Is Direct Drive Really Better?

Pabelson, if you think that the whole thing boils down to speed accuracy and rumble, you are sadly mistaken. Internal resonance within the drive system and resistance to external vibration and the period and frequency of those vibrations are just three more of the various factors that come into play.

I'm not talking about "the whole thing"; I'm talking only about factors for which one drive system or the other has an obvious theoretical advantage. So if you want to convince me that I'm mistaken (and I might be--I certainly can't claim any real technical expertise here), then the first thing you have to do is offer a plausible reason why one drive system would be presumptively better than the other for each of the three factors you mentioned.

Even if the factors you mention are relevant to the belt/DD question, I suspect the speed accuracy/rumble tradeoff is still the dominant factor. If one drive system could be shown to be superior in minimizing both speed inaccuracy and rumble, I supect this debate would be over. I seriously doubt the factors you mentioned could tip the scales in the other direction.

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.

So what would you rather have, something that sounds best to you or something that the numbers say is "superior" to something else? The definition of "superior", at least im my music room, is what sounds best, not what some imperical set of measurements say. A bucng of the 70's amps were so good by the numbers that they should have been creating live music - unfortuantely, many of those same amps sounded like crap. I would draw a conclusion that something was better based on the sound it made everytime and look at a decision based on measurements as the unwarranted choice. But, that's just me, maybe.

Drubin, I don't think accepting what one hears as true mean abdicating reason and critical thinking. Just saying that measurements can lie. When they do, THAT is whan you NEED reason to tell you the REAL truth! ;)

I'm in violent agreement with you about measurements, David. However, when what I hear flies in the face of reason (irregardless of measurements), I want to know why, or at least I want to think it through. That's just me, and it reflects my self-doubting personality.

I'll make a confession that may get me kicked out of the club. I used to believe fiercely in "trust your ears," but I have come to suspect that our ears (mine at least) can sometimes lie to us also. This does not mean that I choose what measures best (I don't pay attention to that), only that I pause and reflect if something doesn't make sense. I may end up choosing components or techniques that don't make sense but sound best to me (e.g., using a linestage). The thing is, I don't do so without first questioning it, and I continue to question it even afterwards.

Drubin,
I have a friend who insists that perception is reality. There's something about the comment that disturbs me but there's nothing there for me to contradict. That said, I certainly wouldn't think to kick you out of the club. In fact, your candor is grounds for promotion. I would guess from your writings that you would be more comfortable with 4yanx in the hearing dept. than with seandtaylor in statistics.
Personally I wouldn't consider a thread successful until it attracted your comments.

4ynx: Do you not understand the difference between "this table/arm/cartridge sounds better to me" and "since this table/arm/cartridge sounds better to me, it's drive system must be better"?