why is belt drive better than direct drive?

The direct drive principle should have been the best, just as CD should have smoked LP. There has never been a Direct Drive TT, that I have heard, in the last 30 or so yrs, except the Goldmund Studio that has ever touched, even mediocre belt drive, or very old Idler drive systems sonically. The entire issue of Idler driven Garrard 301 and 401 as well as old Dual 1000 series tables , do present a substantial challenge to the best of today's belt drive systems. There is a life within those older models that eludes modern designs. Y. Sugano of Koetsu used the old Garrard 301/401 systems as a reference for his MC carts. I thought him insane untill I assembled one for myself and nearly passed out at the results. For people"who want to play records", there are plenty of great units available in todays market, belt driven to perfection. You can start with Well Tempered and you really wont have to go much further.........Frank

I think there are two questions here: are you more concerned with convenience and lack of maintenance, or the best sound possible?

Direct drive systems certainly tend to: get up to speed more quickly, have more automated features and don't need new belts, but.........there is a definite advantage to the speed consistency of a belt drive system. As was mentioned earlier, direct drive systems tend to constantly speed up and slow down. While a belt drive will typically measure worse than a direct drive, they typically have a more stable beat. I remember listening to a Linn table for the first time about 17 years ago and being amazed at how much it sounded like real music. It really sounded more like real musicians playing than a direct drive table or a cd player. So while a big deal has been made about motor vibration, I think that is secondary to pitch stability. Certainly, the better isolated a table is, the more detail can be retrieved from the record. IMHO, if you want the sound to be the most real, go with a belt drive and get a wall shelf to place it on. So is the next debate MC vs MM cartridges!!!!!

Tim

No one can PLAY records on a belt drive. DJs epitomize this concept...still, some people like fast starting, high torque, speed accuracy (frequency generated quartz lock)and electric braking. Those are the features that allow us to PLAY records. That's why DJs embraced the Technics 1200. It was never designed as a DJ turntable. DJs discovered it, though...

My 1200 is undergoing the modification process-$lowly...these modifications will convert it to a true high end Direct Drive TT system. It will harbor a low output MC yet it will still PLAY records.

Three links:

www.kabusa.com
www.needledoctor.com
www.1200s.com

Psychicanimal, please explain what you mean by "no one can PLAY records on a belt drive" ??? I'm sure that i'm not the only one that got lost on that one.

I think that Fisher came out with a table that should've been the BEST in theory, but like most of their products back in the 70's and 80's, was WAY under-designed. It used magnetic propulsion instead of any form of direct contact to the platter ( belts, idlers, direct drive, etc... all make contact with the platter one way or the other). Since there was NO contact between the drive source and the platter, it would offer the greatest isolation from motor induced vibration. That is, IF it was properly implemented.

As was typical of most "budget" brands back then, they took what could have been a PHENOMENAL idea and implimented it as if it was going to be sold at K-Mart. Low grade parts, no isolation in the chassis, junky tone-arm, etc... Like most other "junk" made back then, it went the way of the wind and a great idea never received the attention that it should have. Sean
>

Sean, regarding the magnetic propulsion there is a German TT (Gabriel) that works in a similar way, with no contact between the (very heavy) platter & subplatter. The sound is phenomenal -- as is the price, contrary to the Fisher. As expected, the engineering looks top-notch.
Cheers!