New Teres Direct Drive Motor Available as Option

This one looks real interesting. I might have to give it a shot.

A birdy recently chirped about suppliers who miss deadlines, and suggested the monkey watch his mailbox in late July.

Provocative comment:

Fella's I have to say after switching to a Garrard 301 idler drive I'll nver go back to a belt. This seems like the same premise and is very interesting IMHO.

A good customer of Frank Schroeder owns a Loricraft 301 and 501. They sit adjacent to each other on a wide shelf.

You know how he drives them? Using the 'table which isn't playing as a motor pod belt drive system for the other one.

It's the only modular belt drive system I know of whose motor pod comes with its own Schroeder Reference tonearm (grin).

There are lots of ways to solve a problem, and saying that the architecture dictates success or failure (rather than the design and implementation), is drawing the wrong conclusion.

This dialog comes up time and again whether it involves electronics, turntables, speakers, etc.

People incorrectly attribute the "goodness" of a component to the chosen architecture instead of the fact that they are experiencing a mature, well thought out design developed by someone who knows what real music sounds like.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

Thom has hit this one right on the money. Its so easy to attribute the success or failure of a component to a specific element of the design or architecture when it is the series of design decisions and the implementation of the design that makes the most difference. Otherwise, there would be very little difference in components. You could just cookie cut any component "Add 2 of these caps, three of these resistors, simmer with tubes and install in a resonance proof case". Burn in for 250 hours and listen ;~)

Thom, what a cool idea! By using one platter as the pulley to drive the other, I think (if I remember my Newtonian mechanics correctly) there is less stretching force on the belt and a lower likelihood of slippage, ergo less speed irregularity (because the driving platter will have a huge mechanical advantage compared to a tiny pulley). Moreover, the driver Loricraft constitutes a high torque motor, as opposed to the very low torque motors favored by some designers for use with high mass platters. So, I see that 2-Loricraft idea (if it sounds good) as support for the idler drive/rim drive/high torque motor school. This is not to say that I disagree with your basic premise as stated.