When I look at the specs of direct drive tables at the dawn of CD age (mid-80s), I see that JVC, Sony, Kenwood and Denon had really ramped up the torque in their motors vs. those in the '70s. The Garrard and Lenco rim drives are another story.

Is it possible too much torque is not good? I notice for example, Nottingham purposely designs its turntables with a low torque motor because they say its better able to correct minor speed fluctuations.

The analogy I've read about having too much torque, is that its like riding an F1 race car down a very narrow street. Overkill.

Curious what others think and have experienced? Any myth debunking here?

Well, I'm not a physicist so I'm approaching this from what makes sense to me. First, you're talking apples and oranges. The Nottinghams are belt drives. Their thinking is just get the platter up to speed and the minimal torque of the motor coupled with the inertia of the platter maintains the proper speed. Direct drive is a different animal. The torque is necessary to start the platter and keep it spinning--the feedback via servo or quartz lock keeps it accurate. I can't see how excessive torque would have any effect in this case. In fact, speed accuracy specs of DDs continued to increase through the 80s.

A motor with too much torque will do what it's supposed to and not have to strain. A motor that lacks torque will heat up and go through brushes faster. This is just general, I don't know too much about turntables, but something that's straining would be easier to control but not very precise.
The ultimate solution to this is to buy a modern sensor/brushless motor and set it at the right RPM, let the speed controls do the rest. Of course, having any radio control car parts near a high gain setup might fail pretty badly.

No denying the specs of the last generation (mid-80s) TOTL direct-drive tables before the big boys bowed out are absolutely amazing.

Huge torque on some models, in addition to the quartz/servo control mechanisms. Brushless, slotless, coreless DC motors (yes, probably some marketing hyperbole there).

I don't know ... in that many of these tables are now scarce and hard to compare ... and whether this resulted in a big improvement in sound or not ... is what I am curious about. From a collectibilty stand-point, the late '70s DDs seem to get more attention/valued more than those in the '80s, even though the later models had way better specs. But, did they sound better?

Won't high torque add distortion (wow,flutter, etc.) in direct drive ? Low torque spins up the platter slower, but keeping a high mass platter spinning doesn't take that much .... ?

Nah, if anything it would prevent it. You're more likely to get speed variation when the motor is straining against a load.

I have a Technics 1200Mk2 that can pull your arm off. Sounds wonderful playing any kind of music you want to throw on it. Had an AR XB that sounded great as well but the drive motor was so underpowered that I had to be careful not to press too hard when I gave it a record a quick brushing. Set up correctly both sounded just awe inspiring.

When I look at the specs of direct drive tables at the dawn of CD age (mid-80s), I see that JVC, Sony, Kenwood and Denon had really ramped up the torque in their motors vs. those in the '70s. The Garrard and Lenco rim drives are another story.

Is it possible too much torque is not good? I notice for example, Nottingham purposely designs its turntables with a low torque motor because they say its better able to correct minor speed fluctuations.

The analogy I've read about having too much torque, is that its like riding an F1 race car down a very narrow street. Overkill.

Curious what others think and have experienced? Any myth debunking here?

High torque motors in the more recent turntables were a response to the requirements of Club DJs. When 'scratching' etc. they need almost instantaneous start up. A high torque motor is likely to overcompensate for speed variations, introducing its own disturbances to the spinning platter. Speed correction by a low torque motor is less sudden and when used with a heavy platter, less frequent. It may well last longer than a high torque motor, because it's not braking and accelerating all the time. Well, that's my theory anyway.

Is high-torque necessary? IMO…absolutely not! Is it desired? Maybe- sometimes… rarely. Mainly, they were made for publicity for the manufacturers and sold to a few owners. Back then, bigger is better. If you own one then you have bragging rights. Fast sports cars and high-torque TTs belong in the same class. The big motors were precision made for rock solid, stable, and constant turns forever yet had big power instantly available on demand. They are high-performing grandfathers of decades past.

I think they can yank a loose tooth! With the reserve power and exact speed control, you can listen to classical music and shine your nails on the edge of the spinning platter. A V-8 and 4-cylinder both move a car. The difference in power, the torque, isn’t often used. But when it comes to fast take-off, smooth cruising and hill climbing, I know which is more fun. Well, I don’t climb hills riding a TT! Is it necessary to have reserve torque from a TT? You’ll have to decide how much fun and satisfaction you like. A platter whipping to speed in less then a second, 1/3 of a turn, is inspiring. It’s not necessary to have a big motor but its fun.