Based on my own listening over four decades, I broadly agree with your assessment. I have always thought that direct drive turntables sound more clinical than belt drive ones, more digital-like. Belt drives tend more to the "romantic" and have softer (though often fuller) bass. Many would argue that direct drive gives a more accurate presentation, but I don't agree with this personally. I don't see it as right or wrong but a matter of personal taste. My personal choice is to use neither, as I feel a well set up idler drive beats them both as to me the presentation sounds more like music.
My personal experience with Direct Drive versus Belt Drive
This is my personal , yet limited experience, with a DD versus Belt Drive. This A/B took place in the same system. with literally the same tonearm. I am choosing not to mention brands at this point. I feel by keeping the brand out of the discussion, anyone who contributes to the the thread (myself included), can be a bit more forthcoming. I am not big on audiophile jargon, so I will keep this short and sweet. I started with DD, in a system which I was very familiar with. The room of course, was different. The DD struck me as near perfect. I could hear the starting and stopping on a dime, and the near perfect timing that many have associated with the DD. It didn't take long at all for me to conclude this was not my cup of tea. It satisfied my brain, but didn't move my heart. Maybe I was used to the imperfect sound of belt drives, and it was indeed that imperfection, that made for an emotional experience. Who knows? (-: Fast forward to the belt drive.... Again, same actual arm. It sounded more analog to me. Decay was much more easy to hear, along with subtle spatial cues. Was it the less than perfect timing, that was allowing me to now hear these things I could not with the DD? I have no clue! What I was sure about was the emotion of the music had returned.
- ...
- 99 posts total
| Post removed |
@ fjn04 You nailed it ! |
- 99 posts total