We interrupt this program for one comment on tt speed accuracy: For those of you who have been holding your breath for a report on the speed accuracy of my SP10 Mk3, results are in: Perfect! I am so relieved I am going to sit down now with a stiff cognac, keeping in mind that this is a Sunday morning. I had had such faith in the Mk3 that I had never checked it before, even with my KAB strobe, but you guys have made me question my convictions.
The AC voltage at my wall socket is 121V this morning. I actually feared that this over-voltage (Technics PS says to feed it 110V) would confound the Technics. But the PS has an AC regenerator built into it, so apparently no issues. |
You must be kidding me, right? Hiho, I'm not sure how to take that. If you know the names of any engineers who designed state of the art TTs in the 70s and 80s, why don't you just list them, along with the company they worked for, and where they post in discussion forum today? That's what I'm interested in knowing. Who did Kuzma work for before starting Kuzma in 82? What about Yorke? Where did he work before starting to build his own TTs? How about Driessen of Pluto Audio? Pluto was founded in 74. Did he work somewhere else before that? |
Geoch: "I feel that the Hi-Fi market's turning point at '80s with the Japan giants leaving the field to some hungry animals, it is still our torment today after 3 decades and we owe it to our love for this hobby to realise and accept the influence which has upon us the marketing status. After the shrinkage of the hi-fi market, the industry turns its back and left the designers to seek for the wealthy victims among us. There is so little progress and so much BS today that the buyer is usually go for the more beautiful as a statement of his life style. But unfortunately TTs are not cars and so, his "Bugatti" is only for the eye and refuses to spin properly a vinyl. Are we going to feed this monster again?" Great post, Geoch! And great question! _______ |
Dear Nandric, the Goldmund REF designed by George Bernard and the latest edition mkII also. The latest projects of both Simon & Pierre were about $25000 and it comes naturally the cause of their choise regarding BD TTs as Eddie first showing the seeds of the "exotic" creations (?)
I've had in my posession the Zarathustra S4 and the J4/SL5 and for a limited time (3 months) the Studio ST4. All of them were very fine TTs and not so far from reality ($$$).
Anyway right now I'm far away from this kind of lust and I feel that the Hi-Fi market's turning point at '80s with the Japan giants leaving the field to some hungry animals, it is still our torment today after 3 decades and we owe it to our love for this hobby to realise and accept the influence which has upon us the marketing status. After the shrinkage of the hi-fi market, the industry turns it's back and left the designers to seek for the whealthy victims among us. There is so little progress and so much BS today that the buyer is usually go for the more beautiful as a statement of his life style. But unfortunatelly TTs are not cars and so, his "Buggatti" is only for the eye and refuses to spin properly a vinyl.
Are we going to feed this monster again? |
I respect the work of Kuzma, Driessen, and Yorke, from a distance. I only say what I say about Lurne' because of my experience with his earliest Audiomeca product. And my opinion should really mean nothing. As I once told you, were I to be in the market for a belt-drive type turntable, the Kuzma Reference, a la chez Nandric, would be my choice. |
Dear Lew, I know your opinion about Lurne for some time but
Goldmund thought obviously otherwise when they hired him
as a TT designer. I am not sure if he designed the Goldmund
Reference but well that he designed the Studio which is
a DD kind and also the F3 linear arm. The DD motor was not a problem in Europe . He used the Papst motor first and JVC latter. He is still in business btw.As you also know Dual produced two very interesting DD motors but sold many more belt drives. Dual is now back in buseness but they don't produce any DD turntables at present. The reason is probable the pessimistic market expectation.
However I also mentioned Kuzma, Driessen and Yorke but you
obviously prefered not to comment on them. Considering the
prices for their TT's one can hardly argue that the production cost is the reason for their avoidance of DD kind.
Regards, |
Dear Nikola, Without saying unkind words about his products that have been sold in the US, I just cannot put Lurne' in the pantheon of great tt designers. Perhaps he marketed some tt's exclusively in Europe that were exceptional.
For the past 20 years, the fashion has heavily favored belt-drive, thanks to Ivor Tiefenbrun and the Linn LP12 and complicit audio reviewers. Only a brave man would have introduced a new direct-drive turntable in the 90s and early 21st century, after the technology had been denigrated for so many years. Plus, and we have been over this ad nauseam, it is much more expensive and technologically challenging to build a new sota direct-drive than it is to do a new belt-drive. Now we finally have a few, in the form first of the Rockport Sirius (a real pioneer product, IMO) and then of the GP Monaco, Brinkmanns, NVS, and Teres Certus. But these are all very expensive and therefore rare.
Dover, FWIW, the motor in the SP10 Mk3 is NOT identical to the cutting lathe motor also made by Technics and used by many in the manufacture of LPs. That one has even much more torque than the Mk3 motor. The Mk3 motor and its drive system were explicitly designed for LP playback. |
Can anyone name one brand that is not Japanese, not German, and not Swiss origin that made direct-drive turntables in the 70's, 80's, and 90's before the Rockport Sirius III, which was reviewed in Stereophile in 2000? I certainly cannot think of one. So for 3 decades in the USA and UK that were dominated by Linn, there was no manufacturer making DD tables. Are audiophiles really that monogamous? That statistic is frightening, considering the two audio powerhouses in the world did not make a single direct-drive turntable in the heydays of analog! Click here for some direct-drive history and brands. _______ |
Ecir38 - Thanks, you are right. I couldn't see this info on the Sutherland website so I emailed them and they confirmed that the new model puts out 8 flashes per 1.8 seconds. This gives the user eight spots to choose from. I wish they would update their rather cryptic user manual with this info. It still says one flash per rev. |
Ketchup: "You would think that at least one of them was an audiophile today and maybe even posts on an audiophile forum, but I have never seen one of their posts."
There may well be, but I doubt very much they would post on an English speaking forum. Japanese? ...maybe! |
Ketchup, Well still a live are: Lurne, Kuzma, Driessen (Pluto) and Simon Yorke. To my knowledge only Lurne produced also DD TT's (Studio, Studietto) but in his own
company (Audiomeca) only belt driven TT's. It seems reasonable to think that they prefered belt drive. Lurne also published about his design phylosophy but I can't
recollect his thoughts about DD's.
Regards, |
Ketchup: "You would think that at least one of them was an audiophile today and maybe even posts on an audiophile forum, but I have never seen one of their posts." You must be kidding me, right? _______ |
Dear Dover, The statement you "struggle" with is really most applicable to belt-drive turntables, where the two paradigms are most obvious. Compare the Walker Proscenium or any Nottingham (weak motor/big platter school) to an SME or an Avid turntable (strong motor/relatively lightweight platter). And there are many more examples on either side that I am not thinking of at the moment. In direct-drive, we have the SP10 Mk3 (hi-torque) vs the Kenwood L07D (relatively lo-torque but no slouch for torque), but the contrast is not nearly so great since the Mk3 has a heavier platter than does the Kenwood, but the Kenwood is up there in weight compared to most others, e.g. Denon, Victor, Sony. Too bad Travis is preoccupied with moving from Tokyo to HK; he could quote more chapter and verse than I vis vintage dd's. And Kenwood and hi-end Pioneer (read "Exclusive") used coreless motors which tend to be less torque-y because hi-torque versions get too hot, according to my reading. With no core iron, the heat associated with hi-torque is not so well dissipated. |
Canam, the newest model does that so it is easier to find the spot that is easiest for you to watch while the rest can be ignored. I think it is mentioned on the Sutherland website. |
|
We often mention the great engineers of the sophisticated turntables of the 70s and 80s. What they were thinking, why they did this, why they did that. Does anyone actually know one of these guys? Where are they today? You would think that at least one of them was an audiophile today and maybe even posts on an audiophile forum, but I have never seen one of their posts. You would also think that someone in the modern turntable industry would have bumped into one of these guys at one point, but I haven't heard of that, either.
How cool would it be to talk to someone who designed the |
Well, I couldn't fight the temptation so I purchased a Timeline and received it today. I turn it on, and instead of flashing once every 1.8 seconds, it flashes several times per second (maybe five or six). Does anyone else have this issue? I'm thinking it's defective, but I put it on my table and it seems to flash every 1.8 seconds on several spots per revolution, so it looks as if it's flashing at an exact multiple of once every 1.8 seconds. I check and adjust the speed with my KAB strobe and after a lot of fine adjusting I get the laser to flash consistently on one spot (and the KAB showing exactly 33 1/3 rpm). I lower the needle (I have an album, the KAB, and the timeline on my table) and voila, my table does not slow down with stylus drag. I have not yet done extended time tests yet.
My table is a diy plinth with lenco drive system,a PTP, and a VPI platter. My only complaint is that the speed adjustment is far to sensitive and therefore difficult to set.
I hadn't checked the speed in a while and this experiment seems to indicate it can drift quite easily (likely with small changes in voltage and/or frequency). I see a motor controller in my future. |
Re the Kenwood L07D and the Technics SP10mk3.
In understanding the design we must remember these turntables were built for quite different purposes or use. The L07D was an all out assault to produce a state of the art tt for home use. The SP10mk3 was designed primarily for broadcast and archival use. Consequently the L07D has one of the most sophisticated plinths of any tt manufactured in terms of rigidity, energy dissipation and ease of adjustability for accurate set up. The SP10mk3 has incredible torque, very fast start up and stop times and a crap plinth.
We dont know what was in the minds of the Technics designers - the choice of the mk3 motor may have been more to do with the fact that it was the motor used in cutting lathes and readily available at the time. What is interesting is that when they increased the torque they also increased the weight of the platter significantly from the SP10mk2. |
Lewm,I struggle with this statement -
"among designers of both belt- and direct-drive turntables there seems to be a divide around weak motor/huge platter vs strong motor/light(er) platter"
I have never associated high mass platters with low torque motors.
If you had said the 2 schools of thought were light platters with sophisticated speed correction or control versus high mass platters with more inertia and less speed correction that would be a more accurate synopsis in my view. |
Lewm: "The engineers of the 1970s and 80s were well aware of all of these issues that we are now still obsessing over. The L07D may turn out to be my all-time fave, and it's not the highest torque in town." Good point and good write up. At one point I thought the higher the torque the better and forgot about the increase in cogging. Torque for torque sake does not a good turntable make. I agree that Kenwood knew what they were doing back in the days. Recently I recommended a Kenwood KD-770D, one with a rather low torque coreless motor by DD standard, to an acquaintance and he is so happy that even his wife thinks the sound is smoother and that's with a cheap cartridge. I really think the reduction of cogging by using a good motor is a worthy effort in DD designs. And a precise but "gentle" servo is less harmful to the sound than some brute force detecting system. eg., someone in a DIY forum did the below to his modified Technics SL-Q3: "I modified the negative feedback loop network to make the whole thing underdamped. As it is from the factory, it is overdamped and after doing some A/B test by switching instantly between the factory network and the new one, it is obvious the change in sound. The modded version is much more relaxed and clear and all the distortion (similar to jitter in digital) in mids and highs is gone." Some of that sterile DD sound may be caused by the "overdamped" servo, a kind of "analog jitter" Mosin and others mentioned before. It all comes down to execution, I guess... _______ |
Dear Swampwalker, 'Our' Lew is a scientist so no wonder he
use what Wittgenstein called 'scientific grammar'. I would prefer 'indicative statements' above 'declarative' but in any case the 'truth valued ' statments are presupposed. I believe that thinking about different drive systems involves a 'paradigm shift' but not a 'revolutionary' advance in technology. If there were a real revolutionary advances in the technology all TT's designs would use this technology. Otherwise the producers of the 'old technology' TT's would obviously speculate about possible 'sentimental buyers'.
Regards, |
And, lest we forget, among designers of both belt- and direct-drive turntables there seems to be a divide around weak motor/huge platter vs strong motor/light(er) platter. There are logical arguments either way. So, I would not be so bold as to make any declarative statements. Well said- every design is a compromise, and barring a "paradigm shift" or revolutionary advance in technology or theory, implementation and qa/qc are the make or break points. Says the guy who can't carry a tune;-) |
Hiho, There is much ignorance among us as to how the servo system of this or that direct-drive turntable actually works. From my casual observation, they are not all the same, by any means. But from a Newtonian point of view, max torque is only ever attained at the moment of start-up, when the platter is completely at rest and then must undergo a change of inertia to being in motion at 33.333... rpm. So, the huge torque of an SP10 Mk3 is what gets its 22-lb platter up to speed in 0.25 seconds (or something like that, according to the Mk3 owner's manual). Once the platter (any platter) is in motion at its set speed, it does not take much torque to keep it there, except that which is needed to counter-act stylus drag. Here is where the design and implementation of the servo mechanism is different for different vintage types. For example, I am not sure I understand exactly how the L07D system works, but it appears that the full torque of the motor is only invoked when or if there is a major loss of speed for whatever reason. (I think the service manual says more than a +/-3% speed deficit.) Otherwise, the drive system doles out torque in small increments, and I think this is done to minimize the audibility of tiny corrections that need to be made to maintain exact speed. The engineers of the 1970s and 80s were well aware of all of these issues that we are now still obsessing over. The L07D may turn out to be my all-time fave, and it's not the highest torque in town.
And, lest we forget, among designers of both belt- and direct-drive turntables there seems to be a divide around weak motor/huge platter vs strong motor/light(er) platter. There are logical arguments either way. So, I would not be so bold as to make any declarative statements. |
Thank you In_shore,
But what happens if the orchestra being recorded is already tuned 12Hz lower than 440Hz which means that at 33.33rpm......we are getting 428Hz for the note A?
If our turntables are then running slow by....say 12Hz.....it can't really be good?
The aim should really be....to be as close as possible to an accurate and consistent 33.33rpm?
Cheers
Henry |
A fast start up direct drive turntable does not necessarily have higher torque. Some DD tables boost the torque only at the first couple seconds to get the platter up to speed and then lower the torque to just enough to keep the platter running. The image that DD has higher torque is due to the popularity of Technics turntables, especially the SL-1200mk2 and SP-10mk2. But Technics is, of course, not the only name in the DD game.
_______
|
Halcro- Yes, I had read that and was trying to re-state it in a way that might make sense to those of us who are not musicians. Not sure how common this is amongst "us", but I cannot carry a tune in the proverbial bushel basket, let alone have any idea what a 12 hz variance in pitch means. I am in total awe of musicians, esp. singers! |
A robust drive is really important in a good turntable! Very interesting comment. Jibes with the idea that the quality of the power supply is v. impt in amp and pre-amps as well. Not sure why, maybe its just a co-incidence? But after having my pre-amp's power supply upgraded, I am more convinced than ever that it is true for the electronics! |
But in general, a good direct-drive motor WiLL have more torque than a good belt-drive motor. As a generalization that is incorrect. A DD drive has to spin at 33 1/3 rpm. In a belt drive, there is a tremendus amplification of torque of the motor afforded by the ratio between the motor diameter and that of the platter diameter. Add to that the possibility of a powerful motor, and you see what I mean. By no means is this an excuse to use a weenie little motor to drive a 20 pound platter though. As an example the Atma-Sphere 208 is up to speed in 1/2 a revolution- not that far off from the SP-10, which gets there in 1/4 of a turn. Most of the delay on the 208 is the belt slipping on the motor, as it is up to speed before you can take your finger off of the 'On' button. However the platter of the SP-10 is about triple that of the 208 in weight. The SP-10 in particular is an exceptional turntable, and thoroughly disproves that old idea that DD was somehow flawed. But it is the exception rather than the rule regarding DD, IOW the SP-10 motor has more torque than most any other motor in use in turntables. I am sure that is a large part of why it works so well. A robust drive is really important in a good turntable! |
Halcro Good work and thank you for your time spent on this.
I know that I am pitch sensitive and I believe it is most important perceptual feature in music.
Which is why I have never been satisfied with any of the belt drive turntables that I have owned so far. |
Dear Swampy, Halcro may be trying to tell you that we have covered the territory of your query, and "we" tend to agree with you, I think. I certainly do. |
Dear Swampwalker, Please look HERE |
This is an interesting discussion with philosophical, theoretical and practical elements. I am not in any way an advanced thinker or practitioner on things analog. However, I don't think anyone has addressed these issues with respect to a mylar tape drive, which is essentially inelastic. I will say that I believe that unless you have perfect pitch, I would think that it would be better to have a TT whose speed has better precision than accuracy. IOW, within certain bounds, speed stability is more important than speed accuracy. A table that runs at 33.6 rpm, +/- 0.05 rpm, would be preferable to a table that runs at 33.3 rpm, +/- 0.5 rpm. I made those #s up to illustrate my point; I have no idea how audible those variations would be but I hope you get my point. |
I vote a moratorium on these endless circular arguments over the merits and demerits of this or that drive mechanism. Lets just see how various ones of them work according to Timeline. But in general, a good direct-drive motor WiLL have more torque than a good belt-drive motor. However I will not claim that this per se makes one better or worse than the other.
I am also wracking my brain to think whether I know anyone who can test the Timeline out of context (meaning not by using a turntable). Some sort of light-sensitive timer is needed. |
I said it once before long ago- any tt motor that brings the platter up to speed in about a half of a revolution (less than one revolution) has plenty of torque to hold speed stable.
Also, I wanted to be the 300th poster on this thread. Yay!! |
Halcro, you have done a fantastic job bringing us up to speed on this and also leading the way on trying alternative ideas on your Raven. However I must pull you up on a couple of comments on DD
"The differences between the two drive types I believe, has to do more with the speed of any correction applied once a deviation is detected?
In this.....a belt or thread drive is at a severe disadvantage.
The DD motor....usually with a lot more torque than that of a belt/thread drive....and being directly connected to the platter.....can correct deviations in micro-seconds theoretically inaudible to the human ear."
Thread drives do not self correct as DD's do.
Didn't your mother tell you 2 wrongs don't make a right ? You could argue a DD is twice as bad as a thread drive. One assumes if there is a time slippage and it is a one off why stuff the next few seconds of music trying to catch up ?
Then there is the correction of the correction when the DD overshoots on correction.... as my learned engineer tells me, nothing wrong with DD's they are only a little bit out all of the time.
"The DD motor....usually with a lot more torque than that of a belt/thread drive"
This is a presumption, I'm not sure it is correct. I'm not sure how many DD's could spin my 20kg plus platter up to speed in less than one revolution as does the AC motor on my thread drive.
But to balance the argument I still lust after an SP10mkIII for a second deck.
|
Hi Chris,
My statement was directed at the 'speed' of any correction performed by the motor controller being felt by the platter?
I don't think there is any doubt that in a DD situation with the platter being attached to the motor......any speed correction will be effected faster than via a belt or thread connected to a motor/s at some distance from the platter?
If you re-read Peter Moncrief's excellent article that I posted several times........he provides a great deal of information regarding this very subject.
I'm not sure what the differences might be in a turntable designed for a string/thread drive over a belt?
Can you or someone provide some further thoughts on this subject?
Regards
Henry |
Hi Lew - do u have a center weight with a flat top ? Bit of blue tac on the bottom of the Timeline and place it on top of it maybe? Yes that Lenco has a really fat spindle.
I am not familiar with the WMC - thanx for explanation. I have experimented with my SDS and my Lenco in the past - reason for my post. thx |
Actually, since the Timeline is sitting on the spindle, and cannot fit completely over the spindle on a Lenco, which has a "fat"spindle, slippage of the LP would have no direct effect on the Timeline, in my particular report above. The Timeline is nowhere near to contacting the actual LP surface; it is kind of perched about 1 cm above it, which is as far down as it can go on the Lenco spindle.
Ct, Please say why you think there is anything of value to be learned by running without the Walker MC. I don't see the point, once I were to re-set the speed using the idler wheel adjustment. The Walker has no feedback mechanism; it only regenerates the AC used by the motor and controls motor speed by altering voltage. If anything, the WMC may reduce the torque of the single phase induction motor of the Lenco, because for this type of motor, voltage and torque are interdependent, within a limited range of adjustment. |
Hi Henry
I just re-read what you wrote. I am assuming when you say
In this.....a belt or thread drive is at a severe disadvantage
that this is your opinion only.
Have you heard a string drive TT that was designed by its manufacturer for the use of string ?
Cheers Chris |
Hi Lew - regarding the Lenco l75. Can you please do the testing with and without the Walker motor controller. I realize setting the motor speed with the original slider is a bit of a pain. Am very interested in your impressions findings between the two.
Cheers |
Regardless of what the speed inaccuracy is due to.......one must find it and correct it as it is distortion of the analogue sine wave...pure and simple.
The Timeline will show it....and you must correct it. Not look for excuses :^) |
TIMELINEHere is the video with the Timeline on the Transrotor Fat Bob which has a massive platter. Watch how the Timeline immediately slows when the stylus is lowered? The Timeline is also sold as a 'record weight'....although on the light side. It is fairly easy to see if slippage is causing a problem by using the Timeline without a stylus playing firstly, then with a stylus playing on the mat and then without the mat or a different mat. It's not rocket science but this mentality of assuming the Timeline is somehow wrong and the turntable correct.......is the real problem here? |
Ketchup: " That seemingly "slow" result could simply be because of the LP slipping on the platter, not the platter slowing down due to the stylus drag." That's easy to figure out. Simply stick a piece of tape with, say, a pencil mark on the edge of the record line up with another mark on the platter and then check their alignment after the speed test to see for any drift or slippage. This was proposed by a smart forum member (Dertonarm) before. _______ |
I would love to know the results of using a Timeline on a massive platter, belt driven turntable like the Walker. Maybe it's a touch fast or a touch slow (which will show up as "cumulative error"), but I find it hard to believe that a 70 pound platter will be affected by even the greatest amount of stylus drag. Of course you would have to set the timeline on top or the Walker record clamp to compare apples to apples.
This makes me think. When testing your tables with the Timeline with the stylus in the groove, and you see what appears to be a slightly slow speed, how in the world do you know that it's not just the LP slipping on the platter? It seems like you would need to make sure that the record is mechanically clamped to the platter for the results to mean anything. And I'm not just talking about a little record weight. I'm talking about a several pound weight or a clamp that threads or clamps onto the platter spindle.
To put it another way... You test your TT with the Timeline on the platter with no LP and it maintains perfect speed. You then test your TT with an LP and the stylus in the groove and the Timeline says that your TT is slow, which makes you think it's due to stylus drag. That seemingly "slow" result could simply be because of the LP slipping on the platter, not the platter slowing down due to the stylus drag. |
Thanks Halcro, was just wondering by chance. Dang Lew that was fast, look forward to future comments you may have.
Have our monthly club meeting this week, have to ask the guys if anyone has a timeline. If not might have to break down just for kicks since I am love tools of the trad :). |
One red herring: the LP is sitting on a Boston Audio Mat1, which is kind of slippery; the LP itself could be sliding due to stylus drag. I hate when that happens. I hate record weights. Lew.......please remove the mat. Slippage can be a real problem? |
Halcro have you tried the timeline with your TT81? Unfortunately I didn't have the Timeline when I had the TT-81 set-up. Now it is too much of a hassle to remove the TT-101..... Install the TT-81....and then re-install the TT-81? Sorry :^) |
I've got the Timeline in house.
On the Lenco, with AC supplied through the Walker Motor Controller, speed set by the KAB with an LP in play, and listening tests suggesting that rhythm and pitch are like real life, the Timeline says my Lenco is a touch fast. I will need another day to determine whether it is "regularly" fast (the error increases in a linear fashion with each revolution) or "irregularly" fast (the error is haphazard in magnitude per revolution). The first kind of error can be "fixed", if I care to do so. The second kind indicates that the Lenco is affected by stylus drag. Not so easy to fix. One red herring: the LP is sitting on a Boston Audio Mat1, which is kind of slippery; the LP itself could be sliding due to stylus drag. I hate when that happens. I hate record weights. |
Henry - my post was not an assessment of the DD technology as you know.
It was strictly my theory based solely on what I have heard/read here about this timeline and how I think either of my Technics SP10 MKII's would do up against it.
Speed corrections are made very quickly with my SP10's - I do not think they would therefore register with the device. If someone in my area wants to lend me a timeline I will try it as well.
The SP10 MKII's are both "very" accurate as far as maintaining speed is concerned.
Cheers |
"One point not properly addressed so far.....is how idlers or rim-drives perform against the Timeline?
Perhaps Lew will be able to enlighten us on this?"
As a idler user I would appreciate Lews results on his Lenco. I would also appreciate how his DP80 performs, you would think it would be spot on as the TT101. Halcro have you tried the timeline with your TT81? |
