Is Direct Drive Really Better?

"Makes me wonder what we're hearing though"

IMO, either you're...

1) Not hearing what you expect to hear, based on extensive personal experience with the records tested

2) Hearing what there is to hear, based on the fact that you just played the record at the correct speed, and know which one is which

3) Hearing what you do expect to hear, based on your preconceptions about what effect will be wrought by a 1% speed change

...or some combo of the above. The acid test of this perception would be to use unfamiliar recordings and a helper, having them played back for you blind at both the correct speed and 1% off, to see whether you can consistently identify which playback is correct and which is fast or slow. I think this would probably be an exercise in futility though, maybe even at 2% in many instances, or even higher with some other types of music.

NO! Just PLAY records, people!!!!

Welcome elaboration on measurement process, equipment etc...

For me anyway, this thread has at least highlighted that better(relevant/reproduceable) measurements are desirable to help in evaluating performance. Few of us have the time, funds or inclination to properly test in an after-market environment. Reading countless personal opinions with limited awareness of setup variables or preferences makes user comments quite a gamble.

I would like one more considered on top of sound quality is drive quality(e.g. mean time between failures or failure rates and ability to FIX!). This may be one area where BD's provide another more cost effective attribute/convenience, er maybe not if they fail much more.

Hope this debate continues. Nice read. Carry on.

NO! Just PLAY records, people!!!!

Should have been a line in John Lennon's famous entreaty...

Albert,

That pretty much settles the measurement issues. Thanks!