2. analog
  3. 123260-117

Do top Idler drive tables fall short to top belt drives in any particular area.

In the current Reed table thread, a user makes mention that he compared running it in Idler mode, and then using a belt. He goes on to write, the belt was superior with decay, and I believe more organic sounding as well. Please don't fault me if I used the wrong word, but that's what I got out of reading it. Certainly it's tough to generalize, since there are always more variables than the turntable itself. I auditioned the Brinkmann Bardo and Spyder tables last year. I understand I'm talking DD vs Belt in this case, but please stay with me. I easily preferred the Belt driven Spyder, to it's DD counterpart. I found decay to be one of the areas where the Spyder won out. It was more organic, and I heard subtle spatial cues that were not as discernable with the Bardo. Now that I'm considering a Garrard 301 in a well implemented wood plinth, this all has me curious to say the least.  



fjn04
hiho
451 posts
 
I must point out the Reed drive system is a different genre from the traditional idler drive turntable like Garrard 301 or EMT 930. The idler wheel is part of the pulley and motor on Reed, whereas in a Garrard the motor shaft drives the idler wheel to drive the platter. The Garrard rubber idler wheel is the interface in between and keeps the metal to metal relationship, which is the system I prefer. The Reed or TTW or  Teres Versa "direct couple" approach I suspect is prone to speed issue if the wheel is not perfectly round or smooth. The Garrard style is more forgiving. Sound wise, let your ears decide. 

lewm
12,989 posts
 
Listen to a well restored Lenco L75 or GL78 some time.  Also "different" from all the rest in how the idler works.
Hiho, I don't see how the Garrard geometry alleviates the issue of out-of-round wheels.  If its interfacing rubber wheel goes out of round, you would have speed instability just the same.
ochremoon
48 posts
 
Arthur Salvatore doesn't think so. Have a read of this:

http://www.high-endaudio.com/RC-Lenco.html

fjn04 OP
1,561 posts
 
Thanks for all so far.  Interesting where Mr. Salvatore has the "Unavoidable Caveat" section where he says Idlers have the highest performance potential, BUT require the most attention in order to maintain that level. Can anyone elaborate on that one. (-:
lewm
12,989 posts
 
Ochre and fjn, My reference to the Lenco L75 was by way of complimenting it and recommending it to anyone seeking an idler-drive turntable as best bang for the buck and (in my opinion) better than the usual suspects, depending of course upon the extravagance of the restoration and modifications to a Lenco vs to a TD124 or 301.  Mr. Salvatore happened to fall in love with one particular version of a refurbished Lenco.  I don't disagree with him that the Nantais Lenco is excellent (but not the absolute best iteration, IMO). 

I don't know what AS is talking about as regards the need to pay attention to an idler.  All turntables require some level of maintenance.  For an idler, it's the motor and the idler wheel, but the Lenco and Garrard motors are truly built like tanks, have lasted already several decades, and can easily be rebuilt to as new.  Idler wheels wear out and can then be replaced or restored.  These things take several years to happen.  For a belt-drive, many users are constantly fretting about the belt, replacing the belt, upgrading the belt, changing from one type of belt to another, etc.  Then too, the motors on average are less robust than those of the vintage idlers, bearings get noisy, etc.  I am not saying one is worse than another, just that audiophilia nervosa is a risk in both cases.

More to discover