Is Direct Drive Really Better?

I don't purport to know anything about idler wheel drive systems and I would be very open to trying one. My principle hesitations are first that I wouldn't know how to acquire a Lenco and I don't have any mechanical skills whatsoever. Mounting a cartridge is on the outer reaches of my adroitness so the prospect of keeping a mechanically complex drive system operational appears discouraging.
What do you say to people like me?

Jack .. there's a Technics SL-1000 (consumer version) and a couple of SP10 Mk2s on ebay right now, for between $400 (no plinth) to $800 (plinth and arm).

I vote you buy one and report back to us in a month or so :-)

Dear friends: The Macrojack start thread question: " Is Direct Drive Really Better? ", it is an open question that has several different stages. Because of that I think there is no single answer of the question.
If we read all the ones posted here in some ways all of them are right answers.

In my opinion we have, at least, two big stages about: one an objective aproach and the other a subjective one and from here we could have another stages like a: objective/subjective one.

From the objective approach what will be tell us which drive TT design is better are: MEASUREMENTS that could be corroborated in a scientific way. What should be measured?, at least: speed accuracy, speed stability ( refered to time ), signal to noise, rumble and woow&flutter.
From the information that I have the DD designs are the ones where we can find almost all those measurements. In the BD designs we can find little info about and in the IW less info.
So with out those measurements info we can't say for sure which drive TT design is better. I posted that the speed accuracy of the SP 10 ( 0.001% ) beats any BD design because searching info about I find that the Walker is 0.002% and the Commtinum 0.006%, but I can't find any info on: Basis, VPI, Teres, Galibier, Simon Yorke, Clearaudio, Transrotor, Brinckman, etc, etc..
Now, for IW the very little info about is really poor.

I have a lot of respect for Johnnantais and when he told us that the IW drive system has a better speed accuracy/stability he don't have a scientific measurement where all of us can corroborate that. So from an objective approach the Johnnantais opinion ( like mine or other people ) has no value at all and can't tell us which drive system is better.
The same is for the " tonearm/cartridge drag " subject: till today nobody can confirm which drive system ( high mass platter or not ) is really better on this subject. All we have are opinions, that's all.

Btw, from the objective approach I think that it is time that the BD and IW defender take their time and money for to have those objective measurements. Johnnantais this is part of your challenge where you can prove you point of view.

Now, if we take the subjective approach then things could be extremely complicated because any one of us could have a different opinion about. Here there is not only our opinion but in which stage are our opinion corroborated, that is, against what: what we like it or against live music?, in which room, with which tonearm/cartridge, which cables, which phonopreamp, wood/acrylic/metal design, air bearing or not, vacuum hold down record?, which mat, which clamp type, which load impedance, VTF/SRA, which records, which speakers, full range system or not, which, which, which and which?, no ended.

With the info that I have ( objective approach ) I confirm that the DD design is the best one. If any of you want to prove that other drive TT designs are better you have to prove it with those measurements not with an opinion, this opinion belongs to the subjective approach and here any of us could be " right ".

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Back in the day,Audio magazine regularly performed Speed stability specifications for their reviews-

Belt drives-

Linn LP12 : ±0,385
Maplenoll Ariadne : ± 0,20%
Michell Gyrodec : ±0,12 %
Oracle : ± 0,213%
SOTA Sapphire : ±0,18%
Thorens TD115 : ±0,27%

Direct drives-

Nakamichi Dragon : ±0,13%
Goldmund ST4 : ±0,317%
Technics SP-10 : ±0,19%

Raul: I think your focus on speed-accuracy may be overstated. IMO speed-stability is the more important factor, beyond a certain point of competence concerning accuracy. Accuracy isn't that hard to achieve, stability is.

Caterham1700: Those figures would appear to confirm that implementation is a lot more important than classification, but it would be nice to know exactly what those numbers represent of terms of how the test was made and the data assessed. I continue to strongly suspect that the *nature* of a TT's speed distortion has got to be at least as important as its overall percentage level, just as in amplifier harmonic distortion. And that beyond some minimum level of speed-stability competence, resonant behavior might be more sonically significant.

Teres' last post prompted a thought: In theory, shouldn't the ultimate goal for transcribing what's on a record be to duplicate whatever speed distortions are inscribed in the grooves by the cutting lathe? If a TT slows a bit when it encounters increased stylus drag, then a lathe must also slow when it cuts more highly modulated passages into the blank lacquer. To read the information as accurately as possible, the playback should read those grooves with speed distortions that correlate with how it was cut. This would seem to be argument in favor of regarding dynamic stylus drag in TT's as being more benign than is usually supposed, perhaps even beneficial in the right porportion.