turntable speed control

+1 stringreen!

I would add that another problem is some people can’t debate issues using facts and data, so they try to impugn someone’s character with innuendo:

Others have other goals.

and try to make their point with straw-man arguments:

You’re funny, phoenixengr. I certainly never stated that belt creep didn’t exist. To refresh your memory, here’s what I wrote:

" How have you measured this phenomenon? How can you be certain that whatever speed issue you may have detected is attributable to ’belt creep?’"

What you actually preceded that statement with was this:

You’ve claimed that " belt creep does exist and it is measurable." That’s another rather odd claim.

I took that to mean you questioned the existence of belt creep or that it couldn’t be detected or measured. When I asked you if that was the case, you didn’t respond, so I proceeded with that understanding (you still haven't denied it).

I see no other purpose to any of your posts other than to start an argument, a rather simple and tiring one at that, and one that I’m done with.

Melm wrote, "...belt drives (which may measure worse in some respects) sound better."  This is so so wrong and short-sighted.  Yet, CLeeds agrees with him. Well designed and implemented turntables of any kind sound better than those that are not well designed and implemented. (I am not going to say that one drive system is per se better than the other; they all [3] have trade-offs.) But an advantage for us direct-drive aficionados is that we don't have to engage in snippy contretemps with each other about belt creep.  From what I know about it, Phoenix engineer is basically correct on all counts, and I would choose their products over the SDS, at this point in time. In fact, I might buy into the technology for my Lenco L75.

If you're going to quote me, please quote enough for it to make sense.  What I wrote was:

"More importantly, I believe, we can hear things that we cannot measure.  That is why, despite the great (industry approved) measurements from relatively inexpensive direct drive TTs, most careful listeners know that belt drives (which may measure worse in some respects) sound better."

Problem is that it takes quite an expensive DD with a heavy and non-resonant platter to approach and even surpass well designed belt drives.  There are a few you can buy today, including the VPI.  But the run-of-the-mill DDs with lightweight and ringing platters just don't do it.

lewm "Melm wrote, "...belt drives (which may measure worse in some respects) sound better." This is so so wrong and short-sighted. Yet, CLeeds agrees with him."

As melm pointed out to you, that isn't exactly what he said.

" Well designed and implemented turntables of any kind sound better than those that are not well designed and implemented. "

I agree completely! I've owned some great DD turntables even though I've been using belt drive for years. I've heard the VPI DD and it's terrific. But as melm also points out, it's an expensive and complicated undertaking to make an outstanding DD turntable. Ask Harry Weisfeld - he's made 'em all: belt, rim, DD. Who knows what he'll think of next?

Melm and cleeds, My apologies.  I was to some degree playing for laughs.

Anyone tired of fiddling with belts and belt tension might want to consider any of several vintage Japanese direct-drive turntables, the creme de la creme, not the bargain basement ones, as an alternative.  Examples include Denon DP80, Victor TT101 or TT81, Kenwood L07D, Technics SP10 Mk2 or Mk3.  Only the Mk3 would cost anywhere near $10K. The rest are typically cost less than $5K, ready to roll. In a modern plinth, these turntables can be bulletproofed and made to sing.