Turnable database with TimeLine

Thanks Peter,
I share your wonderment........
It's unusual...and refreshing.....to hear someone in the 'belt-drive camp', accepting the superiority of DD turntables...at least in relation to speed consistency and control?

Before the visual proof of stylus drag and speed consistency was afforded by the introduction of the Sutherland Timeline...........most proponents of the belt-drive argument insisted that 'stylus drag' was a myth....or at least was rendered mute if the platter of the belt-drive was massive enough to create enough inertia to be unaffected by it.
This has clearly been disproven.
The argument was also put....and is still....that the speed-correction circuitry of the DD turntables meant that they were NEVER turning at the correct speed....but were always SEEKING and CORRECTING?
This argument was a logical (if misunderstood) interpretation of the actual functioning of the correction circuits of the TOTL DD models.....and conveniently overlooked the motor controllers of belt-drive turntables and THEIR similar....but time delayed (by the belt) correction circuitry?

Today, still.....you will read from experienced audiophiles how they can "hear" the effects of this speed correction circuitry in DD turntables.
Funny how no listeners at my place can point out the DD Victor from the belt-drive Raven under 'blind' testing.....but boy can they tell you which turntable they prefer :-)

In my experience, the Timeline can show minute variations to perfect speed which I can not hear.

I agree.....but, by the same token.....as my TT-101 began suffering its breakdown this week....I could hear when the speed dropped to 33.32RPM, a speed change of .03%.
So the answers to your question may indeed be complex?

Ignoring subjectivity......the single most important function of any turntable I maintain.....has got to be speed accuracy/consistency.
And for that...on the evidence of the Timeline.....the DD turntables reign supreme.
The subjectivists can please themselves :-)

Halcro, That is interesting. If your blindfolded friends can't identify the DD Victor from the BD Raven, but they have a clear preference for one over the other, what is it that they like? I must not understand your point.

I would also suggest that another primary function of a TT, perhaps equal or even more important than speed is the ability for it to provide a stable platform for the stylus to track the groove. This is so fundamental, that people forget about it or take it for granted. Imagine if the stylus moved relative to the groove. This function to provide the platform for a stable stylus, in conduction with the arm, is fundamental. I would also argue that the turntable must not introduce vibrations or noise to the system AND isolate it from external noise. These three functions are primarily responsible for the superior sonics of my SME and many other fine turntables.

I agree.....but, by the same token.....as my TT-101 began suffering its breakdown this week...

???Say it ain't so, Halcro. I hope there are people you know who can restore it. Or, were you perhaps the one who won the ql10 on the bay last week?

Peterayer,
Halcros comments are contradictory. On the one hand he believes that DD TT's are inherently superior in timing to Belt Drives. Then he states that no one can hear any difference between his belt drive Raven and the DD Victor. This would only be possible if the system itself has poor timing and cannot demonstrate the superiority of the Direct Drive.
The other contradiction in Halcro's post is that he claims that he can hear the effect of a drop in speed from 33.33 to 33.32rpm. The Raven cannot hold the correct speed as shown in his timeline test above and has a speed error that exceeds the drop from 33.33 to 33.32rpm. Therefore either the statement "no one can hear any difference" is wrong or "I can hear the speed drop from 33.33 to 33.32rpm" is wrong.
The other observation is that Halcro runs different tonearms on the 2 turntables.
Given the level of investment in his system I would not be happy if I could not hear any differences between tonearms.
I can only assume that since Halcro seems happy with the belt drive Raven which cannot hold the correct speed then he must be be a member of both the subjective and objective groups.
Peyerayer, since I prefer my Final Audio Parthenon thread drive to both the SP10mkIII and Kenwood L07D, then by Halcros definition I am a subjectivist. I am quite happy with this, because if I was an objectivist then I would simply read the musical score to attain the perfect performance as no live performance or audio system can be "perfect" and music would only exist in theory.

Alas Banquo......'tis true....
The TT-101 began to develop speed inconsistencies.....to such an extent that 33.33rpm became 35.78 and then 42.21......
45rpm did the same thing......
Tomorrow I take it to my Tech who is really excited having seen my photos of the innards.....
Of course he has never worked on one of these monsters.....but armed with my full manual of circuit diagrams etc from Vinyl Engine......I may get lucky?
If it happens.....I'll have him change all the capacitors as I was waiting for just such an occurrence to afford me the excuse.
It may be that 35 years is the life expectancy of the TT-101......and it's complexity may sound its deathnell?
Meanwhile....luckily....the much simpler TT-81 is standing in its place.....and sounding maybe even better than its big brother?
I will keep you updated......