Direct Drive vs. Idler Drive vs. Belt drive

Very interesting thread--thanks everyone who has participated. For those who wish to explore a newcomer to the idler-type turntable marketplace, I have posted Part 1 of my "review" of the Sempersonus TE-2, TW Acustic Raven 12, Charisma Audio Signature One, WyWires Platinum vinyl playback system over on AC. Hopefully, this link will take you there:

https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=171102.msg1810956#new

I hope this helps to sustain the discussion.

The complete "review" now appears on the AC:

https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=171102.new#new

Dear friends: This is something I posted in wbf to a gentleman that was against servos in DD TT because he said that he can hear the damage that servos makes to what he listening through a DD turntables ( as the Technics SP10MK3 or Denon DP100 and the like. ) . Could be interesting to think a little about:

"""  But things are " critical " for say the least about your " entitled " against servos because the recording LP cutting machines uses DD non-coreless motors as the Technics Sp-02 on the Neumann or the servo controled ( as the Sp-02 ) Parker motor in the Lyrec lathes. In Scully lathes some gentlemans used the MK3 Technics motor. Altivar was other used motor and obviously its own Neumann one and even Denon.

So the LPs you listen was recorded with those servos ( not the bidirectional as Denon or JVC and not coreless motors as JVC, Yamaha or Kenwood. ) and even that that kind of " servo intrusion " especially in the low bass range you just can't be aware of it in the BD or idler drive TTs when that " servo intrusion " in case of exist must be appeared any time with any TT spin design, it comes ( according that exist that servo problem. ) rigth from the cutting lathe. So, You can´t be aware of it because just does not exist ( you are not aware of it in BD designs. ) or your room/system has not really and true high resolution. There are no other alternatives down there.

Measurements and pure common sense means that your " entitled " servo issue is a misunderstood that you posted and post " over and over through the years. ""

Then the LPs are pressed from the cutting lathes that used DD motors with servo control. So why many  audiophiles said that through BD/ID TTs the servo " intrusion " does not exist they do not be aware on it when all the LPs where pressed " using servo control motors?

Perhaps because what we listen and disturbs to some of us in DD TTs comes not really from the servo control but from other each model design characteristics and not because the servo control.

Maybe some of you can share a different point of view on that critical TT issue.


Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

@atmasphere ,

"Given how innovative AR was at the time, its a bit surprising that they chose to under-serve their concepts as presented in this machine. If they had been a bit more aggressive and upscaled it a bit, they would have built a classic."



If only indeed. Nevertheless, the AR turntable was certainly no slouch when it came to performance.

I’m guessing that AR didn’t believe there was a market for a more expensive model, given that the AR turntable was all about outstanding value for money. In fact it would take decades before it could be beaten on that score.

As for technical improvements, well you know the history. The Thorens TD150, the Ariston RD11 and the Linn LP12 all later tried to improve on the cleverness of the initial design to various degrees of success.

On of these days Linn might even admit it, but don’t hold your breath.

Now if only AR had taken out a patent..

Anyway here’s a great YouTube video by M. Zillch to enjoy.

Audiophile Turntable 101: Acoustic Research AR-XA TESTED

https://youtu.be/1rgK0YMsJXM

I’m guessing that AR didn’t believe there was a market for a more expensive model, given that the AR turntable was all about outstanding value for money. In fact it would take decades before it could be beaten on that score.

I not sure I agree with this... budget turntables have always been problematic. Empire was making better machines back in 1961, but they might have cost a little more. Its certainly telling that an Empire goes for more money now than an AR.  I think the issue comes down to cost and that AR sort of 'got away with it' when they used a clock motor to run the turntable. Allied used to sell the AR; I had to deal with headshells with stripped cartridge mounting threads, stripped threads for mounting it to the arm tube, warped headshells, perished platter pads (the foam was terrible but the turntable couldn't support anything better); it was annoying that the overhang couldn't be set and the bearings in the arm were pretty cheesy. The platter bearing seemed alright though. If you really want to look at a budget machine that was better at ticking the boxes, perhaps the old Connoisseur BD2 would be a better choice. They didn't have any better bearings, but because they were at a 45 degree angle, the chatter was a bit more bearable if you'll pardon the expression.