My personal experience with Direct Drive versus Belt Drive
This is my personal , yet limited experience, with a DD versus Belt Drive. This A/B took place in the same system. with literally the same tonearm. I am choosing not to mention brands at this point. I feel by keeping the brand out of the discussion, anyone who contributes to the the thread (myself included), can be a bit more forthcoming. I am not big on audiophile jargon, so I will keep this short and sweet. I started with DD, in a system which I was very familiar with. The room of course, was different. The DD struck me as near perfect. I could hear the starting and stopping on a dime, and the near perfect timing that many have associated with the DD. It didn't take long at all for me to conclude this was not my cup of tea. It satisfied my brain, but didn't move my heart. Maybe I was used to the imperfect sound of belt drives, and it was indeed that imperfection, that made for an emotional experience. Who knows? (-: Fast forward to the belt drive.... Again, same actual arm. It sounded more analog to me. Decay was much more easy to hear, along with subtle spatial cues. Was it the less than perfect timing, that was allowing me to now hear these things I could not with the DD? I have no clue! What I was sure about was the emotion of the music had returned.
Thanks for your input as well, I really appreciate. Have you thought using lighter platters, they may very well be easier to control speed stability ? I will try one in near future. Btw, my FFYX 12 kg platter is magnetically levitated. I highly recommend trying (this) maglev platter, it´s practically frictionless (when pulley released from contact to rubber band the platter spins five minutes after stop). And don´t be fooled by that cheap price, it´s really a high quality product from far east.
Lew, my system photos with all the info have been in public for years, I thought that was obvious.
What a blast of info, thank you. You surely are an experimenter :) I knew audiophiles have been experimenting with strings but never though using broad VHS tape to spin a platter. I burst out laughing imagining two platters spinning in harmony powered by an idler in between. Well, that´s the best part, doing crazy yet fundamental things when experimenting, isn´t it. Luxman decks have straight vertical platters, so VHS tape will work just nicely. I have never before spliced and glued VHS tape, so it would be very interesting too. Appropriate tension of tape is essential, much like the pressure of my Salvation delrin pulley on rubber belt on my platter for correct and solid speed.
Your experiments have made you understand more what these drive methods are all about in influencing on sound. " Most tables vary so differently from each other in those 3 things that no wonder they all sound so different, not to mention dozens other sound changing things. That’s why I say all three drive systems capable of making good sound so the execution and implementation are what matters." Well said.
Yes it is a open plinth made from 1.125" hardwood, sandwiched between 2 ea 1" pieces of aluminum makes for a quite sturdy plinth. The electronics will be placed inside. Because of the size of the DN308 this was the best solution.
Peter, it appears your new Denon is mounted in an open frame plinth. This seems contrary to most current designs with solid plinths of varying thicknesses. Care to comment on why you decided to build it this way?
Lew, applying talcum to a belt drive to assist friction is a pretty old concept. I believe AR suggested that back in the '60s, and perhaps others.
I'm not a scientist so whatever theory you heard from me is probably half-baked so you don't have to take me too seriously. I know I don't! :) I'm just an experimenter whenever I have too much time on my hands. Of course you can try anything. Just don't forget to have fun!
Few requirements necessary for dual-platter experiment: First, your active platter (DD table) must have speed adjustment or pitch control and the platter outside rim must be straight vertically, no sloped platters, in order for the tape or thread to ride on. Grooved platter is okay for thread or floss drive. If you have a sloped platter, like Technics, then you have to add a layer of platter or round disk thick enough for the tape to ride on and clamp it down. VHS is half inch tape so might be too tall so you can use you quarter inch tape from cassette or reel2reeel. If you do not have a DD table with speed adjustment, then your passive platter's diameter must match the active platter or vice versa so it's one to one ratio.
I tried different DD turntables as driver. They include Technics SL1200Mk2 (because of sloped platter must add flat platter on top). Suspened tables with suspensions defeated SL-1300Mk2, SL-1400Mk2, SL-1500M2 and the unsuspended SL-150Mk2, SP-15, SP25. I regret not able to try SP10Mk2 even though I had two at the time. Technics without extra platter on top: SL-M2, SL-M3 and they are excellent. Also JVC QL-F6, Pioneer PL-570, PL-550. All of them have speed or pitch control. Obviously the intrinsic sound quality of the DD table will transfer into the passive platter. Compare to the DD table itself, the tape drive always sounds slightly smoother. I guess the decoupling adds a layer of filtering or damping to the rotation. Also make sure the tables are not on soft footers. Make sure the active table is seated solidly so there's no movement to affect speed stability. NO suspended tables. My favorites are JVC QL-F6 with coreless motor, super smooth and the Technics SL-M2, essentially an SL1200Mk2 with heavier platter, muscular sound. If you can find or machine a flat platter (preferably same diameter as your passive platter) to add on top for the SP-15 with a narrow plinth, it is the most versatile as it can also play 78rpm and have pitch control and doesn't take up much space. Of course I'm sure there are many other models out that I haven't tried. I know the Luxman PD-277 allows for speed adjustment but I never owned one.
I also used two identical platters and motors gutted from two Pioneer PL-L1000 tables tape driving each other and also tried using idler wheel in between which made it an idler drive system. I should have tried wrapping one platter with a rubber band to rim drive each other! This experiment is the greatest revelation to me in terms of understanding drive system in influencing the sound. My own finding is that if all things are equal, the stylus does NOT care what is moving the platter, it can only "feel" the Torque, Compliance of the interface (belt, idler wheel, magnetism), and Motor behavior (cogging, smoothness, etc..). If those three elements are similar in different drive systems, their sound will be similar. Most tables vary so differently from each other in those 3 things that no wonder they all sound so different, not to mention dozens other sound changing things. That's why I say all three drive systems capable of making good sound so the execution and implementation are what matters.
I splice the VHS tape diagonally, much like magnetic tape splicing, to avoid bumps. I tape them down with scotch tape first on emulsion side just to hope them, and then use super glue to glue another piece of VHS or scotch tape on the shiny side. When done, peel off the tape on the emulsion side. And the scissor off the extra on the edges. Just have to experiment few times to get to optimum result. Remember to cut diagonally. Emulsion side or magnetic side is to face the platter, shiny side for adhesive facing out of the platter. VHS tape is designed to wrapped around a round metal drum anyway, just like a turntable platter so they work well. Other mylar tape will work too I am sure, just look online on those early Teres projects. Tension on the tape is important too but you have to play around with it to get the best result.
Harold, Tape is not a new idea. Beyond that, I know some guys who then end up coating their tape drive with talcum or other stuff, to improve its frictional contact with the platter. I've also seen discussions of just exactly what kind of tape works best.
Hiho, Your comment on using a direct-drive turntable to drive a belt drive turntable is something I considered bringing up in this discussion. If nothing else, it reduces belt creep. But it also says to me that those belt drive motors with relatively small diameter pulleys, and this includes some very expensive products, are off base. First of all, the smaller the pulley, the faster the motor has to spin, the more noise it might make as the bearings wear. Second, the smaller pulley with the motor placed far from the platter would tend to increase belt creep. The only virtue of the small diameter pulley is that it might mask speed errors to a degree.
hiho, I´m glad that you are not only a theorist but also an experimenting scientist. Your VHS tape drive method is brilliant. Can I try it too, I will use my Luxman DD as a motor to drive a passive platter ? And may I ask, how did you manage unite the ends of tape to make a loop, what kind of adhesive you used ?
Lew & Chris, I mentioned the VPI TNT 3 pulley design only as an extreme example of the multiple pulley genre. I agree it's gimmicky and pulleys make noise too. Three pulleys create too much empty spaces and not enough contact area for platter grip and might cause slippage. You only need one extra pulley at equidistant from the motor pulley to offset the tug on motor side, if that's the approach a designer would take to combat bearing imbalance.
In belt drive genre, I am fan of non-compliant material such as tape, string, dental floss, etc... Without compliance, you still have decoupling but you do lose motor isolation. So a quiet motor becomes paramount. I used to use a direct drive table to tape drive a passive platter and it worked out really well. My preferred interface was VHS tape. Having two turntables side by side tape driving each other took up a lot of table space so I gave it up. But, yeah, non-compliant material works well and I am not surprised by the positive finding by others. Happy listening!
Often wondered if the effect of belt drive (and analogue tape, to an extent) might be called "temporal dither".
That said, it’s been proposed that DD’s might add their own artifacts (perhaps at flutter frequencies), which while at very low amplitude are less benign that those of belt systems.
Chris I tried looking up your thread "goldilocks and the three turntables " but couldn’t find it. Could you provide a link? Also, off topic I apologize, but how do you contact a member directly in this system?
Analogluvr See pic 19 on my virtual system for Goldilocks. The actual report is buried in my virtual system posts, I think from 2012-13 ! 8^0
I have asked Audiogon Support if there is a way to search and show a link as the Virtual Systems appear to be disconnected from the regular forum posts right now.
I sent you a test message. Login and do a member lookup. Send Message option should appear.
As far as how important speed stability is for a turntable please consider this. I have done a lot of experimenting with belt drives using mostly parts form VPI but others too. When adding more belts to a VPI drive, on the two motor drive station with the flywheel its possible to have a total of 4 a noticeable improvement is sound quality is obtained with 4 belts as opposed to just one, presumably because of less belt creep. Also when adding the SDS speed control which basically is a frequency converter supplying a very steady sine wave to the motor(s) a very noticeable improvement is sound quality is also obtained.
A properly restored DD table from 70 - 80s is incredibly speed accurate any timeline test - or Roadrunner Tachometer test easily shows this and to me presents the music with a pace and energy that I have not heard from any belt drive.
Analogluvr sent you a message explaining how to send a message on this forum.
Harold, You never mentioned, until lately, that your rim drive is a Salvation. Vic's seems to be the best, by visual inspection of photographs, of the bunch. At least in part, I think this is because he started out from the beginning to design and build a rim drive, whereas most of the others out there are belt-drive conversions. Too bad that TT Weights went out of business; some of their offerings also seem to have been born as rim drive. However, apparently they had problems. (Please don't attack me on that; I am only reiterating what I've read here and on VA.)
Hiho, Your solution might work well too. However, I'd have to think about how the second (passive) pulley would affect belt creep. Three pulleys, like 3 motors, is just a commercial gimmick with mostly negative consequences, IMO.
Chris I tried looking up your thread "goldilocks and the three turntables " but couldn't find it. Could you provide a link? Also, off topic I apologize, but how do you contact a member directly in this system?
I owned one of these TNT turntables. A very nice table I used it with and without the extra pulleys. It was outperformed by my custom Technics Sp10 and also the Jean Nantais 100 lb Lenco. Then I modified the TNT, including the use of thread. At this point it outperformed the Technics and the Jean Nantais lenco and produced music as described in my previous post - words courtesy of SG. 8^0
Lewm: "if I was still interested in belt drive for my own use, would be two motors positioned at opposite sides of the platter, 180 degrees apart, so as to equalize the forces involved in rotating the platter through a belt connection."
I would simply placed another pulley next to the platter on the opposite side of the motor: one motor, one platter, and two pulleys. I think that would do the trick without the extra motor noise. VPI did something similar in their early TNT model but with THREE pulleys!
Lew, surely you have experienced more different kinds of turntables than I ever have. Great. I have only a couple of each kind but they are not mediocre decks but not the ultimate models of a particular kind either. But I know exactly what a high quality belt drive/ rim drive/ direct drive is capable of. I have learnt my lesson.
hiho, exactly you are right: it´s all reality. Mine is a Salvation implementation and Vic the Designer knows exactly what a quality (direct) rim drive is all about. It´s all Vic´s idea, and with the help of him I just made my own to fit my platter. All credit is his. Hearing, however, is another thing, maybe we hear slightly differently maybe not. Whatever the case, I like my hearing illusions, you obviously yours. Nothing new under the sun :)
When I modified my belt drive to string drive, it was a definite improvement...clearly audible. From the instant the cartridge touched the record, the bass was more solid, more clarity in the mids, even it seemed to have improved the dynamics.
When I modified my belt drive to rim drive, it was a definite improvement...clearly audible. From the instant the cartridge touched the record, the bass was more solid, more clarity in the mids, even it seemed to have improved the dynamics.
harold-not-the-barrel: "hiho, with all due respect I just get the impression that you are living in a world of theories and your illusions. My direct rim drive does the trick for me."
As long as it does the trick for you, that's all that matters.
I never said it doesn't work. It's just more demanding on the execution. Looking at pictures of your turntable, it uses a solid pulley and the platter rim is a softer material. That's a good solution to the issue I mentioned. The designer knows his theory and addressed it. No illusions there.
Harold, Theory is all I've got. I just look at how rim drives work, and I consider what might be good or bad about it. Rim drive itself seems to have come about as a band-aid available to belt-drive makers who feel pressure to offer an alternative. Teres led the way in doing that, I think. But in another way, you are quite correct; I would be out of line to say that I know how YOUR particular rim drive turntable sounds. It may be great, and I may be completely off base. I did not mean to slur your choice of turntable. I can speak about belt-, idler-, and direct-drive with more of a sense of authority, because I've heard more than one example of each type in my system, but even there, anyone's particular experience must be limited. I don't claim to know it all, but I may sound that way some times.
^ Exactly all can sound good, it´s just a question of implementation. lewm and hiho, with all due respect I just get the impression that you are living in a world of theories and your illusions. My direct rim drive does the trick for me. And I will try tape/string drive some day too.
Indeed- The consensus is belt, Idler, and DD, can all sound good. It would be great if we can touch upon some specific offerings. Again, range is 10-12K max for table and arm. I have no qualms with spending a little less.
Lewm: "IMO, the rim drive is the worst of both worlds, not the best of both. Mechanical vibrational energy from the motor is transmitted right into the platter with no belt to isolate one from the other. At the same time, the typical rubbery contact point between the drive wheel and the platter is constantly trying to rotate the motor in the opposite direction (per Newton's 3rd Law of Motion), and flaws in the O-ring result in mechanical noise and speed issues."
I agree that it's the worst of both worlds. My main issue with it is that it takes away idler drive's advantage keeping the metal (motor pulley) to metal (platter) relationship with rubber (idler wheel) interface in between. In an idler drive the rubber wheel's size does not affect the speed (at least not much) because it's only an interface in preserving the relationship of two true round rigid metal circles of the pulley and platter. Idler wheel is compliant and will have pressed spots touching metal and yet the speed does not change. But a rim drive must have true round rubber wheel to have speed accuracy because that is also the pulley. Just imagine a non-true round pulley in belt-drive and idler drive. Disaster. Rim drive's rubber too hard will not grip the platter and too soft will deform the round shape and affect speed. One might say rim drive has the advantage of transferring the effective torque (including motor noise) more directly to the platter, and it can be the reason people like the sound. It demands a very quiet motor too. For me, I rather stick with idler drive between the two systems.
Just for the record, I believe all three systems (belt, idler, direct drives) can sound good. It's the execution that matters.
Dear @stringreen : Appreciated. The deep main subject is that almost no one cares, really cares, about MUSIC only " sound " but as I posted in other thread a simple piece of paper can makes " sound ".
Several audiophiles has not as their reference LIVE MUSIC and several of the ones that " say " that's their reference never attend more than 2-3 times a year to listen and experience the true and only audio/sound reference: LIVE MUSIC. Better if we ofent are experienced with near-field LIVE MUSIC from sole instrument to a whole sophisticated big orchestras.
Reproduction of MUSIC is a very serious and hard task that if we do in the " rigth " way the rewards are just amazing and with a lot more fun that playing with audio-toys as almost all audiophiles.
Raul....You seem to be getting bad comments on these forums. I, certainly appreciate your efforts and do hope they continue. You seem to always be telling the truth whereas many on these pages just pontificate will guesses rather than experience.
Porter mod: no, not attached to the plinth per say. Instead the thrust plate is connected to a cast iron plate to sink vibrations. That is enclosed at the bottom of the plinth.
The plinth I had built is on the massive side to accommodate a 12 " arm. And for loss of torque on a SP10 table I don't think that's a problem . In my case the roller blocks work . As for the Albert Porter sink I think he is coupling the motor thrust plate to the plinth. My next tweak is making a VTA on the fly adjuster for my Ortofon AS212 tone arm
jolly, one of my audio buddies had a VPI table (possibly a Scout, I'm not certain) and he added the Teres rim drive motor. He was experienced with both components and music and found it to be a significant improvement.
enginedr, for the sound from the component itself, in this case the SP-10 Mk 2, perhaps something like the "drain system" described by Albert Porter for his Technics might be beneficial?
If the plinth is very massive, then I would think Rollerblocks would be good. With a torque-y motor like the one in the Mk2, the force spinning the platter in the clockwise direction also creates a counter-force that "wants" to rotate the plinth in the opposite direction (Newton's 3rd Law of Motion). If you mount a light structure on Rollerblocks, there might be a slight tendency that this counter-force will be sufficient to actually overcome the inertia of the plinth and twist it in the counter-clockwise direction, which is not ideal for playing LPs and also wastes some torque that you want to be applied to the platter.
I have a SP10 mk2 in a 16 x 24 x 3 1/2 plinth I just placed it on a set of 3 Symposium roller block JR HSE feet this made a nice difference in SQ . The goal with all we are seeking is accurate speed control and low noise . The noise comes from 2 sources the component as well as the sound energy in the room . The roller blocks work as a drain when at rest that takes care of the component noise most needed in the quite passages in music . When the SPL increases they work on minimizing energy from the system entering the component .
Multiple motors. What would interest me to try, if I was still interested in belt drive for my own use, would be two motors positioned at opposite sides of the platter, 180 degrees apart, so as to equalize the forces involved in rotating the platter through a belt connection. Any more than two motors only increases issues related to noise and synchronizing the motors, without enhancing any of the potential benefits associated with more than one motor. It’s a can of worms that I would rather not open. I believe the Kuzma Reference turntable uses two motors in this manner.
My friend had a golfmund reference. The power supply had problems so he bought a teres rim drive .He was totally astonished when he discovered that the sound was better with the teres.
So if you read between the lines maybe you would ask yourself. Can you make electronics stabilize a motor on lighter platter (speed/noise/etc) as well or better than a massive belt driven platter.
I think the short answer is Yes, at least for me. I switched from a standard belt drive VPI motor (high RPM) to a Teres Audio Verus II motor on my VPI Aries 1 TT. The Verus II uses what they call "direct coupling" - essentially an idler wheel set up or Rim Drive. There's low vibration due to a non-cogging multi-phase motor, and high torque without the 'give' of a rubber belt. The improvement was drastic and I immediately put the old belt-drive motor in the closet, and haven't looked back.
I've always wondered (well, over the last few years since I've gone down the Audio rabbit hole) whether belt drives achieved prominence in the 80s in part because of the relative deficiencies of other parts of the turntable at the time. So that more recent improvements in cartridges, plinths, tonearms, vibration control, motors, etc., have made the inherent damping in a belt drive system less necessary, and fueled the return of idler wheels as a technology that was never fully 'realized' in its heyday. Just a hunch - I'd be curious to hear from people who actually lived through those changes with their own gear.
I have not played with or heard any myself. Guessing they get low noise with small motors and more HP with multiple. Trying to wrap my head around getting multiple motors to dance together.
It is a work in progress just got a Brush less DC which I will run on 3 phase ac. This was thought up by Bill at Phoenix engineering. He has been great to the DIY group.
The biggest thing in belt drives so far for me has been big heavy platters. It also follows the laws of physics. The other is bigger torque motors. The trade off is normally the larger you get the more noise. The increase in overall dyanmics with heavy platters has been worth the noise increase.
The small maxon DC motors where really not designed to be pushing 38lb platters around. The biggest issue is finding the ac motors of any quality anymore. Hurst gets the job done but high quality??? So if the Bldc motors work out they look like great quality for the money.
So to bring this back to the original topic if I was going belt drive and had to buy it, I would get biggest platter I could in that price range. Assuming the manufacturer knew what he was doing and the bearing and motor would be OK for the platter.
If we are talking small differences there are tons of variables which have been mentioned.
Well we are on the same page in music reproduction likes. For me if the tone is not correct or close why bother. The late Grizmo was the same way. Your comments about CDs are also on the mark. When things made of wood sound electronic that should raise a red flag.
Have been building lead loaded aluminum platters 30 to 40 pounds. The difference between a 15 pound platter is big. Drive, pitch, and decay. I was not expecting decay but stability and or mass helped.
I am building string/belt/tape drives because it is the simplest. Might try rim set up to see how it does. The other thing which a group over on DIY forum have been building are motor controllers which can do 2 and 3 phase motors. Got some really big motors in very big pods which are quite good. Maybe the drive of the others with the great tone to boot. If I put on Bob Segar silver bullet live I think I am in Detroit.
If I was guessing I would say most people would be better off playing with phono stages, huge differences. Thanks for your insight. It is nice to hear from someone who not only played with this high end stuff but also could explain in musical terms what he heard.
In the real world...everything matters. You can't put the same cartridge on a different turntable and equate the differences to the drive systems. Even things like what the table is sitting on, the type of material the base of the turntable is made of, etc...makes an enormous difference. Discounting all the different resonances, etc, what I hear that I can attribute to drives is that short term pitch accuracy is affected by the elasticity of the belt itself in a belt turntable, and the blurring of the sonic picture in direct drive due to resonances, pitch adjustment in the feedback loupe, etc. I am using a rim drive which I find is as good as any, and better than most. Certainly there are various levels of performance in everything.
My context is not one of history so perhaps my wording confused the issue. Based on my own experience DD from the mid seventies on took flight in sales. The electronics end in controlling speed and stability had passed all the other very significant issues that were common and detrimental to all tables not being addressed as commonplace. I disagree that Micro was not making well received and better than mid fi DD tables at the time. Many forget the brands made and designed micro that carried another brands name and the design and parts supplied top other brands on some popular and better than average then tables and many never available in our markets . I said quote "at a time when everyone was dumping belt to manufacture DD because the electronic end was at a rabid pace of growth and precision and yet , Micro Seiki went back to making high end belt/string drives"
Now to give you context that was missed the first time. The manufacture of tables was drying up by now in view of the 70's output as less were being built now in the 80's . When I referenced about when I got that micro seiki and I quoted from the manual their belief of not focussing on a particular drive or electronics ,
("the absolute requirements imposed by mechanical strength , precision and mass cannot be replaced on equivalent terms simply by electronics......we must now stand behind belief that there is no need to stick to *audio common sense* which dictated that it is possible to discriminate all the way between part of the mechanisms of the turntable " .......) that's actually right out of the manual.... it just always struck me as to how important everything else was/is and something that intelligent rarely gets spoken in a manual of all places and it impacted how I looked at approached things ...........
Now at that time Micro was no longer producing DD tables in numbers as before for themselves as a brand or others and many of the others were STILL building all out DD models when Micro was building all out belt/string drives. Pioneer was building the Exclusive P3a , Technics was building the SP MK3, Nakamichi the Dragon T1000 etc.....my context is most of the higher end in design and tolerance of machining and addressing more ways to protect the signal from outside influences were on DD not the belted tables that as many were mid fi as you claimed DD were in my opinion then, many. I saw it as ballsy to be building what wasn't yet perceived by the expert descriptive sellers in the magazines as the better choice. I am pretty well versed in the history of it and I think the focus of what really was my context is being over examined as we are speaking in a short period when Technics DD tables were selling like crazy and so were the other brands of DD and semi and auto function became more important than sound and I know that from selling them and that's what people focused on who weren't infected with our disease. Belt drives became less popular , less models made available here, and remember I never said anything of "better", quite the opposite with not much bias. Then in a blink a few years later CD comes out and the electronics paced to grow it. Some of the bigger brands of the time were focussing on all out DD units now sought after and ransom paid for , yet Micro went the other way with an all out belt/string drive that cost more than a car. When for the most part outside of the cult linns and some then , less know Michell and other tables in the mainstream, many I knew , chased the hi end units being dumped for far less than their real value . I never suggested belt was eclipsed by DD in quality , however in sales in many areas those DD tables it seemed everyone had one and us guys that kept a belt through the latter 70's and early 80's we were a minority. Personally, with all bias aside of drive choice I think high profit margins to produce lower production cost belt drives and the CD dictated the steering of what became more common again and not what the good phrasing sellers in the rags did or said. America is a big population so while undeniably more belted units would sell in that market but saying they outsold all direct drives during that time...not sure I would buy that blindly but different markets can have different trends though......
@ Tom,....good question. First off I think we all have a bias we focus on that draws us one way or the other that is where our attention draws and peaks , or fades if it isn't there. For me , I seem to unconsciously focus on voice , and the tone and decay of instruments which my ears seem to allow my brain to interpret listening with a well set and sorted belt drive while listening to recorded music as being closer to what I perceive it to be when just listening to the naturalness of live sounds. That , for me, has a relaxed feel to it, not the sound as in relaxed, but myself relaxed in just listening without effort and not wondering what's going on here, just seems natural to my ears at this stage. A good belt still has good dynamics on the leading edge notes but for some reason the tone/timbre and decay seem more natural to me and how my melon is interpreting what my ears are hearing. Direct Drives really do have some distinct strengths that some will be drawn in with the dynamic drive the sound has to it and its difference in bass presentation and sharper change notes. But I think because of my focus of those tones and decay and the voice as well as instruments doing so, and I hope I don't start a flame war , but in the long term it effects me like CD does as being to abrupt and unnatural to me. Some obviously better than others but very few I can listen to for hours on end of all genres of music. That's not a dish on DD , I just am not looking for what DD excels at , and that how I perceive as slightly unnatural or emphasized. Others love it and that's cool if that's your focus and I don't think we all hear things the same way either not just in the extremes from hearing loss but the interpretation the melon makes of all this . I think our tastes in genre of music play into choice to some degree . I have a friend who just stayed mostly rock and his well set up and sorted DD choice, without question excels at Rock. Not saying they are only good for Rock , just my ears think the dynamics and speed the music gets full attention here like it was played.
I'm actually slowly picking away at rebuilding a hammer tone Garrard 301 table with a pretty good shape unit that will get a nice plinth to sit in after the bearing and drive sees some modern tolerances and new materials with a vintage ortofon arm . I had one years ago , and after doing one up in a plinth for a friend I really wanted to hear that unique sound a good idler has again.
To answer your question, if forced to one table of the three drives..... likely a thread/belt drive of mass simply because of how thread/belt drives as I said do tone and the decay and timbre of voice and instruments to my ears. Keeping in mind to be fair , this usually requires added cost to have a stable speed that the better belted designs have in tight tolerances of the control and power supply in relation to the motor, but it really is a common need for all to be stable and not drift, not just accuracy. Still , I have heard some pretty fricken good tables over the years of all 3 drives. First serious Lenco I heard , if someone had of described exactly what I did hear, to me without me having heard it , I never would of believed it with any seriousness at all..............
OP chiming back in here (-: This is interesting stuff, but in the here and now, I'm thinking modern tables. I bet the new Technics is wonderful, but I would prefer more tonearm options. It seems like many here have been through analog battle.... Any thoughts on a table and arm. Could spend 10-12K, but would love to do it for 6-8K including arm. Tonality above all else. I would never want it mistaken for a digital front end.
So you guys just went off on on a history lesson you did not even research. Take a little time, as I just did, and pull up a Micro Seiko site. To say they never where a high end company??? Also if you notice they built both high end dd and bd's at the same time.
The sad part is not you got your history off but you went off topic on the guy who brought reality to the thread.
So if you read between the lines maybe you would ask yourself. Can you make electronics stabilize a motor on lighter platter (speed/noise/etc) as well or better than a massive belt driven platter.
I realize this is not a DIY forum so I should shut up and let you guys have fun writing. I was just hoping that Has2be would share his real life experiences with the better tables he has own.
Also if you are to lazy to google information I will give you a couple of clues DDX-1000 , BL-91 should get you rolling.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
