The Newest Belt-Drive Turntables: TechDAS and Kronos

PeterA · Apr 29, 2015

There seems to be a lot of interest in these two relatively new turntable designs. I know of two WBF members who just got the Kronos and another who just installed a TechDAS AF2. I am intrigued by a couple of similarities between the designs, namely that they are both belt-drive and they each utilize suspension. (Interestingly, each company also had one main table and then soon released a lower cost version with much trickle-down technology).

The TechDAS AF2 was just reviewed and measured by HiFi News. Test results for speed, in particular, were superb (as they were for the similarly tested belt-drive SME 30/12). And there have been no reports of speed inaccuracies with the Kronos.

So this leads me to ask: How do these new belt-drive designs compare to the latest direct-drive designs like the VPI DD, Kodo the BEAT, and the Wave Kinetics NVS in terms of speed consistency and accuracy? Has anyone made any direct comparisons? Have speed issues with the top belt drive turntables been mostly overcome?

Also, what are the latest opinions about suspended versus non-suspended turntables? MikeL's Wave Kinetics is unsuspended, but is improved by being placed on an active isolation platform. Rockitman's TechDas is already suspended, but it is also improved by being placed on an HRS platform and then onto an active isolation platform. Would the already suspended Kronos also benefit further from being placed on an isolation platform?

It seems that two trends are emerging in top-tier analog front ends: near perfect speed accuracy, whether belt drive or DD, and highly effective isolation, either integrated or added on later. Are there still significant sonic differences between turntable types, or are we approaching a point where the differences between various arms and cartridges contribute more than the turntable itself to the sound of an analog front end?

Mike Lavigne · Apr 29, 2015

PeterA said:
There seems to be a lot of interest in these two relatively new turntable designs. I know of two WBF members who just got the Kronos and another who just installed a TechDAS AF2. I am intrigued by a couple of similarities between the designs, namely that they are both belt-drive and they each utilize suspension. (Interestingly, each company also had one main table and then soon released a lower cost version with much trickle-down technology).

The TechDAS AF2 was just reviewed and measured by HiFi News. Test results for speed, in particular, were superb (as they were for the similarly tested belt-drive SME 30/12). And there have been no reports of speed inaccuracies with the Kronos.

So this leads me to ask: How do these new belt-drive designs compare to the latest direct-drive designs like the VPI DD, Kodo the BEAT, and the Wave Kinetics NVS in terms of speed consistency and accuracy? Has anyone made any direct comparisons? Have speed issues with the top belt drive turntables been mostly overcome?

Also, what are the latest opinions about suspended versus non-suspended turntables? MikeL's Wave Kinetics is unsuspended, but is improved by being placed on an active isolation platform. Rockitman's TechDas is already suspended, but it is also improved by being placed on an HRS platform and then onto an active isolation platform. Would the already suspended Kronos also benefit further from being placed on an isolation platform?

It seems that two trends are emerging in top-tier analog front ends: near perfect speed accuracy, whether belt drive or DD, and highly effective isolation, either integrated or added on later. Are there still significant sonic differences between turntable types, or are we approaching a point where the differences between various arms and cartridges contribute more than the turntable itself to the sound of an analog front end?

here is the question; in which of the cases below would there be the largest perception of differences?

#1 or #2

1-every tt mentioned (non-vacuum can choose tt weight of choice) all sitting on active isolation--same arm---same cartridge, cable and phono.

2-choose one tt model with multiple identical examples each sitting on active isolation--different top level arms--all the same cartridge, cable and phono. try it multiple times for multiple tt's.

my prediction; arms make more differences than tt's at the top of the food chain. the top tt's have much more in common than not. and system synergy has much to do with vinyl front end performance. so comparing tt performance from different systems/ days/continents is of minimal relevance.

of course; how people value aspects of the sound could easily lead to variable opinions....and i'm not saying that there are not sonic differences between top level tt's. but it's quite small....and you'd have to spend a good amount of time to really 'get' the differences in most cases. and i'm not saying that these differences are not worth paying for. only that they are slight.

I think that tone arm performance perfection is the most limiting factor and the area of most potential performance opportunity. I do think that arm board integration can have much effect on ultimate performance, and consider that part of the tone arm equation.

spinning the record effectively has mostly been figured out with most 'uber' tt's. colorations in tt spinning should be a non-issue with this group.

Ron Resnick · May 3, 2015

I think Mike probably is correct. The impact of Mike's hypothesis to me personally at the moment is that it suggests that rather than choosing between the Air Force One and the Basis Audio Inspiration I should be focusing on choosing between the Graham Phantom Elite and the Basis Superarm 9.

Would you agree Peter?

Peter Breuninger · May 3, 2015

I would suggest that the sonic differences are greatest with the cartridge, then arm, then table. I would not suggest (sorry Mike) that the top tables sound anything alike.

Frank750 · May 3, 2015

I recently moved my Koetsu Coralstone from an SME 30/12 with V12 arm, maybe not great table and arm but certainly very good, to a TechDAS AirForce 2 with Graham Elite. In fact, I don't even have the Elite arm wand yet, it's a Phantom wand Bob had available. Performance is like night and day. I can't believe anyone would sit, compare the two presentations and not come away thinking the AF2 is far better in every facet of vinyl playback by a large margin. Same thing happened with my Goldfinger
Statement.

Of course the cartridge is important but it won't matter without the proper arm and table.

PeterA · May 3, 2015

RonR said:
I think Mike probably is correct. The impact of Mike's hypothesis to me personally at the moment is that it suggests that rather than choosing between the Air Force One and the Basis Audio Inspiration I should be focusing on choosing between the Graham Phantom Elite and the Basis Superarm 9.

Would you agree Peter?

As I've had little experience with different turntables in my own system, it is hard to say. It seems as though you have settled on suspended belt drive turntables with vacuum hold down platters. And unipivot tonearms. I would ask a different question. Why have you chosen those types as opposed to DD non suspended tables and gimbaled or linear tracking arms?

I agree with PB that perhaps the sonic differences are greatest between cartridges, then arms, then turntables, but I think most people select tables first, then arms, then cartridges. The table, being the most expensive and most permanent component of the three, it has to satisfy first, IMO. It must perform its functions, and be reliable from a company that will provide good after sale service. The way things are going with top cartridges being as expensive as arms, I guess it does not matter which one selects first. But, I think they should be thought of as a pair.

I decided what turntable I wanted. It happened to have an integrated arm included as a package. I then found a cartridge that was developed on the arm that came with my table. The two arms, I think, were developed on the two turntables you are considering.

Ron, in your case, those two arms are likely most often paired with those two turntables. You have probably spoken to both Bob Graham and A.J. Conti about their respective pairings. I would then ask them which cartridge they recommend for their respective arms and why.

Well this response is tangental to the original post which is more about sonic hierarchy of the components.

Mike Lavigne · May 3, 2015

Peter Breuninger said:
I would suggest that the sonic differences are greatest with the cartridge, then arm, then table. I would not suggest (sorry Mike) that the top tables sound anything alike.

I agree the top level tt's have different characters when you spend time with them in direct comparison. but those differences don't jump out as much as arm differences; particularly if you optimize them as in placing the non suspended ones on active isolation, or adding the right record weight.

and my point was just what you said, that arms make more difference than the tt at the top of the food chain assuming everything around the tt is optimized.

PeterA · May 3, 2015

Mike Lavigne said:
I agree the top level tt's have different characters when you spend time with them in direct comparison. but those differences don't jump out as much as arm differences; particularly if you optimize them as in placing the non suspended ones on active isolation, or adding the right record weight.

It seems that even suspended turntables like Rockitman's TechDAS benefit from active isolation and my suspended SME certainly benefits from passive isolation. It was a shocking improvement. It would be interesting to learn if owners of the TechDAS or Basis tables with vacuum hold down also benefit from adding the right record weight. Do Rockport owners use record weights?

PeterA · May 3, 2015

I have not read reports from people who have directly compared these new belt drive tables with some of the latest Direct Drive tables. Is there any noticeable (audible) difference in speed accuracy or consistency? Has anyone compared a TechDAS to the VPI DD or Wave Kinetics, for instance?

Frank750 · May 3, 2015

PeterA said:
It seems that even suspended turntables like Rockitman's TechDAS benefit from active isolation and my suspended SME certainly benefits from passive isolation. It was a shocking improvement. It would be interesting to learn if owners of the TechDAS or Basis tables with vacuum hold down also benefit from adding the right record weight. Do Rockport owners use record weights?

I was told by someone who will remain nameless not to use a weight, not even the one from TechDAS. I tried one I had hanging around here for the helluva it and left it on for about 20 seconds. Deadened the sound terribly.

PeterA · May 3, 2015

Frank, when you decided to try another turntable, did you consider any besides the TechDAS AF2? And did you consider any arms beside the Graham Elite? I'm just curious if the Kronos, or any of the DD tables were options during your quest.

BTW, I heard your old Pass XS preamp yesterday. What a great component. The new owner is extremely happy with it.

ddk · May 3, 2015

Mike Lavigne said:
I agree the top level tt's have different characters when you spend time with them in direct comparison. but those differences don't jump out as much as arm differences; particularly if you optimize them as in placing the non suspended ones on active isolation, or adding the right record weight.

and my point was just what you said, that arms make more difference than the tt at the top of the food chain assuming everything around the tt is optimized.

Sorry Mike, I have to disagree. When a lowly mat has such a significant effect on final outcome from the same table how can you conclude that turntables of completely opposing designs and construction aren't sonically vastly different from one another? Even on the AF1 each of the 3 different platters will give you a completely different character, and this is on the same setup. As someone who's gone down this path for nearly 20 years and tried out many different tables I can comfortably and categorically say that there are significant differences among turntables, specially among the most expensive ones. Turntables are the starting point and everything else follows from there. You can't fix what's wrong at the source with any tonearm, cartridge or isolation device. You can check out my systems and you'll see that all the tables are sitting on exactly the same platforms, I have the same arm mounted on almost all my tables and I even have a couple of favorite cartridges that I use with most of them. Everything else that I tested and didn't buy or keep was tested under the same conditions as those I kept. The above mentioned tables by Peter are very, very different and all things being equal and of high enough quality (not just high priced), your choice of table will have a major impact on the final outcome. I would even go further to suggest that if at your system level you can't hear major sonic differences among these tables to look for a culprit, because you should...

david

DaveyF · May 3, 2015

ddk said:
Sorry Mike, I have to disagree. When a lowly mat has such a significant effect on final outcome from the same table how can you conclude that turntables of completely opposing designs and construction aren't sonically vastly different from one another? Even on the AF1 each of the 3 different platters will give you a completely different character, and this is on the same setup. As someone who's gone down this path for nearly 20 years and tried out many different tables I can comfortably and categorically say that there are significant differences among turntables, specially among the most expensive ones. Turntables are the starting point and everything else follows from there. You can't fix what's wrong at the source with any tonearm, cartridge or isolation device. You can check out my systems and you'll see that all the tables are sitting on exactly the same platforms, I have the same arm mounted on almost all my tables and I even have a couple of favorite cartridges that I use with most of them. Everything else that I tested and didn't buy or keep was tested under the same conditions as those I kept. The above mentioned tables by Peter are very, very different and all things being equal and of high enough quality (not just high priced), your choice of table will have a major impact on the final outcome. I would even go further to suggest that if at your system level you can't hear major sonic differences among these tables to look for a culprit, because you should...

david

+1

If you look at the old Linn advice, one goes from the table and its components ( power supply, innards etc.) and then to the arm and lastly to the cartridge. IME, this has proven to be correct.

rockitman · May 3, 2015

ddk said:
Sorry Mike, I have to disagree. When a lowly mat has such a significant effect on final outcome from the same table how can you conclude that turntables of completely opposing designs and construction aren't sonically vastly different from one another? Even on the AF1 each of the 3 different platters will give you a completely different character, and this is on the same setup. As someone who's gone down this path for nearly 20 years and tried out many different tables I can comfortably and categorically say that there are significant differences among turntables, specially among the most expensive ones. Turntables are the starting point and everything else follows from there. You can't fix what's wrong at the source with any tonearm, cartridge or isolation device. You can check out my systems and you'll see that all the tables are sitting on exactly the same platforms, I have the same arm mounted on almost all my tables and I even have a couple of favorite cartridges that I use with most of them. Everything else that I tested and didn't buy or keep was tested under the same conditions as those I kept. The above mentioned tables by Peter are very, very different and all things being equal and of high enough quality (not just high priced), your choice of table will have a major impact on the final outcome. I would even go further to suggest that if at your system level you can't hear major sonic differences among these tables to look for a culprit, because you should...

david

I agree...used my AF1 with a Graham Supreme for a few months before my elite arm arrived. I also had a Supreme on my CA Master Innovation. You can clearly hear the difference between both tables...the AF1 being much quieter...platter choice also affects the sound.

rockitman · May 3, 2015

Frank750 said:
I was told by someone who will remain nameless not to use a weight, not even the one from TechDAS. I tried one I had hanging around here for the helluva it and left it on for about 20 seconds. Deadened the sound terribly.

I use a stillpoints LP1 on my AF1.... Does not deaden the sound. I tried the Tech Das puck and it did damp the sound. It all depends on everyone's unique situation and preference.

Frank750 · May 3, 2015

PeterA said:
Frank, when you decided to try another turntable, did you consider any besides the TechDAS AF2? And did you consider any arms beside the Graham Elite? I'm just curious if the Kronos, or any of the DD tables were options during your quest.

BTW, I heard your old Pass XS preamp yesterday. What a great component. The new owner is extremely happy with it.

I did consider the Kronos for a while, even got a quote. Never got to listen to it though.

One feature I decided I wanted early on was vacuum hold down. I initially was going to buy the AirForce 1 last August but held off because I was going through some system problems which turned out to be electrical. By the time I came around to considering a new table again, the AF2 was out and very good things were being said about it so I set my sights on it. Once I decided on the AF2, I never considered an arm other than the Graham Elite.

Very hard to get a listen to any of these big, heavy, expensive tables, at least it was for me. I certainly paid attention to Mike Lavigne's comments on his table, spoke to a dealer about the Kronos at length and sought out the advice of Christian, Jack and a couple of others familiar with the TechDAS before I purchased.

I'm listening to the AF2 as I type this response and I'm extremely happy that I bought it. I can't imagine the music sounding any better than this. In the end, isn't that what it's all about?

I'm glad he's happy with the Xs. Great preamp and he got an outstanding deal! We're all happy because I'm thrilled with the Audio Research Ref 10 and Ref 10 Phono.

Frank750 · May 3, 2015

That is an amazing set up you have there David (ddk)! Incredible!

Brian Walsh · May 3, 2015

Peter Breuninger said:
I would suggest that the sonic differences are greatest with the cartridge, then arm, then table. I would not suggest (sorry Mike) that the top tables sound anything alike.

+1

jfrech · May 3, 2015

Frank750 said:
I recently moved my Koetsu Coralstone from an SME 30/12 with V12 arm, maybe not great table and arm but certainly very good, to a TechDAS AirForce 2 with Graham Elite. In fact, I don't even have the Elite arm wand yet, it's a Phantom wand Bob had available. Performance is like night and day. I can't believe anyone would sit, compare the two presentations and not come away thinking the AF2 is far better in every facet of vinyl playback by a large margin. Same thing happened with my Goldfinger
Statement.

Of course the cartridge is important but it won't matter without the proper arm and table.

My dealer recently installed a Goldfinger Statement...holy smokes the price. But damn if I was not totally smitten. It seems to take the best of my Lyra Atlas with the best traights of my Allaerts. It's impressive to say the least...not sure I've ever heard a cartridge image like that...

Brian Walsh · May 3, 2015

Frank750 said:
I recently moved my Koetsu Coralstone from an SME 30/12 with V12 arm, maybe not great table and arm but certainly very good, to a TechDAS AirForce 2 with Graham Elite. In fact, I don't even have the Elite arm wand yet, it's a Phantom wand Bob had available. Performance is like night and day. I can't believe anyone would sit, compare the two presentations and not come away thinking the AF2 is far better in every facet of vinyl playback by a large margin. Same thing happened with my Goldfinger
Statement.

Of course the cartridge is important but it won't matter without the proper arm and table.

Not surprised a bit, especially about the arm and cartridge. Have customers with Koetsu stone body cartridges including the Coralstone (fabulous cartridge, BTW) as well as former Phantom owners including one who was a longtime Goldfinger (up to v2) owner, and the changes in arms and cartridges as well as painstaking alignment made all the difference. I'd love to hear a comparison between the AF2 and the Kuzma Stabi M, the latter which has unmistakable immediacy and drive.

The Newest Belt-Drive Turntables: TechDAS and Kronos

Well-Known Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Site Co-Owner, Administrator

[Industry Expert] Member Sponsor

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member Sponsor

Member Sponsor

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

Similar threads