Idlers vs Direct Drive vs Belt Drive

[tima]

That still doesn't tell us the amount of adjustment per step. What I am trying to determine is how invasive the adjustments might be.

True, but it was a quick find to answer half your question. Presumably there is capacity for invasion and actual invasion based on current state. I'll speculate that the more accurate and stable the speed the less amount of adjustment per step is needed. From what I read of the software controlling the Monaco's 40Mip DSP is that it supports some form of predictive capability which could reduce the latter. I believe I read that the Monaco acceptance is less than three instances of speed variation per 1000 samples (that would be in 1/4 of a second?), so the amount adjustment would seem to be small, but no min/max amount is given.

For example, a Saskia turntable makes 1/1000Hz adjustments. That's a change down there with normal wall current fluctuations. Then, it may go hours without needing to make any at all. What I am trying to point out is that feedback can be a good thing, but if the turntable's inertia isn't pretty much right at the outset, it's all moot.

If by feedback you mean information given the speed controller on which to base action, then sure, its absence would not be a good thing. Where do Saskia table's feedback come from, or what is the information fed back?

Sorry, I don't understand the part about inertia at the outset.

 

[ddk]

This Thread is developing the same way all similar Threads have on all the other Forums for years.
There is always a group of analogue aficionados who claim to hear "great" differences between turntables and because of the total subjectivity of their claims....there is never a resolution.
I however claim that the major differences between turntables (apart from platter mat/surface) resides with the speed consistency and accuracy they are able to maintain.
The first group never wish to involve themselves in the 'dirtiness' of scientific testing to disprove the possibility that maybe the differences they are hearing are caused by gross speed anomalies in their turntables of choice and the resulting conclusions that perhaps they are enamoured by 'distortions'?
So unless David can provide the Feikert Platter Speed App print-outs for all his turntables to establish a 'baseline' and remove doubt.....this discussion for me is at an end.

I guess most of us called subjectivists here care about what we actually hear over measurements that do nothing one way or another to us. I really can't figure out what the Feikert app or the Sutherland tell a consumer, specially without context and/or threshold of human association with the measurements. Objectively, the difference in the design of these 3 tables is great, one should instinctively know that they'll sound different only by looking at them no less listening to them. I have no doubt that anyone is capable of hearing how completely different is an idler Garrrard from a belted Micro and a DD Technics, as long as they remain objective.
david

 

[Halcro]

I have no doubt that anyone is capable of hearing how completely different is an idler Garrrard from a belted Micro and a DD Technics, as long as they remain objective.

A cartridge is pretty myopic about its job.
Can you please explain to me what it knows about drive types?

 

[ddk]

A cartridge is pretty myopic about its job.
Can you please explain to me what it knows about drive types?

Cartridge, arm & tt are parts of the same interface and interdependent, character and performance of one affects the other. Just to clarify, are you arguing that using the same arm & cartridge the sound characteristics of a Garrard 401, Micro Seiki RX-1500 and the Technics SP-10 are indistinguishable from one another?

david

 

[BruceD]

A cartridge is pretty myopic about its job.
Can you please explain to me what it knows about drive types?

Ha! Hal- I had bit of a wry chuckle at you last comment--

I recall (in the distant past!)my Grado Signature sure as hell let me know the LO7D was a DD

it hummed like a SOB approaching the last track!

Humorous Intent only sorry

BruceD

 

[microstrip]

This Thread is developing the same way all similar Threads have on all the other Forums for years.
There is always a group of analogue aficionados who claim to hear "great" differences between turntables and because of the total subjectivity of their claims....there is never a resolution.
I however claim that the major differences between turntables (apart from platter mat/surface) resides with the speed consistency and accuracy they are able to maintain.
The first group never wish to involve themselves in the 'dirtiness' of scientific testing to disprove the possibility that maybe the differences they are hearing are caused by gross speed anomalies in their turntables of choice and the resulting conclusions that perhaps they are enamoured by 'distortions'?
So unless David can provide the Feikert Platter Speed App print-outs for all his turntables to establish a 'baseline' and remove doubt.....this discussion for me is at an end.

You were not able to describe what is exactly (in scientific terms) what is the Feikert Platter speed App. Why should we give any importance to this test?
As far as I can see, any FFT analysis of the 3150 Hz tone, carried with a very high resolution in the low frequencies has a lot more information that the Feikert App.

 

[PeterA]

I guess most of us called subjectivists here care about what we actually hear over measurements that do nothing one way or another to us. I really can't figure out what the Feikert app or the Sutherland tell a consumer, specially without context and/or threshold of human association with the measurements. Objectively, the difference in the design of these 3 tables is great, one should instinctively know that they'll sound different only by looking at them no less listening to them. I have no doubt that anyone is capable of hearing how completely different is an idler Garrrard from a belted Micro and a DD Technics, as long as they remain objective.
david

I own a Sutherland TimeLine and SME 30/12 turntable. I started a thread on Audiogon and I think also on WBF and invited readers to post quick iphone videos of their turntables playing LPs using the TimeLine. Halcro or I suggested a standard procedure. Very few readers submitted videos. The intent was to develop a database showing how various turntables performed under these conditions. Owners of a Saskia and SP10 Mk3 said that they would submit videos but never got around to it.

My video of the SME, according to a reader who did the math, showed that the speed was slow by .003% over the course of a 5 minute song. It also showed that the platter rotation slowed very slightly during a highly modulated piano track. David, I don't know what you mean by "without context" but I do know that I could not hear the extremely slight deviation from absolute speed consistency or accuracy. An example of context is what is shown on my video: the test procedure, the music, the audio, and the test results.

Halcro participated in these threads and provided very clear videos showing his procedure. The owner of the SP10 MK3 told me that when he tried the TimeLine, the laser dot did not move AT ALL on the wall 18 feet away throughout the course of an entire LP side. I just wish he had submitted a video as evidence. If true, that would be astonishing, IMO.

We could start another thread discussing the differences between speed testing methods. A friend who has a KAB Strobe disk told me that his VPI was dead on accurate. When I put the TimeLine on, the dot moved all over the place. My friend thinks the weight difference between his clamp and the TimeLine accounts for the test results and thus dismisses the TimeLine as an accurate testing device.

I agree with Halcro that these threads go round and round (pun intended) like all the others without adding much clarity to the topic. I like the OP and hope that we can discuss some specifics about why these tables do or do not sound different (which may also simply be a matter of degree) but some objective test for speed accuracy and consistency would also contribute to the conversation, if only to serve as a starting point for the discussion. Sadly, I don't think we have reliable data about enough turntables to start from that baseline.

If a test of a variety of different turntables shows remarkably similar results but David and Win say they hear great differences and Halcro or Purite say they hear little or no difference, then what are we to make of that? Will we have learned only that it all goes back to the subjective preference of the listener?

On a slightly unrelated topic, as many here have read, I go to the effort of adjusting VTA for my different LPs. Very few of us do that. I hear a difference, so the effort is worth it to me. For the people who hear these differences in speed between the drive types of tables, do you also adjust VTA or are you satisfied with an average SRA setting because it is either too troublesome to adjust VTA each time or because you don't hear a significant enough difference between 1/2 degree change in SRA?

Here are two links to those TimeLine threads:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1388508870&read&keyw&zztimeline

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?13137-Turntable-Speed-What-matters&highlight=Sutherland+timeline

 

[microstrip]

I own a Sutherland TimeLine and SME 30/12 turntable. (...)

Peter,

As far as I know the Sutherland Timeline is just a magnifying strobe, relying on visual interpretation of a dot position once every 33.33/60s. IMHO it is too primitive to help us finding any correlation with psychoacoustic effects.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

Again PeterA came with a level .. calm and appropriate post. In some ways we may have to understand that subjectivists doesn't mean not to question one's beliefs or perceptions.

Speed variations and noise immunity and low intrinsic noise IMO of the obvious a few things that could help TT sound vastly different. i believe that speed variation is well taken off by most TT these days, ambient (airborne, structural noise in the room) noise can be a concern TT varies in this very much thus my suggestion to use headphones... I can understand one not liking the presentation of headphone but they get rid of room noise and issues. I would say that the better TTS and not necessarily those costing tens of thousands of dollars have come a long way in term of noise immunity. There is in my opinion a plateau that has been reached in that regard: OTH the sound of arms and cartridges continue to be widely different... Comes a point where the minds focus on some aspects of sounds... helped by other psychological factors, it doesn't mean the differences truly exists. This question seems to be taken almost as an insult by many subjectivists and once this is asked then condescension seems to become a fair response.

In the end I can understand that someone wants with all force to "trust their ears". It is a hobby and whatever pleases you, by all means go for it . But if an instrument (our ears) is shown repeatedly to be inaccurate isn't some amount of introspection warranted? I respect a subjective evaluation but believe it should and must be questioned in a forum lest we become a gigantic echo-chamber. Is that we want?


P.S. I will also suggest to leave the condescension at the door. It doesn't elevate the debate or advance anyone in any ways.I have seen too much of it in this thread and others. It has crept up from a buzz to become quite loud here on the WBF.

 

[PeterA]

Peter,

As far as I know the Sutherland Timeline is just a magnifying strobe, relying on visual interpretation of a dot position once every 33.33/60s. IMHO it is too primitive to help us finding any correlation with psychoacoustic effects.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I suggest that you click on the links I posted and watch Halcro's video showing a lack of stylus drag on his Victor. It is impressive with all three arms touching the LP. A turntable's ability to pass this test can tell us something. Whether or not it is audible, is another question. If it is audible, then it would appear that this test could be of some use.

I suppose that I am just suggesting some starting point for the discussion. So far we have some people saying that they hear differences between drive types. Others are saying that if the turntables are all speed consistent and accurate, any audible differences are a result of other design decisions.

The OP starts with examples of three reference grade turntables. I presume this means that they are all speed accurate and consistent, but to what measurable degree? We can either test that or accept it as fact. Should we also agree that all other tables which are not assumed to have, or proven to have via testing, perfect speed accuracy or consistency are not reference grade?

I guess that I am trying to understand what we are tying to learn from this thread. If reference turntables all have perfect speed, and they sound different, is it because of their drive type, or other factors like platter design, mat, energy drainage, vibration control, etc? These threads seem to all go back to speed questions, but I think the OP wants to move beyond that by giving examples of three reference tables that have solved the speed issue.

Perhaps the skeptics don't accept that premise and want to dive deeper into the issue of speed. I'm just looking for some clarity on the discussion at hand.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Perhaps, perhaps not. I suggest that you click on the links I posted and watch Halcro's video showing a lack of stylus drag on his Victor. It is impressive with all three arms touching the LP. A turntable's ability to pass this test can tell us something. Whether or not it is audible, is another question. If it is audible, then it would appear that this test could be of some use.

I suppose that I am just suggesting some starting point for the discussion. So far we have some people saying that they hear differences between drive types. Others are saying that if the turntables are all speed consistent and accurate, any audible differences are a result of other design decisions.

The OP starts with examples of three reference grade turntables. I presume this means that they are all speed accurate and consistent, but to what measurable degree? We can either test that or accept it as fact. Should we also agree that all other tables which are not assumed to have, or proven to have via testing, perfect speed accuracy or consistency are not reference grade?

I guess that I am trying to understand what we are tying to learn from this thread. If reference turntables all have perfect speed, and they sound different, is it because of their drive type, or other factors like platter design, mat, energy drainage, vibration control, etc? These threads seem to all go back to speed questions, but I think the OP wants to move beyond that by giving examples of three reference tables that have solved the speed issue.

Perhaps the skeptics don't accept that premise and want to dive deeper into the issue of speed. I'm just looking for some clarity on the discussion at hand.

you can have another fun discussion; but there will be no clarity since the 'winning' attributes are feelings about what particular drive methods and degrees of execution do for the musical experience. whether it's David, or Win, or Syntax or whoever......measurements are just a data point. a data point we all fit into our particular view and bend to fit our comfort zone. nothing wrong with wanting some sort of way to rank or judge, if that is what you like. I've steered clear from the speed measurement discussions because I don't see them going anywhere. I either like what I hear as far as speed from a tt or I don't. I've owned enough different tt's at the same time to have my own view I'm comfortable with.

the word 'condescension' gives a negative connotation to certain user's attempts to relate the 'magic' they hear from certain gear. would we not want to hear about their experiences? no; I think we do, we simply need to filter out what upsets us. let's not 'dumb down' the discussion to not step on toes.

if you don't want to hear about supreme tt performance, go talk about measurements on the Regen and Jitterbug.

 

[microstrip]

Hi

Again PeterA came with a level .. calm and appropriate post. In some ways we may have to understand that subjectivists doesn't mean not to question one's beliefs or perceptions.

Speed variations and noise immunity and low intrinsic noise IMO of the obvious a few things that could help TT sound vastly different. i believe that speed variation is well taken off by most TT these days, ambient (airborne, structural noise in the room) noise can be a concern TT varies in this very much thus my suggestion to use headphones... I can understand one not liking the presentation of headphones. I would say that the better TTS and not necessarily those costing tens of thousands of dollars have come a long way in term of noise immunity. There is in my opinion a plateau that has been reached in that regard: OTH the sound of arms and cartridges continue to be widely different... Comes point where the minds focus on some aspects of sounds... If doesn't mean the differences truly exists. This question seems to be taken almost as an insult by many subjectivists and one this is asked then condescension seems to become a fair response.

In the end I can understand that someone wants with all force to "trust their ears". It is a hobby and whatever pleases you of course by all means go for it . But if an instrument (our ears) is shown repeatedly to be inaccurate isn't some amount of introspection warranted? I respect a subjective evaluation but believe it should and must be questioned in a forum lest we become a gigantic echo-chamber. Is that we want?


P.S. I will also suggest to leave the condescension at the door. It doesn't elevate the debate or advance anyone in any ways.I have seen too much of it in this thread and others. It has crept up from a buzz to become quite loud here on the WBF.

Frantz,

IMHO you are misunderstanding this thread. We all accept our ears can be fooled. But we know that experience, knowledge and self control can also lead to excellent conclusions, particularly if we share them with people who are aware of their ear limitations and do not need to be remembered every three posts our ears cannot be trusted.

Measurements are of interest if they can be correlated with the sound quality attributes we are interested in debating. Unless someone has something new to suggest in this aspect we are still in the same phase of the Sondek - Oracle debate (the later was 634 times better, as far as I remember), the best we have are subjective opinions of experienced people and turntable designers . A few members have many times expressed their preferences and recently participated actively in threads about "natural" and other subjective aspects. I am happy to have their opinions, as I find a pattern of coherency in them, and can compare them with my more limited much experience and those expressed by others elsewhere. IMMV.

As I have a scientific/instrumental background I often ask and try to debate technical questions in WBF. Unfortunately, the anti-subjectivists and skeptics systematically prefer to ignore them.

IMHO there is no condescension in the expressed opinions from any one - just enthusiasm for a subjective cause, that should be understood as such.

And from time to time, people should read the OP. David was clear :

For anyone reading these are mostly generalizations based on 3 Reference quality tables. (...)

Take my comments as you wish but recognize that we can have different preferences, priorities and sensitivities. Also the degrees that these qualities manifest themselves is system and setup dependent.

david

 

[microstrip]

(...) the word 'condescension' gives a negative connotation to certain user's attempts to relate the 'magic' they hear from certain gear. would we not want to hear about their experiences? no; I think we do, we simply need to filter out what upsets us. let's not 'dumb down' the discussion to not step on toes. (...)

big +1!

 

[FrantzM]

<SNIP>

the word 'condescension' gives a negative connotation to certain user's attempts to relate the 'magic' they hear from certain gear. would we not want to hear about their experiences? no; I think we do, we simply need to filter out what upsets us. let's not 'dumb down' the discussion to not step on toes.

I agree with the part I just ...

On the condescension ...
It is that, negative. I don't mind anyone saying they heard magic in a design, system or component. I do take exception when my attempts or questioning are dismissed as "crap". Or that it because I haven't heard it yet. there are variations on the theme ... Many post their impressions as beyond questioning simply they have heard it and others in their estimation have not. It is taken almost as an insult when their perception or description is questioned.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I agree with the part I just ...

On the condescension ...
It is that, negative. I don't mind anyone saying they heard magic in a design, system or component. I do take exception when my attempts or questioning are dismissed as "crap". Or that it because I haven't heard it yet. there are variations on the theme ... Many post their impressions as beyond questioning simply they have heard it and others in their estimation have not. It is taken almost as an insult when their perception or description is questioned.

Frantz,

I relate to the humanity of what you say, but political correctness can be a hindrance to access to the top level experiences. so we all have to deal with it in our own way. if you cannot accept it and need to show how you feel......I understand and do not blame you. but I also hope that the feeling you are relating does not slow down the flow of unique feedback.

when someone says......"you just don't understand how it can be"......sometimes that is true.

open forums have their reality.

 

[PeterA]

you can have another fun discussion; but there will be no clarity since the 'winning' attributes are feelings about what particular drive methods and degrees of execution do for the musical experience. whether it's David, or Win, or Syntax or whoever......measurements are just a data point. a data point we all fit into our particular view and bend to fit our comfort zone. nothing wrong with wanting some sort of way to rank or judge, if that is what you like. I've steered clear from the speed measurement discussions because I don't see them going anywhere. I either like what I hear as far as speed from a tt or I don't. I've owned enough different tt's at the same time to have my own view I'm comfortable with.

the word 'condescension' gives a negative connotation to certain user's attempts to relate the 'magic' they hear from certain gear. would we not want to hear about their experiences? no; I think we do, we simply need to filter out what upsets us. let's not 'dumb down' the discussion to not step on toes.

if you don't want to hear about supreme tt performance, go talk about measurements on the Regen and Jitterbug.

Fair enough Mike, I see your point. Let's assume then a starting point of perfect speed when discussing reference turntables and that there are examples of all three types in the OP. From here we can move on to subjective listening observations and then perhaps a better understanding of why certain design decisions lead to certain sonic attributes.

Since you have preferred DD types, the NVS, the Rockport, the Dobbins, and I presume directly compared them in your system with the same arms and cartridges, could you describe a bit about how they sound different from each other and what led you ultimately to the NVS? Let's presume they all have perfect speed, both in accuracy and consistency and that they do sound different. How so and what do you think contributes to the different sounds? And more generally, what do you prefer about the sound of DD to belt, idler or rim drive types?

 

[Loheswaran]

Quartz lock mechanisms can have hall generators. Usually the hall generators are used to sense the platter position and know when to apply the correction pulse, the quartz lock mechanism just establishes an accurate reference to have absolute stability.

As far as I understand David is not referring to technical specificities, but to fundamental principles - turntables that are free run and turntables that have servo actions (feedback) to control speed.

Hi Microstrip

I have to say that I kind of understand things in generic electrical terms as opposed to the full engineering level. I find it curious that when people speak of DD they are fixated with the SP10 which if it were to be 'summized' has detractors due to what they believe it has a high torque motor, coupled with Servo control this creates audible speed corrections.

I note that the GP Monaco and the Victor (with a lower torque design) have been added to the discussion, but likewise there were other superb decks like the Trio L07D, various Luxmans, the new Brinkmann, the Marantz and the Sony with the Xtal lock mechanism. Likewise there are some massive variations in belt designs too.

Isn't it also a real case of implementation and application.

I raised the thing about the EMT 950 on the basis that whilst 'on paper' the SP10 MK3 appears superior, the correction technique of using a hall effect sensor (without quartz lock??? - i may be wrong) may give rise to smoother speed control, therefore not so audible speed correction.

Anyway - reading this thread has really spurred me on and I am gonna finish off both my EMT 950 and Sony tts8000 project ASAP

 

[rockitman]

Peter,

As far as I know the Sutherland Timeline is just a magnifying strobe, relying on visual interpretation of a dot position once every 33.33/60s. IMHO it is too primitive to help us finding any correlation with psychoacoustic effects.

I use a Monarch PLT 200 Laser Tachometer to set the speed on my Clearaudio master innovation TT. I feel is it more accurate and easier to use than the timeline.

http://www.monarchinstrument.com/product.php?ID=24

Accuracy: Optical:±0.01% of reading

 

[ddk]

My video of the SME, according to a reader who did the math, showed that the speed was slow by .003% over the course of a 5 minute song. It also showed that the platter rotation slowed very slightly during a highly modulated piano track. David, I don't know what you mean by "without context" but I do know that I could not hear the extremely slight deviation from absolute speed consistency or accuracy. An example of context is what is shown on my video: the test procedure, the music, the audio, and the test results.

Context, what does a measurement from Sutherland tell you? Its no more than a tool giving you some visual cue of the platter's rotational speed. a glorified strobe. Handy for set up, but you don't know' from that figure how many adjustments were made by the motor controller to maintain that speed? Maybe 0.3% is the magic number because fewer adjustments could mean better sound, you can't tell that from these tools. You're taking a visual approximation of .003%!!! from imperfect tools, you have no way to verify that. Sometimes those who like to call others subjectivists pretend that we're the equal of cave people, and wear the WORD science like a shield on their cuffs while completely ignoring other essential realities. Of course we use such tools when setting up a tt to bring me close to an assumed target quickly, but this isn't science, a monkey can do it! Where the science and experience comes in is in deciding on the correct tension for the belt. All these cheap tools easily have a +/- variation of at least a few percent, I can get almost the exact same visual reading for a slightly looser or slightly tighter belt, but you'll never know which is correct without your ears. A little too loose and everything in the soundstage will collapse and the sound will be muddy and confused, a little too much tension and the sound becomes too tight and the sound stage lowered, more hifi sound. Do you have any tools better than a pair of ears and a brain for judging the right belt tension? The other issue of context is that no of the measurements provided in this thread begin to explain anything about the sq of the 3 different design types. We're still waiting for a real affirmative yes or no from the science camp boys confirming if they believe that they're arguing that under the same conditions there's no significant audible difference in the sound character of a Garrard 401, Micro RX-1500 and a SP-10. This is the context, how do measurements from Feikert or the Sutherland distinguish the differences in sound quality of each type?

david

 

[ddk]

Hi

Again PeterA came with a level .. calm and appropriate post. In some ways we may have to understand that subjectivists doesn't mean not to question one's beliefs or perceptions.

Speed variations and noise immunity and low intrinsic noise IMO of the obvious a few things that could help TT sound vastly different. i believe that speed variation is well taken off by most TT these days, ambient (airborne, structural noise in the room) noise can be a concern TT varies in this very much thus my suggestion to use headphones... I can understand one not liking the presentation of headphone but they get rid of room noise and issues. I would say that the better TTS and not necessarily those costing tens of thousands of dollars have come a long way in term of noise immunity. There is in my opinion a plateau that has been reached in that regard: OTH the sound of arms and cartridges continue to be widely different... Comes a point where the minds focus on some aspects of sounds... helped by other psychological factors, it doesn't mean the differences truly exists. This question seems to be taken almost as an insult by many subjectivists and once this is asked then condescension seems to become a fair response.

In the end I can understand that someone wants with all force to "trust their ears". It is a hobby and whatever pleases you, by all means go for it . But if an instrument (our ears) is shown repeatedly to be inaccurate isn't some amount of introspection warranted? I respect a subjective evaluation but believe it should and must be questioned in a forum lest we become a gigantic echo-chamber. Is that we want?


P.S. I will also suggest to leave the condescension at the door. It doesn't elevate the debate or advance anyone in any ways.I have seen too much of it in this thread and others. It has crept up from a buzz to become quite loud here on the WBF.

Its not wanting or not wanting to believe give me a better tool than two good ears and a brain and I'll go for it. No argument on speed accuracy, its important but so is the way that accuracy is achieved. What does a single measurement tell about you the characteristics of a Garrard 401 vs the SP10?

Its not wether I like headphones or not, its an extremely flawed and incomplete tool, besides which one do you want to pick when many headphones measure like crap. Its like when buying a house the agent tells you that only accurate and scientific way to judge house is through the keyhole, otherwise one might get distracted by the space.

david