Is Direct Drive Really Better?

Goldmund made a direct drive table and I've heard that the final version of the Rockport was DD. A poster above mentioned the Monaco turntable that appears poised to surpass all existing turntables in measurements and sonics. The Technics SL 1200 must by now be one of the best selling tables of all time. All these things point toward a degree of superiority.
I think we were led astray by the audio press when we started to prefer belt drive categorically. I'll be interested to see if a cost no object rim drive appears. Or the long rumored Bose chain drive diesel table with direct reflecting mirrored platter mat and Gabriel suspension. And long overdue -- they intend to offer a left handed tonearm with organic butter damping.
I can't wait to see Fremer gush over that one.

Macro

I think it would be unwise to make such a conclusion based simply on a number of responses on this thread. The almost universal employment of belt drive in high end tables is more than just a mere coincidence.

A poster indicated that the use of belt drive is mostly due to cost, rather than outright sonic performance. That may very well be true, but I then would have expected to see a few more direct drives available considering the tens of thousands of dollars some tables retail for.

Regards Paul

In that case, Seandtaylor, there's only one winner - my Lenco GL75 idler wheel tt from the 60's cost me $200 after making a heavy CLD plinth for it. I sold my well set up Garrard 401, and Thorens TD160 belt drive as they were substantially worse in every way (though I wonder if the gap may have been closer with the Garrard if it had a heavy plinth also). Then I read an article in Hi Fi World magazine in which David Price (editor) trumpetted the 401 over his favorite belt drive Michell Orbe (at $5000). Heavyweight knockout or WHAT????!!! i am still amazed by my tt and endorse everything that johnantais says in his last post on the Building high end tt's at home despot thread.

I think the best course of action is to buy a turntable on the basis of the quality of sound it produces versus its cost to purchase, and to forget belt versus direct versus idler.

If you want to buy a sports car do you buy on the basis of the engine configuration (V8 versus turbo versus supercharged, versus rotary) or do you take the cars for a drive ?

Macrojack, I question your conclusion. I think a better read is that both belt and direct drive can work wonderfully, but it really depends on the implementation. One is not really better, each simply has a different set of compromises.

Some good info before the thread veered sharply downward. I'm going to conclude from this meager participation that direct drive is a better performer than belt and few people are aware of the fact. And at least one person thinks that rim drive is better yet. I wonder.

A native of Nubia.

Exactly the type of response which is routinely preyed upon...:-)

"the sweat of nubian maidens".

NOw, I'm FINALLY interested in analog playback!

Oh, I've been saving their sweat in jars in anticipation of a future windfall. Such is the soundness of most all of my investment strategies...

Naw, I really could not care less which technology is used - only about what my ears ultimately hear.

You are on VA, too. Another person who uses a separate name? That's damn confusing, I say. :-) My name over there is 4yanx. You can call me 4yanx. :-)

David

Marty - trend or no, superior technology or no, there will always be a response to a buzz. Audiophiles start talking about and yearning for DD's and idlers? One-man shop guys and DIY'ers getting good results on the cheap? Companies will never let that stand. Exisitng manufacturers or new ones (just wait) will leap into the fray with claims that THEY have the secret to unlocking the very best of whatever technology is currently sexy. Of course, as an example, only the finest titanium shafts turned on gold-plated lathes using ceramic tools whose paths are greased by the sweat of nubian maidens will do. And, by God, that costs money. Money they would just love to cleave from your wallet. Soon you have a 1200 in a $25,000 package. Just wait!

Actually, idler-drive rules. There's a reason why the Audiogon thread, "Building high end 'tables cheap at Home Despot (sic)" has over 3,100 posts and grows daily. Go all the way to the end of it and read the most recent post by Johnnantais. This is no joke.

I have to admit I love my Technics SP-10MKIII. I also have a Linn LP12, Micro Seiki 1500FVG, Teac TN400, Dual CS5000, Empire and a few others laying about. I use the Technics most but the Micro is great too.

Direct drive TTs and belt drive digital: my ticket to high end salsa music reproduction. My KAB modded Technics 1200 and Modwright modded Parasound belt drive transport are great performers in any league.

Curiously enough, I ran into my father's friend who introduced me to high end when I was in high school. I was telling him about my KAB modded Technics 1200. He had to admit that selling his Technics SP-10 for a SOTA vacuum was a mistake.

***

I think digital belt drives are high end snake oil, but I as most could never find a direct drive table within reason that could compete with a mid priced belt drive table.

What I remember about the rise of belt drive at the expense of DD was the feud between Ivor of Linn and Michael of SOTA. It went on for years to the delight of the audio press. It seemed to be staged in much the same way as the WWF feuds. It caused audiophiles to choose sides concerning which suspended table they preferred. VPI and Oracle were also both ascending and the unsuspended direct drive tables were forgotten. A few years later, digital took over.
Now that the belt drives are all going unsuspended, we're again looking at direct drive and seeing that they actually outperform even the most prestigious belts.
This is what I felt when I asked the question but I was wondering what sort of agreement or controversy I might find. So far, I have 1 noncommittal, 2 agreements and someone who thinks I'm joking. What's your opinion?

I would agree with Pabelson.

When you consider that some of the vibrations on a record groove are measured in the billionths of an inch, the importance of keeping motor vibration out becomes critical. It would seem to me that the cost and engineering of doing this with a direct drive would be prohibitive compared to a well implemented belt drive.

It's interesting that some CD player manufacturers, like CEC, use belt drives on their units.

Is this a joke?

Above a certain price point, direct drive is the superior technology. But designing and building a good direct drive unit costs a fair bit of change, which is why it was generally only attempted by companies that could amortize that cost over a large number of units--esp. your larger Japanese makers. And they're largely out of the turntable market now, save for a few really low-end units--belted, of course. The most obvious exception is the Technics 1200.

For smaller makers, belt drives are much easier to build well, so that's what they do. At the same time, they've spent the last couple of decades trash-talking direct drive, so a lot of audiophiles have heard that direct drives disappeared because they were inferior. Not so.

Direct drive, idler wheel, belt drive. There are good and bad implementations of all of these, just like suspended and non-suspended tables.

BTW, your car analogy is a bit flawed when you consider what the engine's flywheel is designed to do. A stock car will have a heavy flywheel from the factory which helps get the car going from a standing start. When I used to drag race one of the first things we did was to lighten the flywheel just enough to help get the rpm's up quickly. Too much and you had trouble getting the car off the line.