[nikongod]

 
Quote:

Did you just try and say that Belt Drive is bad or worst than Direct Drive? If so, on what basis do you make these allegations?

Belt/string drive has worse recovery from momentary slowing of the platter due to transients. Aside from high inertia platters you have no real drive keeping things going. The need to pull the platter to the side by a belt has only really been solved by a couple people, where direct drive embraces keeping the spindle centered in the main bearing.
 
Belt drive gained popularity because it is and always has been the least expensive TT type to design & build. The fact of the matter is that direct drive and Idler TT's require very well built motors which must be designed and built for the application if good sound quality is to be achieved. This is a very expensive and time consuming process which requires specialized knowledge. Simply put, very few small companies can do it. The recent direct drive offerings have outsourced the design and construction of the motors. 
 
On the design of a belt drive: You can use all but the nastiest of nasty motors on a belt drive and achieve functionality. Take a survey of which motors people use, and what they are designed for. With very few exceptions, nobody uses a truly purpose built motor in a belt drive TT. The best you can hope for is a nice DC motor intended for the robotics industry, and you dont usually get it.
 
Now that there is a little bit of why its a PITA to build a DD and easy to build a belt we should continue with the last period of innovation in TT design, which was in Japan during the 1970's with the successful building of direct drive motors and controllers. Ooh, yea, someone in europe figured out you could put the TT on springs around this time too and created the suspended TT. To put this in perspective, america had a war in Asia roughly every 10 years (you could easily argue that most Americans at the time viewed all of asia as one entity like the middle east is 1 entity today...) from 1942 through 1975, and pretty much everyone in america knew someone who had a brother, son, or father who was injured or killed in one of those wars, and of course with national pride at an all time high nobody would even look at what *they* were building.
 
So with nobody looking at Japan as a source of gear we have american production and european production to draw from between 1950 and 1985 (when we got CD, from japan, which is a country who we have not fought with for 30 years in the large land mass of asia as americans learned...) Both america and europe were building idler and belt drive TTs at the time. Idlers are much more expensive to build than a belt drive, and require a bit more maintenance, although they do have some compelling advantages over belt drive. Anyways, unless you NEEDED the instant startup and awesome torque of an idler (which pretty much meant radio stations and other sound professionals), you bought a belt drive. When TT's stopped being the primary music playback source and CD picked up they fell by the wayside of course from 1985-1997 (give or take on the 1997 side) and as they made the comeback into fringe popularity people wanted what they used to have again. Not because it was the best they ever could have had, but because of familiarity. The fact that nobody currently wants a direct drive is GREAT for the cottage industry currently building TT's because they can not build direct drives. It would suck for the industry if the tide of fashion shifted and people asked for a direct drive - the industry could not follow the "new" trend. Keep the hype machine spinning, and make sure that never happens is the current strategy.

 

[Lechango]

I did return the stanton by the way, so I have about about $200 to spend on something else (most likely going vintage), I'm still looking at that PL-518 on craigslist for $60, the guy says everything works fine but I've only seen one badly taken picture of it and I'ma wait till he verifies the condition of it before driving the potential 100 mile round trip (haven't got his location yet either).

 

[grokit]

nikongod, you make some good points. I remember before CDs came in to play, the mass market was indeed starting to embrace direct drive turntables, but there were many serious listeners that did not like that trend, myself included. I picked out my Luxman during that time period specifically because it had a belt drive, and the higher end audiophile turntables never really embraced that trend either. There were some very nice mid-fi direct drive turntables coming on to the market then, but as you said they fell by the wayside. Now of course, virtually all "serious" turntables are belt drive. The "upper echelon" however has always been belt drive, and always will be. And the current state of the art usually does feature dedicated motors and speed controls, even if these are more often optional upgrades.
 

 
 

 

[ortofoninc]

Yes, a vast majority of MODERN high end tables are belt drives...
 
That doesn't mean they're actually better.  Consider this: All records are MASTERED on a direct driven lathe!
 
In fact, the late 70s and early 80s saw a number of no-expense-spared DD designs:
 
Kenwood L-07D - a battleship, beautiful table, which still commands $5,000+ used when it's in good shape
 
Technics SP-10mk2 and SP-10mk3 - the MK3 was a 48 pole motor based on the SP-02 cutting lathe.  It's one of the most sought after tables, still!!  The mk2 model is a bit more common and is still a good unit with an outboard power supply.
 
Micro Seiki - responsible for engineering dozens of DD tables for other manufactures, but their DDX/DQX models (DDX-1000, DQX-1000, DQX-1500) were considered reference tables for people to truly make direct comparisons between different arms and cartridges.
 
Denon DP-100M - rare and wildly expensive, probably one of the best DD's of all time...  But also the DP-6000 was considered exceptional, as was the later DP-80.
 
JVC/Victor TT-101 was highly regarded and was said to outperform even the Technics SP-10mk2
 
 
Look...  I'm not getting involved in the whole belt drive vs direct drive argument, because there are a load of valid points and the issue can be argued up and down...  But keep in mind that even idler drive turntables, which were formerly criticized for being noisy (because of the idler of course) are now being sought after by even the most discerning of audiophiles.  Like Thorens TD-124, Garrard 301/401, etc. 
 
 
 
 

 

[grokit]

 
Quote:

Yes, a vast majority of MODERN high end tables are belt drives...
 
That doesn't mean they're actually better.  Consider this: All records are MASTERED on a direct driven lathe!
 
In fact, the late 70s and early 80s saw a number of no-expense-spared DD designs:
 
Kenwood L-07D - a battleship, beautiful table, which still commands $5,000+ used when it's in good shape
 
Technics SP-10mk2 and SP-10mk3 - the MK3 was a 48 pole motor based on the SP-02 cutting lathe.  It's one of the most sought after tables, still!!  The mk2 model is a bit more common and is still a good unit with an outboard power supply.
 
Micro Seiki - responsible for engineering dozens of DD tables for other manufactures, but their DDX/DQX models (DDX-1000, DQX-1000, DQX-1500) were considered reference tables for people to truly make direct comparisons between different arms and cartridges.
 
Denon DP-100M - rare and wildly expensive, probably one of the best DD's of all time...  But also the DP-6000 was considered exceptional, as was the later DP-80.
 
JVC/Victor TT-101 was highly regarded and was said to outperform even the Technics SP-10mk2
 
 
Look...  I'm not getting involved in the whole belt drive vs direct drive argument, because there are a load of valid points and the issue can be argued up and down...  But keep in mind that even idler drive turntables, which were formerly criticized for being noisy (because of the idler of course) are now being sought after by even the most discerning of audiophiles.  Like Thorens TD-124, Garrard 301/401, etc. 

Excellent points ortofonic, now that you have weighed in you are "involved" though lol

 
I would think that the lathe process needs direct drive because the "heated chisel" used creates more drag/resistance which can affect the need for a constant speed, as opposed to playing back a record with a cartridge/stylus.
 
My main problem with today's belt-drive units is the lack of a strobe to verify speed, and the ability to make according adjustments to that speed, which can change over time (especially with belt-drive units).
 
But as the manufacturers you mentioned obviously had the ability to make direct-drive turntables a few decades ago, why have they abandoned them now, as some of them still offer high-end turntables; is it just a demand issue? I would think that the cost of manufacturing can't be much of a factor, as the tooling would already be done from before.
 
BTW, I will be trying out your 2M Red cartridge soon with that Denon, as I decided to move some things around a bit and wanted a simpler setup for the surround rig. I will be able to use my Luxman on my balanced headphone rig, as my phono stage has a balanced out. I hope the built-in preamp on the Denon works okay though. I will be using the Luxman on a cement floor in the basement, which should help keep it on track. Conversely, the Denon has a heavier base which should help up in the attic.

 

[nikongod]

Quote:

 
I would think that the lathe process needs direct drive because the "heated chisel" used creates more drag/resistance which can affect the need for a constant speed, as opposed to playing back a record with a cartridge/stylus.

 
Yes, you need a lot of torque to overcome the drag from the cutter head. The other way of looking at is that you cant have good torque from a belt drive. I guess you could also say that you only get 1 chance to cut the wax/acetate properly... you may as well do it right the first time you can records a bunch of times.
 
The weird thing here is that MFR's of high end TT's lean towards heavier platters as you climb their line, (in some lines its about all that changes) for good momentum to overcome the problems of low torque motors. Look at the other end of the spectrum (still in belt drive) with TT designers who make "lightweight" plinths and platters. Rega springs to mind with Roy Gandy being exceptionally vocal about his design decisions. To paraphrase he likes light platters because the energy transfer between the vinyl and platter works out more to his liking. Where can you find a (less than 40lb) platter and good torque? Idlers and direct drive TTs.
 
Quote:

My main problem with today's belt-drive units is the lack of a strobe to verify speed, and the ability to make according adjustments to that speed, which can change over time.

The lack of those features is a matter of fashion. The trend has been towards less and less "stuff" on the TT. Who knows who started it, but you can look at a bunch of audiophile TTs and see no controls beyond the power switch, speed selector switch (an acceptable alternative is manually moving the belt on the pulley. partial disassembly of the TT is acceptable to achieve this goal :facepalm: ) and cuing lever on most turntables.
 
I would question anyone who says that the speed control effects SQ negatively, IME it is an exceptionally important aspect of TT operation. Even the belt drive guys agree, a common upgrade for the belt drive TTs is of course an add-on speed controller.
 
Quote:

But as the manufacturers you mentioned obviously had the ability to make direct-drive turntables a few decades ago, why have they abandoned them now, as some of them still offer high-end turntables; is it just a demand issue? I would think that the cost of manufacturing can't be much of a factor, as the tooling would already be done from before.

The tooling wears out, and people grow tired of "the same thing year after year." You HAVE to make something new to stay in business in the consumer arena. 
In the early 80's it made more sense to build CD players than TT's and lots of tooling was destroyed as is common when new technology "dominates" the old.
 
Perhaps Im wrong, but I consider most audiophile gear "niche consumer" with the similar fashion based purchasing habits as opposed to pro gear where you can (and should) sell the same thing for at least 12-20 years if not more if it is successful. In normal consumer gear I would avoid the pro stuff (a true professional kitchen mixer bolted to a concrete slab, with a gearshift and a clutch... VS a home unit. you HAVE to really use it to make it worth it financially, even accounting for breaking the consumer grade one every few years...) but for what some audiophile gear costs the professional gear that gets looked over may be a solid alternative. Since buying audio gear seldom makes financial sense why not buy a Lavry gold second hand from a studio and see how it runs compared to the $6000 FOTY audiophile DAC? 
 
As far as why they have abandoned direct drive TT's now, they have not entirely. Denon still makes direct drives. It dosnt seem like Technics/Panasonic can decide what to do with the 1200 (keep it or kill it), but they are still for sale new. Who else is there? Ok, so they are dropping like flies.
 
Abandoned implies that they were ever on the boat. After that there are alllllll the companies who have never built a direct drive in the past: companies who have popped up in the last 20 years or so, and older ones who never did it... and see my post above
 
Here is a recently designed direct drive. Not even close to inexpensive, but at the same time not out of line considering what top of the line belt drives cost.
grandprix audio
Fancy, its an American company too.

 

[grokit]

Wow that Monaco is one killer turntable, love the carbon fiber plinth. The ceramic thrust bearing and oil-suspended radial bearing makes it a jaw-dropper for sure. I just acquired my first new turntable in close to three decades (2nd overall except for a kid's model), and really didn't step up, more like sideways; I will probably use the old Luxman more as it is moving to a more "serious" listening location. I never could decide on a top TT before, but the Grandprix goes right to the top of my "win the lottery" wish list!

 

[ortofoninc]

Personally, my feeling is that DD designs have been eschewed in favor of belt drive because of non-performance reasons...
 
The level of engineering that went into DD tables during that time period could justify the enormous costs of R&D because vinyl was pretty much the best quality format that existed on the mass market at the time.  Many manufacturers went as far as to develop their own motor designs in order to satisfy an extreme requirement of speed stability and a minimum of bearing friction...  The Technics SP-10 project was known as one of the most high cost engineering projects of all time.
 
Of course, since CD began to dominate the systems of music lovers and audiophiles alike, turntables and records were relegated to a niche market.  Over the past few years, vinyl has made a comeback that is nothing short of astounding, but it still isn't anything like it was before the advent of CD.
 
You also have to consider the nature of manufacturing in 2010.  Many audio companies (including ones mentioned in this thread) aren't even building their own products, and are instead being built through a contract manufacturer.  Even when a high end unit is custom built in-house, it frequently makes use of off-the-shelf parts.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the reason for the lack of HiFi DD tables was connected to a distinct lack of off-the-shelf motors which are more than 8 pole.  
 
Another thing that I wanted to mention here is the old adage, "There's more than one way to skin a cat".  This applies to many aspects of audio products as well, where manufacturers have taken easier routes in order to minimize costs.  If the general public is accepting of belt drive designs, and you can get away with using a motor of lower quality and smooth out any fluctuations and resonances using a belt, then why bother dumping huge amounts of money into developing direct drive tables? 
 
An interesting part of this which I can relate directly to is with Moving Coil cartridges.  Ortofon used to be the masters of low-impedance, super-low output cartridges (0.1mV).  But building transformers or active step up devices with flat frequency response, accurate phase response, and low slew rate was extremely costly and difficult.  So we started making cartridges with a medium impedance and medium output, because it was far easier on the other side of things.  Does that mean that one method was better than the other?  Not necessarily.