2. analog
  3. 1249163818

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

O.K. here is one for all the physics majors and engineers.

Does a high mass platter being belt driven offer the same steady inertia/speed as a direct drive or idler drive?
Is the lack of torque in the belt drive motor compensated for by the high mass platter. Object in motion stays in motion etc. Or are there other factors to take into consideration?
I am considering building up a Garrard 301 or Technics SP10, but is it all nonsense about the advantage of torque.
I am aware that the plinths on these tables can make a huge difference, I've got that covered.
My other options would be SME20 or Basis 2500 of Kuzma Stogi Reference etc.
If I have misstated some technical word, please avert your eyes. I don't want a lecture on semantics, I think everyone knows what I mean.
Thanks in advance.
mrmatt
hiho
451 posts
 

"If the belt were equally stretched on both sides there would be no tension difference and thus no torque transmitted."

Thanks for the explanation. On my system, the active pulley is the same size as the passive platter so I would have to assume there would no or little belt creep, right? I use two identical turntables to drive each other via a VHS tape. So far this is the best sound I got from a belt-drive system and the only thing that can match it is a quality direct-drive turntable with a coreless motor. Since I am lazy, I like the convenience of direct-drive table with some automatic features. :-)
quiddity
119 posts
 

Hiho

The creep is proportional to the strain in the belt divided by the parallel sum of the wrap lengths of the pulley and platter.

The compliance of the mylar belt is quite low, so there's not much strain present. The wrap length of your "pulley" is about 500mm rather than the 10 - 50 mm of conventional drives.

Your system will give about the lowest creep available (this side of direct drive of course).

Mark Kelly
nilthepill
842 posts
 
Lewm, I did not mean to imply DD to be better, but equal in sound Performance characteristics w/ CMB, the latter having less-er friction. To tell you the truth I have both mechanical and CMB version and prefer the original mechanical bearing the best. It is not, i think, the magnetic bearing feature (which is horizontal BTW, the ceramic being the main spindle) but the ceramic spindle that hurts the overall performance. They have not optimized the stiffness spindle, me thinks and hence less stiff than the mechanical bearing metal ( steel)spindle.
quiddity
119 posts
 

Hiho

When I said "about the lowest creep of any system outside DD" I was thinking that the drive I designed for Thom Mackris was probably slightly lower. I was wrong.

I've run the numbers, assuming you are running a 1/2" x 3mil Mylar belt around two 300mm platters placed 400mm apart, and you win. We have slightly lower compliance (0.063 mm/N vs 0.117 mm/N) but you have a longer effective pulley length (236 mm vs 68 mm) so your creep is lower: 0.003 vs our 0.005, referred to a radius of 150mm.

As a reference, a typical belt drive system might have a creep number around 5 - 10 and a good idler system (like Win's) will have a number around 0.05, over 100 times better than the belt drive.

Mark Kelly
lewm
13,252 posts
 
Nilthepill, I guess I don't understand the concept of the CMB. I made certain assumptions that must be off base. I've actually never seen any Clearaudio turntable, except perhaps their low end ones, in the flesh. But then, I lead a sheltered life here in the Washington DC area, where the hi-end audio emporium is as rare as a dinosaur.
More to discover