Is Direct Drive Really Better?

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.

I don't disagree with any of what Tom has said here, but I do think it would be reactionary to suppose that there is a looming "specs war" afoot regarding turntables. First of all, almost the entire market today for the type of turntables we are talking about consists of audiophiles, and that is not analogous to the situation with mass-market amps in the 70's. (In fact, I believe I'm correct in saying that the THD wars were one of the driving forces behind the true emergence of "the high end" as an alternative, and essentially separate, market for audiophiles.)

Secondly, just because specs were abused or misused once, and we learned to be wary of them, doesn't mean that all measurements are worthless (not that Tom said they were). The wow & flutter measurement could certainly stand some improvement as a protocol, but there's nothing wrong with the idea of meausuring turntable speed-distortion, both quantitatively and qualitatively, and trying to correlate that with audible performance and manufacturing and design practices.

And I think there's no quibbling that in theory, a turntable with lower and/or more benign speed-distortions is better *in that respect* than one with higher and/or more malign speed-distortions. Unlike with amp THD, I don't think there's anybody ready to argue that certain kinds of TT speed-distortions are actually euphonic or restorative in some way, or that designing to lower them will necessarily compromise some other area of performance. (In fact, all ultra-premium TT's are ostensibly designed to minimize speed-distortions, whether they succeed or not.)

Also, there's a difference between independent testing and "specs", given by manufacturers and often not worth the paper they're printed on -- especially regarding analog transducers (think speakers) -- in terms of reliability, stating of parameters, or use of a consistent industry protocol. Since turntables (and cartridges) have become such an essential feature of the audiophile landscape once again, the fact that none of these often-expensive components gets measured seems a dereliction of duty by the audiophile press. (Well, I guess by Stereophile anyway, but it seems unfair to single them out just because they're almost the only audiophile publication remaining that tests for anything at all anymore.) I think it would give particular insight to test turntable resonance, showing spectral distribution, amplitude and duration of inherent modes, and resistance to external stimulus.