Idler wheel drive vs Belt

I have a question for Jean.

Now that we've come to the situation where various sytems of drive have been used and accomplished significant performance levels, what do you think is the best one?

We now have a market which will bear any amount of engineering and production cost, because of the market for very expensive turntables. There is no need to worry about how much it costs now, for the high end units.

An idler wheel system of excellent construction and engineering could easily now be made without regard to expense. Direct drives and belt drives of very high retail price are being sold to audiophiles. In fact, as regards idler wheel tables, I think Shindo Labs and Lorricraft are even re-making the old Garrard designs.

In the "ultimate" expression of these drive systems, with all "the bugs" ironed out of most of them, what do you think will be the best performing turntable? At the highest levels, will the idler wheel compete with the best direct drive(Rockport) and the best belt drives(Walker, et al)? With all things considered.

What are your technical reasons for your answer?

This is an important question, and I'd be very interested in the answer from someone with much idler wheel experience.

Please bear in mind that these top level turntables have gone to an extreme extent themselves to ensure total speed stability, with no expense spared, and the designers are well aware of stylus drag effects. They are not affected by the usual things that may apply to cheap belt-drive or cheap direct-drive applications.

Thank you to those who responded meaningfully.
Johnnantais: any experience of comparative listening of the Lenco vs say a Teres or equivalent well executed belt drive? I do not have the possibility of hearing all comers, so I want to some comparative data if it exists.
Like TWL, I am also interested in the comparative merits of each in a cost-no-object scenario.
I am very tempted to try the vintage route, as the recycling of old to provide engaging sound quality at a fraction of the modern solution is most compelling.

Having had the Dual, the Garrard 301, the Technics SP10, various Linn LP12s, the Forsell, the Walker, the Loricraft/Garrard 501 with the Schroeder, and once again a Garrard 301, I will say there is nothing like a rim drive. I say this although I happily gave up on my first Garrard 301 long ago. There is a magic to the dynamics of such tables.

I'm drowing in contracts right now, but in the meantime I'll post this brief explanation of why I think idler-wheel drive is the superior system, given equivalent amounts of effort: "We know things now they didn't know when they were manufacturing idler-wheel 'tables. We can now realize their potential. Due to the high rotational speed of these motors, great relative mass and so high torque, no expensive solutions need be made to address the weak motors now used in high-end decks. The platters on the Lencos weigh about 8-10 pounds, with much of the mass concentrated on the periphery: the old boys understood flywheel effect to ensure stable speed. The Lenco platter is a single cast piece, of a zinc alloy of some sort, very inert for a metal, and then machined and hand-balanced in a lab. No ringing two-piece platter problems to overcome. Even the motor is hand-balanced in a lab, and weighs something like 3-4 pounds, and runs silently on its lubricated bearings. Think of it: a high-torque motor spinning at well over 1500 RPMs (compared to a belt-drive motor's average 150-300) which pretty well wipes out speed variations by itself. The idler wheel contacts the motor spindle directly, while contacting the platter directly on its other side, thus transmitting most/all of that torque without any belt stretching. Many high-end decks offer thread belts which don't stretch, thus giving an improvement in sound. The Lenco does the same with its wheel. But the platter is also a flywheel, and so evens out whatever speed variations there may be in the motor. It's a closed system (motor-plattter, platter-motor) and speed variations brought on by groove modulations don't stand a chance in this rig, and it is clearly audible. The trick is that big, solid plinth you build at Home Depot." I think belt-drives, be they thread, tape or othrwise, suffer various speed stability problems regardless of mass, as the braking action of stylus force drag is not eliminated, but simply lowered in frequency (reaction time is slower). Plus the motors used in these 'tables simply cannot match the motors used in the big idler-wheel 'tables, which were developed with the secific task of spinning a platter and overcoming stylus-force drag. Direct drives sound dry and "sat-on" and dynamically-constricted (in comparison to a Lenco) to my ear: I think the quartz-locking is audible, I, anyway, prefer the sound of servo-controlled DDs better (these at a state-of-the-art level might compete wth a good idler-wheel drive in my estimaton) more on this later. Essentially, it's a torque war, and the idlers win hands-down. Hi Divo, all I have are those few pithy words from an ex-Teres owner, no more details than this, since I did not do the comparison myself: one reason I decided to enlist the entire world in my experiment is I can't possibly do it all myself, and anyway, even if I could, who would have believed me? More tomorrow!

I agree, but additionally I think the mounting plinth is quite important. I have heard the Shindo Labs 301 versus other Garrard 301s. There is little to say, other than the Shindo sounds far superior. I grant that there are many other improvements in the Shindo, but I suspect the plinth is central to its sound.