A Copernican View of the Turntable System

Hi Dgob,
I think you re-read the bit about 'speed consistency' and wow and flutter figures.
Peter Moncreif agrees with you that these 'specifications' are easily attained but generally useless as they are 'averaged'?
It is very easy to obtain 'average' speed consistency but it is the 'instantaneous' deviations to speed caused by complex musical passages and their affect on the stylus which he states is extremely difficult to deal with?
I believe that Mike Lavigne kept his Sirius III alongside his SP10MkIII for quite a while before selling it?
Whilst the Rockport was staggering in its high-frequency performance.....my experience with it showed a lack of bottom end consistency perhaps attributed to its linear-tracking tonearm?
My current experience with the speed control on the Victor TT-101 is changing my perception of the benefits therein and so far.......without concrete refutation of Moncreif's analysis.....much of what he says rings true?
Cheers
Henry

Dear Daniel,
I think he covered that aspect of speed control pretty thoroughly?
You are simply saying.........'he's wrong, I'm right'?
You offer no evidence nor counter any of his arguments whatsoever.
This is surely not a way to convince :^)
Cheers
Henry

Dear Halcro,

I always have regarded speed control, especially for the "belt-drive guys", as absolutely crucial. Drive Force, stability and precision are a must for a very good turntable system.This is why I implemented the VPI SDS drive on my two Micro Seikis in a two way fly wheel configuration. And this is why I am using the Dusch Multiconverter DU 937 for steering my EMT R80 also controlling it very precisely with my Strobo-weights.

I do know people listening to records "in a slower mode" than 33, 45 or 78. They enjoy it as a bit smoother sound. I don't know what they enjoy, maybe wow & flutter, instability and a change in sound... so what.

best @ fun only

Dear Henry, you are right .... that's what I am saying.
And - no matter what I will say, I won't convince and I do not want so either.
The three principles of drive we encounter in analog phono playback are all three with merits and flaws.
None is perfect - none provides what physic asks for in stable speed.
As none can provide controlled stable speed without acceleration.
Unless we minimize the platter's mass - which we don't really want .... for obvious reasons.
It is about getting the platter to speed and preventing it from slowing down again.
The job of the drive is in the first only ... only ... to get the platter to the required speed.
Once that speed is obtained, it is about preventing the platter from slowing down.
It can't be about "controlling" the platter.
Every acceleration of the platter will degrade sonic performance due to very tiny flutter.
After starting the spin, once the platter is on the correct speed, the job of the motor/drive is only - IMHO (and very well backed by Newton and the laws of physic in the Einstein-continuum in which we still are (but don't really know for how much longer - given the latest discoveries in astrophysic science ..)) - to prevent the platter from slowing down.
Not to control it.
This leads to the principle of controlled slippage in conjunction with huge inertia which so far has not been applied to analog audio in any correct way ever.
Mostly because it is very expensive to do it right as it requires huge masses, very precise tooling and - if one want's any convenience in terms of getting to speed within a minute - very expensive motors.
I am neither in the BD nor in the DD camp and not in the ID (idler drive) camp either.
These all have their merits - no question about that.
And we will always see one or the other principle being en vogue due to fashion and style.
These 3 will always be what is available to the public.
But non of these is able by nature to provide the last 1% in performance.
By using one of the 3 common principles in tt-design, we always accept that the last "degree of freedom (here: sound w/o flutter)" is not with us.
Cheers,
D.

Deartonearm,

... Amen.

best @ fun only