Belt drive or direct drive. Pros and cons

[Almaz]

I was thinking about the advancement in music reproduction components. To my ears at least vinyl still has the edge. However direct drives have certainly come a long way. May I ask what is the general consensus is between belt or direct drive.

 

 

[muon*]

DD's hit a peak in the late 70's and early 80's, I loved my Sansui SR-838 and still miss it.

 

Look at the Denon DP75 and DP80, the Yamaha GT-2000 ect' from those times for great DD's.

 

Pioneer Exclusive P3

http://www.thevintageknob.org/pioneer-Exclusive_P3.html

 

Yamaha GT-2000

http://www.thevintageknob.org/yamaha-GT-2000.html

Edited June 8 by muon*

[Steff]

35 minutes ago, Almaz said:

May I ask what is the general consensus is between belt or direct drive.

 

 

 

This question is one of the entrances to hell, I'm sure

I love the utility and grunt of a direct drive

 

Edited June 8 by Steff
calming

[Hydrology]

Can I just ask before this thread descends into chaos that everyone stays calm and see if we can approach this thread question like adults?

Asking for a mate...

 

Me, I love both and dont care for the "differences"

 

Edited June 8 by Hydrology

[muon*]

19 minutes ago, Hydrology said:

Can I just ask before this thread descends into chaos that everyone stays calm and see if we can approach this thread question like adults?

Asking for a mate...

 

Me, I love both and dont care for the "differences"

 

Yes, both can sound great.

[Hydrology]

50 minutes ago, Almaz said:

May I ask what is the general consensus is between belt or direct drive.

Implementation is far more important than the toplogy.

[rantan]

In trying to pick a winner between the two technologies it really comes down to how the particular technology is implemented in terms of design, overall quality and many other factors. I have a vintage Pioneer PL 50 and it is superb, built like a swiss watch and has that "pride of ownership " factor, but I have also seen (heard ) many belt drive 'tables that were/are very desirable as well.

 

[andyr]

15 minutes ago, Hydrology said:

 

Me, I love both and don't care for the "differences"

 

 

C'mon, H - as Yoda said "castrated, man who sits on fence likely to be"!  

 

To @Almaz, as @Steffsaid ... DDs are known for their utility and grunt - and, I would suggest, their great delivery of transients; belt drives are known for their 'flow' ... and musicality.

 

So ... if you're into piano music, for instance - I'd suggest a DD is your thing; if you like orchestral music then a belt drive will please you more.

 

What say you @metal beat, given you've got both, right?  

 

[evil c]

I had a Yamaha direct drive in the 80s that was highly impressive!

I briefly owned a Wand 14-4 deck a few years ago that was also an excellent deck.

But vast majority I've owned have been belt drive, and some have been noticably better.

In fact some of the very best decks you can buy are belt, often utilising multiple belts .

Belt slippage is obviously a weakness, and why they need to be replaced over time. 

Important point is having absolute stability in accurate speed, in both forms with minimal contamination of noise from the motor or vibrations to the tonearm/ cartridge. 

It might be harder to achieve this with direct drive, but that is not to say always correct.

 

[Almaz]

In my experience with both, I’ve found that for some reason which I can’t explain, a belt drive seems to pair well with tubes, a direct drive seems more at home with solid state. Again this is just my observation using the ears I’ve been born with.

[metal beat]

14 minutes ago, andyr said:

 

C'mon, H - as Yoda said "castrated, man who sits on fence likely to be"!  

 

To @Almaz, as @Steffsaid ... DDs are known for their utility and grunt - and, I would suggest, their great delivery of transients; belt drives are known for their 'flow' ... and musicality.

 

So ... if you're into piano music, for instance - I'd suggest a DD is your thing; if you like orchestral music then a belt drive will please you more.

 

What say you @metal beat, given you've got both, right?  

 

 

Andy

 

I prefer Japanese vintage SOTA DD tables. The drive and continuousness is addictive and zero speed stability issues - starting and stopping in less than one second is cream.   

 

However, nothing wrong with belt drive and can sound amazing - but these days over the top pricing for new SOTA tables ruin's it for most

Edited June 8 by metal beat

[colinm1]

Vpi do a d/d now ,

[aussievintage]

1 hour ago, Almaz said:

I was thinking about the advancement in music reproduction components. To my ears at least vinyl still has the edge. However direct drives have certainly come a long way. May I ask what is the general consensus is between belt or direct drive.

 

 

 

 

Well I have all three types (you left out idler drive), and mostly run idler drive these days.      Belt drive, for me, was the initial step up from cheap console tables which were idler drive but neither well made nor well maintained.  My two main direct drives (Technics and Toshiba) are excellent examples from a while back, but there are better more modern ones to be had if you have the money.  Now I am back to idler and likely to stay that way for my main system. 

 

Anyone have a 301 or 401 I can buy for a sensible price and refurbish?  

Edited June 8 by aussievintage

[audiofeline]

It's a simple question to answer, so I will also expand the parameters so it's comprehensive...

 

1.  Belt-drive vs. direct-drive:

A good quality belt-drive will sound much better than a poor quality direct-drive. 

A good quality direct-drive will sound much better than a poor quality belt-drive. 

 

2.  Direct-drive vs. idler-drive:

A good quality direct-drive will sound much better than a poor quality idler-drive. 

A good quality idler-drive will sound much better than a poor quality direct-drive. 

 

3  Belt-drive vs. idler-drive:

A good quality belt-drive will sound much better than a poor quality idler-drive. 

A good quality idler-drive will sound much better than a poor quality belt-drive. 

 

To summarise, each turntable design has the potential for phenomenal quality sound, or poor reproduction, depending on how it's implemented.  Marketing of competing formats has successfully demonised each approach.  It's good that unbiased ears can cut through the marketing and evaluate each turntable on their own merits. 

 

 

 

Edited June 8 by audiofeline

[SONDEKNZ]

16 minutes ago, audiofeline said:

It's a simple question to answer, so I will also expand the parameters so it's comprehensive...

 

1.  Belt-drive vs. direct-drive:

A good quality belt-drive will sound much better than a poor quality direct-drive. 

A good quality direct-drive will sound much better than a poor quality belt-drive. 

 

2.  Direct-drive vs. idler-drive:

A good quality direct-drive will sound much better than a poor quality idler-drive. 

A good quality idler-drive will sound much better than a poor quality direct-drive. 

 

3  Belt-drive vs. idler-drive:

A good quality belt-drive will sound much better than a poor quality idler-drive. 

A good quality idler-drive will sound much better than a poor quality belt-drive. 

 

To summarise, each turntable design has the potential for phenomenal quality sound, or poor reproduction, depending on how it's implemented.  Marketing of competing formats has successfully demonised each approach.  It's good that unbiased ears can cut through the marketing and evaluate each turntable on their own merits. 

 

 

 

Rob, I think you might be betting a dollar on each horse - for a place - in a three horse race! 

I think the question remains:

A GOOD Idler-drive versus a GOOD Direct-drive versus a GOOD Belt-drive...

 

Which is it?

(I'm NOT suggesting that I know the answer...  )

[oldrose]

22 minutes ago, SONDEKNZ said:

Rob, I think you might be betting a dollar on each horse - for a place - in a three horse race! 

I think the question remains:

A GOOD Idler-drive versus a GOOD Direct-drive versus a GOOD Belt-drive...

 

Which is it?

(I'm NOT suggesting that I know the answer...  )

Too many other variables to determine this, not the least Arm and Cart.

 

Perhaps a $1,000 Belt Drive will sound better than similarly priced DD or Idlers but once the budget gets bigger I don't know how you can determine better.

 

[SONDEKNZ]

This thread asks for the PROS & CONS of turntables using Belt-drive, versus Direct-drive – and by association, potentially Idler-drive AND Belt&Idler-drive.

I’m hardly an expert with the latter three, but after decades of dicking around with belt-drive turntables – and in particular, our beloved LP12 – I think I can provide a small amount of illumination on this wee corner of the subject.

So, here are the PROS & CONS of Belt-drive turntables, according to SONDEKNZ. 

One of the main sources of noise – vibration, distortion, call it what you will – in all turntables, is the drive motor; whether DC or AC. All motors vibrate!

Belt-driven sub-platters (or platters) provide a great deal of isolation between the motor and the platter it drives. That is to say, that it is a lot more difficult for motor noise to transfer from the motor to the stylus, across a highly compliant belt.

This is even more true if one is to select a belt made from material that is renown for its amazing ability to instantly transform vibration energy into heat energy. Such a phenomenon goes by the name of "dampening". Such a material is silicone. A silicone belt is a dampening wonder and also offers a couple of nice additional features:

Firstly, silicone belts are able to be fabricated completely jointless, so there is negligible variation in belt density, greatly assisting smooth running of the platter.

Secondly, silicone belts are much more adhesive than other suitable belt materials.

 

At first glance, many turntable designers would flee from silicone for this reason, fearing that too much adhesion causes problems when the belt attempts to leave the pulley or platter.  Whilst this adhesion issue can be problematic, IMHO this aspect is more than offset by the fact that a silicone belt – by virtue of its greater adhesion – allows the belt to be run much looser, without falling off!

Why bother with such a loose belt? A loose belt – almost falling-off, but not quite – minimises the pull against the platter and bearing. At its worst, this pull (thrust) creates minute amounts of platter “tilt”, which wreaks havoc on phono playback. This thrust also creates unnecessary wear on the turntable’s main bearing and its vertical support journals – typically made from some form of plastic, PTFE, POM, etc. Running one's turntable belt as loose as possible, means minimal platter tilt and negligible bearing journal wear. A silicone belt makes this very achievable.

It should be noted that to minimise platter tilt, more complex belt-drive turntable designs often deploy a second (or third) belt - or a series of pullies - each opposing or negating the thrust of the motor. Whilst this can help eliminate platter tilt, it can introduce other complex problems to solve. The (now vintage) PINK TRIANGLE Vector Drive system is a good example of this approach to turntable drive design innovation.

 

Such is the challenge of turntable design. 

Another benefit of belt-drive turntables, is that they allow a small degree of movement between the platter plane and the motor plane. AR, THORENS, ARISTON, LINN and others named this movement "suspension". Suspension allows the motor – and the external world – to be even more decoupled from the platter and tonearm.

 

At best, this suspension provides additional isolation from motor noise and effective isolation from acoustic feedback and other in-room vibrations. Unfortunately, suspension introduces as many problems as it solves, but these problems can be mitigated and or minimised. A discussion for another time, perhaps?

 

[LP12 owners read between the lines: Ditch the singing-springs and get thee some AUDIOSILENTE Silicone Mushrooms!  ]

One of the downsides of a belt-drive, is the issue of belt slippage. All turntable belts slip, which at worst can wreak havoc with platter speed consistency. Belt slip is a very well understood phenomenon and better belt-driven turntables are designed to keep the slippage totally constant and therefore the impact on platter speed is negligible.

Another downside of belt-driven turntables is that all belts can demonstrate “stretch and recoil” behaviour. What is stretch and recoil? Imagine driving a jet boat, towing a water-skier with a highly flexible tow-rope. Any sudden acceleration by the jet boat sees the tow-rope immediately stretch to cope with the increased boat velocity, until the point that the tow-rope reaches the end of it’s flexibility, then the recoil kicks-in, catapulting the water-skier towards the jet boat, at a potentially higher velocity than the jet boat itself is traveling.

This stretch and recoil can occur with belt driven turntables, when something disturbs play. Be it a very bad LP flaw, a badly performing speed controller or perhaps an accidental knock to the turntable itself. For this reason – in addition to gaining maximum lifespan from their chosen phono stylus – belt-driven turntable owners need to be extra fussy with the condition of their LP software. Accordingly, the very best belt-driven turntables live or die by the quality of their PSU.

 

Stretch and recoil is another reason why it is so difficult to implement any type of automatic speed correction system on a belt-driven turntable. IMHO, investment is better spent on bolstering total PSU capability, rather then seeking automatic speed correction, on a belt-driven turntable.

Lastly, belts need regular cleaning and they slowly wear out. It might take 3,000 hours of more, but a turntable belt will wear out. So, turntable belts are a consumable item and must be deemed as replaceable, eventually.

 

I think I've covered it all... 

I'll let someone else jump-in for the PROS & CONS of other turntable drive topologies. 

POST SCRIPT: I just wanted to add that recently I tried a new BILL FIREBAUGH (The design mind behind Well Tempered Turntables and Tonearms) special tweak. That is, a single twist in our silicone belt just before it reaches the motor pulley - and just after it leaves the motor pulley. Our beloved LP12 still plays perfectly and it sounds very good. More listening required... perhaps a whole new thread? 

Edited June 11 by SONDEKNZ

[georgesgiralt]

Hello,

I live very far from you (Europe) but I can make a test setup involving high quality belt and DD turntable and defy ANYONE to find any difference. (I do not have any idler turntable anymore, so can't include them in the set up)...

If the turntable are decently made, you can't/won't find anything different. And if there is a difference, reject the culprit to oblivion.

Just my 2¢

[metal beat]

5 minutes ago, georgesgiralt said:

Hello,

I live very far from you (Europe) but I can make a test setup involving high quality belt and DD turntable and defy ANYONE to find any difference. (I do not have any idler turntable anymore, so can't include them in the set up)...

If the turntable are decently made, you can't/won't find anything different. And if there is a difference, reject the culprit to oblivion.

Just my 2¢

 

Hi George.   Welcome.

 

Appreciate your opinion,  but it's just that. 

  I have owned and used at home TW Acustik AC-3 - Graham Phantom & Thales Simplicity 2

and LP12, Naim ARO for belt drive.

  Pioneer P3 + Technics SP10MK3 with Thales Simplicity 2.

 

 To say that nobody can here the difference between these 4 tables is frankly,  laughable.  My daughters can hear differences between each table, so can any audiophile.

 

 I still own the two DD tables and the LP12.

 

  Regards

[SONDEKNZ]

16 minutes ago, georgesgiralt said:

Hello,

I live very far from you (Europe) but I can make a test setup involving high quality belt and DD turntable and defy ANYONE to find any difference. (I do not have any idler turntable anymore, so can't include them in the set up)...

If the turntable are decently made, you can't/won't find anything different. And if there is a difference, reject the culprit to oblivion.

Just my 2¢

 

Welcome George!

Well, that is strong talk indeed!

 

And at just 2-cents, there is almost certainly a very strong international currency exchange rate involved here. 

Based upon your assertion, one of the following might be true:

 

OPTION 1:
You can make turntables so much better than anyone else in the world, that nobody can hear the difference between your Direct-drive and your Belt-drive models. They are THAT good!

 

OR 

 

OPTION 2:
Your turntables sound so terrible, that any sonic differences between Direct-drive models and your Belt-drive models are rendered inaudible and therefore meaningless, because both turntables sound so dreadful.

I'm sure you are asking us to believe Option 1, but I am wondering how and why you have cracked it, where so many others before you have failed?

More info please!!! 

[audiofeline]

5 hours ago, SONDEKNZ said:

Rob, I think you might be betting a dollar on each horse - for a place - in a three horse race! 

I think the question remains:

A GOOD Idler-drive versus a GOOD Direct-drive versus a GOOD Belt-drive...

 

Which is it?

(I'm NOT suggesting that I know the answer...  )

I've been fortunate to compare some top idlers against some top direct-drives.  They have all sounded wonderful, but slightly different characteristics (also reflecting different arm/carts).  It was impossible to say that one was better than another, they were just slightly and subtly  different. 

 

And I've heard some top-level belt-drives on amazing systems, and I'm confident that if one of those tt's was thrown into the comparison it would have sounded equally amazing, but again with different subtle characteristics.  Not different to comparing different top-level speakers. 

 

[audiofeline]

6 hours ago, aussievintage said:

...Anyone have a 301 or 401 I can buy for a sensible price and refurbish?...

Excellent choices, although I must say that the 401's styling doesn't get me as excited as the 301's.

I would also suggest that there's no need to go to England when the Aussie Commonwealth, Byer, Rola and Orpheus Silex will be equal to the Garrards when set up correctly. 

 

[SONDEKNZ]

1 hour ago, audiofeline said:

I've been fortunate to compare some top idlers against some top direct-drives.  They have all sounded wonderful, but slightly different characteristics (also reflecting different arm/carts).  It was impossible to say that one was better than another, they were just slightly and subtly  different. 

 

And I've heard some top-level belt-drives on amazing systems, and I'm confident that if one of those tt's was thrown into the comparison it would have sounded equally amazing, but again with different subtle characteristics.  Not different to comparing different top-level speakers. 

 

 

Personally, I have NOT heard enough "other"  turntables to comment on which drive topology is best, but I think if there is a common thread here, it is...

 

Many roads lead to Rome! 

Or at least, they may all sound slightly different, but who is to say which is best?

 

How do you like YOUR steak? 

 

Edited June 8 by SONDEKNZ

[sir sanders zingmore]

10 hours ago, SONDEKNZ said:

This thread asks for the PROS & CONS of turntables using Belt-drive, versus Direct-drive – and by association, potentially Idler-drive AND Belt&Idler-drive.

I’m hardly an expert with the latter three, but after decades of dicking around with belt-drive turntables – and in particular, our beloved LP12 – I think I can provide a small amount of illumination on this wee corner of the subject.

So, here are the PROS & CONS of Belt-drive turntables, according to SONDEKNZ. 

One of the main sources of noise – vibration, distortion, call it what you will – in all turntables, is the drive motor; whether DC or AC. All motors vibrate!

Belt-driven sub-platters (or platters) provide a great deal of isolation between the motor and the platter it drives. That is to say, that it is a lot more difficult for motor noise to transfer from the motor to the stylus, across a highly compliant belt.

This is even more true if one is to select a belt made from material that is renown for its amazing ability to instantly transform vibration energy into heat energy. Such a phenomenon goes by the name of "dampening". Such a material is silicone. A silicone belt is a dampening wonder and also offers a couple of nice additional features:

Firstly, silicone belts are able to be fabricated completely jointless, so there is negligible variation in belt density, greatly assisting smooth running of the platter.

Secondly, silicone belts are much more adhesive than other suitable belt materials.

 

At first glance, many turntable designers would flee from silicone for this reason, fearing that too much adhesion causes problems when the belt attempts to leave the pulley or platter.  Whilst this adhesion issue can be problematic, IMHO this aspect is more than offset by the fact that a silicone belt – by virtue of its greater adhesion – allows the belt to be run much looser, without falling off!

Why bother with such a loose belt? A loose belt – almost falling-off, but not quite – minimises the pull against the platter and bearing. At its worst, this pull (thrust) creates minute amounts of platter “tilt”, which wreaks havoc on phono playback. This thrust also creates unnecessary wear on the turntable’s main bearing and its vertical support journals – typically made from some form of plastic, PTFE, POM, etc. Running one's turntable belt as loose as possible, means minimal platter tilt and negligible bearing journal wear. A silicone belt makes this very achievable.

It should be noted that to minimise platter tilt, more complex belt-drive turntable designs often deploy a second (or third) belt - or a series of pullies - each opposing or negating the thrust of the motor. Whilst this can help eliminate platter tilt, it can introduce other complex problems to solve. The (now vintage) PINK TRIANGLE Vector Drive system is a good example of this approach to turntable drive design innovation.

 

Such is the challenge of turntable design. 

Another benefit of belt-drive turntables, is that they allow a small degree of movement between the platter plane and the motor plane. AR, THORENS, ARISTON, LINN and others named this movement "suspension". Suspension allows the motor – and the external world – to be even more decoupled from the platter and tonearm.

 

At best, this suspension provides additional isolation from motor noise and effective isolation from acoustic feedback and other in-room vibrations. Unfortunately, suspension introduces as many problems as it solves, but these problems can be mitigated and or minimised. A discussion for another time, perhaps?

 

[LP12 owners read between the lines: Ditch the singing-springs and get thee some AUDIOSILENTE Silicone Mushrooms!  ]

One of the downsides of a belt-drive, is the issue of belt slippage. All turntable belts slip, which at worst can wreak havoc with platter speed consistency. Belt slip is a very well understood phenomenon and better belt-driven turntables are designed to keep the slippage totally constant and therefore the impact on platter speed is negligible.

Another downside of belt-driven turntables is that all belts can demonstrate “stretch and recoil” behaviour. What is stretch and recoil? Imagine driving a jet boat, towing a water-skier with a highly flexible tow-rope. Any sudden acceleration by the jet boat sees the tow-rope immediately stretch to cope with the increased boat velocity, until the point that the tow-rope reaches the end of it’s flexibility, then the recoil kicks-in, catapulting the water-skier towards the jet boat, at a potentially higher velocity than the jet boat itself is traveling.

This stretch and recoil can occur with belt driven turntables, when something disturbs play. Be it a very bad LP flaw, a badly performing speed controller or perhaps an accidental knock to the turntable itself. For this reason – in addition to gaining maximum lifespan from their chosen phono stylus – belt-driven turntable owners need to be extra fussy with the condition of their LP software. Accordingly, the very best belt-driven turntables live or die by the quality of their PSU.

 

Stretch and recoil is another reason why it is so difficult to implement any type of automatic speed correction system on a belt-driven turntable. IMHO, investment is better spent on bolstering total PSU capability, rather then seeking automatic speed correction, on a belt-driven turntable.

Lastly, belts need regular cleaning and they slowly wear out. It might take 3,000 hours of more, but a turntable belt will wear out. So, turntable belts are a consumable item and must be deemed as replaceable, eventually.

 

I think I've covered it all... 

I'll let someone else jump-in for the PROS & CONS of other turntable drive topologies. 

 

Terrific post @SONDEKNZ 

You’ve actually addressed the OP’s question and I’ve learnt a lot in the process 

[aussievintage]

9 hours ago, audiofeline said:

Excellent choices, although I must say that the 401's styling doesn't get me as excited as the 301's.

I would also suggest that there's no need to go to England when the Aussie Commonwealth, Byer, Rola and Orpheus Silex will be equal to the Garrards when set up correctly. 

 

 

I have had an Orpeus Silex and a large 16" Rek-o-kut.   The latter particularly was built like a monster.  Not sure I think the idler/belt combo of the silex is as good as a straight idler drive.    I have always been a fan of the Garrards however.  I currently have a 4HF that is used regularly.