Direct Drive turntables

Dear Mikelavigne: I don't argue of what you heard through your first hand TT drive experiences but what does not make sense to me is that you made statements/conclusions ( same as Albert. ) of the superior DD performance when ( even between your DD experiences ) all those different TT drive designs are not only different because of its drive designs but because are different overall " input to output "!!!!, in these circumstances/enviroment what are you comparing with?, IMHO not its drive system design but the TT as a whole and with each one tonearm mounted ( that were different too. ).

Years ago when I was " new " in this forum I posted several times of the " superior " DD TT technology over the BD one, several people laughed ( including people that today " die for DD ". ) for say the least.
I was an advocate to DD systems ( and still I'm. ) but over the time I learn on the whole subject and today I know that that single factor ( drive design. ) can't tell us the true about TT differences/performance.

I posted here/in this thread:

+++++ " Now, a TT audio item is not a set of " single/aisle " advantages/disadvantages but a whole finished audio item with intrinsic trade-offs ( there is no perfect TT. ).

Where reside ( mainly ) those trade-offs? ( certainly not on the TT drive design. ) and this is a hard question with many answers, example: type of bearing, TT plinth, kind of motor choice, platter build material, arm board build material, TT " system " vibration/isolation ( external/internal ) mechanism, whole TT quality/build execution,.

These and many other factors are the ones that makes the " differences " and IMHO you can get/have the quality performance you are looking for with either TT drive mechanism. " +++++

Mike IMHO you can't prove ( any one can't. ) that DD systems makes " per se " the difference!

+++++ " The analog imperfections like an audio chain makes extremely complex to have a " simple " answer to your question: the whole subject is very complex and till today I don't read/know ( anywhere ) a precise answers that can be corroborated in a scientist/theoretical/mathematics model. " +++++

Even Dertonarm agree that the drive principle can't tell the whole " history " and I say even because I know the Dertonarm " bias " about and Teres confirm:

+++++ " This is how I believe that the drive topologies stack up. But it actually says little about how turntables using these topologies will compare. With any turntable you are hearing the whole package and the drive topology is just one of many pieces. " +++++

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Dertonarm,

absolutely oil pressure bearing and maybe magnetic all serve the function it seems to me - which is to remove the impact of noise transmission from the drive system. If you think about it, typical bearing systems are rather crude whatever material, stainless, ruby, ceramic etc. By reducing the coefficient of friction one has to also reduce the impact of physically induced vibration, noise and mechanical artifacts from the platter. I have not really thought about this too hard, but heavy metal platters would probably amplify noise that will be transmitted through the sensitive cartridge. Could be something that Teres and Redpoint and Galibier figured as they have experimented with varying platter materials?

Steve

Hi Raul,

So I have heard Albert's journey to DD extensively as well as my own (post above). And while I do agree with you the only 100% proof on DD vs belt is only to change one varible.

However, many of us have heard so many arm, cartridge, table combinations we begin to associate traights or signatures that seem to remain constant as we go from one to the next.

In my case, no belt drive gave me the realness of a piano, the impact, decay, power, that I comment on above. Others posted this as a "timing" improvement, and that's a better way to describe it. And it's not just in the piano, listening to Phil Woods right now and this trumpet has bight, power, delicacy that I just didn't have before on my SME 20/2.

So when I heard similar "timing" things at Albert's house, between his Walker and his Technics (belt vs DD) the conclusion to me is inescapable. This doesn't mean the Walker is now bad, it's still a incredible table.

I evaluate analog as a system "table, arm, cart, arm cable" And in this context these DD "systems" keep coming up superior to some of us in this timing area.

In Albert's case, his dd system was going up against a killer belt drive system. I'll also comment the workmanship he and his partner have put into his plinth is extraordinary and it's a major contributor to his "system" I'm seeing a few copies, but his is very unique with the type of wood, the construction, and the finish. It's one of the very best turntables I've ever heard. Plus the power supply improvements in his SP10 mkIII help also.

I am very happy with my analog "system" around my Grand Prix Monaco. Very happy DD convert here.

Steve, agreed. My postulate for heavy mass in platters does include that these platters are composite materials which do dampen each individuals inherent resonance behavior. Metal (gun metal, aluminum, lead, stainless steel, copper - all do have their individual virtues in TT-platter application ) isn't "bad" by nature in platter design, but needs "work" - as all other materials - to produce what is possible.

Cheers,
D.

Dear Jfrech: +++++ " And while I do agree with you the only 100% proof on DD vs belt is only to change one varible. " +++++

that's all I'm talking about not questioning what you or other people heard.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.