Speed stability: Direct Drive vs belt

1000% agreed

 

Until it is demonstrated which would be super easy to do - record a passage with and without and demonstrate it is a clear problem - provide some real consumer value - I’d love that and jump on it.

Unfortunately reviewers like Fremer who claim it don’t have the skills and follow through to support it. It is easier to throw out the inference. I’m surprised so many fall for it. Haven’t we seen this over and over in movies the obvious villain that plants suspicions on the protagonist?

Now I have seen evidence of the old sl1200 mk2 rotation being plotted in a circle and the circle wasn’t a perfect circle - the sp 10 mk 3 plotted it slightly better - more round. This is useful evidence that could help a consumer. Claim your cogging idea and support it by evidence showing a different table being better

 

I find these discussions interesting but they never seem to actually settle differing opinions or change minds. I have heard the VPI DD and I have to admit it betters my belt drive VPI, but it should for the significant increase in price. Is it because it is DD? I strongly suspect that is the case. Technics DD are fine turntables, but I have yet to hear one that I thought sounded better than my VPI, but I suspect that has more to do with the cart than the TT as I have never heard one with a really high end cart.

As someone mentioned before, speed stability is only one of many factors, albeit a very important one. I would suspect that any reasonably stable TT with great cart (and I don't mean a very expensive one necessarily) would sound better than the most stable TT in the world with a poor cart.

I am very happy with my TT/cart combination, and that's what's important.

 

I am scratching my head after reading your reply to my post --- it feels like you think I am saying cogging is a real problem, when I was saying the complete opposite?

 

So you'd claim a 1200Mk2 is as good or better than any $2K belt-Drive?

 

The old 1200 mk2s have so much visible platter runout that it's hard to take the claimed W&F specs seriously.

 

That's because the mentality is many times that it has to be "one or the other" or "this vs that" --- whether a product, technology, whatever. Most aren't in it to have their minds changed or their eyes opened, they are in the discussion to defend the choice THEY made. It is not setup to be an objective exchange where logic, reason and data will always prevail, it is more often than not based in emotion and defensiveness.

And that's because most who buy something buy ONE --- and spend a lot of time and angst deciding which ONE that is --- and when they finally do reach their conclusion they convinced themselves they've made the right choice, and have to justify and defend that choice moving forward. It's human nature, and really the root of all these silly "this is better than that" arguments. 99% of the time you'll find the ones digging their heels in the hardest own the product they are so emotional about defending.... rarely is it a purely objective argument, and why emotions creep (pour) in. Typically the reality is in that the different products / technologies are just that --- different --- and each have their own merits and drawbacks. "Better" is more often an emotional argument than one that can be proven with data.

So much of our society is a "this vs that" mentality, it's at the root of advertising, sales, marketing... everything. I've said it before, I've owned both belt drive and direct drive and they both have their plusses and minuses. But I am looking at buying a belt drive soon to play with - but it's going to be a higher end model to avoid some of the newer sub $1500 belt drives....

 

Depends, if it is due to spindle and/ or bearing play or if the platter is just not perfectly round. The former would have more impact on W&F than the latter.

 

I think the answer to this thread title, like most "this vs that" arguments --- IT DEPENDS. Many factors --- like price, quality level and motor technology of the two components being compared, skill of the user at times.... many factors. Duh, right?

There are clearly many examples of "speed instable" belt drives and direct drives. Then there are clearly many examples of very stable belt drives and direct drives.

With this premise it makes for an unwinnable argument, and why these threads get so emotional and counter-productive.

 

Edit: Helom, I forgot to ask, are you talking horizontal or vertical run out as I was talking horizontal.

 

I also don't get the division of the BD vs DD camps. When I purchased my new table that was not my main consideration. End game bang for buck consideration was.

 

Yes, believe it or not, like most things, you tend to get what you pay for. There are some exceptions of course, and I think the new G/GR tables are likely exceptional values. I suspect it's due to the new motor, which might alleviate a certain sonic signature (hard to put it into words, hence the term "magic sucking") that I've noted in all the DD's with which I have experience. I think H.R. of Stereophile described the difference fairly well in his write up on the PLX-1000:

I am struggling to find the words to describe one extremely subtle but, I think, important aspect of the Pioneer's musical presentation. Compared to the best belt-drive turntables, the Pioneer PLX-1000 emitted a barely perceptible forced weightiness. I had to listen very carefully to hear this. The effect was like a nervous unsuppleness that pushed ever so lightly against my consciousness while music was playing. I've noticed this forced weightiness with almost every direct-drive turntable—except maybe old Mitchell A. Cotter's B-1, the Victor (JVC) TT-101, and the new VPI. Could this be what those belt-drive fanatics are complaining about?
Read more at Gramophone Dreams #3 Page 2

Where I'd disagree with him is that this trait is "extremely subtle." I'd also disagree with his assertion in paragraph 6, that DD tables are best at reproducing the "scale, impact, and dynamic presence of live music." The best tables I've heard in these regards were both suspended-chassis belt-drives - one my rather inexpensive TD166/160 hybrid, and the other, an SME 30/2.

In my opinion, the "forced weightiness" negates much of what makes vinyl so compelling. Good belt-drives just have a musical fluidity to their presentation that I've yet to hear with a DD table. That's not a perfect description, but as I said, it's hard to put into words.

 

I'm not sure which is the cause but i was referring to radial runout.

 

You know, that brings up an interesting phenomenon: Our brain actually sees the world similarly to how film is made. There is an actual frame rate at which our brain takes rapid snapshots in such a way that we see it as coninuous motion. Same with sound. And you know that feeling of time slowing down when something dramatic (i.e. an auto accident) happens? That's because your brain ups the input frame rate.

So, there are a lot of things in this world that have a cycle, "cog" etc. that we simply don't notice. That's why I find it comical when people constantly seek perfection in such stuff. It gets to a point where it's "good enough" for the human senses. Anything else is irrelevant. So, like you said, they "cog", but humans don't notice it.

 

For my needs, and for what I use my turntable for, it is. Sorry. If it needs a wall shelf, no go. If it can not function in my environment, no go. I am about practicality and function as much as I am sound quality, reliability is necessary too. I have needs and requirements you do not. There's $2000 belt drives I like, they in many cases still don't meet my needs. I like the best of all drive principles. There is good and bad examples of all 3 drive systems. I also need to use more than one cartridge too, and more than one type of stylus option. I need workhorse as much as I need audiophile. Mine must do both. What fits yours is different, I respect your choice.

 

Not sure that I would base my DD decision on the Pioneer, but I have found that the DD's I've been exposed to have more precision in their presentation.
Less smearing of the instruments? That can result in a less romantic presentation. But I'm not comparing apples to apples, very difficult to do so.
And there are also other factors involved 'natch. But less fluidity in a quality DD statement is something one might take with a grain of salt.

 

The old-model 1200/1210 used to be the best entry-level turntable deal going, for years and years. For relatively little coin, the buyer got a speed-accurate turntable that was easy to use (change speeds with the pressing of a button), solid in operation, could be sped up or down according to the user's needs, and reliable. It could also be upgraded or modified, as desired. Someone can, of course, legitimately state that he doesn't care for the sound, and prefers other 'tables, but the essential item, the motor unit, was and is a solid operator.

 

I noticed more smearing of instruments with all the DD's I've owned than with my current table. I did have a slight smearing with my current table until I dialed in perfect speed according to the Speedstrobe. Maybe the belt-drives you heard were just poor examples of what's possible with that design principle.

As I stated earlier in this thread, I think there are good and bad examples of both types. I don't doubt that some DD's sound excellent, I just have yet to own one that I can live with long term, and I'm not the sole audiophile that feels this way. I only suggest the OP doesn't discount either approach and decides for himself through listening.

 

If the OP is smart, he bailed out of this thread some 50 posts ago and is happily spinning vinyl on the new Technics 1200GR he was looking to buy in the first place!

 

Or....my DD is a superb example of that tech?
Two sides on every coin.

 

Your DD is a superb example of belt-drive tech? Weird.

 

Well actually that term prob needs to go to the SP line. But it's not shabby.
Cool, you are closed minded to the issue and seem to be basing 70's DD tech to modern BD tech.
I believe both have their strong points, I get that you are searching only for that which supports your mindset.
Rock on and enjoy what you have.

 

I still own two DD tables, they are under a bed collecting dust. Probably will never see the light of day again. Both Technics, one is a slightly modded KAB SL1200mk2, the other is an SL-D2. They both provided rock solid, stable speed. I’ve also had several BD tables, the one that’s had the longest stay on my rack is a VPI Classic. I’ve had several problems related to the VPI, however speed stability hasn’t been one of them. It’s rock solid (measured with Turntabulator) without a speed controller. Of course, this requires making sure the belt rides in the proper pulley grooves since we are given slightly tapered pulleys to compensate for varying power.

As long as the records aren’t drilled off center and the pianos don’t sound like they’re going through a Wah pedal, I’m happy with my BD speed. Bill Evans or Chick Corea sounds fabulous on my BD.

But....since this thread has wavered off course as to the OP’s question about speed and veered towards which sounds better, I’ll give my opinion. There is no way the DD SL1200mk2 under an upstairs bed collecting dust sounds anywhere near as good as the BD VPI on the rack. To me anyway. This statement is NOT meant for or directed towards any member here, I’m just stating my preference.

PS-I do want to hear Technics new offerings at some point.

 

My fully modded kab mk5 is on par with it. But the VPI can surely go much farther with more costly carts. I’m content with the carts that I use.

 

I wouldn't think that anyone would think a unmodded vintage 1200 to be on par with the Classic...seriously doubt if it could hand with my MH 7.1.
But I don't think it's because of the drive. The arm (and maybe platter) has probably more to do with it.