Is Direct Drive Really Better?

I would agree with Sean on this. The standard of 440Hz for A is a rather recent development as any performer of Early Music will tell you. But a minor third has always been a minor third, so it would seem (and here I risk the wrath of Raul) that pitch stability is more important than accuracy.

Hi: SM?, good point. Btw, from a pure objective approach the " numbers " are what define which audio device is better not if we can hear those " numbers ".

Here are some of those " numbers " and you will be the best judge:

Manufacturer wow&flutter speed accu.% signal/noise ratio

Belt Drive.

Basis Gold MK3...0.02...... 0.02...... 90 db
Kuzma Ref............0.05...... 0.08...... 83
Michel Gyro..........0.05...... 0.01...... 80
Sota Cosmos.........0.025..... 0.02...... 87
SME 20..................0.05...... 0.01...... 85
Voyd.....................0.004..... 0.001..... 80
VPI TNT...............0.01...... 0.01...... 90
Well Tempered ......0.01...... 0.001..... 84
Roksan Xerxes.......0.02...... -----..... 83
Linn 12/lingo...........0.03...... 0.01...... 70
Goldmund Ref........0.01...... 0.01...... 85
Micro RX5000.......0.02...... 0.015..... 84
Maplenol................0.03...... 0.003..... 80
Walker....................----...... 0.002..... --
Continuum...............----...... 0.006..... --
Townsed Ref...........0.02...... 0.01...... 85
Acoustic Signat........0.02...... 0.006..... 85

Direct Drive.

Rockport.................0.01...... 0.01...... 98
Exclusive.................0.015..... 0.001..... 95
Denon DP100.........0.02...... 0.002..... 90
Yamaha GT2000X..0.0025.... 0.002..... 85
Technics SP10MK3.0.015..... 0.001..... 92
Technics SP10MK2.0.02...... 0.001..... 86
Denon DP80............0.02...... 0.002..... 80
GPA Monaco............----...... 0.002..... --

These are the best TT " numbers " . The Idler Wheel have really poor " numbers " and the Rega and the like very poor too, on many others there is no single " number ", sorry.

Btw, it will be nice if Teres and Galibier could give us their " numbers ".

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Raul: Sorry, but the only thing one can "judge" from that list is that you spent much time and effort collating those numbers. You can list claimed specs til the cows come home however, but for many reasons it still doesn't amount to an argument (scientific or otherwise), or illuminate anything about what we hear or which drive method is "best". It just doesn't. Appreciate your witholding the "wrath of Raul" however!

Doug: Hey baby, don't go all brain-masturbatory on us now! ;^) I have to side with SDT99 and Jyprez on this one. I too have never understood the 'damage to harmonic relationships' argument, since everything changes proportionally and in unison. A 1% deviation from the way something was performed on a recording is still well within the range of variation in tempo and tuning encountered in live performance, as well as the unique harmonic structures possessed by individual examples of instruments. Personally, I think you usually have to go to a 2% - 3% deviation for the music to start sounding a bit 'funny' in absolute terms, but I grant you that system fidelity and program material selection will have an impact on that threshold. I can't quibble with your opinion of what you hear, but my own suspicion is that if you didn't play a recording with which you were already familiar, or didn't play one in close proximity to hearing it at the correct speed, a 1% steady-state error, while audible in relative terms, would not call attention to itself in isolation. This is something that of course could be blind-tested for pretty easily, and I'd lay money on getting negative results.

Zaikes: Regarding:

Albert? You getting one of these for review to go with those racks? Now there would be a DD vs. BD showdown for you.

The answer is yes. I am assigned to do the advertising photography for Grand Prix Audio for this new turntable. I will do a review too if it sounds really good.

Although, to make things fair, I wish I had a Kuzma arm to mount on the GP. Two linear trackers and belt versus direct drive. As it stands I could get a Schroeder, an SME and maybe a Morch. Will have to wait and see.

Cool. Of course, even with a linear arm there'd still be the difference of air-bearings vs. conventional bearings. And at this level, I'd frankly expect resonant signature to trump drive type overall (you'd think that would be a strong point for anything from Grand Prix), but suspect each will have its strengths. If it's even close to a draw though, that would tend to support the view that DD can't be dismissed on nothing but facile principle. If it's not even in close in favor of the Walker however, it would probably be unfair to draw general conclusions regarding drive type.

It’s not possible to rule out all the variables in this audition. Even assuming the Walker and GP with the EXACT same cartridge (my Koetsu Jade Platinum Signature), one of these tone arms may favor the Jade more or less than another.

Then, add in my personal taste as well as how my own system is tuned with my current Walker Proscenium as the reference.

I've always loved linear trackers, owned at least seven 'em. Of course everyone says the latest designs from Schroeder and Morch are supposed to give linear track a run for their money. Factor in cost and we have an impossible task.

I think the best I could do is explain what I hear in my system and let everyone decide if it means anything or not. What's important is we are all discussing how great analog is. I think that's more important than WHICH system work for each person.

Albert,
I think that's a tremendous observation. A lot of people bickering about a subset and we've perhaps forgotten that we are all talking because of our agreement on a larger point which is the benefits of analog. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

Raul,
I'm in general agreement that measured numbers determine the accuracy, but I will take issue on one small nit-picky area.

Lumping of wow and flutter is misleading, because I suspect that the frequency distribution of the wow and flutter noise will have a very pronounced effect on the perception of sound quality, just as it does with digital jitter.

I could have a table that had lousy wow measurement at 0.5Hz, but I suspect it would be much more pleasant to listen to than a better measured table with wow around 2kHz, right in the midband.

I truly believe in measurements and a scientific approach to audio, but often the most difficult thing is knowing exactly what to measure.

This has been a really fascinating debate, by the way, and I hope one day I'll have the time and/or the money to try a few more of the tables out there.

Just a thought. How many YEARS passed before it was recognized that one side of Miles' "Kind of Blue" was recorded and released off-speed? When the second side, recorded at the right speed, was available for comparison all the time? So much for our sensitivity to speed accuracy.

Upon mature reflection, I have to say that my last post is about as relevant as Raul's numbers :-)

Dopogue: That thought had occurred to me as well, and I think it's a perfectly legit observation. But I'm probably more immature than you ;^)

Macrojack: If I say I didn't think we were "bickering", will it sound like bickering?

Have gone thru almost all the posts here, and was hard to me to find the insolation effect thet belt drive brings to the motor and for the platter. May that be the answer why belt drive units sound "better" than direct drive ones? (just guessing)

Fernando

This is good. Real good.

This topic belongs in the Audiogon Hall of Fame. Absolutely brilliant stuff here (if you exclude my posts).

Flg2001, in order to make such a blanket statement you will have to have heard every direct drive and every belt drive TT in existence. And then it would be your opinion against someone elses. I like both types and own both.

Like the turntable itself, this topic goes round and round.

"Like the turntable itself, this topic goes round and round."

Did you buy an SP-10 or a Lenco yet ? If not why not ? :-)

Dear Zaikesman: +++++ " or illuminate anything about what we hear or which drive method is "best". " +++++

I think that you don't read carefully what I posted about, here it is:

+++++ " Btw, from a pure objective approach the " numbers " are what define which audio device is better not if we can hear those " numbers ". " +++++

Come on!!!!

I respect your opinion but you have a misunderstood about. I'm talking of " numbers " ( objective approach ) in an absolute concept/terms and you ( like always ) are talking in a subjective point of view . Two very differents things.

At least and in an absolute concept/terms of objective approach: " numbers ", we have answers about this thread and with your subjective approach we don't have any.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Raul: I don't want to beat, strangle, shoot, drown, and blow up a dead horse, BUT...

> I don't excpect you to be familiar with my collected works on Audiogon, but anyone who's read me around here over the years could tell you that I am hardly a pure subjectivist. I often raise questions concerning what it is audiophiles think they hear, what they prefer, how they arrive at those subjective determintations, and the influence of technical ignorance and psychology. I'm all for whatever degree of objectivity is obtainable or practical.

> I do think measurements are important, for audiophiles both as a check on quality and as information to help us understand what we hear, and of course for product designers they are essential tools of the trade

Having said that, I also think numbers can be misleading under several circumstances, such as...

> If there is little or no correlelation established between what is being measured and what we can hear

> If there is no test devised capable of measuring some aspect of what we can hear

> If the tests performed omit covering some measureable aspects which probably do correlate with what we can hear

> If a test measures something that bears little useful resemblence to playing music

> If the measurements we are comparing are those claimed by manufacturers under unknown or unverifiable test conditions, not independently obtained using a uniform test procedure

> When tests that measure the wrong thing, or fail to measure the right thing, are misrepresented as the authoritative determinants of performance

When it comes to the turntable specs you've listed, there are several pitfalls evident:

> These are manufacturer numbers, unverifiable and taken under unknown test conditions which it is reasonable to assume were not always uniform

> Even if all the numbers were valid, they may not be representive of all samples of these products that we might audition or pertain under all real-world conditions

> We do not know whether or to what degree the small differences between the numbers correlate with audible performance

> Numbers for wow, flutter, and rumble do not define the universe of possible quantifiers of turntable performance, they only relate to certain aspects of it

> And in any case, wow & flutter and rumble numbers tell us only about aggregate quantity -- nothing about the actual spectral or temporal qualities of the distortions. So, identical numbers for two different turntables can in fact represent different behavior and therefore possibly sound.

You wrote: "From a pure objective approach, the 'numbers' are what define which audio device is better, not if we can hear those 'numbers'." This is a fallacy, for some of the reasons I've listed above, and even if you discount the importance of being able to hear everything that is measureable. If you believe that measurements always objectively define what is better, then you simply don't know enough about the numbers, what they mean or might mean, and what they don't mean or might not mean. As the movie said, "A man's got to know his limitations", and that goes for a man's numbers too.

Dear Sean: +++++ " I truly believe in measurements and a scientific approach to audio, but often the most difficult thing is knowing exactly what to measure. " +++++

I agree with you.

Btw, in the TT subject and from the objective approach it is a fact that we can only " work " with the " numbers " that are on hand: there are no others!!!!...

Now, there is no single approach that is right: objective or subjective, we have to take from both and bring the best for each one to our priorities.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

As I mentioned before, I think that the quality of implementation of the design can have as much, or more, effect as the design itself. Especially in these very high end tables which will all exhibit very good performance.

If a manufacturer does well at overcoming the basic flaws of any design, it may well outperform a one of another equally good(or better) design that is less well-implemented.

Also, I reject "wow and flutter" statistics, unless the separate "wow" and "flutter" components are individually stated, because they are very different types of speed variations, and should not be lumped together in a single specification.

Regarding my earlier posting statement about "tunnel vision", I still say that one cannot make a meaningful conclusion about a turntable's performance by one factor alone, including drive system. I could say that a Saturn V rocket can go faster than a Ferrari, but you can't drive a Saturn V rocket on the road. All aspects of the design must be considered.

If you want my answer, I can say that all forms of drive systems have the capability of being "the best", depending upon how well they are designed, and how well they are implemented. However, they may require very different approaches that are required to deal with the very different problems associated with each type of drive system.

In the end, it is the one that provides the most pleasurable musical experience for the listener that owns it, that will be "the best". And that also includes the price range, because if a listener cannot afford it, it is of little consequence to him how great it may be.

"...in the TT subject and from the objective approach it is a fact that we can only 'work' with the 'numbers' that are on hand: there are no others!"

There could be others, they're just not taken or not published. But I presume there's no technical reason, beyond a lack of will or resources, why turntable reviews couldn't include detailed measurements of speed distortions, noise, and resonant behavior that take into account spectra and duration, not just simple amplitude, as well as frequency and transient response/distortion at the output.

The status quo however is that turntable reviews (and cartridge and tonearm reviews) include no measured test results whatsoever. This is unfortunate, because I believe there can be a salutory effect on the product marketplace stemming from public accountability for technical performance claims and the availability of comparison data. It might be interesting if Teres would be willing to share with us some idea of what kinds of measurements are taken as part of a manufacturer's design and testing process that aren't normally published for consumer consumption.

Having been brought to my mathematical senses, I concede the point (obvious to all but me) that harmonic relationships do not change with an absolute speed change, provided the speed is stable of course.

Makes me wonder what we're hearing though. We're doing a few experiments and (gasp!) measurements. Stay tuned.

Doug, I can save you some time.

LP's are 12 inches, smaller 45's are 7 inches. Now there's no need for you to measure.

"Makes me wonder what we're hearing though"

IMO, either you're...

1) Not hearing what you expect to hear, based on extensive personal experience with the records tested

2) Hearing what there is to hear, based on the fact that you just played the record at the correct speed, and know which one is which

3) Hearing what you do expect to hear, based on your preconceptions about what effect will be wrought by a 1% speed change

...or some combo of the above. The acid test of this perception would be to use unfamiliar recordings and a helper, having them played back for you blind at both the correct speed and 1% off, to see whether you can consistently identify which playback is correct and which is fast or slow. I think this would probably be an exercise in futility though, maybe even at 2% in many instances, or even higher with some other types of music.

NO! Just PLAY records, people!!!!

Welcome elaboration on measurement process, equipment etc...

For me anyway, this thread has at least highlighted that better(relevant/reproduceable) measurements are desirable to help in evaluating performance. Few of us have the time, funds or inclination to properly test in an after-market environment. Reading countless personal opinions with limited awareness of setup variables or preferences makes user comments quite a gamble.

I would like one more considered on top of sound quality is drive quality(e.g. mean time between failures or failure rates and ability to FIX!). This may be one area where BD's provide another more cost effective attribute/convenience, er maybe not if they fail much more.

Hope this debate continues. Nice read. Carry on.

NO! Just PLAY records, people!!!!

Should have been a line in John Lennon's famous entreaty...

Listen and let your ears decide. What else matters?

Albert,

That pretty much settles the measurement issues. Thanks!

Thanks Doug :^).

hmmm. Rega tables are positioned in the "musical" side of the audio spectrum, and run at a little higher speed than normal (+1%-1.25% according to some measurments in the audio press).

Technics SP10 are Quartz-accurate, and are placed in the analytic side of the same audio spectrum.

No Rwwear, I have not (and pray god will neber have the time to) listen ALL direct drive tables and ALL belt drive tables - I am one more that places my audio preferenes to understand why an artist decided to place in music emotions.

Agreed with Twl and other´s comments regarding vinyl format superiority above other available formats (many years since I have not heard 15IPS R2R), and arriving to the conclusion that this vinyl will become more and more a niched-market source among this industry.

More food for thinking - Differences in price on ttables reflect less a sonic superiority compared to CD players, meaning - a decent entry level table/cart/arm combo (let´s say $750.00 US) brings one closer to a great musical experience than an entry level CDP of say, the same ammount of investment, and Rwwear, I have not heard ALL 750 US CDPs and ALL 759 US tables. :)

Enjoy

Fernando

Dear Zaikesman: +++++ " There could be others, " +++++

I agree but that is not the point.

+++++ " The status quo however is that turntable reviews (and cartridge and tonearm reviews) include no measured test results whatsoever. This is unfortunate, because I believe there can be a salutory effect on the product marketplace stemming from public accountability for technical performance claims and the availability of comparison data. " +++++

I agree too. We need a come back to " Audio magazin e "!!!!

++++ " It might be interesting if Teres would be willing to share with us some idea of what kinds of measurements are taken as part of a manufacturer's design and testing process that aren't normally published for consumer consumption. " +++++

Yes, it will be interesting and not only from Teres but for other designers like Walker ( Rushton, Albert: Can you help about? ). Btw, for what I read about the Walker TT, including the very long and very interesting review-interview in 6Moons ( I think ), Mr. Walker never mentioned any Proscenium measurements ( top secret? ): Albert-Mike-Rushton, do you know if something exist about?.

Btw, I will be really surprised if those measurements exist not only from Walker but from other TT manufacturers and here I will be very happy to be wrong.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Let's all pray you will have the time Fernando. Just use your time for more profitable pursuits.

Dear TWL: +++++ " And that also includes the price range, because if a listener cannot afford it, it is of little consequence to him how great it may be. " +++++

I totally agree. The price subject is really important for all of us and to have a different point of view about TTs: how much we need to paid for almost the same quality on a DD and BD system?

If we take a look, only with the " numbers/specs " that we have on hand, it seems to me that the BD system is more expensive than the DD systems ( other than Rockport ). We can have a SP10 for 400.00 with out base/tonearm !!!!!!!!

I can put on a contest one of my Sp 10s ( against any BD one ) where I invest around: 2K, this include: Sp 10, marble base, Pneumatic Audio technica footers, Vacuum Audio Technica platter, mods on the external power supply, tonearm, tiptoe like between the SP 10 and the marble base, etc, etc. This TT could be a " sound surprise " for many of us.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

I would like to add my two cents to this forum for it seems to me there is an important assumption that is overlooked in the discussion. The assumption is that all people have (more or less) the same pitch sensitivity. So much so that we (audiophiles) can rely on each others’ experience and opinions whether a certain design is pitch accurate or not. Well, from my experience, audiophiles are less reliable than other people in noticing pitch problems (and, more generally, wow and flutter). I could try to explain this phenomenon but this is not my concern here. My concern here is only to say that when people claim that belt drive is better or worst than DD or idler wheel, they either rely on theory or on their own ears, and neither should be trusted too much. I have seen it happen that a group of audiophiles were so impressed with the resolution of a system, its dynamic impact or its huge soundstage, that the fact that the turntable was completely off pitch evaded their notice. This is why I think that at least in this department, measurements are mandatory (although people should also take heed of the fact that measurements are done on test records, not what we actually listen to).

The problem is made worse by the fact that there is another factor which affects wow and flutter: the compliance of arm and cartridge, and also, (what I have learned only recently), the vibrations coming from the turntable. So perfect speed stability of turntable might not be enough.

Now from my experience, belt drives do indeed have pitch problems, but some more than others. For example, I have a suspicion that some of the pitch problems I have had with my Nottingham Analogue Space-Deck are due to its LONG belt (people who are saying the NA is accurate notwithstanding since I have heard the same problems at my local dealer’s showroom). Shorter belt designs, like Linn and Rega, might have an advantage here, in my view, but this is theory so take it with a grain of salt. My experience, on the other hand, with the Rega showed it had a serious pitch problem whereas the only Linn I have heard was hooked to the Lingo, and it sounded quite accurate, as far as I remember. So Power supplies are also important, but I resent the fact that after you spend a few thousand dollars on a high-end turntable, you still need to add more to play it accurately.

As for the Lenco's mentioned above, I have now two 75's and one 78 (NOS) in my home, NONE of them plays accurately. I already cleaned and oiled them, put on a refurbished idler wheel (new rubber) and nothing helped. I mentioned the tonearm - compliance issue above: the flutter is most pronounced when I use a Rega rb-250 arm, a bit less with SME 3009III, and least with Lenco's own arm and cartridge. Go figure. Now my audiobody tells me I should use a power line filter but, again, I believe a good turntable should play accurately out of the box, so to speak. I am therefore somewhat puzzled when I read the comments above that the Lenco is as accurate as the Technics sp-10. Not the ones I have here, and this is quite a representative sample, I believe. .

No to DD's: the most accurate turntable I have heard so far is the Goldmund Studio. To my ears it is CD accurate. I sold it to my audiobody since my wife didn't like its coloration (yes, from the motor). Indeed, compared to the NA it is VERY colored. But the fact is that whenever I want to listen to accurate piano music and no jitter (from my CD player, that is, which does play perfect pitch) I go to visit my friend. I wanted to buy it back from him but he is not willing to let it go. He sold his modern belt-drive deck and seems to be happy with it. So this says something about good DD. And so I’m still searching for a turntable that will be both neutral sounding like the NA, and pitch accurate like the Goldmund. I heard that (as some mentioned here) the heavy-platter ones are the way to go. But I still need to listen to one of them WITH MY OWN EARS. Sorry, I don't trust audiophiles anymore.

To my ears it is CD accurate.

Sorry, I don't trust audiophiles anymore.

Me neither. ;-)

I see this thread keeps on going! Actually Taviran, I didn't write that the Lencos were "as" accurate as SP10s, I wrote they were "more" accurate! Heard it in more than one system too. The Lencos are unresponsive to power-line tricks too, in my experience. But rather than encourage you to track the problem down, I'd rather you contact me so I can take them off your hands, especially the NOS one!

I'd add that with your experience you are by definition an audiophile, so logically I guess we can't trust you either. The French make a distinction between types of audiophile: those who love the equipment for the music they can produce, placing the music/software first, are called "melomane"; and those who love the equipment for the detail/information it can extract, thus focusing on the equipment more than the music/software (buying LPs based strictly on how they make a system sound is not "melomane" but equipment-oriented), are simply "audiophiles". Both know more about stereo equipment than your average bear, and so are forms of audiophile.

Johnnantais:

"types of audiophile: those who love the equipment for the music they can produce, placing the music/software first, are called "melomane"; and those who love the equipment for the detail/information it can extract, thus focusing on the equipment more than the music/software"

Maybe it's just the way you put it in translation, but to me this is a false distinction. All are audiophiles because all "love the equipment". (Personlly, I think I've passed the point where I can love my equipment for its own sake, perhaps only doing so when it's playing music the way I want it to, but maybe I just own the wrong equipment.) To me, the amount of information your equipment can extract, as you put it, from your recordings is a good 75% of the reason for doing any of this in the first place, with the other 25% falling to that equipment's intrinsic "sound" which is not on the recording. At least that's if we're doing this right.

"I see this thread keeps on going!"

Oh yeah, you're a great one to talk! ;^)

Just a question about this discussion.

Let's say that we somehow determine what kind of drive system has the best speed control. Determined through accepted measurements which group wow and flutter together. Even though it is patently apparent that most here do not even differentiate between the very different nature of wow or flutter components of these speed variations. Or what ramifications are involved with either of those variation types, as regards our hearing sensitivity.

What are we to do with that information?

Are we going to extrapolate that all forms of that type of drive system are then superior to all other forms? Or that no other type of drive system can compete, even at various levels of price?

And then are we going to look at all the other things that encompass a TT drive system, which are all equally important as the speed control? Such as vibration-induced information loss or exaggeration? Main bearing design? Platter construction? Etc?

Or are we going to blindly fly out and buy some form of that drive system, like lemmings over the cliff?

And, mind you, that what may measure best today, may be exceeded tomorrow by something else. Life at the top is fleeting. And remember, measuring the best very often does not equate to sounding the best.

I've lived with components in my system which are all far below the pinnacle of performance for many years, and still do today. Am I disappointed with my system? No, to the contrary I'm very happy with it because it makes music very nicely.

Unless you are willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars chasing the end of the rainbow(that you'll never reach), I'd suggest finding a nice group of components you can live with, and enjoy your music on them.

Lately, the audiophile climate is reminding me more and more of the late 70's and early 80's, with spec wars and the resulting poor performance that came with them.

Dear Taviran: +++++ " resolution of a system, its dynamic impact or its huge soundstage, that the fact that the turntable was completely off pitch evaded their notice. This is why I think that at least in this department, measurements are mandatory. " +++++

This is a normal situation between all of us audiophiles: our ears are perfectly " equalized " to our audio system, many of us can't hear the pitch differences. One of my point about is that people not attend to live music concert frequently, they usually heard the music through their own systems or through other friend systems and their ears are totally system " equalized ": there is no space to " pitch ".
Yes, I agree that measurements are mandatory., unfortunatelly no one TT designer cares about it: I wonder which were the TT design targets of those designers or against what they know that achieve it?. Obviously they trust in the " ears " that are really untrusty: ???????

++++ " Now from my experience, belt drives do indeed have pitch problems, but some more than others. " +++++ Of course. I already work hard with the power supply of my BD TTs to try to lower that problem. Certainly the SP 10s are better on this subject.

About the Lenco I appreciate the Johnnantais passion and that's why he think that the Lenco is better than the SP 10: Johnnantais bring with you your Lenco against one of my SP 10 and we will see.

Regards and enjoy the music.
raul.

Tom:

"it is patently apparent that most here do not even differentiate between the very different nature of wow or flutter components of these speed variations. Or what ramifications are involved with either of those variation types, as regards our hearing sensitivity"

I think "most" is "patently" not the word to describe the number of posters on this thread who actually disagree with your position here.

"Are we going to extrapolate that all forms of that type of drive system are then superior to all other forms? Or that no other type of drive system can compete, even at various levels of price?"

Isn't that basically what happened with belt-drive?

"are we going to blindly fly out and buy some form of that drive system, like lemmings over the cliff?"

Isn't that basically what happened with belt-drive?

I appreciate your arguments and knowledge, and yes, the question asked in the thread-head is maybe a bit overstated in order to be provocative, but IMO defending belt-drive doesn't require setting up a straw man. I will be interested to learn what you think of the Teres DD when the time comes, even if you might not be a customer for one.

"Are we going to extrapolate that all forms of that type of drive system are then superior to all other forms? Or that no other type of drive system can compete, even at various levels of price?"

Isn't that basically what happened with belt-drive?

It certainly DID but, exactly, not basically!!

Unless you are willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars chasing the end of the rainbow(that you'll never reach), I'd suggest finding a nice group of components you can live with, and enjoy your music on them.

This should be chiseled into tablets somewhere.

Lately, the audiophile climate is reminding me more and more of the late 70's and early 80's, with spec wars and the resulting poor performance that came with them.

Truly.

No, I really don't think that is what happened with belt drive. And, I'm not really "defending" belt drive, as much as I'm being cautious about placing too much emphasis on one spec that is taken "in a vacuum" regardless of other important issues that are involved.

Regarding belt drive, and its adoption to the "head of the class" during the period just prior to the introduction of the CD, I think it is quite apparent that these certain belt drive turntables proved their mettle against the crop of direct drive tables of the period. With the lone exception of the Goldmund tables, the belt drive tables "ruled" for sonic quality.

Now, obviously, since the Goldmund and some other direct drive tables have showed excellence, then it cannot be said that any one particular drive technology was "best". However, after the introduction of the CD, when most turntables were being made by small manufacturers, it was easier and probably less costly to implement a good quality drive system with a belt drive, than it was with a direct drive. Making a good direct drive turntable is costly, or else it must be made in enough quantity to mass-manufacture, such as was done by Panasonic in the late 70's with the Technics tables, and to some extent the Denon turntables were also mass-manufactured. This allowed the direct drive tables to have the cost amortized over larger numbers in sales, and provided the costlier direct drive technology to a more "budget-minded" clientele.

In fact, exept for the Goldmund, all the top audiophile tables up until the Rockport were all belt drive tables. Even with the introduction of the Rockport, it was still a tossup between whether the Rockport or the Walker(or a few other high-dollar belt drive tables) was actually preferred.

Even with the Walker being over $20K, it was still 1/3 the cost of the Rockport. I know several people who preferred the belt drive Walker over the direct-drive Rockport. So, even at $75k, direct drive was not a "clear winner" over a belt drive table costing "only" 1/3 as much.

So, what do we have here?
We have a muddle.
Some belt drives are better than some direct drives.
Some direct drives are better than some belt drives.
And let's not forget Jean's beloved idler-wheel drives, which some like better than both direct drive or belt drive.

What is the answer?
The answer is the implementation of whichever technology is selected.

You can't make a decision about the superiority of any one type of drive system alone, without considering the overall implementation(which also encompasses many other things besides just speed control and it's way of being measured).

One specification "in a vacuum" without regard to all the other important factors is useless, except for the entertainment of the debaters.

So, what do we have here?
We have a muddle.
Some belt drives are better than some direct drives.
Some direct drives are better than some belt drives.
And let's not forget Jean's beloved idler-wheel drives, which some like better than both direct drive or belt drive.

That may be the milieu right now, today, Tom, but with all due respect, a few years ago, when I got back into vinyl, nearly everyone on this site was trumpeting the superiority of belt drives, uber alles, no exceptions (OK, except some VERY stratosphere-priced tables). Further, one was rudely ridiculed for even ASKING anything differently. It was the marketing line and MANY bought into it hook, line, and stinker. Now, I am not siding with one approach in all cases becasue I have heard the good and bad of all. However, to deny the Zaikeman theory regarding the belt-drive zealots is to engage in revisionist history. :-)

4yanx,
I certainly agree that the "belt drive zealots" do exist, and I number among them, although I am quite willing to consider any table that sounds better than what I have now.

However, it would have to sound better, and not just have some particularly low "wow and flutter" measurement to get my attention.

Perhaps I'm calling this incorrectly, but it certainly appears to me that there is an underlying meaning to this measurement activity(and maybe not so "underlying" at that). Generally, the root of it is to make some specification be the determining factor in purchasing, so as to "make it easier" to decide what to buy. Such as, "this turntable 'X' has incredibly low measured 'wow and flutter', which certainly would mean that it sounds better than a turntable with some slightly higher measured levels". That's what is concerning me.
At least, that is what it led to in the past, and to some extent, it still is used by some for that.

Please let me elaborate.
When measurements become the benchmark for purchasing decisions, companies then build their equipment to do well at the measurement protocol, and not necessarily to sound good. This is because when a "spec race" occurs, it means a better bottom-line for a manufacturer to appear very good at this spec, in order to make sales.
There is historical proof for this, such as the "spec wars" that occured in the 70's and 80's with the THD specifications in amplifiers.
The "THD spec" became the benchmark for what amplifier would be purchased by a consumer, with the ostensible "reason" being that if the THD was lower, or even virtually non-exisitent, that the amplifier would be the best-sounding one, or even "perfect" because there was virtually no distortion measured, IN THE MEASUREMENT PROTOCOL.
As we all now know, this protocol consisted of comparing signal-in to signal-out and the difference would be termed "distortion", WHEN TESTED ON AN UNCHANGING 8-OHM TEST LOAD RESISTOR AS THE OUTPUT LOAD, WITH AN UNCHANGING STEADY SINE-WAVE SIGNAL INPUT.
Please forgive the history lesson, for those who already are aware of this.
The result was that amplifier manufacturers began dumping huge amounts of negative feedback(local and/or global) into the amps, so that all the measured distortion became so ridiculously low that it was considered much lower than anyone could ever perceive, and thus the signal output was considered "perfect". Naturally, at no time did sound quality ever intrude into this quest for "the best specs", because whatever came out of a "perfect amplifier" would surely be "perfect", right? As we know now, that was terribly wrong.
The measurement protocols were not designed to measure the amplifier when it was playing music. Therefore, the feedback ruined the sound quality of the amps, and it became apparent that some amps that "tested terribly" sounded remarkably better than the "perfect" amps.

Trying not to get too verbose, going back into this kind of mind-set by "leaning" on artificial number specifications is a very dangerous road to embark upon. It leads away from the desired end of musical performance to the ear, and leads toward the end of maximizing to a test procedure.

Those who do not learn from history are destined to re-live it.

That is all.
Twl out.

Trying not to get too verbose, going back into this kind of mind-set by "leaning" on artificial number specifications is a very dangerous road to embark upon. It leads away from the desired end of musical performance to the ear, and leads toward the end of maximizing to a test procedure.

I couldn't agree more, I was only agreeing with what I thought Zaikesman was saying and that is that belt-drive zealots have been telling evryone that their "drive" is superior for awhile now and that they should not act holier than thou if things start to swing another way. (not that either camp would be "right")

I must apologize. It is "audiobuddy" of course.

I don't disagree with any of what Tom has said here, but I do think it would be reactionary to suppose that there is a looming "specs war" afoot regarding turntables. First of all, almost the entire market today for the type of turntables we are talking about consists of audiophiles, and that is not analogous to the situation with mass-market amps in the 70's. (In fact, I believe I'm correct in saying that the THD wars were one of the driving forces behind the true emergence of "the high end" as an alternative, and essentially separate, market for audiophiles.)

Secondly, just because specs were abused or misused once, and we learned to be wary of them, doesn't mean that all measurements are worthless (not that Tom said they were). The wow & flutter measurement could certainly stand some improvement as a protocol, but there's nothing wrong with the idea of meausuring turntable speed-distortion, both quantitatively and qualitatively, and trying to correlate that with audible performance and manufacturing and design practices.

And I think there's no quibbling that in theory, a turntable with lower and/or more benign speed-distortions is better *in that respect* than one with higher and/or more malign speed-distortions. Unlike with amp THD, I don't think there's anybody ready to argue that certain kinds of TT speed-distortions are actually euphonic or restorative in some way, or that designing to lower them will necessarily compromise some other area of performance. (In fact, all ultra-premium TT's are ostensibly designed to minimize speed-distortions, whether they succeed or not.)

Also, there's a difference between independent testing and "specs", given by manufacturers and often not worth the paper they're printed on -- especially regarding analog transducers (think speakers) -- in terms of reliability, stating of parameters, or use of a consistent industry protocol. Since turntables (and cartridges) have become such an essential feature of the audiophile landscape once again, the fact that none of these often-expensive components gets measured seems a dereliction of duty by the audiophile press. (Well, I guess by Stereophile anyway, but it seems unfair to single them out just because they're almost the only audiophile publication remaining that tests for anything at all anymore.) I think it would give particular insight to test turntable resonance, showing spectral distribution, amplitude and duration of inherent modes, and resistance to external stimulus.

Zaikesman,
I agree, as long as everything is done properly in the testing, that a good turntable speed consistency is a good thing. Of course, also in keeping with all the other necessary attributes.

I only bring up the caution to not get into a "tunnel vision" approach to things.

Maybe I'm being paranoid, but I have been around audiophiles long enough to know that they tend to get "extremist" about certain things. I think it is important to emphasize good overall performance of the system as a whole. Because a very good overall implementation may very well outperform an implementation that excels only in one area.

Not trying to put a damper on things, but just trying to bring a note of caution into the discussion.