Why the disdain towards direct-drive TTs from some audiophiles?

T

Taketheflame

Super Member
Hey all,

Not trying to turn this into yet another belt-drive vs DD thread, but just a thought that's crossed my mind over the past week, as I've swapped in my Pioneer PL-550 to give it some use - and I've been enjoying it quite a bit!

I've read plenty of people bashing DD tables as "for DJ use only", or "not as musical/can never sound as good as a belt-drive", "too much rumble from the motor", etc. etc. But this just hasn't been the case at all in my experience. This thing runs quiet and smooth, is built like a tank, and still sounds like vinyl/analog to me. It also seems to be tracking very well - even with just a cheap-o LPGear conical stylus (which I will be upgrading to elliptical soon, as I've decided the factory cart is actually quite nice and worth getting some more styli for), as I'm not getting much, if any IGD at all using a standard Baerwald alignment. Did I mention I also love it's perfect speed/pitch stability?

I will admit, it is a pretty different beast than my Thorens (I find the Pio a bit more punchy and tight, and the Thorens to be a bit more airy/spacious), but they both sound great to me...seems like this whole belt-drive vs DD debate is just another case of apples vs oranges to me.

Does anybody here have any real world experience/examples of what DD-haters seem to complain about? (namely, unacceptably loud rumble). Because from what I've looked into, alot of DD tables seemed like they were very well engineered to hit impressive performance figures.
 
Register to hide this ad
Cogging.

Another word invented by the audiophile police because they pulled the platter off, turned the motor on and noticed the motor stopping and starting. Without the mass of the platter to spin, the motor control logic ends up pulsing the spindle instead of spinning smoothly. They then made the erroneous assumption that it behaves like this with a platter on.

I can assure anyone and everyone that a well executed direct drive has speed and pitch stability that would make any belt drive table envious.

This horse is dead...we should probably stop kicking it...

Jblnut
 
I have a rare Sanyo TP 1000 direct drive turntable and a Thorens TD 145. I prefer the Sanyo over the Thorens and I have identical cartridges on both. It's practically silent, whereas the Thorens has the typical 60hz motor hum. It also tracks less than perfect records better too. Also the speed is fairly good for a 45 year old unit, slightly better than the Thorens. I like direct drive so much I'm looking to get another heavy duty Japanese table and sell the Thorens. It's just not a good match for the springy wood floors in my house. I'm not bashing belt drives, if I was able to try a non-sprung belt drive I would. This is simply my observation between the two.
 
Its a matter of implementation of a design. I have heard direct drives I like, and others I don't care for. Same with belt drives.

I find that the Technics DL 1200 is not a table I appreciate. Nothing in terms of cogging, but rather that it does not present the finest of low level detail such as ambiance and decay, but sounds rather dead and lifeless. It has other strengths, but its not a table I have interest in owning.

In terms of belt drive I am finding I am not a VPI fan. I prefer other belt drives such as Well Tempered or Sota.

People like what they like in this hobby for personal reasons. Enjoy what you want and don't let others define it for you. You can pick up a bit of flack from others who have a different perspective, but if you let it go then you find contentment in your own audio journey. Not all of us travel the same road, nor want to see the same scenery.

Cheers
Mister Pig
 
Mister Pig said:
People like what they like in this hobby for personal reasons. Enjoy what you want and don't let others define it for you. You can pick up a bit of flack from others who have a different perspective, but if you let it go then you find contentment in your own audio journey. Not all of us travel the same road, nor want to see the same scenery.

Cheers
Mister Pig
Click to expand...
Well said!
 
I haven't read all comments, but the ones I did focus on SQ, personal preference, etc, all of which I relate to. Personally, I strongly prefer DD — after getting a M. Seiki DQX 1000, I quickly sold my LP12 and two Oracles (Delphi and Alexandria). I kept a Thorens 125 and 126, as I'd bought both very cheaply, and found them superior to the others. (I might have kept my Ariston RD40 for its killer looks, but we'd parted company long before.)

But I'll look at another factor. Belt drives had decades of promotion, advertising, publicity — and decades to mature, not only as a technology, but in style and looks. DD at its best had very little time before CD killed it. Add Belt Drive's ubiquity, being so easy to manufacture as a cottage industry — and even (especially in UK) patriotism — and DD at its High End best had little time or chance to make a real challenge.

Idler-drive is a whole other thing. As is the "Revival" of recent years.
 
onwardjames said:
I do believe that OP was making a serious attempt at understanding, and not bashing or jumping to any conclusions.

Me, I have often wondered what makes one tonearm better than another, but was afraid to ask, honestly.
Click to expand...
Not to hijack the thread, I am curious about this as well. I think I have a pretty good understanding of the pros and cons of the three major drive systems, and also a reasonable understanding of the basic factors that make an implementation of direct- or belt-drive better or worse (idler-drive not so much). But apart from compliance-matching, I have much less of an understanding about various tonearms.
 
bimasta said:
I haven't read all comments, but the ones I did focus on SQ, personal preference, etc, all of which I relate to. Personally, I strongly prefer DD — after getting a M. Seiki DQX 1000, I quickly sold my LP12 and two Oracles (Delphi and Alexandria). I kept a Thorens 125 and 126, as I'd bought both very cheaply, and found them superior to the others. (I might have kept my Ariston RD40 for its killer looks, but we'd parted company long before.)

But I'll look at another factor. Belt drives had decades of promotion, advertising, publicity — and decades to mature, not only as a technology, but in style and looks. DD at its best had very little time before CD killed it. Add Belt Drive's ubiquity, being so easy to manufacture as a cottage industry — and even (especially in UK) patriotism — and DD at its High End best had little time or chance to make a real challenge.

Idler-drive is a whole other thing. As is the "Revival" of recent years.
Click to expand...
I agree about belt drives receiving a lot of promotion. I wasn't alive then, but catalogs reveal that Technics and Sony were the first companies to commercialize the DC servo direct drive units in the early 70s. Furthermore, belt drives were around almost a decade earlier, meaning consumers were more familiar with them.
 
Last edited:
I don’t know.
But here is my tongue-n-cheek explanation:

From correct opinion of course! The evidence of which cannot be admitted until we vote upon it!

really, what should it matter as long as your favorite song is rocking your soul brother
 
I have pretty decent examples of both belt (AR XA) and direct drive tables (Technics SL-1200mk2). I honestly can’t answer your question. I prefer the XA for acoustic guitar, jazz, soul music, and less distorted rock music. Stuff where detail and air are priorities. The SL-1200 likes aggressive guitar music, and of course hip hop. It’s just got the boom. The only edge I give the SL is speed change on the fly. I thought I wouldn’t hate pulling the outer platter to change speeds. I changed my mind fast.
 
There is no good reason for the distain...

DD turntables turn the record at the right speed and keep it that way.... Simple as that. What puts people off is the association with hip hop turntablists who use DD tables (usually Technics SL-1200 derivatives).

The problems of Vinyl playback were largely solved by DD tables. The differences people claim to hear from exotic tonearms, 6" 40lb platters, etc... are largely imagined, IMHO.
 
I have a pet theory that the presence and characteristics of the subsonic rumble are to blame, at least in part. Idlers are praised as having lots of “slam” and bass “oomph”, whereas belt drives are relatively conversely “airy”. Maybe the rumble of an idler gives the impression of deeper bass, and the belt-drive’s lack thereof makes it seem brighter in comparison? We already know that subsonics can have a huge influence on our brains, and even if your speakers aren’t flat to 0Hz, they’re still gonna be making some noise down there unless you use a low-cut filter. Don’t believe me? Hook up an idler turntable and crank that volume, and you’ll see some serious woofer pumping.

Me personally? I can’t hear the difference between a good belt-drive and a good direct-drive. Idlers tend to give themselves away through that wee bit of rumble, but that’s just a matter of condition and build quality. I’ll confess that I love the idler-drive Duals and Garrards, but it’s more an aesthetic choice than a sonic choice. A Dual 1019 or Garrard SL95B in good fettle is an utter joy to behold, and a marvel to watch in action. I‘ve owned and enjoyed many a fine belt or direct drive in the past, and wouldn’t say no to another one in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom