I would say that "approaches" would be a poor choice of words.
You are correct in surmising that the Saskia turntable does not need a correction every revolution.
Idlers vs Direct Drive vs Belt Drive
- Thread starter ddk
- Start date
I would say that "approaches" would be a poor choice of words.
You are correct in surmising that the Saskia turntable does not need a correction every revolution.
Marc, on what do you base this statement? The GP Monaco has a speed accuracy specification of .002%, the SME 30/12 of .003% and the AF1 of .005%, the latter as tested by the independent HiFi+. Would you not say that those latter two turntables also "approach" the speed accuracy of the GP tt? And they are both BELT DRIVE.
As far as I know the SME 30 and 10's have quite different motors and controllers. The 30 has 3 phase, brushless outrunner inductance motor with 8-pole Neodymium magnets and 3 integrated Hall position sensors, and uses a PID control type. The 10 has a synchronous motor with a PPL controler - possibly using a tachometer, the SME literature does not refer about how they sense the speed.
Some years ago I had a SME 30/2 and 20/2 with SMEV tonearms side by side in my system for a few weeks. The difference was really nigh and day - we would enjoy the 20 is we did not play the 30 first. The 30 was much more "solid", with much less vinyl artifacts and much lower subjective noise - much more "master tape" as we like to say.
Thank you microstrip for the information about the two SME motors and controllers. I was mistaken about their lack of differences. I do know that the Model 10 now has a newer updated motor controller, which I thought was much closer to the controllers of the latest model 20 and 30. It was offered as an upgrade option to owners of older Model 10s.
Correct. What we don't know is exactly how each turntable samples for accuracy and then makes corrections. Until we know that, we are still in the dark.
Regarding Saskia, I will get Bryan Edewaard to come on, so that the methodology of its controller can be fully explained. He developed the controller, so he is more qualified to explain the specifics in a way that is more easily understood. Bryan has been very attentive to the requirements that I feel are important where feedback is concerned, the most important being a non-invasive sort of feedback. We think ours is a brand new take on the whole idea, but you can decide after he lays out the finer points for you.
By the way, controlling speed is only one aspect of a good motor controller. That are quite a few other things they can do, as well.
I studied various carts for quite a while over the past few years and I have yet to find one with eyes on it. I have concluded that carts....no matter how good they are see absolutely nothing...
Peter, as you know in my PM to you, my comments are not meant to be "SME/belt drive bashing", and you are right, my comments aren't based on precise facts, which could look like I'm talking out of the wrong part of my body
!If the speed stability stats of the GP, SME 30 and AF1 are so similar, I wonder why the GP makes claims that it's speed stability is SUCH a game changer?
My take on all of this is that average speed control may be superb amongst the top belts/DDs/idlers, and very similar stats amongst them all. But how they get to those similar figures, and how those figures are maintained are VERY different and that is likely where the VERY different sound presentations emerge.
And, IMHO, I'm sticking to my unproveable hypothesis that a platter PUSHED to 0.002/0.003% speed stability by dd/idler/direct rim sounds VERY different to a platter PULLED to 0.003% speed stability by belt drive. Throw in servo moment-to-moment speed control (GP Monaco), high inertia and torque/intermittent speed control (SME 30/AF1/Saskia idler), and then the usual suspects of isolation/suspension, and one has maybe a couple of dozen SOTA wannabe contenders amongst belt, DD and idler that provide VERY SIMILAR stats, but VERY DIFFERENT sounds.
Last edited:
Do you know what is exactly the 3 sigma protocol and how they carry measurements using this protocol? Is this just a nice fancy way to say that 99.73% of the measured speed variations are of less than .002%?
Peter, as you know in my PM to you, my comments are not meant to be "SME/belt drive bashing", and you are right, my comments aren't based on precise facts, which could look like I'm talking out of the wrong part of my body
If the speed stability stats of the GP, SME 30 and AF1 are so similar, I wonder why the GP makes claims that it's speed stability is SUCH a game changer?
My take on all of this is that average speed control may be superb amongst the top belts/DDs/idlers, and very similar stats amongst them all. But how they get to those similar figures, and how those figures are maintained are VERY different and that is likely where the VERY different sound presentations emerge.
And, IMHO, I'm sticking to my unproveable hypothesis that a platter PUSHED to 0.002/0.003% speed stability by dd/idler/direct rim sounds VERY different to a platter PULLED to 0.003% speed stability by belt drive. Throw in servo moment-to-moment speed control (GP Monaco), high inertia and torque/intermittent speed control (SME 30/AF1/Saskia idler), and then the usual suspects of isolation/suspension, and one has maybe a couple of dozen SOTA wannabe contenders amongst belt, DD and idler that provide VERY SIMILAR stats, but VERY DIFFERENT sounds.
I would tend to agree with this, but my earlier post questioned your assertion that the Saskia is the only tt in your opinion that "approaches" the GP Monaco in, I presume, speed specification. I just asked you why you came to that conclusion and gave two examples of other turntables that seem to approach a similar specification while you did not provide the Saskia spec. So, while I agree that these various numbers are all very tiny and that the method of speed control and the myriad of other design choices play a much greater role in determining the sound of these tables, on what basis do you make the claim that only the Saskia approaches the Monaco in terms of speed?
I get that you like idler drive tables based on your experience with the table you own and that you may be biased toward another superior implementation of that drive type with the Saskia. I also get that you don't like belt drive tables, but that is besides the point, or perhaps that is your point.
I'll freely admit I was unaware the top/nr sota belt drives had such good speed figures. Put that down to lack of research on my part. I'm sure if the SME 30 and AF1 are this good, then there must be a good likelihood tt's like the TW Black Knight, Continuum Caliburn, Clearadudio Master Statement etc etc, are in this ball park too.
So we also have the GP Monaco which touts it's speed stability of 0.001-0.002% as it's big selling point, and I believe the Wave Kinetics NVS says stability down to 1ppm. From the blurb I've read about Saskia, it seems to be in this territory too. Brinkmann Bardo may be up there. too, VPI Direct probably.
So, strike from the record my comments ONLY Saskia can hope to match the Monaco.
What are we then to make of the SQ differences btwn belt drives, and within different drive systems? Are the differences in sound btwn SOTA belt drives: an SME 30 and a TW Black Knight and an AF1 and a Continuum Caliburn and a Clearaudio Master Statement - as marked as the differences btwn DDs: a GP Monaco and a Dobbins Kodo The Beat and a VPI Direct and a Wave Kinetics NVS and a hot rodded SP10 Mk1 - and btwn idlers: a Saskia Reference 2 and a hot rodded Garrard 301/401 and a hot rodded Lenco?
Maybe the initial argument that looked simplistically at speed stability is mute - these tt's all do an amazing job. Maybe the argument needs to go onto how they achieve these figures, whether the method applied all the time or intermittently is crucial, and whether these considerations are more/the same/less important than the other thigs we always discuss - isolation/suspension/arm-cart-phono synergy.
For the record, the dd's and idlers (and my direct rim) that I've heard when well implemented, do SEEM to trump the well-engineered belt drives I've owned/heard, in terms of pace/involvement/liveliness. That's JUST me, and I'm STILL awaiting to hear from other belt to non-belt mutineers. Maybe I'm really one of the few.
So we also have the GP Monaco which touts it's speed stability of 0.001-0.002% as it's big selling point, and I believe the Wave Kinetics NVS says stability down to 1ppm. From the blurb I've read about Saskia, it seems to be in this territory too. Brinkmann Bardo may be up there. too, VPI Direct probably.
So, strike from the record my comments ONLY Saskia can hope to match the Monaco.
What are we then to make of the SQ differences btwn belt drives, and within different drive systems? Are the differences in sound btwn SOTA belt drives: an SME 30 and a TW Black Knight and an AF1 and a Continuum Caliburn and a Clearaudio Master Statement - as marked as the differences btwn DDs: a GP Monaco and a Dobbins Kodo The Beat and a VPI Direct and a Wave Kinetics NVS and a hot rodded SP10 Mk1 - and btwn idlers: a Saskia Reference 2 and a hot rodded Garrard 301/401 and a hot rodded Lenco?
Maybe the initial argument that looked simplistically at speed stability is mute - these tt's all do an amazing job. Maybe the argument needs to go onto how they achieve these figures, whether the method applied all the time or intermittently is crucial, and whether these considerations are more/the same/less important than the other thigs we always discuss - isolation/suspension/arm-cart-phono synergy.
For the record, the dd's and idlers (and my direct rim) that I've heard when well implemented, do SEEM to trump the well-engineered belt drives I've owned/heard, in terms of pace/involvement/liveliness. That's JUST me, and I'm STILL awaiting to hear from other belt to non-belt mutineers. Maybe I'm really one of the few.
I think that's right for the terminology, not sure there is another name - GPA talk in terms of divvying a revolution into 1000 slices with at least 997 of those being identical. My sense is GPA wanted something with more precision than the more common(?) RMS: "RMS is an average measurement that conceals the small variations by averaging them into a long-term measurement. This hides the flaws of a drive system as it relates to the precision and consistency of turning a record. Thus even a table with a claimed speed accuracy of say .005% RMS is still generating individual speed errors much higher than this but they are averaged out." There is a comparatively extensive section on measurement and testing in the GPA whitepaper (with that quote from there.)
What is interesting to me is their willingness to lay out all that they do: design, methods, technologies (to some extent) testing and measurements, etc. Don't see much cited in this thread for other manufacturers though reference to some HiFi+ testing is tossed about, but no mention of the methodology there and I don't know where to look to read these. While its up to the ear to gauge what's below its audibility, the sort of brief thrust and parry challenges here don't seem to be going anywhere.
Getting into the whose Belt, Idlers, DD mire, at least the discussion of speed accuracy and stability seems relevant to all and thus getting squared away on measurement methodology is too. I found GPA's discussion of wow & flutter measurement very interesting. Appreciate your straightforward approach to the topic. Lot's of good 'tables out there.
" the audibility of the flutter for different Peak Weighted Flutter readings:
NAB IEC 386 (formerly DIN 45507)
0.5% = 0.7% is clearly audible.
0.2% = 0.28% is audible.
0.1% = 0.14% is audible, with effort.
0.05% = 0.07% is just barely audible if the flutter modulation is switched in and out.
0.02% = 0.028% is virtually inaudible.
... these readings were made with flutter test tones, not music, so with solo piano, for example,
the audibility number may be lower. Also, regardless of the number, any flutter in the playback turntable adds
vectorially with the flutter contributed by the lathe, and/or analog master tape."
GPA: "Wow & Flutter: Below audibility: less than 0.002% or better."
NAB IEC 386 (formerly DIN 45507)
0.5% = 0.7% is clearly audible.
0.2% = 0.28% is audible.
0.1% = 0.14% is audible, with effort.
0.05% = 0.07% is just barely audible if the flutter modulation is switched in and out.
0.02% = 0.028% is virtually inaudible.
... these readings were made with flutter test tones, not music, so with solo piano, for example,
the audibility number may be lower. Also, regardless of the number, any flutter in the playback turntable adds
vectorially with the flutter contributed by the lathe, and/or analog master tape."
GPA: "Wow & Flutter: Below audibility: less than 0.002% or better."
Tima, thanks for this. So the wow of .01 and flutter of .02 specifications of both the SME30/12 and TechDas AF1 are at inaudible levels. That is good to know. You can do a search of each turntable and reviews at HiFi + magazine for the test results. I don't think they go into methodology in the reviews, but perhaps more digging on the magazine website could lead you to it.
I presume David's intention with this thread was to discuss sonic differences between these drive types in general terms and the methods particular designers use to correct for speed errors. I wish there was more information out there from manufacturers about their design choices. Even if we reach a point where we can agree that the Monaco has excellent speed accuracy and consistency, it is how that speed is maintained that in part contributes to the sound of the turntable. And then there are all of the other design choices like mass, isolation, suspension, materials etc that give the Monaco its unique sound. If it were just speed accuracy that mattered, I think more people would own it.
Fact of the matter is that none of these measurements give you any indication whatsoever of even the type of drive you're looking at no less sound quality. I really don't get the fascination for these numbers, the SME & the TechDas can't be engineered any differently if their designers actually tried, they sound it too, are you going to pick one over the other because of 0.01 difference in flutter? The Monaco isn't an established Reference of any kind, just Keith's current favorite, the 4000/sec adjustment capability means absolutely nothing, we don't even know if its doing that many. Personally the non-measurement specs and description on Monaco's web page tell me a lot more of what I need to know about a table that I've never heard.
david
Agreed. I just included those SME and TechDas specs because they are similar to the Monaco's to make the point that these specs do nothing to explain why they sound so different from each other and to refute the notion that belt drive tables don't have good speed specifications. That's all. I'm actually not fascinated by these measurements. I am curious about the sound of different tables though. It's just too difficult to get a variety in my system to hear the differences.
You are absolutely right that these measurements don't tell us anything about how these tables sound. And no, I would not pick one table over another because of a 0.01 difference in flutter. That would be misguided, IMO.
Unfortunately, if we delete all of the threads which mention speed, this thread will not have much content. People just do not seem to have much experience listening to the three drive type tables in the same system. David, your broad experience seems fairly unique, or at least you are one who is willing to discuss your experience.
So, are we to conclude at this point that drive choice is irrelevant? That belt drive/dd/idler at their very best are closer rather than further apart on speed stability, and it's other factors that lead to the marked differences in SQ btwn tt's?
If this is really true, what is the point of this thread? Maybe we should all go back to just debating different suspensions/arm choices/cart-phono synergy?
I still contend that the method individual drive techs get to the performance provided matters maybe more than the final spec achieved, and this is then optimised by the other design choices incorporated in the tt.
So a low mass/low inertia/seek and correct design like the Monaco by it's very nature sounds very different from a high mass/low inertia/intermittent servo like the AF1, which sounds very different from a high mass/high inertia/high geared braking like the Saskia. The carbon fibre Monaco having a different flavour from the steel/aluminium AF1, which has a different flavour from the slate Saskia. Etc etc etc...
I'm hoping that a combination of my <slate deck-high mass-high inertia-analog high torque motor tt w.magnetic bearing and feet/air bearing linear tracking arm/Straingauge cart w.batt psu/slate rack-Symposium Quantum Signature platform-Spiers air shelf> gets me twds the kind of performance envelope that the various SOTA decks are attaining. If the specs on speed stability were to be commensurate, it would then be these design choices listed above that would be creating the flavour of sound produced, plus the way the drive gets that performance.
If this is really true, what is the point of this thread? Maybe we should all go back to just debating different suspensions/arm choices/cart-phono synergy?
I still contend that the method individual drive techs get to the performance provided matters maybe more than the final spec achieved, and this is then optimised by the other design choices incorporated in the tt.
So a low mass/low inertia/seek and correct design like the Monaco by it's very nature sounds very different from a high mass/low inertia/intermittent servo like the AF1, which sounds very different from a high mass/high inertia/high geared braking like the Saskia. The carbon fibre Monaco having a different flavour from the steel/aluminium AF1, which has a different flavour from the slate Saskia. Etc etc etc...
I'm hoping that a combination of my <slate deck-high mass-high inertia-analog high torque motor tt w.magnetic bearing and feet/air bearing linear tracking arm/Straingauge cart w.batt psu/slate rack-Symposium Quantum Signature platform-Spiers air shelf> gets me twds the kind of performance envelope that the various SOTA decks are attaining. If the specs on speed stability were to be commensurate, it would then be these design choices listed above that would be creating the flavour of sound produced, plus the way the drive gets that performance.
Last edited:
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |