This is NOT a Belt Vs. Direct Driven Turntables. All of them have their benefits, what we're discussing here is why people hate DD so much these days. I've noticed a lot of hate and disdain for DD turntables recently, most of them coming from audiophiles. But... Here is the question: Take a look of what was considered "Audiophile" in the late 70's and early 80's, take your time and take a look at any catalog of this period: Without any exception, ALL the top models were direct driven decks. But now, "Direct Drive" had become almost a swear word in the audiophile community. I know, "motors vibrate", but most of good direct drive decks are dead silent, and their rumble is so low that is actually quieter than the record's noise floor anyway, Wich means the rumble from the motor shouldn't be picked up by the stylus. Also, another thing that debunks this theory is the fact that most record cutters are direct driven. This means that, if ALL DD decks are really that noisy, as they say, most of all records are being cut with that rumble. That being said, paying hundreds of dollars for a single belt and/or isolating motors meters apart from the rest of the turntable is more or less useless, since the rumble is always there. Well, I guess that most of that hate comes from people who had bad/really cheap DD players, wich do have a lot of rumble, and are, in fact annoying to listen to. This had lead them to believe that all of direct driven record players are noisy and annoying. But I might be wrong too... What do you think about that?