Top ten DD turntables of all time?

In the latest Audio Advisor catalogue, I noticed they are going out of their way to bash direct drive turntables, while hawking Regas and other belt drive turntables.

Are that many people selling direct drive turntables again that they need to defend a different niche?

Or the assumption is that the average person reading their catalogue already has a direct drive turntable?

To me it didn't make any sense, but then again, neither does their choice of "models".

I'm a little surprised not to see Albert Porter's efforts with the Technics SP 10 Mks II and III mentioned in this thread. If you are a purist, and want only to discuss unmodified vintage DD TTs, then read on only at your peril.
Mr Porter has, in the Forum, described his modification and updating first a Lenco, then a Technics Sp10 Mk II and now a Mk III TT, developing each toward its performance envelope with trial and error. During that time he also owned a top of the line JA Michell table.
While I haven't pursued the thread about the Lenco, Albert describes clearly his development of the SP 10 TTs. An anecdote he mentions in conversation, though not in print, is a showdown between his Michell Proscenium and Technics SP 10 Mk III tables.
JA Michell was in the room, performing every tweak he knew for the turntable of his own design. The Technics table, in Albert's proprietary plinth (Panzerholtz sandwiching Bass wood with aluminum interleaf, lead weight, brass tonearm mounting flanges, etc) with an SME 312S (12") tonearm was, *by mutual concensus* dusting the Michell's performance into the weeds. Cartridges were matching Air Tight PC-1s.
This is not a testament to Albert Porter. It *is* intended to acknowledge what initial quality of design, full development and execution, and meticulous setup can achieve using a vintage DD TT.
The price point of the Mitchell TT is not relevant; what may be of note is that Mr Porter sold the Mitchell and has kept the Technics table. The very latest technology is not paramount: it's how it's applied that matters.
If a 1970's-made DD table can be brought to a reference level of performance, going head to head with one of the very best of today's TTs (using, one would think, the finest of currently available materials and technology) it tells me a lot about the Technics' initial quality of conception --in the engineering sense-- and about the learning amassed in the interim that, when applied with diligence, can give lifelike renderings of The Music. I believe that's what a few of us are seeking in pursuit of the high end. It would seem that it can be done, and done very well.

Cdk84

I agree.

So why do people continue to trash direct drive turntables?

And can anyone describe general characterstics of the sound of a belt drive turntable, such that it might explain some listeners preferences?

I am going to go back to the future with direct drive.

A couple of things:
First, I went to check out AA's alleged 'DD bashing' and couldn't find it -- could someone direct me? It's been years since I perused their offerings, so all I could determine was that they had no DD TT's for sale.

Second, it's axiomatic that in mechanical systems, the fewer moving parts the better (the differences between German and British automobiles are a perfect example ;-) "Better" BTW applies to lo-maintenance as well as hi-performance.

That said, the cost and process of implementation become key factors. When it comes to turntable design (and without going into the "characteristic sonics" BD v. DD v. ID), it turns out that the elegantly simple direct drive design can be more expensive to build compared to a belt drive TT of equal performance -- up to a point! (my personal opinion is that Micro Seiki reached that 'point' with their belt drive TT's some time ago) Beyond that point however, throwing more money at a BD design will not IMO result in any measurable performance increase. Why? Count the parts! (Same goes for ID TT's)

So, for speed accuracy and freedom from mechanical artifacts (rumble, vibration, mechanical resonances) and maintenance bordering on 'zero', the DD TT is the ultimate mechanical solution. But you can't "cheap out"! Well, actually, you CAN, but a cheap DD is worse than a cheap BD, and that's where the bad rap came from. In the beginning ;-) you see, it was so inexpensive to produce a reasonably good performing BD TT (Rek-o-Kut, AR, and beyond) compared to a reasonably performing DD, that nobody bothered with DD's after that, except the utterly shameless Japanese, who turned out some amazing machines! Of course they cost more than Western BD's, so for us Westerners, BD's ruled for years. Even the new $300K Goldmund Ref. II uses a belt!

Sonics are another matter, can vary widely, and depend on many factors in addition to the drive design. Sonic accuracy, neutrality, and control are hallmarks of the best DD turntables, but they can be found (occasionally ;-) in other designs as well.
.

It is a mystery to me how a belt drive table "sounds" compared to DD?

Shouldn't all tables sound, well like nothing?

I have a belt drive table. With a good quality pressing, all I hear is the record as delviered by the cartridge in the tonearm. I hear nothing extraneous from the tt itself that I can identify.

I used to sell various belt and direct drive turntables years ago and also do not recall hearing any inherent differences between the two drive mechanisms. I don't even recall other knowledgeable salespersons making such a claim. The turntable was either quiet or not and the sound was a result of the cart, tonearm and record playing.