2. analog
  3. 128631-117

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.
fjn04
lewm
12,868 posts
 
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.
enginedr1960
173 posts
 
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 .   
lewm
12,868 posts
 
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.

pryso
1,927 posts
 
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?
enginedr1960
173 posts
 
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    
More to discover