Is Direct Drive Really Better?

Paul: I agree that the remarkable longevity and popularity of the SL-1200 says exactly nothing about either the worth of that machine to audiophiles, or the worth of DD in general to audiophiles. Now, that fact may say more about audiophiles than about DD (or the SL-1200), but the argument's a false sylogism nonetheless. Granted, perhaps not a lot of products without some sort of fundamental merit do as well over decades as the 1200, but a few do -- witness the Bose 901. But the 1200's endurance springs mostly from people who must depend on it in a professional context, so that the machine has its virtues is uncontested; the question is whether one of those virtues is actually sound quality. I have my inexpert opinion on that, but no "bubble" to burst, trust me, and I do not "bash" BD. If you count my response among those you classify as not being sensible or coherent, then that's your privilege.

So what we mostly have are reports from guys who've owned both. It seems noteworthy to me that among the A-goners who've given good DD a chance and also have experience with good BD, I don't think there are any who dismiss DD out of hand, and a few who specifically extoll the potential of the 1200. (If you want to take Psychicanimal off the table from the start, be my guest; we all know where [and how] Francisco stands, and still life goes on.) In the final analysis, online anecdotes mean less to me than what I hear in my living room, and that I find almost entirely satisfactory and beautiful, especially since the KAB mods. Which shouldn't necessarily say anything to you. Anyway, regardless of the motor/drive system, the 1200 still can't sound better than the basic competence of its plinth, platter, bearing, and tonearm, which *ought* to mean it can't bat in the same league as the big boys (but not because any of those things, save perhaps the platter, is notably deficient IMO). But please feel free to take a stab at any of the theoretical points in favor of DD I raised above.

Macrojack: Your last post, it seems to me, actually bears little relation to the question you appeared to ask at the top (reread it), or the debate you seem to have been encouraging since. I think a discussion of theoretical potential and pitfalls is totally appropriate, and in many ways a good chew over theory is the best thing you can read on a forum like this. It can teach you new ways of thinking about what you hear. If you expect to settle anything by people recounting their personal experiences and opinions, you're probably going to be disappointed. Online forums are about discussion of audio and batting around of ideas in addition to experience and opinions, and the whole activity is an entirely different animal from actually listening to music or gear. In any case, there are too many people here lacking both the carts and the horses to put one before the other... ;^)

I don't see why at least a very close approximation of a controlled setting which would allow a one-to-one-to-one comparison of table/arm/cart combos could not be accomplished.

Of course THAT could be accomplished. But that tells you absolutely nothing about whether belt or DD is superior. It only tells you whether one combination sounds better than another. If that's all you want to know (and for most audiophiles most of the time, it probably is) that's fine. Just don't draw unwarranted conclusions from any such comparison.

Thanks, Zaikesman, I was wondering about that taste until you pointed to my foot in my mouth. I did, rather pointedly, ask for opinions.
I've read some very good arguments on all three sides and it seems that not much has been determined about superiority or inferiority. As someone said, the head to head comparison is not something that can be done with any precision, measurements are just measurements and all sonic evaluations are subjective, so it seems to come down to one of those Joe Louis vs. Mohammed Ali debates where everything is based on projection and extrapolation.

I was fishing for a consensus of some kind and it appears that presently there isn't any but as I said earlier I sense a developing inclination back toward DD and maybe 4yanx is correct to call it "buzz". Nonetheless, it may be that the fracture in our ranks has something to do with "buzz" vulnerability. It may just be that mine is pretty high.
I've been using a Well Tempered Reference table for 12 years but in the past month or so I have acquired an SP-10, an SL 1100a, an SL 150 MK II,and a Luxman PD 441 for evaluation. The WTT is for sale now and I'm looking forward to evaluating the buzz. A friend has predicted that I will find the Luxman to be the best of what I have. Has anyone else used one?