Garrard 301 motor and rumble

@fsonicsmith 

Thank you for the compliment.

This is not a competition. You are obviously an antique collector, I am not. The OP's case is typical. 

As for arms, the best Reed offset, pivoted arm is the 2G. The 2P's bearing arrangement is IMHO inferior. The arm I use on the Cosmos is a Schroder CB and the cartridges are the MSL Signature Platinum, The Ortofon MC Diamond and the Lyre Atlas Lambda SL. 

As for whether or not the Cosmos is equaled in performance by any old turntable? The Cosmos is fully suspended, Has a 1" thick aluminum chassis, has a magnetic thrust bearing and the Eclipse drive, one of the best in the industry. The others here can make up their own minds as to whether and old idler drive table mounted on a chunk of wood, stone or whatever is likely to come close in performance. They might look sharp, but that is about it. 

The makers of the finest turntables made today shun idler drive, I wonder why. It was necessary back in the old days to change speeds because we did not have electronically controlled motors yet and nobody had subwoofers. Then the little AR XA came along and blew them all away from a performance perspective. I had a TD124II at the time and a friend's AR was much quieter. Idler drives disappeared from the market and all the radio stations dumped their old tables for the hot direct drives. You can't slip cue most belt drive tables. All those old tables were available for pennies on the dollar and the myth begins. All this is not my opinion. It is historical fact. Today there are much better ways of changing speed than a stepped capstan and a spring loaded rubber wheel. 

For the love of God, can someone else denounce the man that keeps issuing proclamations of fact like some decrepit Medieval king from his throne for the bag of hot air that he is?

He seems to know just enough to be dangerous and no more. Much of what he says about all things vinyl-related is demonstrably incorrect and yet I seem to be the only one to object. Are the rest of you afraid of him? Why?

To Ralph Karsten; this person absolutely misunderstood your point about powerful motors eliminating stylus drag-induced speed variation and yet you refrained from correcting him. Why? Because he owns two of your amps?

I suppose if I had the time and inclination to identify and list ALL of his false proclamations of fact I could, but why bother? All one needs to do is take a cursory look at his posts. Such as his recent post that all who opt to purchase low output MC cartridges are misguided and doomed to inferior S/N ratio. This in his shameless-and yet successful- effort to publicly shame MoFi into extending a free repair/extended warranty (rather than blame himself for not reading the warranty prior to purchasing).

He clearly does not have a clue as to matching cartridges with suitable phono stages nor a clue as to the importance of investing in a good phono stage to begin with. His phono stages are digital sound processors. He is a contradiction of claiming to love analogue while refusing to surrender digital manipulation.

His sound system, which he seems to think is inarguably perfect, more resembles a HT system with a turntable connected to it.

I vow to never engage with this "gentleman" in this forum again. He is a forum bully but a toothless one. And no one else here dares call him out for the self-perceived emperor with no clothes that he is. If the mods choose to exercise censorship here, so be it, but calling out a forum bully should not be grounds for such.

And to you, good Sir, the subject of this post, belt drive is not perfect. This may come to a shock to a you but it too is true. As the motor pulley turns the belt, the belt is stretching and contracting at the micro-level at all times. This is why some have tried multiple motors, pulleys, and belts and others have tried thread and floss instead which again don't solve all problems with belts. Some listeners hear the effects and deficiencies of belt drive and some don't. This is not a matter of "superior hearing" but simply a matter of sensitivity and personal taste. As with so many things in life where there are analogous arguments and yet no "absolute truth", e.g. the attributes of aluminum, carbon fiber, titanium, and steel for bicycle frames, a human being with higher levels of cognition and consciousness comes to the awareness that the scientific method only goes so far when human subjectivity is involved.  

Out.

To Ralph Karsten; this person absolutely misunderstood your point about powerful motors eliminating stylus drag-induced speed variation and yet you refrained from correcting him.

@fsonicsmith I missed his comment.

FWIW, We stopped making our model 208 when Technics came out with the entirely revamped SL1200. I regard it as a better machine and have one in my home system. With a different platter pad...

@mijostyn

The old idler wheel turntables are less speed stable than any high end belt drive table primarily because of the older motors.

I don’t think this statement is accurate. The synchronous motors on some of the vintage machines are excellent as long as the AC mains frequency is stable. If the machine is properly serviced out, there isn’t any stretch between the drive and the load. So they should be more speed stable (and in practice this is borne out), but a lot depends also on the platter mass. The Empire machines got their speed stability from both the motor and the platter being very effective flywheels. Only a few of the idler drive machines had platters of that kind of mass.

I think the main reason you don’t see idler drive machines in production now is the cost of making the idler and speed change mechanism (since they are not made in large quantities). They require more service to keep them running properly. Its a lot easier to engineer a belt drive with only two moving parts which is also easier to fix since most of the time its just a belt replacement, plus anyone who wishes to be a turntable manufacturer has to compete with Technics, whose direct drive system is competent, reliable, well-priced and overall excellent.

fsonic, I too am in disagreement with Mijostyn's  bald pronouncements, on some occasions, first because he is sometimes (but not all the time) wrong, and second because he fails to include three little words, after delivering a broadside, "in my opinion".  That in itself is a bit provocative. However, it is his intention to drop bombs, which is what just happened with respect to idler drive.  Just take it with a grain of salt; you are one of many audiophiles who prefer idler drive turntables, which in itself is testimony to their virtues.  He dislikes direct drive, as well. This does not deter me one iota from my chosen preference for same. In fact, he ONLY likes suspended belt drives.  I wouldn't have one in my system, if the suspension consists of springs. I would also take issue with the notion that no one ever contradicts Mijostyn. That is simply not the case. He usually takes it well.  He is actually quite knowledgeable and experienced, so it is folly to criticize him on that basis alone.

As regards idler drive motors, and particularly the Garrard motor, Mark Kelly, a definite 301 aficionado, used to point out regularly that although the motor does consume Watts, compared to other TT motors, it is in fact not that high in torque output.  Audiophiles confuse power consumption with power output. What accounts for the immediacy and dynamics of the 301 sound is I think the directness of the idler drive, the very low compliance of the drive system, rather than the essential power of the motor.

lewm

I too am in disagreement with Mijostyn's  bald pronouncements ...he fails to include three little words, after delivering a broadside, "in my opinion".  That in itself is a bit provocative. However, it is his intention to drop bombs ...

That is my impression as well. Indeed, some people enjoy dropping these rhetorical "bombs," finding some satisfaction in them. I generally avoid that kind of engagement, whether online or in person.