Direct Drive turntables

My travels in DD vs. Belt came to a head twice 1) years back with my first Luxman PD444, 2) three years ago with my minty beauty Goldmund Studio. I was a Walker disciple having penned the first review in TAS and having helped Lloyd with the belt tensioning device. I went on to own this extraordinary table while various belt drives migrated through the system. It was not until I brought in for testing the Luxman 444 that I began to see the whys and hows and benefits of DD drive. For the first time the timing and speed accuracy of my reel tapes was mimicked. After much tweaking with sound boards and AC drives I was to achieve a soundstage with the Luxman that did not sit direct upon the loudspeakers, one that breathed and floated like a belt drive. But what a total trip into madness that was. It took months to get this right. And so I read about Porter and his SP10 and his quest and I sit back and toast him a glass of 85 Cab! What an ordeal. Some could just ring up Payer and punk down the dough and get the finished product but us penny pinching masochists had to have it our way. I remember the MBL distributor brought over a CSN rip of Fremer’s comparing the R’port to the mighty Continuum. I thought the Rockport had the pitch better but a rip is just a rip and so many other variables come into play since the comp was not side by side in timeline. I will say with all this that I was smiling a very broad grin when I first brought home the Goldmund… oh, so much space, like a belt drive but now with pitch stability! A grand achievement! Somewhat of a golden color but so what when so much music density is in the room!

I will say I have a deep curiosity for the big Continuum and if I can cajole Mike into letting me schlep up my Pierre Lurne’ concoction (my best table set up to date) I will find out if I need to lighten the Vanguard account by some huge multi thousand dollar amount.

And Raul… no clamp? You shame the turntable PHDs (laugh out loud). Vacuum clamping? Simply the best with the Luxman PD-555- everything was more real. Though I lost sleep over the suction detriments and had to sell it before I had a nervous breakdown! Really!

My best!

Peter

Dertonarm, An interesting test. I'll have to give it a try. But the test is about record slippage and not stylus drag (at least the way I define stylus drag). I generally prefer clamping. I suspect that this is mainly due to better coupling to the platter but some of the difference may well be due to record slippage. Thanks for the measurement suggestion.

Dear breuninger: +++++ " And Raul… no clamp? You shame the turntable PHDs.... " ++++

I made several/lot of tests with different mats and clamps even with vacuum hold down systems, in any case/combinations I detect advantages and disadvantages then I made/make a own design mat with a propietary blen material and I test too where I find that with this mat design not only reduce/minimum the trade offs on performance but that the overall quality performance was/is better with out clamp. I have to say that I never try a ring platter mechanism.

I wish I can/could have our mat design with an integrated vacuum mechanism, this could be great!!!

I repeat again again and again ( many times everywhere ) that the mat/platter build material where the record/LP seats directly is almost the more important subject/factor to achieve the highest quality performance, no single doubt about.

Till today in my knowledge the TT designers and DIYS don't find yet the right build material or blend materials that IMHO is responsable of the recording/play back quality performance ( everything the same. ).

We can see in this thread and other ones where everyone is " worried " about TT drive system, heavy/ light mass, plinth, suspension, etc, etc but no one of these people address the importance ( critical ) of that intimate relationship between that mat/platter and the LP, well maybe I can't explain good: I know that one way or the other these people address that TT " characteristic " but they don't find yet the right one.
IMHO here is where the TT ( as an audio item. ) could give a very high jump on overall quality performance that no one of you could even imagine!!!

If I was in the TT design this single target will be the one where I put all my " energy " because all the other factors/characteristics/targets in TT's are almost know, " invented " and achieved. Btw, the same on tonearms and cartridges.

If we think/make the same normally we achieve/obtain ( more or less ) the same results. We need to " change " if we want to grow-up.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Regards ad enjoy the music,
Raul.

And yes to Raul,
+++I repeat again again and again ( many times everywhere ) that the mat/platter build material where the record/LP seats directly is almost the more important subject/factor to achieve the highest quality performance+++

I have to fully agree to this basic tenant. As Yoda would say “most important is the platter to the record interface.”

I would be more on firm ground in this thread to think of the differences in terms of _difference of coloration_.

Pure lead or a high lead mix: sound has a dead "it-ends-here" coloration. very accurate reproduction of the space between the images and notes.

Hard rubber like formulas: detail and depth to the coloration, a color not unlike putty or clay, very nice space between the notes but flavored with something extra.

Clear Acrylic: more of an endless feeling to the coloration, almost a reverb of select frequencies are accentuated. Have to get used to.

Special formulas (Goldmund, Lurne' and other Alchemist designers): a small shadow coloration that follows the music, like SETs somewhat. Very addictive to my ears at this time in my career. Huge space and you can minimize a touch of gold glow if you roll up your sleeves and try creative belts, AC/DC drives, and outboard motors.

Peter

This is a most interesting post and I thank all the knowledgeable Goners for their contributions. As Raul stated, sharing knowledge is important. And 75 comments in just one week clearly shows the level of interest in this topic.

BUT, if I understand this point correctly, I have an issue with one suggestion made a few times here. That is the idea that it is necessary to test different drive systems with "all else being equal". Really? Since I believe many contributors here are in fact knowledgeable audio folks, you may agree that component compatibility is very important in this hobby. If so, why would we assume that the same cartridge, arm, plinth, suspension, support, etc. systems would be "ideal" with different drive systems?

My contention is that the only way to compare different drive systems would be to do so with each one "optimized" for best performance and therefore not compromised. Of course then we have the problem of optimized by whose standard or taste?

So just like there being no one speaker that works best in every room, or with every amp, I guess it is up to each of us to find which drive system, in combination with our other vinyl playback components, brings us the most satisfaction. Pax.