More Direct Drive Turntable Myths

[Arny Krueger]

The mythology that direct drive turntables are inherently
prone to problems with "cogging" is much more about
perception than fact. It is largely based on the myth that a
rubber belt does a superior job of reducing speed
variations.

Some misapprehensions about so-called direct drive
turntables trace back to the terminology "Direct Drive". A
more detailed understanding of how direct drive turntables
work reveals that the so-called direct drive turntable's
platter is not driven directly, but that the rotational
drive is applied through a varying magnetic field. This
magnetic field replaces the traditional rubber belt or wheel
as the flexible means by which the turntable is driven.

Two disadvantages of drive through rubber belts or wheels is
that the compliance, stiffness or flexibility of a rubber
wheel or belt is constant in the short term, and degrades
over the long term as the elastic parts wear and/or stiffen.

Rubber and other elastomers tend to harden over time, and
crack finally demanding replacement. In contrast, magnetic
fields are constantly being replenished by the control
system, and do not themselves necessarily degrade over time
like flexible belts and wheels.

The stiffness of a turntable's drive relates to how well the
rotating mass of the platter filters out speed variations. A
drive that is less stiff leads to better filtration. A
highly flexible drive can be traded off with the mass of the
turntable. The filtering action is based on the combination
of a high-mass platter and a highly flexible drive. If you
increase the mass and stiffen the drive the filtering action
remains constant. If you make the drive more flexible or
increase the mass, the filtering action improves.

However, it is not practical to make a turntable with an
extremely flexible belt or wheel drive because it would take
forever to come up to speed. Ideally, we'd like to have a
belt that is stiff for fast starts, and highly flexible for
smooth running. But rubber belts and wheels can't adapt to
changing needs. They are what they are that day.

A major highly desirable property of a direct drive
turntables' magnetic field drive is that the stiffness of
the drive can be varied rapidly by its electronic control
system. This contrasts with a rubber wheel or belt whose
stiffness remains the same as you start, run and stop the
turntable. A rubber belt's stiffness must be compromised
because it can't adapt to changing needs. The stiffness of a
magnetic drive can change rapidly and automatically to meet
changing needs.

A magnetic field drive based on an internal speed sensor
naturally simulates a stiff belt when the turntable is
starting up, and then automatically and naturally changes
over to something like a very stretchy rubber belt, when the
turntable is running normally.

If you use your finger to drag a direct drive turntable to a
stop, you may feel the control system pushing harder,
perhaps even pulsing. This does not mean that it is pulsing
significantly when the turntable is running normally.

The measure of the constant speed of a turntable should be
reliably determined by bias-controlled listening tests and
standard technical measures for speed consistency, not
behavior under unusual operating conditions.

There's no doubt that el-cheapo direct turntables that have
problems with speed control have made their way onto the
market. However, the basic direct drive technology has far
greater potential to provide excellent, long-lasting high
performance than a belt drive.

That these myths about turntable drive systems have
persisted so long and remain so wide spread is a testimonial
to the failure of high end manufacturers and publications to
properly educate their public.

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> The mythology that direct drive turntables are inherently prone to
> problems with "cogging" is much more about perception than fact. It is
> largely based on the myth that a rubber belt does a superior job of
> reducing speed variations.
>
> Some misapprehensions about so-called direct drive turntables trace back
> to the terminology "Direct Drive". A more detailed understanding of how
> direct drive turntables work reveals that the so-called direct drive
> turntable's platter is not driven directly, but that the rotational drive
> is applied through a varying magnetic field. This magnetic field replaces
> the traditional rubber belt or wheel as the flexible means by which the
> turntable is driven.
>
Crugly spoken, but partially true.
There are details associated with each method that also have a bearing
[sic].

Recently, I asked Arny to clarify about what he calls "magnetic coupling",
and he responded, as usual, with a gratuitous insult. Here he has
inadvertently answered the question, making it clear that he is referring to
the magnetic field inside the motor.

That a driving magnetic field does not provide acoustic isolation is easily
demonstrated in one device with which we are all familiar, namely, the
dynamic loudspeaker. Whether the field in a motor creates a disturbance
audible at the stylus is a function of driving method. Pulse modulation of
the motor drive has a minimum power, depending upon the circuitry used. No
motor can function at zero drive. Therefore, some modulation is always
present at the driving frequency. Certain geometric/phase arrangments
produce constant driving torque, but there is a 2nd order effect that works
against this. Any variation in the motor from completely symmetric internal
geometry will cause a cyclic variation in torque. Any winding variation, or
asymmetry of the driving circuitry, will cause a cyclic torque.

These are potential problems with the direct drive arrangement. The belt
drive virtually guarantees that rotational defects will be limited to low
frequency artifacts. Belt drive permits optimization of the platter support,
in the form of simplified bearings, less likely to cause mechanical noise
than the ball or fluid dynamic bearings used in motors. All bearings have,
by their nature, a minimum clearance, which permits a disturbance in motor
geometry, as described above.

These are potential pitfalls. I do not mean to say that either type of
implementation is invariably superior. But since one cannot be guided, by
the type, to the superior choice, the actual performance of the turntable
must be evaluated by testing. I would suggest it's pointless for rao'ers to
beat each other over the head regarding the internals, as opposed to the
result.

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> The mythology that direct drive turntables are inherently prone to
> problems with "cogging" is much more about perception than fact. It is
> largely based on the myth that a rubber belt does a superior job of
> reducing speed variations.
>
> Some misapprehensions about so-called direct drive turntables trace back
> to the terminology "Direct Drive". A more detailed understanding of how
> direct drive turntables work reveals that the so-called direct drive
> turntable's platter is not driven directly, but that the rotational drive
> is applied through a varying magnetic field. This magnetic field replaces
> the traditional rubber belt or wheel as the flexible means by which the
> turntable is driven.
>
> Two disadvantages of drive through rubber belts or wheels is that the
> compliance, stiffness or flexibility of a rubber wheel or belt is constant
> in the short term, and degrades over the long term as the elastic parts
> wear and/or stiffen.
>
> Rubber and other elastomers tend to harden over time, and crack finally
> demanding replacement. In contrast, magnetic fields are constantly being
> replenished by the control system, and do not themselves necessarily
> degrade over time like flexible belts and wheels.
>
> The stiffness of a turntable's drive relates to how well the rotating mass
> of the platter filters out speed variations. A drive that is less stiff
> leads to better filtration. A highly flexible drive can be traded off with
> the mass of the turntable. The filtering action is based on the
> combination of a high-mass platter and a highly flexible drive. If you
> increase the mass and stiffen the drive the filtering action remains
> constant. If you make the drive more flexible or increase the mass, the
> filtering action improves.
>
> However, it is not practical to make a turntable with an extremely
> flexible belt or wheel drive because it would take forever to come up to
> speed. Ideally, we'd like to have a belt that is stiff for fast starts,
> and highly flexible for smooth running. But rubber belts and wheels can't
> adapt to changing needs. They are what they are that day.
>
> A major highly desirable property of a direct drive turntables' magnetic
> field drive is that the stiffness of the drive can be varied rapidly by
> its electronic control system. This contrasts with a rubber wheel or belt
> whose stiffness remains the same as you start, run and stop the turntable.
> A rubber belt's stiffness must be compromised because it can't adapt to
> changing needs. The stiffness of a magnetic drive can change rapidly and
> automatically to meet changing needs.
>
> A magnetic field drive based on an internal speed sensor naturally
> simulates a stiff belt when the turntable is starting up, and then
> automatically and naturally changes over to something like a very stretchy
> rubber belt, when the turntable is running normally.
>
> If you use your finger to drag a direct drive turntable to a stop, you may
> feel the control system pushing harder, perhaps even pulsing. This does
> not mean that it is pulsing significantly when the turntable is running
> normally.
>
> The measure of the constant speed of a turntable should be reliably
> determined by bias-controlled listening tests and standard technical
> measures for speed consistency, not behavior under unusual operating
> conditions.
>
> There's no doubt that el-cheapo direct turntables that have problems with
> speed control have made their way onto the market. However, the basic
> direct drive technology has far greater potential to provide excellent,
> long-lasting high performance than a belt drive.
>
> That these myths about turntable drive systems have persisted so long and
> remain so wide spread is a testimonial to the failure of high end
> manufacturers and publications to properly educate their public.
>
>
Way to far over the heads of the faithful. :-)

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> There's no doubt that el-cheapo direct turntables that have
> problems with speed control have made their way onto the
> market. However, the basic direct drive technology has far
> greater potential to provide excellent, long-lasting high
> performance than a belt drive.
>
> That these myths about turntable drive systems have
> persisted so long and remain so wide spread is a testimonial
> to the failure of high end manufacturers and publications to
> properly educate their public.

Do you think audiophiles should abandon their highly functional
belt-drives because someone might someday market a direct-drive that
fulfills this potential?

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message


> That a driving magnetic field does not provide acoustic
> isolation is easily demonstrated in one device with which
> we are all familiar, namely, the dynamic loudspeaker.

As usual Morein is working overtime trying to create new
fallacies as quickly as I spike the old ones.

Here Morein purpounds the fallacy that all magnetic fields
are the same. In fact they differ in a number of areas, most
significantly being strength.

> Whether the field in a motor creates a disturbance
> audible at the stylus is a function of driving method.

This statement ignores the fact that many system parameters
are more important than the driving method.

For example, the driving method in any modern turntable is
identically the same - a magnetic field in an electric
motor. It's the differences in the other system parameters
that makes a belt drive system different from a so-called
direct drive system.

> Pulse modulation of the motor drive has a minimum power,
> depending upon the circuitry used.

In fact pulse modulation is used on both direct drive and
also some belt drive turntables. Therefore the introduction
of pulse modulation is a straw man argument and can be
safely ignored.

> No motor can function at zero drive.

I never said that they did. So this would be the second
straw man argument in the same paragraph.

>Therefore, some modulation is always
> present at the driving frequency.

Here the classic error of ignoring quantification is made.

>Certain geometric/phase
> arrangments produce constant driving torque, but there is
> a 2nd order effect that works against this.

Again this applies to both belt drives and so-called direct
drives so we now have our third straw man argument.

> Any variation
> in the motor from completely symmetric internal geometry
> will cause a cyclic variation in torque. Any winding
> variation, or asymmetry of the driving circuitry, will
> cause a cyclic torque.

This again applies to both belt drives and so-called direct
drives so we now have our fourth straw man argument.


> These are potential problems with the direct drive
> arrangement.

Every problem listed so far applies to both belt drive and
direct drive systems.

>The belt drive virtually guarantees that
> rotational defects will be limited to low frequency
> artifacts.

The presence of a belt is not a panacea. The time-honored
open-loop motor driving a rubber belt suffers from a number
of problems related to operational parameters that can't
change when the operational mode changes from start-up to
normal rotation.

> Belt drive permits optimization of the platter support,

Direct drive provides more options. Since direct-drive
motors run at a far slower speed than belt-drive motors,
natural vibration modes are not in the audio range. For
example a belt-drive motor might have 24 poles and turn at
300 rpm. This results in 7200 noise impulses per minute,
which corresponds to a noise at 120 Hz.


> in the form of simplified bearings, less likely
> to cause mechanical noise than the ball or fluid dynamic
> bearings used in motors.

In fact platter bearings in direct drive turntables can be
identical to platter bearings in belt-drive turntables. This
comment by Morein is no doubt based on his inability to
actually examine a number of direct-drive turntables due to
his confinement.

> All bearings have, by their
> nature, a minimum clearance, which permits a disturbance
> in motor geometry, as described above.

Just another item that is common to both direct-drive and
belt-drive designs. This makes Morein's fifth straw man
argument in just one post.

> These are potential pitfalls. I do not mean to say that
> either type of implementation is invariably superior. But
> since one cannot be guided, by the type, to the superior
> choice, the actual performance of the turntable must be
> evaluated by testing. I would suggest it's pointless for
> rao'ers to beat each other over the head regarding the
> internals, as opposed to the result.

Notice that my post mentioned no names, so there was no
"beating" involved. OTOH, Morein gratuitously mentioned my
name in a negative context that went well beyond simply
quoting my post. I think that Morien's bad faith should be
obvious to all.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
nk.net
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The mythology that direct drive turntables are
>> inherently prone to problems with "cogging" is much more
>> about perception than fact. It is largely based on the
>> myth that a rubber belt does a superior job of reducing
>> speed variations. Some misapprehensions about so-called
>> direct drive
>> turntables trace back to the terminology "Direct Drive".
>> A more detailed understanding of how direct drive
>> turntables work reveals that the so-called direct drive
>> turntable's platter is not driven directly, but that the
>> rotational drive is applied through a varying magnetic
>> field. This magnetic field replaces the traditional
>> rubber belt or wheel as the flexible means by which the
>> turntable is driven. Two disadvantages of drive through
>> rubber belts or
>> wheels is that the compliance, stiffness or flexibility
>> of a rubber wheel or belt is constant in the short term,
>> and degrades over the long term as the elastic parts
>> wear and/or stiffen. Rubber and other elastomers tend to
>> harden over time,
>> and crack finally demanding replacement. In contrast,
>> magnetic fields are constantly being replenished by the
>> control system, and do not themselves necessarily
>> degrade over time like flexible belts and wheels. The
>> stiffness of a turntable's drive relates to how well
>> the rotating mass of the platter filters out speed
>> variations. A drive that is less stiff leads to better
>> filtration. A highly flexible drive can be traded off
>> with the mass of the turntable. The filtering action is
>> based on the combination of a high-mass platter and a
>> highly flexible drive. If you increase the mass and
>> stiffen the drive the filtering action remains constant.
>> If you make the drive more flexible or increase the
>> mass, the filtering action improves. However, it is not
>> practical to make a turntable with an
>> extremely flexible belt or wheel drive because it would
>> take forever to come up to speed. Ideally, we'd like to
>> have a belt that is stiff for fast starts, and highly
>> flexible for smooth running. But rubber belts and wheels
>> can't adapt to changing needs. They are what they are
>> that day. A major highly desirable property of a direct
>> drive
>> turntables' magnetic field drive is that the stiffness
>> of the drive can be varied rapidly by its electronic
>> control system. This contrasts with a rubber wheel or
>> belt whose stiffness remains the same as you start, run
>> and stop the turntable. A rubber belt's stiffness must
>> be compromised because it can't adapt to changing needs.
>> The stiffness of a magnetic drive can change rapidly and
>> automatically to meet changing needs. A magnetic field
>> drive based on an internal speed sensor
>> naturally simulates a stiff belt when the turntable is
>> starting up, and then automatically and naturally
>> changes over to something like a very stretchy rubber
>> belt, when the turntable is running normally. If you use
>> your finger to drag a direct drive turntable
>> to a stop, you may feel the control system pushing
>> harder, perhaps even pulsing. This does not mean that it
>> is pulsing significantly when the turntable is running
>> normally. The measure of the constant speed of a
>> turntable should
>> be reliably determined by bias-controlled listening
>> tests and standard technical measures for speed
>> consistency, not behavior under unusual operating
>> conditions. There's no doubt that el-cheapo direct
>> turntables that
>> have problems with speed control have made their way
>> onto the market. However, the basic direct drive
>> technology has far greater potential to provide
>> excellent, long-lasting high performance than a belt
>> drive. That these myths about turntable drive systems
>> have
>> persisted so long and remain so wide spread is a
>> testimonial to the failure of high end manufacturers and
>> publications to properly educate their public.
> Way to far over the heads of the faithful. :-)

Morein has already demonstrated that, and again showed bad
faith by gratuitous inclusion of a personal attack on me.
His continuted devotion to the debating trade was shown by
no less than 5 straw man arguments.

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> There's no doubt that el-cheapo direct turntables that
>> have problems with speed control have made their way
>> onto the market. However, the basic direct drive
>> technology has far greater potential to provide
>> excellent, long-lasting high performance than a belt
>> drive.
>>
>> That these myths about turntable drive systems have
>> persisted so long and remain so wide spread is a
>> testimonial to the failure of high end manufacturers and
>> publications to properly educate their public.
>
> Do you think audiophiles should abandon their highly
> functional belt-drives

If you don't think its broken, don't try to fix it.

> because someone might someday
> market a direct-drive that fulfills this potential?

Please explain why you think that this is so?

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
>
>> That a driving magnetic field does not provide acoustic
>> isolation is easily demonstrated in one device with which
>> we are all familiar, namely, the dynamic loudspeaker.
>
> As usual Morein is working overtime trying to create new fallacies as
> quickly as I spike the old ones.
>
Arny's reply is shallow, deceitful, and unworthy of reply.

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> That a driving magnetic field does not provide acoustic
>>> isolation is easily demonstrated in one device with
>>> which we are all familiar, namely, the dynamic
>>> loudspeaker.
>>
>> As usual Morein is working overtime trying to create new
>> fallacies as quickly as I spike the old ones.
>>
> Arny's reply is shallow, deceitful, and unworthy of reply.

But Robert, being desperate to appear to have said something
with substance, posted a reply anyway. It was even more
lacking in substance than the first . :-(

[Robert Morein]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> There's no doubt that el-cheapo direct turntables that have
>> problems with speed control have made their way onto the
>> market. However, the basic direct drive technology has far
>> greater potential to provide excellent, long-lasting high
>> performance than a belt drive.
>>
>> That these myths about turntable drive systems have
>> persisted so long and remain so wide spread is a testimonial
>> to the failure of high end manufacturers and publications to
>> properly educate their public.
>
> Do you think audiophiles should abandon their highly functional
> belt-drives because someone might someday market a direct-drive that
> fulfills this potential?
>
> Stephen

Don't expect an answer.
Arny's brain just received the order "Take evasive action!"

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>> There's no doubt that el-cheapo direct turntables that
>>> have problems with speed control have made their way
>>> onto the market. However, the basic direct drive
>>> technology has far greater potential to provide
>>> excellent, long-lasting high performance than a belt
>>> drive. That these myths about turntable drive systems
>>> have
>>> persisted so long and remain so wide spread is a
>>> testimonial to the failure of high end manufacturers
>>> and publications to properly educate their public.
>>
>> Do you think audiophiles should abandon their highly
>> functional belt-drives because someone might someday
>> market a direct-drive that fulfills this potential?
>>
>> Stephen
>
> Don't expect an answer.
> Arny's brain just received the order "Take evasive

Robert, I cleverly posted an answer 8 minutes before you
made this post. Let's hear it for the usual time delays in
Usenet and your ignorance of them.
> action!"

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> That a driving magnetic field does not provide acoustic
>>>> isolation is easily demonstrated in one device with
>>>> which we are all familiar, namely, the dynamic
>>>> loudspeaker.
>>>
>>> As usual Morein is working overtime trying to create new
>>> fallacies as quickly as I spike the old ones.
>>>
>> Arny's reply is shallow, deceitful, and unworthy of reply.
>
> But Robert, being desperate to appear to have said something with
> substance, posted a reply anyway. It was even more lacking in substance
> than the first . :-(
Alright, here's a reply.

You cannot PROVE that one type is better than the other. Either design can
be executed with a varying degree of precision and competence. All the
points that you mentioned, for a particular case, can be either correct or
incorrect. I think that as a designer, I would prefer to do a direct drive
design. But neither of us has the hands-on experience of the world's great
turntable makers. Therefore, a design can be judged only by the performance,
not the ingredients.

I am amazed that you rose to the effort you did to negate Bret's troll.
Bret's post was obviously a troll, because it was a sloppy job. I'm sure he
had a lot of fun doing it. But you, in all seriousness, put a lot of work
into your post, trying to nail down "facts" about these two approaches that
are not facts, but merely factors, that the designer has to deal with.

Factors add and multiply cumulatively in a design, frequently leading to
consequences that cannot be anticipated by examining them in isolation.

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's no doubt that el-cheapo direct turntables that
>>>> have problems with speed control have made their way
>>>> onto the market. However, the basic direct drive
>>>> technology has far greater potential to provide
>>>> excellent, long-lasting high performance than a belt
>>>> drive. That these myths about turntable drive systems have
>>>> persisted so long and remain so wide spread is a
>>>> testimonial to the failure of high end manufacturers
>>>> and publications to properly educate their public.
>>>
>>> Do you think audiophiles should abandon their highly
>>> functional belt-drives because someone might someday
>>> market a direct-drive that fulfills this potential?
>>>
>>> Stephen
>>
>> Don't expect an answer.
>> Arny's brain just received the order "Take evasive
>
> Robert, I cleverly posted an answer 8 minutes before you made this post.
> Let's hear it for the usual time delays in Usenet and your ignorance of
> them.
>> action!"
>
It was exactly what I anticipated -- an evasion.

[ScottW]

MINe 109 wrote:
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > There's no doubt that el-cheapo direct turntables that have
> > problems with speed control have made their way onto the
> > market. However, the basic direct drive technology has far
> > greater potential to provide excellent, long-lasting high
> > performance than a belt drive.
> >
> > That these myths about turntable drive systems have
> > persisted so long and remain so wide spread is a testimonial
> > to the failure of high end manufacturers and publications to
> > properly educate their public.
>
> Do you think audiophiles should abandon their highly functional
> belt-drives because someone might someday market a direct-drive that
> fulfills this potential?

You imply there hasn't been plethora of DD turntables that already
fullfill this mark. I think both DD and belt drive technologies have
been able to push platter rumble and speed variations (wow and flutter)

well below record noise. DD has a couple advantages IMO. Its lower
maintenance than belt but more importantly has greater torque which
makes
it a lot easier to use a record brush to remove surface dust before
playing.

I wish someone could supply truly dust free record sleeves.
I had some VPI record protectors which are zip lock plastic bags but
getting the record into the barely large enough opening is a PITA.
They've become embrittled over time and I had to replace them. I
bought a bunch of rice paper sleeves and plastic lined sleeves in bulk
and both are pretty dusty. I can put a perfectly clean record into the
sleeve and pull it out immediately with a bit o dust on it. I hit
every record with a brush before playing and the DD tables make this
alot easier than my old AR-XA which had so little torque any pressure
from the brush brought the platter to a halt.

The other advantage is that 45 to 33 speed changes are a push of a
button. Most belts need at least a change of pulley position.

ScottW

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> > wrote in message
> nk.net
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> The mythology that direct drive turntables are
>>> inherently prone to problems with "cogging" is much more
>>> about perception than fact. It is largely based on the
>>> myth that a rubber belt does a superior job of reducing
>>> speed variations. Some misapprehensions about so-called direct drive
>>> turntables trace back to the terminology "Direct Drive".
>>> A more detailed understanding of how direct drive
>>> turntables work reveals that the so-called direct drive
>>> turntable's platter is not driven directly, but that the
>>> rotational drive is applied through a varying magnetic
>>> field. This magnetic field replaces the traditional
>>> rubber belt or wheel as the flexible means by which the
>>> turntable is driven. Two disadvantages of drive through rubber belts or
>>> wheels is that the compliance, stiffness or flexibility
>>> of a rubber wheel or belt is constant in the short term,
>>> and degrades over the long term as the elastic parts
>>> wear and/or stiffen. Rubber and other elastomers tend to harden over
>>> time,
>>> and crack finally demanding replacement. In contrast,
>>> magnetic fields are constantly being replenished by the
>>> control system, and do not themselves necessarily
>>> degrade over time like flexible belts and wheels. The stiffness of a
>>> turntable's drive relates to how well
>>> the rotating mass of the platter filters out speed
>>> variations. A drive that is less stiff leads to better
>>> filtration. A highly flexible drive can be traded off
>>> with the mass of the turntable. The filtering action is
>>> based on the combination of a high-mass platter and a
>>> highly flexible drive. If you increase the mass and
>>> stiffen the drive the filtering action remains constant.
>>> If you make the drive more flexible or increase the
>>> mass, the filtering action improves. However, it is not practical to
>>> make a turntable with an
>>> extremely flexible belt or wheel drive because it would
>>> take forever to come up to speed. Ideally, we'd like to
>>> have a belt that is stiff for fast starts, and highly
>>> flexible for smooth running. But rubber belts and wheels
>>> can't adapt to changing needs. They are what they are
>>> that day. A major highly desirable property of a direct drive
>>> turntables' magnetic field drive is that the stiffness
>>> of the drive can be varied rapidly by its electronic
>>> control system. This contrasts with a rubber wheel or
>>> belt whose stiffness remains the same as you start, run
>>> and stop the turntable. A rubber belt's stiffness must
>>> be compromised because it can't adapt to changing needs.
>>> The stiffness of a magnetic drive can change rapidly and
>>> automatically to meet changing needs. A magnetic field drive based on
>>> an internal speed sensor
>>> naturally simulates a stiff belt when the turntable is
>>> starting up, and then automatically and naturally
>>> changes over to something like a very stretchy rubber
>>> belt, when the turntable is running normally. If you use your finger to
>>> drag a direct drive turntable
>>> to a stop, you may feel the control system pushing
>>> harder, perhaps even pulsing. This does not mean that it
>>> is pulsing significantly when the turntable is running
>>> normally. The measure of the constant speed of a turntable should
>>> be reliably determined by bias-controlled listening
>>> tests and standard technical measures for speed
>>> consistency, not behavior under unusual operating
>>> conditions. There's no doubt that el-cheapo direct turntables that
>>> have problems with speed control have made their way
>>> onto the market. However, the basic direct drive
>>> technology has far greater potential to provide
>>> excellent, long-lasting high performance than a belt
>>> drive. That these myths about turntable drive systems have
>>> persisted so long and remain so wide spread is a
>>> testimonial to the failure of high end manufacturers and
>>> publications to properly educate their public.
>> Way to far over the heads of the faithful. :-)
>
> Morein has already demonstrated that, and again showed bad faith by
> gratuitous inclusion of a personal attack on me. His continuted devotion
> to the debating trade was shown by no less than 5 straw man arguments.
>
I killfiled him, his posts are almost always pointless and when he does try
to wax technical, he usually gets it wrong either by ignorance or
deleiberate distortion of the facts. He's a waste of time.

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> There's no doubt that el-cheapo direct turntables that have
>> problems with speed control have made their way onto the
>> market. However, the basic direct drive technology has far
>> greater potential to provide excellent, long-lasting high
>> performance than a belt drive.
>>
>> That these myths about turntable drive systems have
>> persisted so long and remain so wide spread is a testimonial
>> to the failure of high end manufacturers and publications to
>> properly educate their public.
>
> Do you think audiophiles should abandon their highly functional
> belt-drives because someone might someday market a direct-drive that
> fulfills this potential?
>
I think that you should keep whatever functioning table you have until it no
longer reasonable to do so. When it comes time for a new table get a proper
Direct Drive.

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message


> You cannot PROVE that one type is better than the other.

Either can be well-executed or poorly executed. Either can
be good enough. However, direct drive has a lot of
real-world advantages:

(1) No belt to stretch, crack or fall off the pulley. I've
had all 3 nasties happen to me with one or the other of the
3 belt-drive turntables that I have owned.

(2) Quick start.

(3) While belt drive can be good enough, direct drive has
the greatest potential for ultimate performance for the
reasons I've now had to go over several times.

> Either design can be executed with a varying degree of
> precision and competence.

Dooh!

>All the points that you
> mentioned, for a particular case, can be either correct
> or incorrect.

Dooh!

>I think that as a designer, I would prefer
> to do a direct drive design.

Robert, given your demonstrated engineering savvy, I concur.
Any semi-competent basement mechanic can make a workable
belt-drive turntable drive system. A direct drive system
requires competence with electronic control systems, for
example.

> But neither of us has the
> hands-on experience of the world's great turntable
> makers.

Well there you go, Robert's sixth straw man of the day.

> Therefore, a design can be judged only by the
> performance, not the ingredients.

Well if you want it to be reliable and perform as well as
possible, then the choice is clear - drop your belts!

[dave weil]

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 16:45:48 GMT, > wrote:

>> That these myths about turntable drive systems have persisted so long and
>> remain so wide spread is a testimonial to the failure of high end
>> manufacturers and publications to properly educate their public.
>>
>>
>Way to far over the heads of the faithful. :-)

Which is why Arnold uses a 15+ year old belt-drive turntable, when he
could have gotten a new direct drive turntable for about the same
amount of money.

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said:

> >Way to[sic] far over the heads of the faithful. :-)

> Which is why Arnold uses a 15+ year old belt-drive turntable, when he
> could have gotten a new direct drive turntable for about the same
> amount of money.

If you could beg borrow, or, steal a clue Mr. Wiel then, you would know
there is a big difference between an audiophool and a Engineer. Its like
some audiophool who subscribe's to Stereopile would gladly pay 1000's of
dollar's for a turn table when, its an inferrier media anyway. Thanks Mr.
Wile for admitting you prefer an infeerior technology. LOL! ;-)

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
>
>> You cannot PROVE that one type is better than the other.
>
[snip]
>
> Dooh!
>
[snip]
> Dooh!
>
[snip]
>
> Well if you want it to be reliable and perform as well as possible, then
> the choice is clear - drop your belts!
>
Arny, do the world a favor. Keep your belt on tight.

[Robert Morein]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> MINe 109 wrote:
>> In article >,
[snip]
> You imply there hasn't been plethora of DD turntables that already
> fullfill this mark. I think both DD and belt drive technologies have
> been able to push platter rumble and speed variations (wow and flutter)
>
> well below record noise. DD has a couple advantages IMO. Its lower
> maintenance than belt but more importantly has greater torque which
> makes
> it a lot easier to use a record brush to remove surface dust before
> playing.
>
> I wish someone could supply truly dust free record sleeves.
> I had some VPI record protectors which are zip lock plastic bags but
> getting the record into the barely large enough opening is a PITA.
> They've become embrittled over time and I had to replace them. I
> bought a bunch of rice paper sleeves and plastic lined sleeves in bulk
> and both are pretty dusty. I can put a perfectly clean record into the
> sleeve and pull it out immediately with a bit o dust on it. I hit
> every record with a brush before playing and the DD tables make this
> alot easier than my old AR-XA which had so little torque any pressure
> from the brush brought the platter to a halt.
>
Compare to idler drive, with inherently high torque and fast start.

> The other advantage is that 45 to 33 speed changes are a push of a
> button. Most belts need at least a change of pulley position.
>
> ScottW
>
Another advantage of idler drive turntables. Speed can be changed by a
simple mechanical switch, avoiding the overcomplex approach of the other two
designs. Additionally, idler designs driven by a synchronous motor are
inherently more reliable that electronic motors, all of which incorporate
tantalum capacitors, each of which has a failure rate of about 1% per year.

[Bret Ludwig]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
>
> > You cannot PROVE that one type is better than the other.
>
> Either can be well-executed or poorly executed. Either can
> be good enough. However, direct drive has a lot of
> real-world advantages:
>
> (1) No belt to stretch, crack or fall off the pulley. I've
> had all 3 nasties happen to me with one or the other of the
> 3 belt-drive turntables that I have owned.

Belts are cheap. A new design might even use 0-rings or even mag tape
as a belt.
>
> (2) Quick start.

Important, for DJs. That's why DJ tables are direct drive. Not so for
audiophiles.
>
> (3) While belt drive can be good enough, direct drive has
> the greatest potential for ultimate performance for the
> reasons I've now had to go over several times.
>
> > Either design can be executed with a varying degree of
> > precision and competence.
>
> Dooh!
>
> >All the points that you
> > mentioned, for a particular case, can be either correct
> > or incorrect.
>
> Dooh!
>
> >I think that as a designer, I would prefer
> > to do a direct drive design.
>
> Robert, given your demonstrated engineering savvy, I concur.
> Any semi-competent basement mechanic can make a workable
> belt-drive turntable drive system. A direct drive system
> requires competence with electronic control systems, for
> example.

Solutions a basement mechanic could build are intrinsically more
sustainable than those requiring substantial interdisciplinary
expertise.

Legend has it that B.D. Maule and Kelly Johnson were introduced at
some aviation function as "great airplane designers". Now B.D. was a
basement mechanic whose airplane was essentially a homebuilt Piper
Pacer. Johnson was polite, but later made a Bacall/Kidman-like remark
about the tube-and rag taildragger vendor to one of the Lockheed test
pilots (I think it was Salmon or LeVier). Whoever it was, told Johnson
that fifty years after the last Blackbird had made its final flight,
Maules would still be flying.

Good belt drive tables are at least as good as any direct drive table
and far cheaper to implement, and in practice are more likely to excel,
sonically, than direct drive. OTOH direct drive tables are more
satisfactory for DJing and "scratching". Just as a QSC PA amp will
never really sound better when connected to efficient speakers in a
house than a well-built tube amp, a Technics SL1200 will never equal a
Merrill-modified AR or the admittedly overpriced Linn for sonics.

[Jenn]

In article t>,
> wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The mythology that direct drive turntables are inherently prone to
> > problems with "cogging" is much more about perception than fact. It is
> > largely based on the myth that a rubber belt does a superior job of
> > reducing speed variations.
> >
> > Some misapprehensions about so-called direct drive turntables trace back
> > to the terminology "Direct Drive". A more detailed understanding of how
> > direct drive turntables work reveals that the so-called direct drive
> > turntable's platter is not driven directly, but that the rotational drive
> > is applied through a varying magnetic field. This magnetic field replaces
> > the traditional rubber belt or wheel as the flexible means by which the
> > turntable is driven.
> >
> > Two disadvantages of drive through rubber belts or wheels is that the
> > compliance, stiffness or flexibility of a rubber wheel or belt is constant
> > in the short term, and degrades over the long term as the elastic parts
> > wear and/or stiffen.
> >
> > Rubber and other elastomers tend to harden over time, and crack finally
> > demanding replacement. In contrast, magnetic fields are constantly being
> > replenished by the control system, and do not themselves necessarily
> > degrade over time like flexible belts and wheels.
> >
> > The stiffness of a turntable's drive relates to how well the rotating mass
> > of the platter filters out speed variations. A drive that is less stiff
> > leads to better filtration. A highly flexible drive can be traded off with
> > the mass of the turntable. The filtering action is based on the
> > combination of a high-mass platter and a highly flexible drive. If you
> > increase the mass and stiffen the drive the filtering action remains
> > constant. If you make the drive more flexible or increase the mass, the
> > filtering action improves.
> >
> > However, it is not practical to make a turntable with an extremely
> > flexible belt or wheel drive because it would take forever to come up to
> > speed. Ideally, we'd like to have a belt that is stiff for fast starts,
> > and highly flexible for smooth running. But rubber belts and wheels can't
> > adapt to changing needs. They are what they are that day.
> >
> > A major highly desirable property of a direct drive turntables' magnetic
> > field drive is that the stiffness of the drive can be varied rapidly by
> > its electronic control system. This contrasts with a rubber wheel or belt
> > whose stiffness remains the same as you start, run and stop the turntable.
> > A rubber belt's stiffness must be compromised because it can't adapt to
> > changing needs. The stiffness of a magnetic drive can change rapidly and
> > automatically to meet changing needs.
> >
> > A magnetic field drive based on an internal speed sensor naturally
> > simulates a stiff belt when the turntable is starting up, and then
> > automatically and naturally changes over to something like a very stretchy
> > rubber belt, when the turntable is running normally.
> >
> > If you use your finger to drag a direct drive turntable to a stop, you may
> > feel the control system pushing harder, perhaps even pulsing. This does
> > not mean that it is pulsing significantly when the turntable is running
> > normally.
> >
> > The measure of the constant speed of a turntable should be reliably
> > determined by bias-controlled listening tests and standard technical
> > measures for speed consistency, not behavior under unusual operating
> > conditions.
> >
> > There's no doubt that el-cheapo direct turntables that have problems with
> > speed control have made their way onto the market. However, the basic
> > direct drive technology has far greater potential to provide excellent,
> > long-lasting high performance than a belt drive.
> >
> > That these myths about turntable drive systems have persisted so long and
> > remain so wide spread is a testimonial to the failure of high end
> > manufacturers and publications to properly educate their public.
> >
> >
> Way to far over the heads of the faithful. :-)

Kind of like spelling?

[Jenn]

In article om>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > There's no doubt that el-cheapo direct turntables that have
> > > problems with speed control have made their way onto the
> > > market. However, the basic direct drive technology has far
> > > greater potential to provide excellent, long-lasting high
> > > performance than a belt drive.
> > >
> > > That these myths about turntable drive systems have
> > > persisted so long and remain so wide spread is a testimonial
> > > to the failure of high end manufacturers and publications to
> > > properly educate their public.
> >
> > Do you think audiophiles should abandon their highly functional
> > belt-drives because someone might someday market a direct-drive that
> > fulfills this potential?
>
> You imply there hasn't been plethora of DD turntables that already
> fullfill this mark. I think both DD and belt drive technologies have
> been able to push platter rumble and speed variations (wow and flutter)
>
> well below record noise. DD has a couple advantages IMO. Its lower
> maintenance than belt but more importantly has greater torque which
> makes
> it a lot easier to use a record brush to remove surface dust before
> playing.

I sure have no trouble using a brush with my belt drive. And the
platter is up to speed in about 4 seconds.
>
> I wish someone could supply truly dust free record sleeves.
> I had some VPI record protectors which are zip lock plastic bags but
> getting the record into the barely large enough opening is a PITA.
> They've become embrittled over time and I had to replace them. I
> bought a bunch of rice paper sleeves and plastic lined sleeves in bulk
> and both are pretty dusty. I can put a perfectly clean record into the
> sleeve and pull it out immediately with a bit o dust on it. I hit
> every record with a brush before playing and the DD tables make this
> alot easier than my old AR-XA which had so little torque any pressure
> from the brush brought the platter to a halt.
>
> The other advantage is that 45 to 33 speed changes are a push of a
> button. Most belts need at least a change of pulley position.
>
> ScottW

[Jenn]

In article m>,
"Bret Ludwig" > wrote:

> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >
> >
> > > You cannot PROVE that one type is better than the other.
> >
> > Either can be well-executed or poorly executed. Either can
> > be good enough. However, direct drive has a lot of
> > real-world advantages:
> >
> > (1) No belt to stretch, crack or fall off the pulley. I've
> > had all 3 nasties happen to me with one or the other of the
> > 3 belt-drive turntables that I have owned.
>
> Belts are cheap. A new design might even use 0-rings or even mag tape
> as a belt.

There is at least one present design that uses mag tape.

[MINe 109]

In article om>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > There's no doubt that el-cheapo direct turntables that have
> > > problems with speed control have made their way onto the
> > > market. However, the basic direct drive technology has far
> > > greater potential to provide excellent, long-lasting high
> > > performance than a belt drive.
> > >
> > > That these myths about turntable drive systems have
> > > persisted so long and remain so wide spread is a testimonial
> > > to the failure of high end manufacturers and publications to
> > > properly educate their public.
> >
> > Do you think audiophiles should abandon their highly functional
> > belt-drives because someone might someday market a direct-drive that
> > fulfills this potential?
>
> You imply there hasn't been plethora of DD turntables that already
> fullfill this mark.

Rockport, a coupla Technics and Denons, but I think Arny set the bar
higher than the last two.


> I think both DD and belt drive technologies have
> been able to push platter rumble and speed variations (wow and flutter)
>
> well below record noise. DD has a couple advantages IMO. Its lower
> maintenance than belt but more importantly has greater torque which
> makes
> it a lot easier to use a record brush to remove surface dust before
> playing.

Which is it: both types are functional or direct-drive has fulfilled its
"greater potential"?

> I wish someone could supply truly dust free record sleeves.
> I had some VPI record protectors which are zip lock plastic bags but
> getting the record into the barely large enough opening is a PITA.
> They've become embrittled over time and I had to replace them. I
> bought a bunch of rice paper sleeves and plastic lined sleeves in bulk
> and both are pretty dusty. I can put a perfectly clean record into the
> sleeve and pull it out immediately with a bit o dust on it. I hit
> every record with a brush before playing and the DD tables make this
> alot easier than my old AR-XA which had so little torque any pressure
> from the brush brought the platter to a halt.

Not to mention the cool retrograde mode.

> The other advantage is that 45 to 33 speed changes are a push of a
> button. Most belts need at least a change of pulley position.

Yep. I prefer separate decks for 45 and 33 in stereo and mono, and for
78 rpm. Well, I would...

Stephen

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> There's no doubt that el-cheapo direct turntables that
> >> have problems with speed control have made their way
> >> onto the market. However, the basic direct drive
> >> technology has far greater potential to provide
> >> excellent, long-lasting high performance than a belt
> >> drive.
> >>
> >> That these myths about turntable drive systems have
> >> persisted so long and remain so wide spread is a
> >> testimonial to the failure of high end manufacturers and
> >> publications to properly educate their public.
> >
> > Do you think audiophiles should abandon their highly
> > functional belt-drives
>
> If you don't think its broken, don't try to fix it.
>
> > because someone might someday
> > market a direct-drive that fulfills this potential?
>
> Please explain why you think that this is so?

Some myth-busting: direct-drive has greater potential, but there aren't
any products.

Stephen

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>> > You cannot PROVE that one type is better than the other.
>>
>> Either can be well-executed or poorly executed. Either can
>> be good enough. However, direct drive has a lot of
>> real-world advantages:
>>
>> (1) No belt to stretch, crack or fall off the pulley. I've
>> had all 3 nasties happen to me with one or the other of the
>> 3 belt-drive turntables that I have owned.
>
> Belts are cheap. A new design might even use 0-rings or even mag tape
> as a belt.
>>
>> (2) Quick start.
>
> Important, for DJs. That's why DJ tables are direct drive. Not so for
> audiophiles.
>>
>> (3) While belt drive can be good enough, direct drive has
>> the greatest potential for ultimate performance for the
>> reasons I've now had to go over several times.
>>
>> > Either design can be executed with a varying degree of
>> > precision and competence.
>>
>> Dooh!
>>
>> >All the points that you
>> > mentioned, for a particular case, can be either correct
>> > or incorrect.
>>
>> Dooh!
>>
>> >I think that as a designer, I would prefer
>> > to do a direct drive design.
>>
>> Robert, given your demonstrated engineering savvy, I concur.
>> Any semi-competent basement mechanic can make a workable
>> belt-drive turntable drive system. A direct drive system
>> requires competence with electronic control systems, for
>> example.
>
> Solutions a basement mechanic could build are intrinsically more
> sustainable than those requiring substantial interdisciplinary
> expertise.
>
<snip of irrelvant airplane stuff.

> Good belt drive tables are at least as good as any direct drive table
> and far cheaper to implement, and in practice are more likely to excel,
> sonically, than direct drive.

The least speed deviation is from Direct drive turntables.

OTOH direct drive tables are more
> satisfactory for DJing and "scratching".

They are more reliable, they don't require a belt replacement ever, when
done with a modicum of precision, they are easily better than belt drive
tables no matter what the mythology of the high end says.

Just as a QSC PA amp will
> never really sound better when connected to efficient speakers in a
> house than a well-built tube amp, a Technics SL1200 will never equal a
> Merrill-modified AR or the admittedly overpriced Linn for sonics.
>
Just keep making it up as you go along.

If you ever find any actual evidence to prove any of your points we'll all
be surpised, instead you make sweeping statements that simply don't fit the
facts as known.

Just becuase you find somebody else who agrees with you doesn't make you
right.

If precision is what the LP lover wants the LP lover wants a direct drive
table.

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> Good belt drive tables are at least as good as any direct drive table
> and far cheaper to implement,

Sure, rubber bands are cheap.

and in practice are more likely to excel,

Proof?

> sonically, than direct drive.

I didn't think so.

OTOH direct drive tables are more
> satisfactory for DJing and "scratching". Just as a QSC PA amp will
> never really sound better when connected to efficient speakers in a
> house than a well-built tube amp,

I don't suppose you even A/B'd the QSC against some other SS amp, or did
you?
And it's a certainty that you did no DBT to see if you really hear a
difference instead of working from your overactive imaginiation.

LOL. That's a prefernce but the fact is still that any decent and that's
most of them, SS amp can run circles around a tube amp in terms of accuracy.
If you want tube sound stick a 1 ohm resistor in line with the speakers.

a Technics SL1200 will never equal a
> Merrill-modified AR or the admittedly overpriced Linn for sonics.

POut a decent arm on the Technics and a better bass and you have a turntable
that will be more accurate than any rubber band driven gizmo.
>

[paul packer]

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 18:54:25 GMT, > wrote:

>> Do you think audiophiles should abandon their highly functional
>> belt-drives because someone might someday market a direct-drive that
>> fulfills this potential?
>>
>I think that you should keep whatever functioning table you have until it no
>longer reasonable to do so. When it comes time for a new table get a proper
>Direct Drive.

Or, heaven forbid, a CD player.

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's no doubt that el-cheapo direct turntables that
>>>> have problems with speed control have made their way
>>>> onto the market. However, the basic direct drive
>>>> technology has far greater potential to provide
>>>> excellent, long-lasting high performance than a belt
>>>> drive.
>>>>
>>>> That these myths about turntable drive systems have
>>>> persisted so long and remain so wide spread is a
>>>> testimonial to the failure of high end manufacturers
>>>> and publications to properly educate their public.
>>>
>>> Do you think audiophiles should abandon their highly
>>> functional belt-drives
>>
>> If you don't think its broken, don't try to fix it.
>>
>>> because someone might someday
>>> market a direct-drive that fulfills this potential?
>>
>> Please explain why you think that this is so?
>
> Some myth-busting: direct-drive has greater potential,
> but there aren't any products.

There aren't any direct-drive products?????

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article >,
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> There's no doubt that el-cheapo direct turntables that
> >>>> have problems with speed control have made their way
> >>>> onto the market. However, the basic direct drive
> >>>> technology has far greater potential to provide
> >>>> excellent, long-lasting high performance than a belt
> >>>> drive.
> >>>>
> >>>> That these myths about turntable drive systems have
> >>>> persisted so long and remain so wide spread is a
> >>>> testimonial to the failure of high end manufacturers
> >>>> and publications to properly educate their public.
> >>>
> >>> Do you think audiophiles should abandon their highly
> >>> functional belt-drives
> >>
> >> If you don't think its broken, don't try to fix it.
> >>
> >>> because someone might someday
> >>> market a direct-drive that fulfills this potential?
> >>
> >> Please explain why you think that this is so?
> >
> > Some myth-busting: direct-drive has greater potential,
> > but there aren't any products.
>
> There aren't any direct-drive products?????

That "provide [more] excellent, long-lasting high performance than a
belt drive"?

Existing good direct-drives are roughly equivalent to good belt-drives.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There's no doubt that el-cheapo direct turntables
>>>>>> that have problems with speed control have made
>>>>>> their way onto the market. However, the basic direct
>>>>>> drive technology has far greater potential to provide
>>>>>> excellent, long-lasting high performance than a belt
>>>>>> drive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That these myths about turntable drive systems have
>>>>>> persisted so long and remain so wide spread is a
>>>>>> testimonial to the failure of high end manufacturers
>>>>>> and publications to properly educate their public.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you think audiophiles should abandon their highly
>>>>> functional belt-drives
>>>>
>>>> If you don't think its broken, don't try to fix it.
>>>>
>>>>> because someone might someday
>>>>> market a direct-drive that fulfills this potential?
>>>>
>>>> Please explain why you think that this is so?
>>>
>>> Some myth-busting: direct-drive has greater potential,
>>> but there aren't any products.
>>
>> There aren't any direct-drive products?????
>
> That "provide [more] excellent, long-lasting high
> performance than a belt drive"?

The right ones do.

> Existing good direct-drives are roughly equivalent to
> good belt-drives.

Except for their obvious failings.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> > That "provide [more] excellent, long-lasting high
> > performance than a belt drive"?
>
> The right ones do.

There's the Rockport. What else do you have in mind?

> > Existing good direct-drives are roughly equivalent to
> > good belt-drives.
>
> Except for their obvious failings.

Which are as theoretical as the "advantages" of direct-drive.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>>> That "provide [more] excellent, long-lasting high
>>> performance than a belt drive"?
>>
>> The right ones do.
>
> There's the Rockport. What else do you have in mind?

How about that Rockport? Would it have superior performance
with idler or belt drive?

>>> Existing good direct-drives are roughly equivalent to
>>> good belt-drives.

>> Except for their obvious failings.

> Which are as theoretical as the "advantages" of
> direct-drive.

The advantages of direct drive are mainfest, not purely
theoretical.

Follow the logic - people who buy turntable are
retro-technology fanciers, traditionalists. Belt drive is
more traditional than direct drive. Therefore, other than
turntablist turntables, whose sales numerically dominate the
LP player marketplace, most turntables are highly
traditionalist, retro technology designs. IOW, belt drive.
It's all about perception amongst people who don't want
things to change from how they were in the 60s and 70s.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 11:51:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>>>> Existing good direct-drives are roughly equivalent to
>>>> good belt-drives.
>
>>> Except for their obvious failings.
>
>> Which are as theoretical as the "advantages" of
>> direct-drive.
>
>The advantages of direct drive are mainfest, not purely
>theoretical.
>
>Follow the logic - people who buy turntable are
>retro-technology fanciers, traditionalists. Belt drive is
>more traditional than direct drive. Therefore, other than
>turntablist turntables, whose sales numerically dominate the
>LP player marketplace, most turntables are highly
>traditionalist, retro technology designs. IOW, belt drive.
>It's all about perception amongst people who don't want
>things to change from how they were in the 60s and 70s.

Follow THIS logic - you buy a 15 year-old belt drive turntable instead
of a new direct drive turntable that can be had for about the same
price. Therefore, you have now shown yourself to be a Luddite who
doesn't want things to change from how they were in the 60s and 70s.
IOW, you've just a base reftro-technology fancier.

Good for you, Arnold. You are making progess.

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 18:54:25 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>> Do you think audiophiles should abandon their highly functional
>>> belt-drives because someone might someday market a direct-drive that
>>> fulfills this potential?
>>>
>>I think that you should keep whatever functioning table you have until it
>>no
>>longer reasonable to do so. When it comes time for a new table get a
>>proper
>>Direct Drive.
>
> Or, heaven forbid, a CD player.

Only if you care about hearing the most accurate playback possible.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> The mythology that direct drive turntables are inherently
> prone to problems with "cogging" is much more about
> perception than fact. It is largely based on the myth that a
> rubber belt does a superior job of reducing speed
> variations.
>

The only thing I think about with direct drives, is all the ones I ever
used had
poor mechanical isolation. Some were so poor, that I could hear myself
walk across the room. I went through at least two direct drives myself
in the late 70's.
The first one had this wonderfull add, about how good the construction
was, and the use of concrete (it was really plastic with some kind of
ingrdient). This was was
absolutly horrible, a BSR. My second direct drive was a Sony, a little
better.
My introduction to cheap DJ setups in the 80's showed the usage of some
cheap Technics
turntables. The belt drives had good isolation, but the direct drive
still had worse
isolation than the belt counterpart. Perhaps the direct drives had a
bad
rap due to cheapness of some units. I think the record should be placed
on a stationary
platter inside a vacuum, and a Laser can scan the record. There would
be no bearing noise, induced feedback , or resonance.

greg

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> The mythology that direct drive turntables are inherently
>> prone to problems with "cogging" is much more about
>> perception than fact. It is largely based on the myth
>> that a rubber belt does a superior job of reducing speed
>> variations.
>>
>
> The only thing I think about with direct drives, is all
> the ones I ever used had
> poor mechanical isolation.

Highly isolated turntables incorporating direct drive have
been made.

This appears to be a good example of a highly isolated DD
turntable:

http://stereophile.com/turntables/258/

A lot of current DD models are DJ turntables, which tend to
be stiffly-sprung so that the LPs can be manipulated.

[GregS]

In article >, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> wrote in message
oups.com
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> The mythology that direct drive turntables are inherently
>>> prone to problems with "cogging" is much more about
>>> perception than fact. It is largely based on the myth
>>> that a rubber belt does a superior job of reducing speed
>>> variations.
>>>
>>
>> The only thing I think about with direct drives, is all
>> the ones I ever used had
>> poor mechanical isolation.
>
>Highly isolated turntables incorporating direct drive have
>been made.
>
>This appears to be a good example of a highly isolated DD
>turntable:
>
>http://stereophile.com/turntables/258/
>
>A lot of current DD models are DJ turntables, which tend to
>be stiffly-sprung so that the LPs can be manipulated.

Some of the DJ stuff I saw in the 80's, the floors would jump, and the
turntables had to be special. I double isolated them. When I
first used a CD player, I had to physically hold the player, so it would not skip!

greg

[dave weil]

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 16:06:41 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

> wrote in message
oups.com
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> The mythology that direct drive turntables are inherently
>>> prone to problems with "cogging" is much more about
>>> perception than fact. It is largely based on the myth
>>> that a rubber belt does a superior job of reducing speed
>>> variations.
>>>
>>
>> The only thing I think about with direct drives, is all
>> the ones I ever used had
>> poor mechanical isolation.
>
>Highly isolated turntables incorporating direct drive have
>been made.
>
>This appears to be a good example of a highly isolated DD
>turntable:
>
>http://stereophile.com/turntables/258/

Is yours on order? Glad that there's a cheap DD turntable out there to
compete with my Sumiko.

I find it odd that Arnold is now touting turntables that cost more
than four of his minivans. Glad to see that he's embraced high-end
retro techology with both arms flung wide open. Maybe as he approaches
65, his nostalgia has overridden his programming. Next, he'll be
praising the words of Rupert Neve, a guy roughly in the same phase of
life.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >>> That "provide [more] excellent, long-lasting high
> >>> performance than a belt drive"?
> >>
> >> The right ones do.
> >
> > There's the Rockport. What else do you have in mind?
>
> How about that Rockport? Would it have superior performance
> with idler or belt drive?

It would be cheaper.

> >>> Existing good direct-drives are roughly equivalent to
> >>> good belt-drives.
>
> >> Except for their obvious failings.
>
> > Which are as theoretical as the "advantages" of
> > direct-drive.
>
> The advantages of direct drive are mainfest, not purely
> theoretical.

The advantages are real; the superiority is "theoretical."

> Follow the logic - people who buy turntable are
> retro-technology fanciers, traditionalists. Belt drive is
> more traditional than direct drive. Therefore, other than
> turntablist turntables, whose sales numerically dominate the
> LP player marketplace, most turntables are highly
> traditionalist, retro technology designs. IOW, belt drive.
> It's all about perception amongst people who don't want
> things to change from how they were in the 60s and 70s.

Except for those who prefer newer belt-drive designs.

Stephen

[Ruud Broens]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
: This appears to be a good example of a highly isolated DD
: turntable:
:
: http://stereophile.com/turntables/258/

it must be time to go visit an optometrist. is that really
AK giving a link to his 'beloved' Stereophile ??

;-)