Top ten DD turntables of all time?

I've had my Goldmund Studietto w/ JVC quartz-lock motor and SME V arm for almost 16 years now, and wouldn't part with it for anything. I know there are those who dismiss the Studietto, but I'll betcha they've never heard one with a great arm and without the springs. That's right -- I don't think sorbothane was available 16 years ago, but replacing the springs with sorbothane half spheres results in a mechanical system that's almost completely dead (great bass punch and clarity.) Just set it on a wall shelf, which is where all unsprung (and most sprung) TT's belong in my opinion, and you're good to go.

I recently lubricated the platter/motor spindle/bearing with van den Hul zirconium-oxide doped oil and there is absolutely no audible bearing/motor noise -- even at high volume levels playing silent grooves. And the platter speed has always been smooth and dead accurate.

For a beautifully designed website devoted to the DD TT, go to: http://de.geocities.com/bc1a69/index_eng.html

By the way, I seem to recall that the Goldmund Reference is a belt drive TT.

Rod1957, in direct drive turntables of the vintage sort, the platter is actually part of the motor, and the spindle bearing is actually also the motor bearing.

Since motors vibrate, and since the motor bearing is not nearly built to as close-tolerance as a normal TT main bearing, there is unwanted movement in the platter of most of these vintage DD designs.

Additionally, there are spinning magnets(under the platter - part of the motor) which are very close to the cartridge at the inner part of the record. Since the platters are also metal, there is not much stopping magnetic effects of these spinning magnets on the cartridge magnetic fields.

Third, most of the vintage DD designs use a quartz-lock speed controller with a very lightweight platter, which results in "speed hunting", in a fairly audible "flutter" frequency, and gives unnatural sound overall, compared to other turntables.

Fourth, most vintage DD TT's were mass-market designs and cheaply produced out of plastic, and were never really anything out-of-the-ordinary, even when they were new. Most of the arms were quite poor(or at best - adequate), and sufficed primarily for the low cost MM cartridges that were expected to be placed on them.

Let's face it, these TT's were the "Volkswagen Beetle" of the time, and never were even intended to be thought of as anything very good. They were mass-market plastic equivalents of today's "Coby" CD player for $24.95

The better ones, like Micro Seiki and the higher level Denon, and the Technics SP10(and yes, even the SL1200) were a bit more expensive, aimed at a higher performance market, and did sound better than the cheap ones. However, ultimately they faded away as the belt-drive revolution took over and killed most of them off.

You can say what you want about belt-drives, but they did kill off most DD tables permanently. This was not an accident.

The Dual 701. One of the best of its time and very hard to find.

Twl

I am a fan of your thinking and writing, but with respect, perhaps you are being a little harsh here.

Sure, its true there were tons of mass marketed, crap DD turntables in the 70's.

Cheap lightweight plastic cases, silly strobe lights, lousy arms, jerky semi or fully automatic operation.

They were perfectly matched to similarly mass produced receivers with vinyl veneered MDF cabinets and boasting ".04% Total Harmonic Distortion"

(Even then, I dont think they were quite as sleazy as "Coby"?! although you made me laugh!)

What I remember as well, however, were many high end attempts at turntables based on the popular drive technology of the time.

Denon made a number of high end ish turntables. The Kenwood had a resin (?) base that was unusually heavy and granite like -- as I said a cult high end favorite. The Yamaha PX-2 was direct drive and also an excellent table, especially when tweaked with platter mats and record clamps.

I am no Michael Fremer, but in my experience, suspensions, platter surfaces, arms, cartridges and set up -- especially record cleaning and preparation -- have always had a much bigger impact on performance than the presence or absence of microphonic vibration through the spindle or something.

And maybe I had the wrong match for an arm and cartridge, but for me, my years with a Linn LP12 were the unhappiest analogue years of my life. I never liked that turntable, found it sensitive and finicky and never enjoyed it.

I am not loyal to direct drive or belt drive. For sheer coolness alone, I have always coveted a top of the line VPI with an SME V or something, but in the absence of spending the big bucks, would consider a vintagey DD again.

Would love to hear your retort on any of this but that's the way I see it, I mean, heard it.

Best wishes.

Both twl and cwlondon make valid comments. But in both cases they cover only a portion of the field. Again, for a more complete and comprehensive history of the subject, as well as a detailed technical discussion, I'd like to refer you all to the DD website at:

http://de.geocities.com/bc1a69/index_eng.html

It's thoroughly researched and nicely presented.