why is belt drive better than direct drive?

Tough one. A friend and I years ago owned high end Denon tables with separate arms and high end cartridges. We thought we had it figured out until taking home a lowly NAD $250 belt drive. We laughed about its flimsy construction and cheap plastic. Then 15 seconds into the first cut of vinyl we looked at each other and exclaimed oh s.....!

The blackness of the table was immediate and everything came alive. Although, I have even heard old Dual rim drive tables sound great. So it's in the engineering and designm and NOT always the type. We sold the Denons and purchased AR belt drives.

In general, belt drives do tend to sound better. Good luck.

Belt drive are generally quieter. As Celtic said, results may vary. I have a vintage Dual United Audio direct drive from the early 70s and it outperforms my Dual 505-2 belt drive.

Belt drives typically offer better isolation of motor vibration. Whereas a direct drive unit has the motor "directly coupled" to the platter / record / arm / cartridge interface, the only thing linking the motor to those things is the belt. Depending on how the motor is mounted and the shape / size / material used in the belt, most of that noise can be minimized or at least drastically reduced. While there may be some technical advantages to direct drive, most of them are overcome by using "fresh" belts on a belt drive. While old belts tend to stretch and increase speed irregularities via slippage, ANY motor variations or vibration in a direct drive unit is instantly transmitted to the platter with NO damping whatsoever in a direct drive unit. Like anything else, there are pro's and con's to each method. As a case in point, ask a "DJ" or "scratch mixer" which type of table they prefer. It will most certainly be the opposite of what is considered to be the audiphile "norm". Sean
>