Idlers vs Direct Drive vs Belt Drive

[ddk]

Surely each manufacturer should provide specifications and measurements for their own products?
Keith

This response doesn't have anything to do with what you were demanding and claiming previously!

david

 

[Sunnyboy1956]

Getting back to the 3 original Reference tables, each tt has some very specific sound characteristics associated with its drive type and are great representatives of that technology. Frankly, I didn't expect the limited experience of people with these tts in this forum so things came to halt and conversation went a different direction. I tried to explain some of the basic qualities of each technology not to pick a best but offer different flavors for enjoyment and variety. This is one of the greatest beauties of analog vinyl that while all 3 tables sound totally different they're also all correct and musical at the same time, digital can't do that!





david

I hope it's not to late to join the party. I almost feel like a gate crasher entering the party after the fun and revelry is over, most of the guests have gone home, there is little food though there is some booze. David suggested on my systems page that I join so here I am. I have read with interest the entire thread, often amused, sometimes puzzled but always a fun read. In the 390 odd posts there are less than half a dozen addressing the sonic attributes of the different drive systems.
Let me pitch in with my 2 bits. I have 2 TTs. In the left hand corner, an idler drive Garrard 401 with a Lyra Atlas mounted on a 12"Ortofon 309D arm and in the right hand corner a TW 3 AC modded all the way to BN status minus the BN platter+feet. The TW has a Durand Talea2 arm and a Lyra Etna. Both TTs are on independent wall mounted shelfs and the tone arm wires have been burnt in using a special wire gizmo that was specially fabricated . The carts are aligned with customised Mint LP Best protractors. The 401 is plugged into the MC inputs of a Nagra VPS phono while the TW is plugged into a Ortofon 80 SE SUT which feeds the MM inputs of the same phono stage.
To provide some context I have not listened to my system for over a week as I am recovering from eye surgery. I fired it up last night with the express purpose of trying to focus on the differences/similarities of both TTs. I played the same tracks/Lps sequentially on both tables starting with "Another brick in the wall" and " Comfortably Numb", from The Wall, the complete 1st side of Stowoski's Rhapsodies, Ernest Ansermet" The Royal Ballet" and finally the 45rpm Lyn Stanley " Potions".
For me this was not a controlled test but something I have been doing for the past 2 years. Namely start an LP on one TT and listen to side 2 on the other TT.
Now for the disappointing bit. The similarities to my ears outweigh the differences. Off course the sound is not identical but each TT will overwhelm you with the music unless you want to be completely anal and focus on a piano note or a drum beat to the exclusion of what the music is doing. I am willing to bet that were I to do a blind test with someone not familiar with my system, using the same track/LP he/she will find it difficult to distinguish between the TTs. I know blind testing has its limitations etc but I mention it to illustrate the point that properly set up TTs playing through a revealing system will sound more similar than different.
I happily acknowledge David's analog expertise but I am unable to concur with the view that different drive types have an indelible sonic signature that is easy to catch. It may be so but my listening experience suggests otherwise.
My audio buddies will be visiting soon and I will be happy to share their impressions. One of them is a designer of SET amps and single driver speakers and I am sure his ears are more accomplished than mine( sounds like Dr Spock ).
Sorry for a long rant.
Pradeep

 

[ddk]

I hope it's not to late to join the party. I almost feel like a gate crasher entering the party after the fun and revelry is over, most of the guests have gone home, there is little food though there is some booze. David suggested on my systems page that I join so here I am. I have read with interest the entire thread, often amused, sometimes puzzled but always a fun read. In the 390 odd posts there are less than half a dozen addressing the sonic attributes of the different drive systems.
Let me pitch in with my 2 bits. I have 2 TTs. In the left hand corner, an idler drive Garrard 401 with a Lyra Atlas mounted on a 12"Ortofon 309D arm and in the right hand corner a TW 3 AC modded all the way to BN status minus the BN platter+feet. The TW has a Durand Talea2 arm and a Lyra Etna. Both TTs are on independent wall mounted shelfs and the tone arm wires have been burnt in using a special wire gizmo that was specially fabricated . The carts are aligned with customised Mint LP Best protractors. The 401 is plugged into the MC inputs of a Nagra VPS phono while the TW is plugged into a Ortofon 80 SE SUT which feeds the MM inputs of the same phono stage.
To provide some context I have not listened to my system for over a week as I am recovering from eye surgery. I fired it up last night with the express purpose of trying to focus on the differences/similarities of both TTs. I played the same tracks/Lps sequentially on both tables starting with "Another brick in the wall" and " Comfortably Numb", from The Wall, the complete 1st side of Stowoski's Rhapsodies, Ernest Ansermet" The Royal Ballet" and finally the 45rpm Lyn Stanley " Potions".
For me this was not a controlled test but something I have been doing for the past 2 years. Namely start an LP on one TT and listen to side 2 on the other TT.
Now for the disappointing bit. The similarities to my ears outweigh the differences. Off course the sound is not identical but each TT will overwhelm you with the music unless you want to be completely anal and focus on a piano note or a drum beat to the exclusion of what the music is doing. I am willing to bet that were I to do a blind test with someone not familiar with my system, using the same track/LP he/she will find it difficult to distinguish between the TTs. I know blind testing has its limitations etc but I mention it to illustrate the point that properly set up TTs playing through a revealing system will sound more similar than different.
I happily acknowledge David's analog expertise but I am unable to concur with the view that different drive types have an indelible sonic signature that is easy to catch. It may be so but my listening experience suggests otherwise.
My audio buddies will be visiting soon and I will be happy to share their impressions. One of them is a designer of SET amps and single driver speakers and I am sure his ears are more accomplished than mine( sounds like Dr Spock ).
Sorry for a long rant.
Pradeep

Thank you Pradeep for your comments. You have two very different tt setups and the only commonality seems to be the Lyra brand. With one you're even using the Ortofon SUT which introduces another balance of sound into the mix. I'm at a loss when you say that the two setups sound more similar than different and you don't think that people would be able to pick them apart, please expand on that.

david

 

[XV-1]

I hope it's not to late to join the party. I almost feel like a gate crasher entering the party after the fun and revelry is over, most of the guests have gone home, there is little food though there is some booze. David suggested on my systems page that I join so here I am. I have read with interest the entire thread, often amused, sometimes puzzled but always a fun read. In the 390 odd posts there are less than half a dozen addressing the sonic attributes of the different drive systems.
Let me pitch in with my 2 bits. I have 2 TTs. In the left hand corner, an idler drive Garrard 401 with a Lyra Atlas mounted on a 12"Ortofon 309D arm and in the right hand corner a TW 3 AC modded all the way to BN status minus the BN platter+feet. The TW has a Durand Talea2 arm and a Lyra Etna. Both TTs are on independent wall mounted shelfs and the tone arm wires have been burnt in using a special wire gizmo that was specially fabricated . The carts are aligned with customised Mint LP Best protractors. The 401 is plugged into the MC inputs of a Nagra VPS phono while the TW is plugged into a Ortofon 80 SE SUT which feeds the MM inputs of the same phono stage.
To provide some context I have not listened to my system for over a week as I am recovering from eye surgery. I fired it up last night with the express purpose of trying to focus on the differences/similarities of both TTs. I played the same tracks/Lps sequentially on both tables starting with "Another brick in the wall" and " Comfortably Numb", from The Wall, the complete 1st side of Stowoski's Rhapsodies, Ernest Ansermet" The Royal Ballet" and finally the 45rpm Lyn Stanley " Potions".
For me this was not a controlled test but something I have been doing for the past 2 years. Namely start an LP on one TT and listen to side 2 on the other TT.
Now for the disappointing bit. The similarities to my ears outweigh the differences. Off course the sound is not identical but each TT will overwhelm you with the music unless you want to be completely anal and focus on a piano note or a drum beat to the exclusion of what the music is doing. I am willing to bet that were I to do a blind test with someone not familiar with my system, using the same track/LP he/she will find it difficult to distinguish between the TTs. I know blind testing has its limitations etc but I mention it to illustrate the point that properly set up TTs playing through a revealing system will sound more similar than different.
I happily acknowledge David's analog expertise but I am unable to concur with the view that different drive types have an indelible sonic signature that is easy to catch. It may be so but my listening experience suggests otherwise.
My audio buddies will be visiting soon and I will be happy to share their impressions. One of them is a designer of SET amps and single driver speakers and I am sure his ears are more accomplished than mine( sounds like Dr Spock ).
Sorry for a long rant.
Pradeep

Hi Pradeep

Great to hear you playing with multiple tables

IMO the TW Raven and the Garrard may have similar traits in how they handle mid bass. The Raven AC3 IMO has a upper bass bump which makes it sound nice with a lot or recordings. I assume the Atlas and Etna are more alike than different?.

I feel if you had a DD table the differences may be more obvious.

My DD tables are a lot more neutral through the bass and have less mid bass. They have a different feel in the upper frequencies, more direct but less " air " ?. The amount of mid bass in the system has a profound difference in how much musical detail one years. Changing rooms recently reinforces that notion of how much my previous room was masking.

That said, favourite albums don't sound fundamentally different on either table once you play a couple of track's. Your ears do a pretty good job in equalising.

Cheers

 

[PeterA]

Hi Pradeep

Great to hear you playing with multiple tables

IMO the TW Raven and the Garrard may have similar traits in how they handle mid bass. The Raven AC3 IMO has a upper bass bump which makes it sound nice with a lot or recordings. I assume the Atlas and Etna are more alike than different?.

I feel if you had a DD table the differences may be more obvious.

My DD tables are a lot more neutral through the bass and have less mid bass. They have a different feel in the upper frequencies, more direct but less " air " ?. The amount of mid bass in the system has a profound difference in how much musical detail one years. Changing rooms recently reinforces that notion of how much my previous room was masking.

That said, favourite albums don't sound fundamentally different on either table once you play a couple of track's. Your ears do a pretty good job in equalising.

Cheers

XV-1, That is interesting about the mid bass. What do you think accounts for that with Pradeep's belt and idler tables? I agree that excessive mid bass robs the sound of detail.

 

[XV-1]

XV-1, That is interesting about the mid bass. What do you think accounts for that with Pradeep's belt and idler tables? I agree that excessive mid bass robs the sound of detail.

I own the AC3 so I am familar with the sound. The slight bass hump is part of the design I guess , just like Wilson. Perhaps why I can hear it more with the Raven. I have heard Garrards in the past and can have a similar trait.
Regards

 

[Sunnyboy1956]

Shane
You make a valid point that the idler and belt drives are more similar than apart and a comparison with a DD will be more revealing.I have no recent experience with DDs but I plan to restore a circa 1978 SONY PS 515 DD provided the electricals are not beyond repair.
Off course there are differences between my 401 and TW AC 3. The latter has a longer sustain and decay with a more pronounced mid range. The 401 has more verve and energy. But honestly the differences are subtle more like a sub text. If you start focussing on the differences you are analysing the music not listening to it. For acoustic music or pronounced vocals eg Lyn Stanley, Diana Krall even the subtle differences disappear . There is a recent Yarlung Record primarily of acoustic instruments, Caramella or a similar name. TBH, I know my system and even I can't spot any difference between the TTs.
I think that rather than lament the lack of difference we should celebrate the fact that a decent idler like the 401 can more than match some of the best belt drives available today. YMMV, but in my reckoning the TW AC 3 is among the top sub 100k belt tables. A cost comparison between the 2 is almost embarrassing. Despite the Indian Rupee weakening against the $, the 401 incl the plinth cost me less than USD 1200, not including some minor parts, compared to a modded TW AC 3 of about 30k USD. After adding both tone arms/carts, it's about 1/4th the cost. The idlers represent real value.
Pradeep

 

[morricab]

You're very welcome Frantz. I don't mind those who appreciate their own choices in equipment but I try not to 'bash' those choices about which I have my doubts...
I have both a belt-drive Raven AC-2 and several DD Victors and can happily listen to all. Implementation is more important I suspect, than actual 'religion'?

I know I am very late to this post but I just wanted to agree with what you have been saying with regards to the best DD TTs from Japan. I have a Yamaha GT-2000 with external power supply and it uses the same bi-directional servo as the JVCs (they got it from them apparently). This was probably the only servo design that truly eliminated the "hunting" effect in the servo systems. Kenwood with the L07 instead opted for a heavy platter and a "looser" servo so that it only kicked in when the speed was outside a certain limit. My Yamaha kind of did both, it has a heavy 6Kg platter and the bidirectional servo.

What a lot of people here also don't seem to get is that at least 2 or three manufacturers at the time had motors with NO cogging by design, whereas the synchronous AC, brushed DC and even brushless "DC" motors all cog. However, being DC, they need speed control as they will fluctuate significantly under load and drift with time. To my knowledge, Kenwood, JVC and Yamaha all came up with zero cogging motors and VERY sophisticated speed control that is superior to optical or magnetic encoders to the best of my understanding of this technology.

A few other designs like the Exclusive P3 and maybe the big Sony and/or Nakamichi might have had minimal to no issues with cogging but their speed control was not as sophisticated as the bi-directional servo; however, the P3 had a big platter to smooth out small variations. The most susceptible DD TTs to speed fluctuations are those with light weight platters and/or without a very sophisticated speed control. These are the ones mainly responsible for the "DD" sound that many hear claim. My Yamaha is precise without sounding cold or closed-in and it is the most propulsive TT I have owned with the possible exception of the very good Voyd 3-motor belt drive I had before getting the Yamaha.

IMO, the Technics SP series TTs are NOT representative of the state of the art in DD. The motors they use have cogging and the speed control is not SOTA either. Unfortunately, the same is true of the ultra modern Grand Prix Audio Monaco. It is using a brushless "DC" motor (really a 3 phase AC motor) that has iron poles, which means it has to cog...only coreless motors (no iron poles) are able to be without cogging. That is what made the motors from Kenwood, Yamaha and JVC special...and expensive. In addition, the Monaco is using an optical encoder to lock the speed with around 4000 pulses per rotation but this is less than what one would get from a quartz lock, which is in the MHz frequency, and it is not a bi-directional servo like the JVC/Yamaha implementation so it will likely be "hunting" somewhat. Finally, i don't think it uses a heavy platter so there is not much momentum to smooth out speed fluctuations. Therefore, I am not surprised by the Stereophile review's comments on this TT.

I have compared my Yamaha to some very nice TTS from SME, Voyd, Michell, Acoustic Signature and Transrotor and it is at least as good as the big Transrotor overall (this is a big 3 motor model with magentic decoupling drive), which is overall the best of the belt-drive bunch mentioned above. Also, I have an Allnic Speednic that is quite accurate in looking at the speed (Accurate to within +/- 0.001%) and I can tell you that so far, only my Yamaha has been totally stable when actually playing a record. You see NO drift in the speed or visible fluctuations (visible being the limit of the Speednic accuracy of course). All the belt drives I have tried it with were not only initially off speed slightly (i.e. had to be adjusted to be exactly the right speed) all of them showed some small fluctuations when actually playing a record or had drifted a bit in the "before" and "after" playing several records.

Now, maybe a 100Kg platter on an air or magnetic bearing will be superior in speed stability and "never" have to correct the speed but at least in a practical world a belt-drive will simply be less accurate in terms of speed before a record is put on and will fluctuate more under load because normally the motors are not strong enough to respond instantly to the demand from the needle in the groove. An exception might be something like the Voyd with three motors and a light platter where the torque is very high and the motors are induction 3-phase motors decoupled by a belt. Hear the torque is sufficient to make needle drag irrelevant for the most part but the motors themselves will still cog and therefore have some inherent fluctuations.

I have found a modern motor that has zero cogging but they are not cheap (over $1000 for just the motor) and require a good controller with a feedback servo of some kind as well as a good power supply. Drive sysetm alone can cost you well over $2-3K. So, while it is possible to DIY a very nice DD TT, it will still cost you in the several thousand range to get one that beats a good belt drive. I am working on such a design and have about $3K invested to date. My servo though, will be optical based and probably not as good as those in an old Japanese TT. Maybe I will pirate an inexpensive one just for the servo controller?

 

[Amir]

excuse me for off-topic

Some area in high end are not close to perfect and Turntable Design is one of those area.

it seems even spending over $400k for today big/heavy turntables does not give you perfect Sound.

Roy Gregory says : "A turntable is a pure engineering problem - and engineering is all about selecting the right amount of the right material to get the job done. Therefore, if you approach the problem on this basis, simply taking an existing design and making it bigger/heavier makes no sense at all."

Tim de Paravicini (designer of EAR Yoshino and Studer C37 modifier) says : "Vinyl quality is good but record players are not good".

 

[theophile]

Components should sound more alike if they are all equally accurate. The problem with turntables is that it is easier to damage the sound than benefit the same. There are thousands of ways to screw up turntable sound and a far narrower path to optimising them.

 

[bonzo75]

Components should sound more alike if they are all equally accurate. The problem with turntables is that it is easier to damage the sound than benefit the same. There are thousands of ways to screw up turntable sound and a far narrower path to optimising them.

in some turntable compares you actually feel you are keeping out the bad ‘uns rather than the selecting the better one. Once a good TT reaches a certain stage the cart/arm combo should take over

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Components should sound more alike if they are all equally accurate. The problem with turntables is that it is easier to damage the sound than benefit the same. There are thousands of ways to screw up turntable sound and a far narrower path to optimising them.

my 3 turntables; the high mass platter, string drive, air bearing/cushion CS Port, direct drive Wave Kinetics NVS, and idler Saskia have much more in common with their performance than differences. each brings degrees of positive attributes relative to their drive design, but the level of execution of each is such that drive type artifacts are not evident.

i've owned belt drive, direct drive, and idlers that do exhibit expected artifacts relative to drive types, but those were still enjoyable. i'd call them degrees of good.

drive type does not need to be a problem.