Raul: Wouldn't the rumble specs, at least, be somewhat dependent on the plinth made for a deck-mount DD?
Anyway, whatever one thinks of Michael Fremer, to me it's interesting that a guy who's critically auditioned that many turntables, and proclaimed the direct-drive Rockport Sirius to be the uncontested best at the time he had it, later decided the belt-drive SME 30 (at about 1/3 the price without arm) equalled or slightly bettered it (with a Graham arm fitted). This is notable not only from the DD vs. BD perspective, but because the Rockport had an integral linear-tracking arm (Fremer has in the past has extolled not only the theoretical but the actual benefits of linear arms if properly executed), air bearings all around, an integral active isolation stand, the more complex motor controller, and was maybe 4-5 times as massive -- none of the which the well-executed but by comparison conceptually basic SME could match on paper. The Rockport may indeed have the better specs -- I don't know that we know, but anyway at a certain point a few more -dB or a slightly lower % may not matter in practical terms -- but for all its engineering heroism, if it doesn't sound clearly superior at its much higher price, which TT is ultimately the better design? And why would a designer then need to go to the trouble and expense of making a direct-drive system in this day and age?
To me the real-world value of DD might be where it is right now on my gear rack: a relatively inexpensive, highly durable, low-maintainance, operationally flexible, speed-accurate, good-sounding TT for not a lot of money, that probably has significantly better specs than any belt-driver in its price range. Which drive method is allegedly "superior" at the top end of the food chain is a debate for others, and hypothetically interesting as the question may be, the evidence could point toward factors other than drive method ruling the roost at that level.
Anyway, whatever one thinks of Michael Fremer, to me it's interesting that a guy who's critically auditioned that many turntables, and proclaimed the direct-drive Rockport Sirius to be the uncontested best at the time he had it, later decided the belt-drive SME 30 (at about 1/3 the price without arm) equalled or slightly bettered it (with a Graham arm fitted). This is notable not only from the DD vs. BD perspective, but because the Rockport had an integral linear-tracking arm (Fremer has in the past has extolled not only the theoretical but the actual benefits of linear arms if properly executed), air bearings all around, an integral active isolation stand, the more complex motor controller, and was maybe 4-5 times as massive -- none of the which the well-executed but by comparison conceptually basic SME could match on paper. The Rockport may indeed have the better specs -- I don't know that we know, but anyway at a certain point a few more -dB or a slightly lower % may not matter in practical terms -- but for all its engineering heroism, if it doesn't sound clearly superior at its much higher price, which TT is ultimately the better design? And why would a designer then need to go to the trouble and expense of making a direct-drive system in this day and age?
To me the real-world value of DD might be where it is right now on my gear rack: a relatively inexpensive, highly durable, low-maintainance, operationally flexible, speed-accurate, good-sounding TT for not a lot of money, that probably has significantly better specs than any belt-driver in its price range. Which drive method is allegedly "superior" at the top end of the food chain is a debate for others, and hypothetically interesting as the question may be, the evidence could point toward factors other than drive method ruling the roost at that level.
