Direct drive vs belt vs rim vs idler arm

Dover, Please lighten up. I am probably guilty of not studying your posts with the dedication that they deserve. Nor am I guilty of criticizing you if you might have been incorrect about whether or not NVS uses a traditional type of servo mechanism (meaning one where there is a device that directly monitors platter speed and feeds information back to a controller for compensation). You apparently inferred from the term "17 degrees of freedom" that they DO use such a servo. My error is apparently that I quoted you as having actually said that THEY say they use a servo, which perhaps is not the case(?) I am still not certain how the NVS works, but it is not a matter of great concern to me either way. As for "Stereophile Review", puh-leeze! I am sure you can find a better independent authority than that. As for believing "black is white", where did I do that? I am speculating, not believing.

02-14-13: Ct0517
Hi Richard, Albert Porter, Bill Thalmann
I came across your new website today.
As a hobbyist with no affiliation to any of you - congrats on the new site and good luck.

Thanks Ct0517, but I have nothing to do with the upgrades or the website but did lend my photos to Krebs since my table benefited greatly from the mods he licensed Bill Thalmann to do.

I've known Bill for a good while and always tell people he is the guy that did my electrical and Krebs upgrade work.

Even before this Technics stuff, Bill worked on my custom Dali (tube) crossover and greatly improved both the resolution and dynamics.

I thought I had reached the limit since this was our third version of the crossover but Bill suggested a small design change that required few parts and it REALLY worked.

I love recommending this kind of person to the community.

Ct0517 et el
Just to clarify things. Albert Porter has no financial interest in the Krebsupgrade. I used photos of his plinths because he kindly allowed me to and because I think that they are really cool. Bill Thalmann is my appointed agent in the America's. He does great work.

Thanks.

I posted these same comments on Albert Porter's system thread. I also thought it might be useful on this thread, since I touch on all three drive systems that are the subject of this thread (Direct drive vs belt vs rim vs idler arm).

My Technics SP10 MK2A has recently received the Krebs modifications and Bill Thalmann (Music Technology, Springfield, VA) overhaul of the electronics. I am using the MK2A in the stock Technics obsidian plinth, stock arm board, Graham Phantom Supreme 10” arm, Benz LPS cartridge, and Graham IC 70 phono cable connected to the Boulder 2008 phono stage. Please see my comments about the Technics SP10 MK3 posted earlier on Albert Porter’s system forum, the MK3 also having the Krebs modifications and Thalmann electronics overhaul.

In short, this MK2A is an outstanding turntable. Speed stability is excellent, measuring on par with the MK3 using the Feickert iPhone application and the Analogue Productions test record, and passes the Sutherland Timeline test. Unlike the MK3, the MK2A doesn’t demand that you notice and praise its speed stability. Nonetheless, I never hear speed anomalies at all, and certainly not the “hunting” that direct drive critics levy against this breed.

But let me be clear, in spite of the measured similarities between the MK2A and the MK3, subjectively the MK3 reigns supreme in speed stability over all other turntables I have used. One can hear this in extreme resolution, purity of musical lines, and low level detail. Visually, the Feickert iPhone application shows occasional periods of a straight horizontal line with a 1000HZ test tone with the MK3, but not with the MK2A. I suppose the summarized results in this application somehow average the results, because the single figures for both tables are very similar. In summary, speed stability on the MK2A is superb, but the MK3 is more superb.

Sonically, the MK2A is excellent. As compared to the MK3, the MK2A presents musical images more forward in the soundstage with less defined outlines. Dynamics seem more spectacular than the MK3, although as noted in my comments on the Krebs modified MK3, dynamics with the MK3 are awesome and grow to staggering climaxes and subside with greater ease - more like the natural decay in live music. I have generally found these sonic attributes – forward soundstage and spectacular dynamics - fairly typical with turntables having all-aluminum platters like the MK2A. I hear these same differences with the Thorens TD 124 using its aluminum platter as compared to any of these alternatives – the Schopper platter (made with secret ingredients), the original cast iron platter, and the Mirko Djordjevic stainless steel platter. Otherwise, the MK2A is sonically opulent, rich and satisfying. Bass is powerful, mids are neutral and pellucid, and highs are excellent without sounding unnaturally extended. To my ears, the MK3 sounds more natural and true to the music in all of these areas, but this may be just a matter of taste. And could it be that the aftermarket copper, gunmetal mats and the like placed atop the MK2A platter diminish this difference? I don’t know, but some recordings sound more appealing on one table than the other. That’s why I love them both and won’t part with either one of them.

My goal in experimenting with these vintage direct drives is to see just how good they can sound. Direct drive technology intrigues me for achieving extreme speed stability, a particular obsession of mine. My extremely expensive belt drive turntable is truly wonderful sonically in all areas except speed stability. I will continue to experiment with various aspects of these direct drives. As all analog aficionados know, *everything* in analog matters: platter/mat/plinth/ armboard materials, footers, arms, cartridges, loading, cables, what the cables touch, VTA, azimuth, overhang, absolutely level surfaces, static electricity, quality of electricity, platform isolation, RFI, ad infinitum and ad nauseum…and even looking at your turntable cross-eyed can make it sound bad on any given day. If analog didn’t sound so good, who would put up with it? Next steps are to improve upon the plinths, using Albert Porter’s superb design. I am also working with a Denon DP 80 (although the vintage Denon DP 100 should be a killer turntable, but it is alas unobtainable) and someday would like to play around with the reputably awesome Kenwood L07D.

Here are some thoughts about value. The MK2A is by no means a shameful comparison to the MK3 – quite the contrary. The MK3 is so rare and expensive nowadays, why not try out the plentiful MK2 with the Krebs modifications and Thalmann restoration? The result is a superb value in high end audio, since new turntables achieving this level of sonic excellence are far, far more expensive. By way of disclaimer, I have no financial ties to Bill Thalmann, Richard Krebs and Albert Porter. I am really grateful to these gentlemen for enabling me to hear what these engineering marvels can do.

For Richard (a Caravan tune from early days ;) )
"Ct0517 the TT under test was a Goldmund studio with a Syrinx PU3 arm and I think a Monster 2000 MC cartridge.
I agree it was an astonishing finding which clearly demonstrated the effect of stylus drag. I hasten to add that I am in no way criticizing the Goldmund. It was simply correctly doing what it was designed to do. From memory it had a 2.5 kg platter with lead weights around its circumference. Thus for its weight, the platter had a relatively high moment of inertia."

Way back in 1990/91 as a young man I owned a GOLDMUND STUDIO, would you believe ! But I didn´t have absolutely no idea of it´s speed stability as such, I hardly did know that such phenomenon as speed stability in record play existed, LOL. Young and foolish I was but eventually I had to get rid of the damn thing because I was so disappointed about it´s sound quality ! But I did realize one thing: Studio´s flimsy floating suspension is not a good idea at all. In fact it´s the biggest mistake GOLDMUND ever did. I changed it to ORACLE DELPHI MK.II.5. I lost a minor fortune but got much better TT instead. Oh, those were the days in the beginning of my hi-fi career... LOL.

Of course, as we all know nowadays, ORACLE´s HANGING suspension is way better than Studio´s and probably all others´ implementations as well.
I think ORACLE´s suspension is the very finest ever designed on the Planet, especially in the latest model the Mark VI with fluid damping.

The belt driven ORACLE smoked the DD STUDIO in sound quality. With the SME III/SHURE ULTRA 500. Obviously the very compliant ULTRA didn´t like STUDIO´s flimsy suspension. Were a less compliant MC a better choice for STUDIO I would never know...:/

More that 20 years later I tried a direct rim drive with the DELHI platter... but that´s another story. Of course ;)