Direct drive/rim drive/idler drive vs. belt drive?

I was thinking about the SL1200 series - the SP10s used push pull pairs on a dual rail power supply. Since there is no coupling capacitor it can't be the problem but it is still the case that the amplifier will be sensitive to the quality of its power supply.

I'm not an engineer,but more mass seems like it would sound better on all drive systems as long as its done right.That will put more load on the bearing too.The softer the rubber used for the idler or drive belt will probably make it more quiet also resulting in a nicer table.One thing we must keep in mind is good maintenance.About 35 years ago,I had a nice turntable that was pricey for me. The belt got loose from age,so I took it to a mid to high end dealer to let them change it.I thought I was hearing something that wasn't right.By the time I looked into it,the motor bearing was destroyed from the junk tight rubber band belt the dealer used.Try to learn about your table to keep an eye on things.

Hifitime
y.s.: >>>...the motor bearing was destroyed from the junk tight rubber band belt the dealer used<<<

Now what 'table would that have been, I ask?

To get a belt THAT tight, the motor if it was out-board would simply fall over, or?

BUT, if not out-board --- well that's another story. So before I go on, can we hear about this tt by any chance.
Thanks,

Hi,
having read further through this thread one thing comes to mind: The actual length and shear thickness, mostly width of the belt in use.

Some say that this is of quite some importance and actually kept the belt VERY short (pulley under the platter) and beefy, (not thin, round or square) like the flat belts e.g. SME and Linn use.
Then there is the motor controllers, ‘done over’ a number of times by Linn, and at least once by SME.

Listening to a thin (square) belt of a top Pro-ject table and thin (round) on TransRotor Z3 (sans controller) and then a short (flat) belt with controller on SME gives a pretty clear indication of the difference in transience/attack.
So much so, that on VERY dynamic vinyl the LP seems to 'slip' on the platter (rather then the belt) in the case of the SME -- if the LP is not fixed with the clamp provided.
This raises the question of 'slippage' of the vinyl on the platter in the case high torque direct OR belt drive, and if no platter clamp is used or even available.

Lastly, if the drive is THAT tightly coupled, then the motor controller's performance comes a LOT more to the fore. With the hole drive line becoming so much more unforgiving with next to no measurable 'slip' it is now unable 'paint over' some dynamic ‘problem passages'.
Fix one thing, and it will reveal the next issue for sure.

‘Too much’ platter weight (never mind just the main bearing implications) in such a 'tight coupled' scenario may just 'over-load' the motor/controller, running behind torque demand and its reverse, producing delay and over-shoot if the platter's inertia is out of tune with the motor's torque delivery and the controllers feedback loop speed.
All this can explain why a more 'benign' coupling might sound better or more natural, even if slightly less 'dynamic'.
Greetings,

The flaws in the way most vinyl was mastered will far out weight what 'perfection' that you chase in the TT design. Once you arrive at the 'perfection' design, it will be time to move on to a base that is no less than a $10K electron microscope table. Then on to other parts of the chain. Please, just enjoy the music.