I see here a lot of simple prejudice: belt-drivers argue what things "should" sound like and why certain aspects "should not" make any difference, in the absence of having seriously tested and heard the alternatives, if at all. These defend their system simply because they own them and not the alternatives. Direct drivers - like Psychic animal - continue to declare DD the best, in the absence of having heard idler-wheel drives, though they feel free to make use of my findings and reasoning, to defend their own system, which they have invested in. In the absence of having heard the alternatives, like belt-drivers, they prepare to make major investments in their chosen system. Chris Brady continues to casually lump idler-wheel drives with belt-drives in the Inferiority Sweepstakes, again I suspect in the absence of having heard the reality, and he is coincidentally preparing to release a DD.
Theories must be tested empirically to verify the truth of a matter: if experiment contradicts a theory (i.e. proves it wrong), then theory must be abandoned or seriously altered. What I wrote up above: "Then there is your message here - "The best of our efforts will compete with turntables costing many times more, and we have friends that can attest to this fact. In some ways, they sound better, especially in the lower end and in that indefinable pleasure factor. I am neither an engineer nor a psychologist so I will not try to explain the boogie factor these tables seem to have." The fact that you can hear this, and it is repeatable from Lenco to Lenco despite differences in plinth materials, design and weight, points to something in the Lenco proper which accounts for this: it is superior speed stability, which in its turn underlines lack of same in belt-drives. It is, being audible, an empirical fact, and being audible there is a physical reason for it, no need for psychology beyond the human ear's EXTREME sensitivity to pitch (speed stability). It has speed stability which is superior to that of the belt-drives you have heard or compared it to." What Chris Brady then posted: "I have concluded that speed stability is one of the most important factors in turntable sound quality. For that matter it is also one of the key performance factors in digital audio. It is well known and accepted that digital jitter significantly degrades sound quality. What is remarkable about digital jitter is that such extraordinarily small timing errors could be audible at all. The message here is that our ears are far more sensitive to timing errors than with amplitude errors. With analog the principle and effects of jitter/timing errors are essentially the same. In both cases waveforms are being reconstructed and timing errors create similar distortions. Distortions that for some reason are much more audible than one might expect." Same thing, I have known about this since I frst heard an idler-wheel drive and have been promoting it ever since: i.e. I was confronted by the evidence, which is why I harp on about empirical science and experiment, not on-paper theories, which must bow to empirical realities, and not lead them.
Those who continue to blindly promote their own systems in the absence of experience are cheating themselves of an ear-opening experience, and those who invest in a system in the absence of context may find themselves backing the wrong horse, find themselves in financial difficulties, and with serious egg on their faces. Consider the following scenario: with much foofarah an expensive DD is released on the market, and a DIY Lenco shows up which simply crushes it at an audio show, thus crushing any hope for a financial future. Now you may doubt this, but such demonstrations are coming, and you'd better be prepared. I advise you to listen to the alternatives (making every effort to optimize and not rig the experiment by casually and sloppily setting up one system and perfecting the other) before making any decisions. Now, when I was converted to idler-wheel drive, I already owned two highly-regarded belt-drives, I had no reason to convert (in fact the reverse considering the investment in expensive belt-drives). I went out of my way to purchase and restore a Technics SP10 MKII, one of the best DDs ever made, and compare it to the Lencos. The differences were not small, and I have since heard comparisons several times. I have also tried several other heavy statement DDs. Has anyone here done the same?
From a similar discussion a year ago:
"In a word, the sound is "magical", and because, in two words: "speed stability". I will here plagiarize my own text under my "system": "The idler-wheel-drive Garrard 301 grease-bearing was the 'table used by Sugano in the design of his Koetsus, and the Lencos are far easier to repair and restore, and may in fact sound better (more refined while preserving the traditional idler-wheel strengths of unparalleled attack and bass speed and power), for a variety of reasons. Idler wheel drives in general were originally designed to overcome stylus force drag, as in their day cartridges tracked at 10 grams. As tracking forces diminished, idler-wheel drives became more refined, but retained their resistance to stylus drag. As time went on and VTF dropped to below 2 grams, it was thought stylus drag could be combated by the simple use of mass, and not the brute force of rumbly idler-wheel drives, which were discredited, even though their rumble figures were in fact better than those of the then-rising Linn LP12. If you remember your history, you will remember that CD as well was touted by the majority of the press and the industry as superior to the previous technology, vinyl. The Lencos do not rumble, and they prove that in fact it does take a certain amount of (refined) brute force to counteract the all-too-audible problem of stylus drag, which belt-drives are ill-equipped to combat, their Achilles Heel being their belts and weak motors. This is clearly audible in the attack of a Lenco (or large Garrard), the tremendous bass reach (bottomless) and bass detail of a Lenco (which affects both air and imaging), and of course its perfect timing and speed stability under real-world conditions (actually playing a record)."
Now I do not tout the Lenco and the idler-wheel technology it represents merely because I own one, I also own or have owned both high-end belt-drives (Maplenoll Ariadne, Audiomeca) and direct-drives (Technics SP10 MKII, Sony 2250) and a host of others, and so I have actually bought and owned the various drive systems available out there, at very high levels of performance: and the Lenco beats them all by a wide margin, which you should pause to think about, given the Law of Diminishing Returns (should high-end 'tables be so easily and completely and without sonic price beaten?). I am being very scientific, enlisting the world in a global empirical experiment, to decide the issue of which drive system is in fact better. Now while it is politically correct and nicey-nicey to go around saying there is no superior system and it is a matter of taste because there are always compromises and so forth, I say that's all very well, but is it true? Is no system in fact superior? Participants from around the world have declared the Lenco superior to a host of current high-end belt-drives which they in fact owned, and so like me had no reason to declare inferior. The experiment continues. It's cheap to participate and have fun with it! Cost of entry is minimal, give it a try!"
And before you proceed to crucify me, remember my messsage is simple: I do not blindly claim the Lenco is the best, I challenge the world to hear one for themselves and let their ears decide, I put my money where my mouth is, and I make gargantuan efforts to help people in the execution of the experiment so they can decide for themselves. My message is simply : try it first, and THEN decide. This is the heart of empirical science, the search for truth. Or you can continue to argue the superiority of your systems without actually investigating them.
