New Turntable Advice

I am sitting in my listening room in our NH home, marvelous to be here really, and I am listening to my old faithful HW-19 MKIII fitted last summer with an Audio Technica AT20.  It sounds quite good all in all.  I cannot directly compare it with my two DD TTs, which are in FL, but I think I can provide some general sense of the differences in the characteristics of the sound of direct drive, belt drive, and idler drive turntables.  I am going to equivocate, though, leaning on the late Thurgood Marshall, who when asked to define pornography said he could not do it, but assured the questioner that he knew it when he saw it.  Likewise here goes.  Idler drive first.  I posted yesterday that it has more slam than belt drive.  Lewm asked what that means.  The English language is so imprecise that it is difficult to explain.  If you heard it, believe me, it would be an ah ha moment as the difference is not subtle.  Belt drive has a softer character whereas idler drive is more visceral sounding.  The music sounds harder hitting when played on an idler drive TT.  Direct Drive is perhaps somewhat neutral between the two, but that is not correct either because DD has none of the soft character of a  belt drive and really none of the slam of an idler drive.  Sorry there is no other word that conveys the sense of the difference quite as accurately.  I encourage anyone interested to try to hear examples of each of these for themselves.  BTW, all of my comments are predicated on the assumption that the comparison is made between TTs that are all at the correct speed, the records are flat, preferably using the same record, that the record is well made, concentric with the hole in the center and so on.  One last comment is related to quietness.  For many years belt drive TTs were generally considered to be the quietest, but DD has erased that advantage.  idler drive is still noisier than the others, although a carefully built one is not too bad.  All are fun.  

I read about the TG-125 MKII LB (Long Base), here is what it looks like with an SME 3012 arm

.............................

Now this starts to appeal visually, and I always liked my SME 3009, I always want a dust cover however

https://www.ebay.com/itm/116748217893?mkevt=1&mkcid=1&mkrid=711-53200-19255-0&campid=5338381866&toolid=10001&customid=3d533958-8ccd-11f0-9b55-343763653635

A unique looking J. A. Mitchell Transrotor

https://www.ebay.com/itm/297596581595?mkevt=1&mkcid=1&mkrid=711-53200-19255-0&campid=5338381866&toolid=10001&customid=5e3bdfa2-8cce-11f0-83c4-393036313037

Not this variety, but I'll never forget the 1st time I saw one

Hi Elliott,

I sold one just like that to a customer in Seattle in 1972 or early 1973.  He needed it because he had a bunch if !6" transcription records that he found somewhere.  The arm did not set up quite as well as the more common 3009 although it was still better than just about anything else available at that time.  It certainly out performed my own Rabco SL-8E.  I eventually sold the Rabco and bought an 3009, which I should have stuck with.  Audiophile nervosa combined with the impetuosity of youth unfortunately undermined good sense.  I amended my error in 1986 by buying the similar VPI HW-19 MKIII that I am listening to as I compose this note.  It has a 3009 Series II, which SME of Canada rebuilt last year.  They did away with the removable headshell for me, which most people don’t like, but the SME arm performs better with a fixed headshell.  I also have an SME Series III arm for the TT which was also rebuilt at the same time.  The Series III was designed specifically for the Shure V15 cartridge, but is ideal for any high compliance stylus cartridge.  Something I retain an interest in. I love these things.  Thanks for sharing.

Elliott- thanks for scoping out my Sony : when I get back to it I'll look for Azumith adjust and I must agree it's not a looker. Would you look up the Nakamichi Dragon CT and give me your assessment?