Is Direct Drive Really Better?

Above a certain price point, direct drive is the superior technology. But designing and building a good direct drive unit costs a fair bit of change, which is why it was generally only attempted by companies that could amortize that cost over a large number of units--esp. your larger Japanese makers. And they're largely out of the turntable market now, save for a few really low-end units--belted, of course. The most obvious exception is the Technics 1200.

For smaller makers, belt drives are much easier to build well, so that's what they do. At the same time, they've spent the last couple of decades trash-talking direct drive, so a lot of audiophiles have heard that direct drives disappeared because they were inferior. Not so.

Do you feel a difference between being run down by a car (being actively driven by a motor) or a large rock rolling down a hill ? I would say that both will crush you equally, one using its motor, the other a very large inertia.

Sure, Sean, but you're asking the question from the wrong perspective. What if you wanted to run somebody over, which would you use? Seems to me that "direct drive" would be the right tool for the job!

Goodness me, I never realized that intra-analog vitriol was just as rampant as the digital-analog variety! But I for one don't find the arguments particularly strong on either side. And I don't think it's even possible to do a fair listening comparison of these two drive technologies, because I doubt you could hold everything else in the system constant.

Isn't the DD-vs-belt debate really a question of which technology offers the better trade-off between speed accuracy and rumble? And while not everything can be measured, isn't it true that those two things can be? So let's see some numbers--preferably independently verified. Where's the belt-drive table that is the equal of any DD in speed accuracy, and bests DD on rumble? Where's the DD unit that can say the same in reverse? Granted, this wouldn't settle the debate--measurements never do--but it would at least give us something solid to sink our teeth into.

I don't see why at least a very close approximation of a controlled setting which would allow a one-to-one-to-one comparison of table/arm/cart combos could not be accomplished.

Of course THAT could be accomplished. But that tells you absolutely nothing about whether belt or DD is superior. It only tells you whether one combination sounds better than another. If that's all you want to know (and for most audiophiles most of the time, it probably is) that's fine. Just don't draw unwarranted conclusions from any such comparison.

Pabelson, if you think that the whole thing boils down to speed accuracy and rumble, you are sadly mistaken. Internal resonance within the drive system and resistance to external vibration and the period and frequency of those vibrations are just three more of the various factors that come into play.

I'm not talking about "the whole thing"; I'm talking only about factors for which one drive system or the other has an obvious theoretical advantage. So if you want to convince me that I'm mistaken (and I might be--I certainly can't claim any real technical expertise here), then the first thing you have to do is offer a plausible reason why one drive system would be presumptively better than the other for each of the three factors you mentioned.

Even if the factors you mention are relevant to the belt/DD question, I suspect the speed accuracy/rumble tradeoff is still the dominant factor. If one drive system could be shown to be superior in minimizing both speed inaccuracy and rumble, I supect this debate would be over. I seriously doubt the factors you mentioned could tip the scales in the other direction.

4ynx: Do you not understand the difference between "this table/arm/cartridge sounds better to me" and "since this table/arm/cartridge sounds better to me, it's drive system must be better"?