Is Direct Drive Really Better?

No, I really don't think that is what happened with belt drive. And, I'm not really "defending" belt drive, as much as I'm being cautious about placing too much emphasis on one spec that is taken "in a vacuum" regardless of other important issues that are involved.

Regarding belt drive, and its adoption to the "head of the class" during the period just prior to the introduction of the CD, I think it is quite apparent that these certain belt drive turntables proved their mettle against the crop of direct drive tables of the period. With the lone exception of the Goldmund tables, the belt drive tables "ruled" for sonic quality.

Now, obviously, since the Goldmund and some other direct drive tables have showed excellence, then it cannot be said that any one particular drive technology was "best". However, after the introduction of the CD, when most turntables were being made by small manufacturers, it was easier and probably less costly to implement a good quality drive system with a belt drive, than it was with a direct drive. Making a good direct drive turntable is costly, or else it must be made in enough quantity to mass-manufacture, such as was done by Panasonic in the late 70's with the Technics tables, and to some extent the Denon turntables were also mass-manufactured. This allowed the direct drive tables to have the cost amortized over larger numbers in sales, and provided the costlier direct drive technology to a more "budget-minded" clientele.

In fact, exept for the Goldmund, all the top audiophile tables up until the Rockport were all belt drive tables. Even with the introduction of the Rockport, it was still a tossup between whether the Rockport or the Walker(or a few other high-dollar belt drive tables) was actually preferred.

Even with the Walker being over $20K, it was still 1/3 the cost of the Rockport. I know several people who preferred the belt drive Walker over the direct-drive Rockport. So, even at $75k, direct drive was not a "clear winner" over a belt drive table costing "only" 1/3 as much.

So, what do we have here?
We have a muddle.
Some belt drives are better than some direct drives.
Some direct drives are better than some belt drives.
And let's not forget Jean's beloved idler-wheel drives, which some like better than both direct drive or belt drive.

What is the answer?
The answer is the implementation of whichever technology is selected.

You can't make a decision about the superiority of any one type of drive system alone, without considering the overall implementation(which also encompasses many other things besides just speed control and it's way of being measured).

One specification "in a vacuum" without regard to all the other important factors is useless, except for the entertainment of the debaters.

So, what do we have here?
We have a muddle.
Some belt drives are better than some direct drives.
Some direct drives are better than some belt drives.
And let's not forget Jean's beloved idler-wheel drives, which some like better than both direct drive or belt drive.

That may be the milieu right now, today, Tom, but with all due respect, a few years ago, when I got back into vinyl, nearly everyone on this site was trumpeting the superiority of belt drives, uber alles, no exceptions (OK, except some VERY stratosphere-priced tables). Further, one was rudely ridiculed for even ASKING anything differently. It was the marketing line and MANY bought into it hook, line, and stinker. Now, I am not siding with one approach in all cases becasue I have heard the good and bad of all. However, to deny the Zaikeman theory regarding the belt-drive zealots is to engage in revisionist history. :-)

4yanx,
I certainly agree that the "belt drive zealots" do exist, and I number among them, although I am quite willing to consider any table that sounds better than what I have now.

However, it would have to sound better, and not just have some particularly low "wow and flutter" measurement to get my attention.

Perhaps I'm calling this incorrectly, but it certainly appears to me that there is an underlying meaning to this measurement activity(and maybe not so "underlying" at that). Generally, the root of it is to make some specification be the determining factor in purchasing, so as to "make it easier" to decide what to buy. Such as, "this turntable 'X' has incredibly low measured 'wow and flutter', which certainly would mean that it sounds better than a turntable with some slightly higher measured levels". That's what is concerning me.
At least, that is what it led to in the past, and to some extent, it still is used by some for that.

Please let me elaborate.
When measurements become the benchmark for purchasing decisions, companies then build their equipment to do well at the measurement protocol, and not necessarily to sound good. This is because when a "spec race" occurs, it means a better bottom-line for a manufacturer to appear very good at this spec, in order to make sales.
There is historical proof for this, such as the "spec wars" that occured in the 70's and 80's with the THD specifications in amplifiers.
The "THD spec" became the benchmark for what amplifier would be purchased by a consumer, with the ostensible "reason" being that if the THD was lower, or even virtually non-exisitent, that the amplifier would be the best-sounding one, or even "perfect" because there was virtually no distortion measured, IN THE MEASUREMENT PROTOCOL.
As we all now know, this protocol consisted of comparing signal-in to signal-out and the difference would be termed "distortion", WHEN TESTED ON AN UNCHANGING 8-OHM TEST LOAD RESISTOR AS THE OUTPUT LOAD, WITH AN UNCHANGING STEADY SINE-WAVE SIGNAL INPUT.
Please forgive the history lesson, for those who already are aware of this.
The result was that amplifier manufacturers began dumping huge amounts of negative feedback(local and/or global) into the amps, so that all the measured distortion became so ridiculously low that it was considered much lower than anyone could ever perceive, and thus the signal output was considered "perfect". Naturally, at no time did sound quality ever intrude into this quest for "the best specs", because whatever came out of a "perfect amplifier" would surely be "perfect", right? As we know now, that was terribly wrong.
The measurement protocols were not designed to measure the amplifier when it was playing music. Therefore, the feedback ruined the sound quality of the amps, and it became apparent that some amps that "tested terribly" sounded remarkably better than the "perfect" amps.

Trying not to get too verbose, going back into this kind of mind-set by "leaning" on artificial number specifications is a very dangerous road to embark upon. It leads away from the desired end of musical performance to the ear, and leads toward the end of maximizing to a test procedure.

Those who do not learn from history are destined to re-live it.

That is all.
Twl out.

Trying not to get too verbose, going back into this kind of mind-set by "leaning" on artificial number specifications is a very dangerous road to embark upon. It leads away from the desired end of musical performance to the ear, and leads toward the end of maximizing to a test procedure.

I couldn't agree more, I was only agreeing with what I thought Zaikesman was saying and that is that belt-drive zealots have been telling evryone that their "drive" is superior for awhile now and that they should not act holier than thou if things start to swing another way. (not that either camp would be "right")

I must apologize. It is "audiobuddy" of course.