Direct drive vs belt vs rim vs idler arm

Oxford University entrance exam question:
1. If this is the question, then what is the answer?
2. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Or if you are torturing poor Dustin Hoffman:
'Is it safe?'
The Rockport Sirius 3 was direct drive, and is often considered the 'final destination' of turntables - I have heard one and that was all too brief. Against this is the belt drive Continuum.
I have said, in recent posts, that as my hearing changes, it has shifted from being obsessed with imaging and soundstage, towards timing to which I am more sensitive at the moment. I am convinced that each drive has a 'sound'. Direct Drive may be the most neutral - or what we think is neutral. Belt Drive the quietest and best imagers,idlers (from what I have heard so far' really do time brilliantly and have superb bass).
I personally think that neutrality is quite possibly audiophiles most ludicrous and intangible concept. Most musicians I have spoken to say that all they want is for listeners to feel connected to and to enjoy the music, and if the medium of delivery achieves that, then that medium has done its' task. To that end we ultimately want a system that keeps us in our seat listening to music until far too late in the evening.

Dear Rockyboy: +++++ " Is one TT type inherently better than another? " +++++

my experiences on all TT drive systems but the rim one tell me that no one is better than the other.

Syntax posted: ++++ " The worst - by far - is idler drive, followed from DD and best is Thread Drive (when done right). " +++++

but he did not say why?????. He said: " best is thread drive ( when done right ) ". What about a DD " when done right "?

Albertporter posted: +++++ " All systems at their ultimate execution, direct drive is best. " +++++

neither here he said it why??????

So, seems to me that all about is about: " personal preferences " on what we have/are playing in our audio system.

The kind of TT drive system is only one factor/characteristic on a whole TT design and perhaps not the more important one or at least not the one that could define which kind of TT is better.

A TT as a tonearm IMHO must be analysed against which kind of audio item is using it which kind of audio item " depends " and how of the TT or the tonearm. These two analog items are " slaves " of the phono cartridge that IMHO is the analog item that has the hardest task on analog that's: TO READ THE LP GROOVES INFORMATION WITH CERO DEGRADATION. ADDING AND LOSTING NOTHING OF THE PRECIOUS RECORDED SIGNAL.

IMHO THE FIRST TWO " FOCUS " THAT GOES AGAINST THAT STATEMENT ARE THE TT AND THE TONEARM. ( obviously the tonearm internal wire and connectors. ).

The TT, independent of what kind of drive system has, is a " tremendous " focus of cartridge signal degradation even if always runs at 33.1/3 rpm and mantain 100% of speed stability in the very short time: no speed variations not even tiny variations. In its best design any TT drive system can fulfil the whole speed subject and even to have the same posibilities to share in between same specs about: ruble, signal to noise ratio, wow and flutter or speed stability numbers.

Main differences IMHO comes how a TT design handle internal vibrations/resonances at different levels as: bearing, motor, plinth, belt, platter, etc, etc.. In the very first second that a TT start to run in that very first moment are generated vibrations/resonances ( that we can name it: distortions, that will be pick-up by the phono cartridge. Distortions that are not on the LP grooves. ) due that a TT is a dynamic " circuit ": the platter mass in movement generate a dynamic tiny vibrations where different platter mass/weight generate different vibrations/resonances and these kind of distortions depends too on which TT build materials were choosen by the TT designer.

Now, the TT plater generated distortions has to be added to the TT bearing distortions, to the TT motor distortions, to the TT arm board distortions, to the TT plinth distortions and obviously to all kind of vibrations/resonances generated out side the TT that affect the cartridge signal.

I posted several times that till today ( and I'm not heard all the TT out there but almost all. ) no TT design per se fulfil the cartridge needs and the main reason is not because the drive system but mainly because the build materials choosed on the TT design and more specific the build materials choosed for the platter/mat TT.

According with my experiences the " major " differences in the music we perceived trough the cartridge and all the way to the speakers is: the build material choosed for the platter/mat that is in direct touch with the LP and the LP with the phono cartridge and not because the TT drive system.

I'm not saying that the drive system is not important ( everything in a TT design is important. ), certainly it is but what is in direct touch with the LP is more critic/important and gives the TT " signature ".

I did not heard yet and analog rig ( in any audio system. ) where I can say: " this TT really works " dissapearing " ( by dampening or some other way. ) internal and external vibrations/resonances that permits the cartridge can fulfil its needs.

Some of the last DD designs are taking care about and I hope that in a near future we can have TTs that can fulfil the cartridge needs.

The name of the game: TT design build materials chosen!!!!!!, DD or BD is almost unimportant. Of course that first rate design execution is a must to have.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

From my many, many years of experience it really is all about the execution. From my 1st AR table to my current direct drive they all had something I liked. The belt driven Simon Yorke had incredible PACE (and looks IMHO) but lacked ultimate bass depth. The only table I can say for sure that didn't meet my liking was a TTWeights table which couldn't hold it's speed.
I've now gone to DD and my journey is now over and I'm enjoying the music and forgetting about the gear......finally!

(Dealer disclaimer)

Or, simply stated, a myriad of factors play vital roles in the realm of vinyl based analog playback, drive type notwithstanding.

Dear Lohanimal, I realize your generalizations regarding the virtues of each type of drive system are thoughtfully arrived at, but even they are open to question. I agree with the others, who agreed with me (no surprise), that execution is paramount.

I WOULD say a word in support of the unpretentious Lenco L75; it's absolutely amazing what you can get out of that turntable after bearing and chassis upgrades, a well-designed plinth, and a TOTL tonearm are added to the mix. Even though those extras may add up to a few thousand dollars in expense, the Lenco is definitely my choice for "bang for the buck".