if a turntable is running CONSISTENTLY fast or slow....and can cope with 'stylus drag'....the resulting sound will be undistorted and one could not really tell the difference.
In fact...the TT-101 has the facility to adjust the speed either UP or DOWN in 4 Hz increments so that one can match the relative 'pitch' of the record with an instrument that one might wish to play along with.
The only problem here....is that we don't have a Timeline which can alter 'pitch'....so that consistent speed of a turntable under stylus drag can only be verified by the Timeline at exactly 33.33rpm.

Actusreus,

If a turntable slows down for a very brief moment due to the stylus drag and the Timeline registers it by shifting the laser spot but then remains constant, how relevant is that drag save for the very brief moment of the stylus settling in the grooves and the turntable adjusting its speed?

I have never witnessed what you describe.
Stylus drag is constant (but variable if you know what I mean)....so that when it slows down the speed of a turntable platter......that speed is changed for the duration.
It doesn't 'spring back' to accurate speed after the initial 'shock'....although with some direct drive turntables using speed-error correction.....this might be a possibility.
I just haven't seen evidence of it using the Timeline?

Tonywinsc,

The problem is you can't know if the drift is due to speed being something other than 33 1/3 exactly or if speed is actually changing during play.

This sounds like such a logical proposition....that no-one seems to argue against it and many have repeated it......
I suggest that it is impossible (without complex computer management).....to design an AC or DC synchronous motor to turn at multiple varying speeds which can line up a laser at an exact point every revolution at both 33.33rpm and 45rpm.
And as none of the motors in any of the turntables we know of.....have such sophisticated (and devious) computer algorithms inbuilt....this argument is simply childish?

Peterayer,
Your Dealer is wrong....

good morning Henry,
so you got one of the very early Timelines that flashes once per 1.8 seconds (33) ?
there were only a hand full of those that went out before the software was changed.
if so, let me know and i will get you a new chip.
Ron

As it turns out.....mine DOES have the new chip and flashes 6 times :-)

Actusreus,
I'm not sure I understand your question?
The turntable is not speeding up as the tonearm tracks toward the spindle....
I sense that many people without 'hands-on' experience with the Timeline may have difficulty understanding how it functions?
If the turntable is rotating at exactly the correct speed (33rpm or 45rpm).....the laser will 'hit' the wall at exactly the same spot every revolution.
Putting the Bluetak marker on the wall makes it easier to gauge the position of the 'hits' accurately.
If the turntable is running faster than 33.33rpm......the laser will hit the wall slightly further to the RIGHT of the marker every revolution so that the position will move further to the right at every revolution.
If the turntable is running slower than 33.33rpm (as is the case with the Raven)....the laser will hit the wall slightly further to the LEFT of the marker at every revolution and will move further to the left at every revolution.
With the Raven...you can see that the laser is moving approx 1mm to the left with every revolution....and it is consistent.
This probably equates to a speed of 33.31rpm instead of 33.33rpm.
When the arm is lifted at the end....you can see that the laser hits the wall mark at exactly the same spot at every revolution.
This indicates that the turntable is maintaining 33.33rpm without load.

Lew,

To write somerhing useful for readers, the Kuzma "Reference" runs also with wrong Speed (too fast)....the search goes on :-)

I wouldn't worry what Syntax writes......
For years...he has maligned the TW Acustic Raven turntables on every audio Forum he could find....
With overtones of arrogant superiority.....his subjective diatribes may have left many owners of these fine turntables feeling insecure....especially in the face of his proclaimed superiority for the Micro Seiki RX-5000?
With the advent of the Timeline....we finally have an OBJECTIVE scientific measure of the speed accuracy and consistency of any turntable.
And still over the last two years.......Syntax has proclaimed that not one...out of a dozen Raven AC turntables he had tested....could pass the Timeline Test...whilst his RX-5000 was "burning holes in the wall" with its Timeline accuracy?
The first time we see visual proof of the Timeline with my Raven AC-2 and his Micro Seiki RX-5000....you can see the Raven keeping absolutely consistent timing under load albeit at 33.31rpm (an error of .06% which is better than any turntable's printed specification)....and keeping dead-on 33.33rpm spinning freely.
Yet the laser mark with the RX-5000 can be seen to drift forwards of the letter K in the word FRUHBECK...then backwards to the C and then even further back under the letter E before appearing suddenly under the letter K again.
This cycle keeps repeating throughout the video (which is shorter than all the other videos posted).....and there is no filming with the cartridge 'up' so that comparisons can be made about the effects of stylus drag as is done on all my videos?
This objective evidence demonstrates a very poor performance from the Micro Seiki RX-5000 IMHO....and I would recommend to all those with Raven turntables who ever again see malicious subjective comments posted against these fine turntables....to simply post the two comparative videos shown on this Thread.

And those who may own Kuzma Reference turntables......notice that no visual evidence has been filed in support of these 'cheap' words from Syntax?
He prefers that you simply 'believe him'?

Hi Moonglum,
As the Raven motor controller has 'stepped' increments of speed control....the 'under-load' speed can only be adjusted to be +/- 0.06%....a superb specification incidentally.
It is a fluke that the 'exact' speed is achieved without load....
Other Raven owners with belts under tighter of looser tension....may fluke an 'exact' speed under load....but this will be slightly higher whilst spinning freely.

Peterayer,
As Ron Sutherland explained it to me......you are only using ONE laser flash hitting the wall every 1.8 seconds.
With the first few models sold.......locating that single flash on the wall where you want it.....was quite difficult and time consuming.
With a choice of one of six flashes.....that 'positioning' problem has been made easier.

Well it's nice to know that my previous posting about Tonywinsc claims goes unread or misunderstood.....so I'll repeat it once more before I'm out of here.
The analogy to a car's engine is totally spurious for this is DESIGNED to increase and decrease speed.
Any AC or DC synchronous motor is designed to maintain constant speed.
The Timeline flashes exactly once every 1.8 seconds which co-incides exactly with one revolution of the platter if spinning exactly at 33.33rpm.
If we watch it for 100 revolutions and that 'flash' is hitting the mark at exactly the same point every single time.....we can logically conclude that its speed is constant....UNLESS it can be proven otherwise?
And Tonywinsc has not once...proven otherwise?
It is not possible for a synchronous motor to speed up and down in between the 1.8 second interval yet CONSTANTLY hit the same mark every revolution.

For any scientists who may be reading this Thread and shaking his head in disbelief.....my apologies to you.
And to Ron Sutherland....forgive them for they know not what they speaketh...

Lew,

Henry, I don't think Syntax's post about the Kuzma was so provocative.

Of course it was......
Syntax was apparently observing the Kuzma turntable with the Timeline in action yet he didn't use his iPhone to film this and upload to YouTube (as we know he can do)....which is the point of the Thread.
Instead....he spreads malicious rumours by 'words' only?
But this is his preferred modus operandi as can be seen over the years of 'Raven baiting'?
Thankfully we now have a video of his 'famed' RX-5000 displaying for all to see....an abject and inferior speed maintenance performance.
This video has finally put to rest any desires I might have had to actually obtain a Micro RX-5000.
Be prepared for this damning video of his to mysteriously be removed from YouTube in the near future......?

Peterayer,

To be fair, I think the frame speed of his video camera is interfering with the laser flash increments. I think that is why some laser flashes are not even seen and why the dash appears to change in length. This occurs with my iPhone video as well, but to a lesser degree. I don't know the f/s spec. for the iPhone.

We are all working within the same available technologies. All my videos are taken with the iPhone and up-loaded directly to YouTube.
If you start offering excuses for the visual evidence of a particular video.....this Database will be irrelevant?

Studying the video of Syntax's RX-5000 turntable with the Timeline.....I was trying to analyse the reasons for such a poor performance?
Mainly because I had seen nothing like it with any other turntable...belt-drive or direct drive?
How could the Timeline laser move backwards at every revolution and by the third or forth one.....jerk erratically forward to where it originally started?
And suddenly I understood.....here was a perfect visualisation of motor cogging.
This Micro Seiki motor was cogging its head off......spitting and spatting like some rat attached to electrodes?
No wonder Thuchan threw out his Micro motor and replaced it with the VPI one for his RX-5000....and sold off his SX-8000II with Micro motor?
Thuchan has discerning ears and can hear the comparisons to his EMT927 and Continuum Criterion.

And was I the only one to hear the 'sound' on Syntax's video?
I know it's compressed and running through an iPhone mic......but so are mine?
And what about the 'scraping' noise that appears half way through?
As Syntax is want to say....."one man's mountain is another man's valley"....

My point is that knowing about the specific motor is useful when making these Timeline comparisons because what you see isn't always what you actually get.

I know this is true….and I apologise to Tonywinsc if I appeared dismissive of his valuable contributions here…..but at no time was ‘cogging’ mentioned till I did so in regards to the video showing this phenomenon with the Timeline on the Micro Seiki RX-5000 string-drive turntable. This is one of the drawbacks of using string or thread drive turntables as there is no ‘filter’ to the motor’s cogging like there is with flexible rubber belt drives.
For an inflexible thread or string drive turntable to work well….the motor needs to be virtually ‘cogless’ like that of the Caliburn as Mosin has mentioned.
I understand what Tonywinsc and Mosin are saying about motors and their characteristics……and I agree that it is a highly complex subject for those without the knowledge or interest.
HERE
is a Link to Peter Moncrief’s full article which asks….and answers….more questions than you ever knew existed about turntable motors?

However……this Thread is about a Video Database of turntables with and without stylus drag as demonstrated via the Sutherland Timeline.
Syntax’s video clearly demonstrates that severe motor ‘cogging’ can be seen on the Timeline laser whilst other videos posted…..show that any cogging which may exist in other motors….is not so graphically demonstrated?
Many of us have readily admitted that correct and/or consistent speed control of a turntable…is but one ingredient to determining its performance.
Many of us also agree that it is however….the primary fundamental ingredient to get right.
Speculating on the other ‘hidden’ qualities of a particular motor….which cannot be demonstrated via the Timeline or other objective repeatable tests….should be discussed on other more suitable Threads?

We are still hopefully awaiting the promised Timeline video for Mosin’s turntable….and perhaps Dover’s Final motor which appears more sophisticated than the Micro Seiki model and might demonstrate a ‘string-drive’ turntable which doesn’t suffer from cogging or ‘stylus drag’?

Hi Tonywinsc,
I thought you might appreciate Peter's article if you hadn't read it before?
The impressive thing from my perspective....is that he wrote that article more than 10 years ago.....where visual proof of 'stylus drag' was unavailable....and most 'experts' were still confidently declaring that the sheer mass and momentum of most turntables could never be affected by the small forces of the stylus?!!
Yet Peter Moncrieff clearly declared 'stylus drag' as fact.....

Mosin.....a DSLR might sound tempting for making a video to upload to YouTube.....but a small hint.....an iPhone with direct upload is so much easier :-)

I'm pleased at your reaction Harold-not-the-barrel......
This Thread has a few videos of both DD and belt-drive turntables,,,,,enough to form an impression of their performances under load.....
What we have still to see, are Idlers and Rim-drives with the Timeline?
If you have an iPhone....it would really help us to see your Salvation direct rim-drive with the Timeline? You can upload the video directly from the iPhone to YouTube.
It really doesn't matter whether it 'passes' the Timeline test? It would be great to see exactly how it 'fails'.....as this would add significantly to the Database?

laser gets the mark in every rotation

Not quite......
Laser starts off under the H in the word FRUHBECK....and ends up under the letter K.
Therefore the RX5000 is running fast....and that's in only TWO minutes?
By the end of a record.....it would be off the page completely.
Hardly competitive with the Raven's performance?
And what about lifting the arm off the record to show the performance WITHOUT 'stylus drag' as is shown with the Raven?
Is that a bit too revealing........?

VICTOR TT-81
This turntable displays the same (if not better) accuracy as the TT-101.....
I believe the difference in the speed accuracy and consistency WITHOUT load compared to that WITH load is of some importance....and that's why I like to see the Timeline mark playing the record compared to NOT playing.....
The reason I believe it's important is that the musical waveform on the vinyl record can be quite benign on soft unmodulated passages (not to mention pauses in the musical content)...whilst with loud, heavily modulated passages...the stylus drag can be quite severe?
If there is a marked difference in a turntable's performance between playing a record and not playing.....there must be a gradient in the speed accuracy when faced with benign passages as opposed to modulated ones?

At any rate.....despite what opponents of DD turntables like to say about their sound and 'speed correction seeking'......there is no physical evidence of it with the Timeline which is rock solid.

Thanks Peter,
I share your wonderment........
It's unusual...and refreshing.....to hear someone in the 'belt-drive camp', accepting the superiority of DD turntables...at least in relation to speed consistency and control?

Before the visual proof of stylus drag and speed consistency was afforded by the introduction of the Sutherland Timeline...........most proponents of the belt-drive argument insisted that 'stylus drag' was a myth....or at least was rendered mute if the platter of the belt-drive was massive enough to create enough inertia to be unaffected by it.
This has clearly been disproven.
The argument was also put....and is still....that the speed-correction circuitry of the DD turntables meant that they were NEVER turning at the correct speed....but were always SEEKING and CORRECTING?
This argument was a logical (if misunderstood) interpretation of the actual functioning of the correction circuits of the TOTL DD models.....and conveniently overlooked the motor controllers of belt-drive turntables and THEIR similar....but time delayed (by the belt) correction circuitry?

Today, still.....you will read from experienced audiophiles how they can "hear" the effects of this speed correction circuitry in DD turntables.
Funny how no listeners at my place can point out the DD Victor from the belt-drive Raven under 'blind' testing.....but boy can they tell you which turntable they prefer :-)

In my experience, the Timeline can show minute variations to perfect speed which I can not hear.

I agree.....but, by the same token.....as my TT-101 began suffering its breakdown this week....I could hear when the speed dropped to 33.32RPM, a speed change of .03%.
So the answers to your question may indeed be complex?

Ignoring subjectivity......the single most important function of any turntable I maintain.....has got to be speed accuracy/consistency.
And for that...on the evidence of the Timeline.....the DD turntables reign supreme.
The subjectivists can please themselves :-)

How many solder joints are there to check Banquo?

Alas Banquo......'tis true....
The TT-101 began to develop speed inconsistencies.....to such an extent that 33.33rpm became 35.78 and then 42.21......
45rpm did the same thing......
Tomorrow I take it to my Tech who is really excited having seen my photos of the innards.....
Of course he has never worked on one of these monsters.....but armed with my full manual of circuit diagrams etc from Vinyl Engine......I may get lucky?
If it happens.....I'll have him change all the capacitors as I was waiting for just such an occurrence to afford me the excuse.
It may be that 35 years is the life expectancy of the TT-101......and it's complexity may sound its deathnell?
Meanwhile....luckily....the much simpler TT-81 is standing in its place.....and sounding maybe even better than its big brother?
I will keep you updated......

If your blindfolded friends can't identify the DD Victor from the BD Raven, but they have a clear preference for one over the other, what is it that they like? I must not understand your point.

I was referring to my previous statement….

Today, still.....you will read from experienced audiophiles how they can "hear" the effects of this speed correction circuitry in DD turntables.

to make the point that ‘hearing’ the artifacts of DD speed correction circuitry (aka quartz-locked) is not a factor in my listening room?
And those who make such claims may be hearing things other than that which they think? :-)

To clarify things for Dover……I have written many times that the ‘actual’ speed of a turntable is not as relevant as the ability to maintain ‘constant’ speed.
Why else would the TT-101 have the provision in its controls to vary the pitch up or down in increments of 6Hz?
When I wrote that I could hear the speed WOW from 33.33rpm to 33.32rpm……this was an instantaneous CHANGE in speed.
There is no way that I can tell if a turntable is rotating at 33.33rpm, 33.87rpm or 33.25rpm…..as long as there are no instantaneous variations.
And that’s why I believe that the extent of ‘stylus drag’ exhibited by a particular turntable is important.

Now the KAB strobe is an excellent device and no-one should be discouraged from using one to set the speeds of their turntables.
But for Peter and especially Lew (who has been championing the KAB for years now) to suggest that the KAB is as accurate as the Timeline and/or shows the effects of stylus drag…..is simply misleading.
HERE is a video showing the KAB on the Raven AC-2 both with and without stylus engaged.
The speed (33.33rpm) appears identical under both conditions and could lead one to surmise that ‘stylus drag’ is a myth?
Contrast that to the same Raven AC-2 with the TIMELINE where ‘stylus drag’ is confirmed and differs to the KAB results?

Finally….like Peterayer….I am disappointed that this Thread on the Timeline has somewhat been hijacked by those who have contributed nothing utilizing the Timeline….and who curiously seem to have an agenda against the Timeline?
I have nothing against subjectivists (being decidedly one myself)…..but this Thread is designed to remove subjectivism from the subject of turntable speed accuracy….and demonstrate objectively what has never before been documented?
It has not been claimed that perfect speed control produces the ‘perfect turntable’….but to actively ‘bash’ a scientifically objective tool and database appears suspiciously defensive?

Ack,

I'm not sure that I understand your comments?
In all my videos with both Victor TT-101, Victor TT-81 and Raven AC-2......the Timeline and KAB Strobe are shown with tonearms lowered and raised.
In fact they are the only videos in this Databank which show this situation.

As Lewm has stated.....the weight of the Timeline clamp or the record clamp are irrelevant as weight is not a factor in stylus drag and certainly weight over the platter bearing plays no part.
Stylus drag is caused solely by the friction of the stylus hitting the walls of the record groove with enough force (and on enough occasions) to slow down the rotational speed of the platter. This will occur more noticeably with heavily modulated passages where the vinyl walls can be almost perpendicular to the path of travel of the stylus.

With both Victor DD turntables....it is apparent that even with 3 tonearms lowered or raised in any combination......no change to platter speed is visible with the Timeline.
With the Raven under the Timeline....it can be seen that the platter runs slightly slow with the stylus engaged but runs perfectly to speed when the tonearm is raised. However with the KAB Strobe in place......it appears that the Raven runs perfectly to speed with or without the tonearm engaged.
Based solely on the visual results of the KAB.....one could possibly claim that 'stylus drag' is a myth?
The Timeline however proves that it is a reality.

Now the AMOUNT of stylus drag with the Raven is very small........and because it appears to be relatively consistent....it is inaudible.
So it bothers me none that the KAB Strobe is 'good enough' for all practical purposes and if Lewm and others are happy to rely upon it.....who am I to argue?
My only disagreement comes with the claims that it is as accurate as the Timeline?

Now if I have misunderstood the points you have raised.....perhaps you could put them another way?

Lew,
Perhaps you should just take some records and listen at the Tech's place?
But I also think the TT-101 is just devious?
My Tech has had mine running perfectly to correct speeds for over three days without any problems?
He will now just replace all the caps and see how it goes?.....but I suspect that once back installed in my system....the gremlins which have not revealed themselves to others.....might re-appear?

No problems with Halcro's "birthday suit" Victor.......:-)
Running both TT-81 & TT-101 without the metal casing is preferable to these ears........

Halcro, Did you not report earlier some issues related to removal of the outer cage?

No....none whatsoever.......