Pros and cons of belt drive Versus direct drive

Dlh,

It's not that simple. There are basically three designs with many variations: direct drive, belt and rim drive. All are actually quite viable if done properly. The argument of motor isolation is correct. I owned a very nice Denon direct drive thinking it almost state-of-the-art until a belt-drive clearly displayed all of the sought after attributes of blackness and superior sonic musicality.

I replaced the dd and lived in bliss. A friend with some very big dog equipment last year purchased an older Luxman dd table, set it up with his older Sumiko 'The Arm' and a new Grado wooden body cartridge. So far this table has embarressed all comers to include Linn and Sota.

Many years ago one of the tables to own was the rim drive Dual 1229 which still sounds quite viable today. To quote, "It's not what you do, but how you do it".

I think in general belt drive is better. But if done correctly (to isolate vibration) direct drive can be better. Why do you think Rockport Sirus III (at a mere $75k) uses direct drive, and their lesser Sirus II uses belt drive? It's expensive to do direct drive right (although I doubt it's as expensive as the difference in price on the Sirus II vs III).

I agree with Abstract7; direct drive can be as good as belt drive if done right. If I recall correctly, the Goldmund Studio is a direct drive table based on a Technics SP-10.

BELT DRIVE!! 'nuff said...

If you could make a perfect motor direct drive might be better. As is motors are not and the cogging effect took direct drive out of high end. Garrards are still popular in GB but I dont think they can compete with good belt drives. It only makes sense to isolate the motor with a belt.