Direct Drive turntables

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.

Pryso, It depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If you want to get an accurate understanding of the sonic affect of a particular component then you want everything else to remain constant. In this case it's about gaining understanding and not necessarily optimizing for the best sound. With understanding of the contribution of various components in isolation then you are in a much better position to then optimize.

It is certainly possible to make meaningful judgments without everything else being equal but it is much more difficult and more error prone.

There is usually some synergy between components, but I believe that as the level of quality goes up this becomes less important. I think that a motor implementation that requires a particular tonearm or cartridge to sound optimal should be considered to be flawed. A quality, neutral implementation of any component should work very well with any other quality component. Of course in the real world this all too often is not the case. But it should be a goal of good design.