I've had a lot of turntables over the years, and by far my favorite for speed lock, Isolation from outside noises, platter sound deadening, and fully automatic is the Technics SL-1600 MK2. What a machine. Very easy to replace the small arm lifting belt that needs to be replaced maybe every 20 years. Other than that, a drop of light machine oil on the center spindle once every 10 years are you are good to go.
Since this channel is all about vintage hi-fi, I need to point out that when shopping for a vintage turntable, the difference between a vintage belt drive turntable and a vintage direct drive turntable may be the cost of the initial service it needs. Assuming that the table hasn’t been dropped or misused, a belt drive ‘table likely would only need a new belt. A direct drive turntable is very likely to need the motor speed control circuit board rebuilt at least. Resistors, and especially capacitors, have drifted in value over decades of time, or solder connections have gone bad, and the speed adjustment potentiometers most certainly need cleaning, if not replacing.
Thank you for an honest and informative review. For a long time, audiophiles, especially American audiophiles, have been disregarding direct drive turntables. Their main argument was that the direct drive turntables can never make correct speed at any time due to the servo tracking system which keeps searching the correct speed. However, I suspect that it was not because they are inferior in sound quality but because only Japanese companies at that time could manufacture direct drive turntables with decent quality. Nowadays the true values of the direct drive turntables are rediscovered and appreciated among many audiophiles who do not have such an old prejudice.
Well said, 박원배. However, I thought it was the other way around! Direct Drive turntables even the ones that were not very expensive, were, and are more accurate with the 2, or 3 main speeds of 33.33, 45, and 78 RPM. Only moderate, and expensive Belt Drive turntables were accurate with the speeds. Anyhow, that is the knowledge I had; now it is more of an opinion. As for myself I have at least 2 Belt Drive turntables; a HK T25 can be adjusted for the 2 speeds of 33.33, and 45 RPM. It has a speed control dial, and so there is accuracy in that case.
@@georgeanastasopoulos5865 Of course direct drives are far better in speed accuracy, also in wow & flutter. Belt drives cannot match with direct drives in specifications. However, argument from the opposition is like this; belt drives use low-torque motors which depend on physical inertia of a rotating platter to adjust speed fluctuation so that they sound so smooth. But direct drives with high-torque motors can keep on 33.3 RPM but their servo system keep searching for the correct speed in MICRO LEVEL like 33.299 or 33.301, thus make them sound ugly... As I said, this argument was purely hypothetical and has never been proved. They just hated the direct drives (and those DD turntables were mostly from Japan)...
@@user-ne4xb3yp9m Yes, now I understand more about this topic on speed of DD compared to BD turntable category, and design. Thank you for this further explanation.
@@user-ne4xb3yp9m You are talking about "Cogging" which was already proven not to exist in except a few of the very first servo drive TT's. Pretty much everything built since 1972 has no cogging.
I have a restored Thorens TD-125MKII from Vinyl Nirvana. Great isolation, easy maintenance and looks awesome. The new DENON DP-3000NE direct drive looks very nice as well. I may purchase one to have both a belt drive and direct drive.
I have a Sony PS-X5 direct drive with a classic Stanton 681EEE that has run flawlessly since new in 1975. I was just gifted a Dual 1245 that needs a belt, it has a Shure cartridge minus the stylus. The wood veneer needs a little love but I look forward to the restoration that I plan to do myself...just received a manual from Dual-parts.
Ha! I’m loving the way you do your videos! And hey, that Technics’ weight reminds me of why my 1957 vintage Leica M3 works so darn well: it doesn’t flinch with shutter one iota.
Thanks for the great video. Clear, articulate, and educational. I'm just getting back into vinyl, having made the switch to CDs in the 80s, then digital download when that became a thing. Now that most albums I buy come with a download code, I starting to buy new stuff on vinyl, color if I can get it. I've even gotten some older stuff on colored vinyl just to have it, like Thin Lizzy's Live and Dangerous. I would love to hear your take on which is "better": vinyl or digital. Liked and subscribed.
I have a JVC quartz lock 50. As with most things I purchase and love , I like redundancy....So I bought another. Also, I love that you show a Grado cart in this vid. Love this over many other carts I have tried in the past years.
I have neither the budget , desire, nor space to own multiple turntables., although at times the idea holds luster, I need to buy performance most of all, and I would rather concentrate on improving my weakest audio link, so have no room nor budget for the second string table. Since everything that vibrates effects the sound, I chose to concentrate my money on sound only, so have none of the convenience features , like end of play lift. if it isn't there, it can't effect sound. It really comes down to identifying your happiness, do you enjoy convenience features, multiple turntables , you are buying happiness, a very individual experience.
A fact that no-one seems to mention is that basically all record is cut on a direct drive cutting machines/lathes. If direct drives somehow messes with your music the artefacts are already on your favorite records. The main argument against DDs seems to be that they introduce more noise/have higher levels of rumble. Which is funny since DDs almost always spec better than belt drives in this metric The über-expensive Linn LP12 gives you a weighted (DIN B) rumble of -68-70dB. Well the Technics SL-1200 (and basically all, even cheap ones) achieves -78dB. Not to mention that DDs have lower wow and flutter. It's not that strange really. The Technics DDs were developed by world class engineers having a multi-billion company behind them. The LP12 was develop by a father and son operation working out of a Glasgow garage. It's also funny that this measurements doesn't tell the whole story only applies to audio. I mean no-one claims that their Prius is faster than an Ferrari. Since you know, they've been track tested and the Ferrari does 0-60 in less than 4 seconds and goes beyond 200 mph and the Prius is nowhere near that. But it hifi rules applied the Prius owner could just claim that "my Prius feels faster than the Ferrari" and "measurements (such as track testing) doesn't tell the whole story".
Amen! The specs are what count, and direct drive can be very quiet. I have a Pioneer PL-518 and a Sansui SR-525 from the mid-1970s. They both have better specs for rumble and wow and flutter than do some supposed audiophile turntables on the market today. An example: The McIntosh MT5 retails for $7,500. McIntosh advertises the MT5 as having wow and flutter of 0.15 to 0.20 percent. The PL-518 and SR-525 are both specified as having wow and flutter of 0.03 percent. McIntosh doesn't give a rumble spec for the MT5. But it advertises a signal-to-noise ratio of 36 to 41 decibels. S/N ratio for a turntable doesn't make a lot of sense. I'm guessing that this is actually the rumble spec. Whatever it is, it's not very good. Rumble for the PL-518 is rated at -73 decibels. For the SR-525, rumble is rated at -72 decibels, both of which are well below the threshold of audibility. For what it's worth, I don't find a S/N ratio listed for the Pioneer. The SR-525 is rated at exceeding 64 decibels. Whatever S/N ratio means for a turntable spec, the SR-525 has a very good figure, with noise below the threshold of audibility (around 60 decibels). By contrast, it appears that the $7500 McIntosh MT5 has noise well within the audible limit. I'll bash the MT5 a bit more. I recently bought a Yamaha YP-B2, a relatively low-end belt-drive unit from Yamaha from the late 1970s or early 1980s. It's rated as having a wow and flutter of 0.08 percent and a signal-to-noise ratio of 52 decibels. Those figures are better than the specs for the MT5. For what it's worth, the YP-B2 sounds great. I can't hear any noise out of it, and I have been enjoying it a bunch. Even better, I paid only $75 for it--that's 1 percent of the price of a McIntosh MT5.
@@UncleDansVintageVinyl It's crazy, wow and flutter of 0.15 to 0.20 percent for the MacIntosh. That would have been bad for a cheap table from the fifties and it will most certainly be audible. No piano music for the MT5 owners, I guess. It amazing that these companies can charge this money for gear that gives unacceptable performance. I mean Clearaudio has a model called the Statement. I kinda looks like some of the evil squid robots in the Matrix or an obscure torture device. It has wow and flutter at 0,05%, that's not really bad. But it's also $150K, and your Pioneer easily beats it. One of the most ridicilous ones, is the TechDas Air Force One. Now it's just $145K, but it's a still a belt drive with middling specs. It also looks like it has been assimilated by the BORG. You except it to say: "We are the BORG, we have assimilated your turntable. You will refrain from playing music that is not German techno. Resistance is futile!" It might also try to kill you in your sleep. Which might be the optimal solution, compared to explaining to you wife why you just spent $145 000 on something that stupid (and ugly). But then again the guys who buys this ultra-expensive stuff often seems to be the ones with wives who keep popping in to the listening room to compliment every new audio purchase and the improvement it brought. The wife heard the added space between the violins, the expanded soundstage and the blacker blacks all the way from the kitchen (it's always the kitchen) and she never take exception to her husband spending thousands on high-end usb-cables and the like.
IMO, for playback and no gimmicks. The best TT are the SL1200GR2 or if you got the money SL12000G. Anything else is a circle jerk and a pissing contest. Now personally I love me a really good belt drive. And I do not get any pitch oscillation that make me not be able to tune a guitar.
Kevin I sold audio back in the late 70's I bought my Dual 510 which is a belt drive I have no need for anything else still works I have a Rare Sonus blue/gold cartridge with a custom shibata diamond tip call the PathimaxTM Modified Shibata but more conical at intersecting ground faces, It's a high compliant cartridge needs a very light tone arm 5 g or less but sounds wonderful
There are many higher end belt drives which have very sophisticated motor/power supplies. SME's new model 60 will definitely match any direct drive, but as you would expect, the engineering tolerances are very high. I remember the original Goldmund Reference, which was a massive unit using direct drive. Speed stability using direct drive is definitely cheaper to implement.
Very well said, the table should not affect the music, only the cart, that is a good deck. You can ask certain table makers (retired from the market) and they will tell you this was the goal, when reached, you could request that a better sounding table was made for a million dollar prize, they wouldnt know what to do. I will say that while isolation in theory is better for the belts, most of the sub 1000$ options like my old Rega have the motor connected to the plinth anyway, so I dont feel theres much advantage there especially with how light those designs are. It might not affect the sound but I can hear the strain from the motor if I go up close while my Technics runs dead silent.
I got to set up and adjust a lot of turntables we sold. I owned a Dual 701 DD and Denon DP-3500 DD and Technics 1700 DD and Oracle Delphi Belt drive and Linn Sondek LP-12 belt drive. The direct drive is going at 33 1/3 so it is not generating vibration. The 701 is spring suspended and a very heavy platter. As a lead guitar player I like the pitch control but I also bought a belt drive with a pitch control. I never have one of anything.
I have a 1978 Toshiba SR370 direct drive with a SME 3009 2 Improved and Shure v15iii MM from new. It gets up to 33 in one turn of the platter. I also have a 2022 Rega Planar 6 with the RB330 arm and Ania MC. I love them both. If I start to worry about noise, I put on my Musical Fidelity X-Ray CD player. Total Silence.
Love my old Aurex/Toshiba direct drive turntable. Bought as a new demo model back in 1982. Still own this baby. Never had an issue with a direct drive and Quartz locked unit. Had a Sansui belt driven TT. Speed was always an issue. Went to direct drive and never looked back.
I am running Klipsch Cornwalls but have always loved the B&W speakers. I had some 703's in the day. Digging your B&W's in the background. Nice TT video as well. I just transitioned from a VPI Scout Gen 1 to a Technics SL 1000 Mk2. Switched for better drive accuracy. The SL 1000 takes stout to the next level. I cant sense any motor noise.
The hardest (only possibly hard part about replacing a belt on a turntable is knowing how to get the platter off. 1980s techniques: push down with your thumb on the spindle when you lift off the platter so that you don't move the gear attached to it. It can slide up and down on the spindle and mess up the semi automatic functions. On my Dual, 505-2, there is a brittle plastic nut sort of thing that you need to gently twist counterclockwise with your thumbs while holding the platter. I chipped mine a bit trying to push it with a screwdriver. A lot of other ones have those metal C clips that you pry off with a screwdriver. For anybody who has not dealt with those: try to put one hand around the area so that you don't lose the clip if it goes flying off 🙂. About 50% of the time I have to look around the table or around the floor to find mine C clips when I pull them off of other parts. Probably best to watch a RU-vid video first before breaking anything like I did.
Thanks for sharing your experience with both technologies. I personally prefer DD turntables but I acknowledge that a good belt driven TT has some serious arguments soundwise
I have a Dual CS-721 Direct Drive TT that I bought in "78" and I love it. It is extremely quiet and the only thing that I wish it had, is quartz lock, but even without it the speed is very stable. No doubt the belt drive is quieter, but mine is so quiet, I have no complaints. I had thought about buying the Technics SL-1200G, but the backlog to get these is way out there, for now, I'll stick with what I have. Thanks for the video : )
Stephen, I have a Dial 721 direct drive myself which was given to me years ago in perfect cosmetic condition. My daily driver has always be a Linn LP-12 belt driven spring suspended turntable I bought new in 1989. There is a nice shot of an LP-12 in this video. When the moving coil cartridge needed a rebuild during the shutdown, I resurrected the Dual 721 with its Ortofon OM40 cartridge. I didn’t miss the Linn very much for the 5 months it took for the rebuild. The 721 is a clean, open, and very quiet ‘table, though a little leaner sounding than the Linn, and the nearly frictionless tonearm and cueing was a joy to use and handle, not always a given these days (That means you, Project!). And the auto start and auto stop was a distinct plus. After I got back the Linn, I set up a second system, all vintage, with just the Dual 721 as its source. Did you know that the 721 was Dual’s absolute top model of its time?
I was wondering why I never see anybody with Audio Technica Turntables at Record DJ competitions...all Technics...you just explained in very simple terms why! Just make it super heavy so there is less vibrations....LOL! Thanks for this video!
This advice runs about weight runs counter to what designers say. Look at the top of the range Rega decks, for example. Still, in a club or something, weight might be necessary.
Anybody just getting into vinyl and endeavoring to buy a turntable MUST listen to this video. He does a great job of defining and identifies the differences. This is a really good starting point. Idler Wheel is different territory and another rabbit hole
My very first turntable was a belt drive 1200 clone, it did a job but ever since then I've only had vintage Japanese direct drive. Currently have 2 Sony PS4300's, Sony PS LX4, Pioneer XL1551 (PL550), XL A500 (PL530) and an XL A700 (PL570) With the exception of the LX4 you'd have to spend significant money to get a belt drive that surpasses the Sony's or Pioneer's.
I have the best of both worlds, IMHO. It's a Thorens TD124 - it has both a belt drive and an idler wheel drive at the same time! :-) I can't even begin to count how many TT's I've owned or auditioned over the years, I've never really liked the direct drive as much as idler or belt, I guess same reason I don't like wine only aged in stainless steel. Maybe?
Hey Kevin, I own both a PL-51 Direct Drive and an Empire 598 Belt Drive. Yes they are both nice. In my opinion the Empire which floats the platter and the tone arm via mass/springs/dampers - is a superior system when used in homes with wood floors or in apartments where there may be a lot of bouncy low frequency noise. The PL-51 which is fairly heavy is less isolated, only via the springs in the feet. So if you have a solid concrete floor or basement then I see these as an either/or. I agree changing belts is a no brain-er, and my ear is not so pitch sensitive that I can comment on wow/flutter or matching pitch. Also not a DJ. One thing I suspect can improve most any TT is placing a puck on the LP when playing. A puck flattens the LP, and also tends to dampen vibrations of the LP as it turns and responds to the environment and itself!. There are MANY non obvious characteristics of Turntable design which come to the party: tone arm length/mass etc, the geometry of the head and pivot point of the arm,... It has been a while since I studied the design criteria - so I will say no more. Note: if your fingers can feel the sound when touching the surface which the turntable is resting,.... I doubt any turntable can avoid a feedback response. That will affect the sound - and may be interpreted as "the sound of the turntable". Audio components become a SYSTEM! They interact is many ways, sometimes for the good and sometimes not. cheers dan
I was dead set that Technics direct drive turntables sound the best. Got 1200 mk2 and multiple sldl1 linear. Then I restored a belt drive, spring suspension, Sansui FR 3060. It is absolutely silent with great sound. So I guess drive doesn't matter as much as the quality of the build.
Outstanding! I remember belts were all the rage in the 70's then DD's were superior and it seems to have swung back a bit. I was wondering if my 40yo ADC 1600 was worth a new hi end Grado cartridge for the carbon fiber tone arm, why yes it is.
I was very happy with a Kenwood KD 550 direct drive, until I upgraded my cartridge. The new cart picked up electrical noise as it passed over the motor, so I went to a belt drive that eliminated the problem, and threw such a better soundstage, I never looked back to direct drive designs. I used to joke that Kenwood made really good can openers, but it served me very well. However, the belt drive quietness improved the soundstage so much, I never again gave Direct drive a fair chance. And because I was starting to invest more money in the cartridge, I would never want to risk electrical noise being picked up with whatever cartridge I might own. If you check out the Steve Gutenberg review of his direct drive, of a turntable I would recommend to anyone on a budget, he mainly went direct drive for the user interface and the removable headshell, he is really looking forward to changing cartridges. he also left behind a table that has a reputation of being very accurate, yet somewhat dark , and has his sights set on a $4000 sl12000G. a table that might shake things up, as previously there were no high end Direct drive tables. Nobody had the development money for direct drive motors for a product sold to such a specialized market, until records made a comeback. Most better turntables still use motors developed for medical applications. I enjoy a suspended table, because they have to sit on something, and I would rather have that problem of sonic isolation solved in the original design , rather than have me search for random solutions. Of course, all of this depends on the resolution of the system. A guy can have just as much fun with a cheap player as the most expensive available, it just depends if the play back goals are met. .
Mine was a Dual CS 721 direct drive. A Shure V15 type III cartridge. It was so quiet, that the lead in and lead grooves could be heard if the volume cranked way up.
Great video! I have a Marantz 6170 DD TT from the 70s. I recently put a Grado cart on it and it gets a low tone vibration feedback loop from the motor. The other two carts I used never did it. Need to find something else to use on it. Other than the feedback loop the cartridge sounds great. Finding the right cartridge is a pain.
Thanks, Chad! I really appreciate it. That feed back loop could be external too. A quick way to tell is to put a folded towel under the turntable, if that kills the feedback, look into getting some sorbathane feet. Could be that the Grado is just more sensitive to lower frequencies. keep us posted!
The Marantz 6100 series is a common platform made by CEC that was the foundry for turntables of many Japanese audio brands. I have one from the same CEC platform and mine is an Akai AP004. I have very good results with a vintage Philips GP401 on this turntable. You can buy them for little on E.bay and buy a second source new stylus for it starting from $30,- all the way up to a Jico ciabatta costing over $250,- But the Grado may not be your issue. It is very likely that the motor suspension and or the platter bearing on your TT is shot.
Back in the 70's there was a spirited debate about the benefits of belt and direct drive. All my friends had belt drive turntables such as thorens, Sansui and Empire. I always had to go my own way and get a direct drive Dual 701. I truly loved that turntable! It gave me many years of trouble free service. It spoiled me for any other table. It would do everything but cook my breakfast! German luxury at its best. Thanks again for another informative video. John from Canada 🇨🇦
History is instructive here. From like the 50s up through the mid 1980s, LPs were king, and turntables were mass produced by big corporations with huge R&D budgets who were in a bit of an arms race to engineer better performance and deliver it at a lower price. Around the early/mid 80s R&D money started shifting away, and into the 90s and 00s the people who still sold turntables were selling stuff that was engineered in the 80s. The vinyl revival brought new entries to the market, but it has been more of a boutique, marketing based economy. In my opinion, the kind of big-money engineering/R&D race leads to massive innovation and tangible improvement leveraging economies of scale, whereas the boutique market is driven a lot more by economies of luxury. Most of the direct drive turntables you can get today, even the new ones, are built on the technology from the 80s developed by Technics, Sony, Pioneer, etc. The old ones are tanks and still perform well. The new ones are priced pretty reasonably and you can probably expect a great product. Meanwhile, belt drive is the staple of the newer smaller companies born of the revival. Many of these perform very well for the price as well, but the wooo factor comes in and all of the high end audiophile charlatans swim in these waters as well. One reason I think the revival has focused on belt drive is that it would be really hard to catch up with the great engineering done on direct drive by the big players up through the early 80s. They've done all the work and own all the IP. So let's move to belts and start talking up how they are actually better.
Very informative! Thanks for making this video. As someone who has an ear for correct pitch, I'm leaning towards direct drive. My old (and first) turntable, the Audio-Technica ATLP60, was driving me nuts because it played at a higher pitch. I replaced the belt and tried to adjust the screw on the bottom - to no avail. (It's now stuck at 26 RPM.) Anyway, I'm on the hunt for a new turntable, but still in the research stage at this point. Because I'm on a budget, I'm leaning towards the Audio-Technica AT-LP120XUSB Direct-Drive Turntable - although I don't really care about USB or Bluetooth. If you have any advice on what should be my next turntable, I'd greatly appreciate it! To me, sound quality and pitch/speed are the most important things. Thanks!
I recently upgraded my turntable from an belt drive audio Technica lp40wn to a pioneer plx-1000, which is a "homage" to the technics sl1200. The pioneer is a direct drive, built like a tank, no headshell or built-in phono preamp ideally meant for dj work, which means the vibration management needs to be more than adequate. So far, Im very happy with the upgrade and can easily recommend this table.
An informative, and enlightening lecture, Kevin. I Subscribed, and thumbs up on this presentation of the 2 main systems - today, of Belt Drive, and Direct Drive category of turntables! Actually there is a third drive system that incorporates an idler wheel that I recently discovered on the Internet; not on RU-vid. I don't know much about that Idler Drive other than Dual still made such a turntable at least up to the early 1970s. From my only experience of having at least two turntables that are operative, I can say with confidence, and certainty that Belt Drives are quiet, have enough isolation, and tonearms that are designed, and engineered very well. And from what I've heard concerning accuracy of speeds, most (in italics) Direct Drive Turntables are very accurate! A friend of mine has a Denon Direct Drive Turntable so there is actual, practical proof there. However, a Belt Drive Turntable may not be very accurate in the department of the 2 main speeds of 33.33 RPM, and 45 RPM. There is also a third common speed, not so popular today; it is 78 RPM. Also, most younger people may not have heard of 78 RPM that was still around up to the very early 1950s. Not that I was around then, just adding more information, and another record speed that should also be considered. That 78 RPM speed is especially for those record collectors of older music classics. I've got a used vintage harmon kardon T25 semi-automatic that is belt drive (1980s), and it can be adjusted for the 2 speeds of 33.33, and 45 RPM. It has a speed control dial, and so there is accuracy in that case. I also lubricated the spindle bearing; from underneath with specialized oil as well, and it took plenty of long, careful work. Nothing in the user manual about lubricating the motor, anyhow. My second turntable is an Odd, used Rega Planar 3 plinth (early 1980s) that I refurbished, and repaired; and I had only a choice of installing a Linn Basik Plus tonearm, that I fortunately found, and bought on ebay. Previous owner drilled a big hole along with three small holes for a DIFFERENT tonearm, not an RB tonearm! Longer story, I don't want to say much more. I mounted a new Audio Technica AT95E MM cartridge. Works well. I also have to re-solder a new Capacitor; but when that modified Rega Planar 3 T. did work, playback speeds were not very accurate. I'm aware that Rega has a renowned, relevant reputation for turntables, and phono amplifiers, but their earlier Planar 3 turntable was not very precise with the two main record speeds. Mostly my opinion. As Stan Lee said, Enough Said.🔉🎵🎶
Thanks for all the feedback and additional info! My personal "main" turntable is an idler drive. Have owned several Duals as well. I doubt we'll see the return of the idler drive, but the nicer idlers were great tables. Thanks again!
Kevin, thanks for another great comparison video. I really enjoy these videos. Just curious, how often would you recommend replacing a belt proactively? Perhaps when you change the stylus? I really don't know how long belts last. I play alot of records. Probably 10 or so a week.
Something little talked about is that belt drive turn tables are not good at maintaining speed with dynamic passages of the music. The transition to a loud passage with a belt drive turntable may cause tiny dip in the speed that is picked up in the hearing. That is the reason that some direct drive turntables as well as idler wheel turntables though seemingly in-perfect (Hello Dual 1019) have a sound that is very addictive and are just more fun to listen to. You will rarely hear somebody describe a belt driven turntable as being fun. You have to have heard (for instance) a Dual 1019 or Technics SL1200 to understand the meaning "fun" in this context. PS, BTW, you can say about Philips what you want but on a technical level they knew what they where doing. They had a quatrz PLL belt driven turntable with the shaft encoder on the platter, in the 80's. Thus in theory combining the best of both worlds. This concept (carried over from their video recorder drive technology) punched way above its (literal) weight. Sadly it was build to a price (as most Philips products where) with cheap plastics in the cabinet.
My main worry about direct driver turntables was always cogging: a 24 pole motor is naturally going to accelerate and decelerate 24 times per revolution, so a directly driven turntable will get these pulses with no mechanical filtration. With a belt-drive turntable, the number of pulses will be multiplied by the drive ratio and the belt will filter them out to some extent. Of course, an electronic servo control, if there is one, should mitigate this pulsing on either. I've certainly heard some direct drive turntables that seemed to have perfect pitch, but I've also heard a few that seemed to have more wow and flutter than their specs would suggest.
I bought a JVC QL-F4 fully automatic quartz lock direct drive turntable when I was a teenager and still enjoy it to this day. Never faltered once. The problem was buying brand new scratched albums. They were just crap materials used that they always had at least one line through the album that would pop with every revolution. The Shure cartridges picked up every groove, wanted or not
YEP. short, sweet to the point. And correct. took all the potential fun out of nit picking. it's to me the only reason to buy LP's now ( I prefer video DVD of concerts be it Grateful Dead, Oregon / Anna Netrebko , La Traviatta / or Diane Krall , Paris.) is the mechanical , visual aspect. I've had a mid 1970's Pioneer belt full auto that still works fine. got a new Thorens belt dr. full auto for no good reason but it looks super. auto or Manual is the issue , and to me I learned long ago (original AR T'table ) that full auto by machine handles the critical needle / stylus contact better than my hands. especially. if 'enhancements' are used.
I always got the impression from DJ's personally that one of the reasons back in the day they preferred the SL1200 was because of its reliability. basically they could throw it in and out of cars and vans and have people spill drinks on them at the club and just all kinds of use and abuse and the turntable would hold up to all of that.
That Pioneer Turntable you showed at the beginning of the video is the exact same one that I had when I was stationed in the Navy at Misawa, Japan 1977-78. If you have one, please let me know. I'm looking to purchase one in good shape or one that has been refurbished and is running well.
Like automatic & have a Technics 1600mk2 , that was imported from Japan. Heavily serviced, tonearm taken apart & new belt &gear . Quartz lock dead on. Platter suspension. US transformer placed . Built like a tank
Could you touch on Amplifier manuals . Things like channel separation , input sensitivity ( 1. 5 m volts ) , turntable wow & flutter , etc . What numbers are good . Thanks
Good overview, but I disagree a bit about isolation and direct drive turntables. Yes, weight helps a lot, but the better Japanese DD turntables from the 80s and into the 90s had brushless, coreless motors and had extremely good signal to noise ratios (or rumble). The SL1200 is great but look at examples like the Denon DP59, Kenwood KP9010, Pioneer PL-50L and PL70L and then the Yamaha GT2000. The s/n ratios were much better than most modern belt drives. I'll admit, I like these for the amount of engineering that went into them.
Thanks for the feedback, Paul. I have no doubt your points are valid. I was definitely painting with a pretty wide brush. More or less, information for a first time turntable purchaser. Appreciate the comment and the view. Kevin
Hey ! Thanks for the video. I tend to over analyse and keep changing my mind as to what my next turntable is going to be. I had a TechnicsSL 1500 c which I sold. I have a Dual CS 429 (fully automatic) on loan to try. I fitted an Ortofon OM blue and the sound is superb. However, I was wondering if I were to fit the same cartridge on the Technics would I get the same result? I'll also be trying out the Dual CS618Q which comes standard with the blue. I'm going crazy ! I do not need fully auto but semi auto is ok like the Technics and the Dual CS 618Q.
Looking forward to your next piece of gear is a good portion of the fun!. It's like cake, you want to at least try most kinds. Right? IMO, both the Technics and Dual are great tables of equal caliber. I would think the cart would be the only difference when it comes to any sound difference between the two. Maybe before trying another turntable with the same cart, try a high output moving coil, like a Denon DL110. A different brand or cartridge type can bring new life into a turntable you might be bored with.
@@skylabsaudio Hey, thanks ! Sold my Technics like a fool. Should have upgraded the cartridge. Anyway, getting another Technics SL 1500c on Friday. Will fit my Ortofon OM Blue or maybe seven the black. I'll have a look at a moving coil cartridge. Thanks
You had a Technics SL-1500C, then sold it? If I knew more about turntables - especially about that semi-affordable SL-1500C, saved up money then, I may have bought an SL-1500C Direct Drive Turntable!
If Dual had made a new DD unit that was fully automatic (and muted during the automatic cycle as the old classic Duals did), that would’ve been my first choice when I was looking for a higher-quality turntable that what I already had. I finally settled on a Sony PS-55X that I liked so much that I wound up buying TWO! Peace.
I think this constant debate about whether direct drive would be worse than belt drive is due to a gross generalization. Historically, direct drive turntables were expensive and only found in radio studios. But it was assumed that when direct drive came to the public, it would take over the market. Just at the time when many were inclined to sell direct-drive turntables, some manufacturers chose instead to refine belt-driven turntables mechanically. During tests, many thought that belt-driven Hi End machines from Linn, Ariston, Thorens sounded better than direct-driven Hi End machines from Technics, Denon, JVC, Micro Seiki. This was often about subjective judgments that cannot be measured such as that the belt driven ones were more "musical" and had a more "stomp the beat" characteristics. The Linn LP-12 became the reference and many misunderstood this and thought that all belt-driven turntables are better. I've had loads of turntables, and just because they've been belt driven doesn't necessarily mean they're good. If you look strictly at measurable things like rumble and Wow and flutter, direct-driven are often better. Now it is the case that when these values are low enough, no human hearing can even notice it, regardless of whether they are direct driven or belt driven. So instead equip your record player with the best possible cartridge you can afford that also fits (compliance) the intended arm and make sure you have a good phono amplifier and your record player will sound good (Regardless of whether it is belt driven, direct driven or idler wheel driven).
there are some belt driven turntables that has a optical speed sensor under the platter so it stays at a consistent speed. I'm wondering why we don't see more belt drive turntables with that feature doesn't seem that expensive to add in.
I have two tables: Thoren TD-160 modified, And Technics ST-1200 Mk 7 . Four cartridges. Retippedtwo: Grace F9, Hana ML. Two other cartridges Audio Technia VM740li and Astatic MF-200. St-1200 is a breeze to set up i find i like big bands and Jazz on Thorne best . ST-1200 is a rocken Roll table, folk rock
Some belt drive turntables have an outboard power supply with 2 speed choices so moving the belt for speed change is not needed . Wish I could afford a Grand Prix Audio DD turntable
Tonearm and cartridge are the only color in the chain. If the turntable is doing it's job, then it's holding speed with tiniest wow and flutter possible and no rumble.
What if you just want to listen to records on a turntable that can play to your JBL blue tooth speaker and start collecting some albums? doesn't the weight and/or balance of the needle arm matter? What price range is a decent option for this?
The best of both worlds not even mentioned? The Idler as in Lenco L75 or some Duals and so on has the advantages of both. I´ve got a Braun PS500 and an L75 and DUAL1019 and love em all. (Besides my CS731, Technics SL1210...)😇
The added electronics in a direct drive is a source of pain if there is a failure. That needs to be serviced by a tech, but a belt is easily user serviceable. Deleting a belt is therefore NOT a simplification if it means adding all the electronics. ( that opinion comes from an EE )
Curious to know, since the SL-1200 seems to be so well liked, just how bad is the much cheaper SL-D1 that I bought new back in the day and still works fine today? After all, it is really 99.99% about the phono cartridge, so long as the platter spins at a constant speed.
I have limited experience(mostly needle-drops), but I would say, because of what Steve did, that you should investigate the newest Technics turntables, and not put them on the same level as the older Technics turntables.
Actually, the reason DJs used direct-drive (or idler-drive) turntables, is torque. It has to do with how they cued up the songs. The stylus was placed in the groove, and the record "back-cued" by hand (one of the reasons broadcast cartridges had to be rugged), to the start of the modulation, then moved forward, a bit. Then the T--T was turned on, and the operator held the record, letting the platter rotate beneath it. When released, the record got up to speed almost instantly.
Way back in college I was a DJ at the campus radio station. The turntables had a round felt mat. We could let them spin under the record while holding the record still and the record was up to speed almost instantly, or back cue it a quarter turn and power the turntable; it just depended on the personal preference of the DJ.
@@j.patrickmoore9137 Yep. And idler and direct drive were better than belt drive, because, at the very least, there'd be some damped oscillations in the speed of the platter, due the the belt's elasticity.
While you are generally correct I can`t help looking at my old beltdriven champ and smile. Wow & flutter? Reference level. Upstart? Ca 30% of a full turn.
Hey there, nice video! I'd like to give you some advice though. This video is way too long. You could have explained all of this in under 5 minutes. Audiences want quick explanation especially while they are researching products. That being said, your set and lighting looks top notch and your audio is really nice too. Just cut the time down on future video.
My careless comment before finishing watching the whole video is: low cost - for best sound quality, belt higher cost and quality - direct drive, for durability and convenience I'm a fan of direct drive, but I've had two of the best direct drive turntables ever make for the mass market. If I wanted the least expensive best sounding turntable, I'd just live with the minor maintenance issue of a belt.
Actually in ultra high end with very few exceptions, the highest cost/quality TTs have been belt drives. The most expensive TT I know is a 700 pound belt driven TT from Techdas that costs almost $500,000.
@@JohnLee-db9zt Yes. So true. At the very high end there are mostly belts again. Let's also not forget the pneumatic and maglev systems. At one time (1950s?) the holy grail for audiophiles was a radio station "transcription turntable" (can play extra large 16" discs) that were driven by an "idler wheel!" You'd think a side/rim driven platter would be plagued by noise, but due to the higher standards that were expected from these pro models, they were apparently among the best sounding turntables ever made, and probably the best at the time. They are still excellent and probably better than most mainstream modern turntables, although I can't say that with complete confidence. I personally favor direct drive if one can afford it as my philosophy about listening to recorded music puts the priority of absolute sound quality a little lower than equipment reliability and durability. I want the best possible sound quality, but not at the expense of reliability and practicality. To me, listening to recorded music is really not about trying to reproduce a live experience. I actually listen to live music every week and don't really think of live and recorded as being on the same continuum. Live music is always sonically very different from recorded. Recorded music offers things that are very hard if not impossible to do live. Both have their virtues, but the pursuit of perfection is very different for live than it is for recorded. Clearly attempting to reproduce live sounds is an excellent way to design a playback system, but ultimately the purpose of most home audio systems isn't identical to the purpose of most live venue amplification systems or performances. If we really wanted live sound, we'd all buy PA systems. If you want to hear your system's shortcomings in stark relief, go to a classical symphonic music performance at a high school or college. Find some of the pieces they played and try them on your home stereo. Then ask yourself what it would take to make the sound of a symphony in your own living room. It's a sobering humbling exercise.
@@AndyBHome Very insightful response. The old broadcast TTs you’re referring to include EMT. A properly refurbished one can cost up to $40-50k. I’m a fan of the classic MicroSeki TTs from Japan from the 70’s-90’s, which were the inspiration for TechDas TTs. Their alloy platter, air-bearing, and vacuum hold down technologies are second to none Imo. The TechDas Air Force 3 Premium is the middle of line and most MicroSeki-like in sound and can hold up to 4 tone arms. The magnetic bearing technology employed but EAR and Le Platine Verdier TTs are pretty esoteric, but I think the air bearing is superior and not prone to wobble. As far as live music goes, recreating at home is possible but requires a huge room at least 20 x 30 feet with 12-13 feet ceilings, with wood framed walls/ceiling that are acoustically treated internally to suppress resonances below 200 Hz, and then encased in concrete outer wall/room with an air gap of 1 foot between the concrete room and internal acoustically treated room. Then you need to treat the inner room with diffusers and absorbers for upper frequencies. That’s just the starting point. You need speakers and electronics that can fill out that room with sound. I figure that’s at least a $500,000 audiophile room/equipment. Only die hard rich audiophiles would go to those lengths. I know a couple ;). The problem with live music is that most venues sound like crap. I’ve only been in two concert halls that were what I consider great acoustically, the Boston Symphony Hall being one of them. The other is pretty much unknown concert hall at a college. I do agree in all practically live music and recorded music are reside in different universes and shouldn’t be compared like apples to apples. For the most part, I enjoy recorded music more than live music because excellent sounding live music is pretty much an unicorn IME.
I used to own a Technics SLB2 belt drive and I sold it once I go hold of a Technics SLD3. The problem with belts is that they start to go a little bit at a time and by the time you notice it, you've already ruined some recordings. Another thing is that the last replacement belt I got lasted only a couple years. I can lock that speed down on my SLD3 with precision and it stays there. I don't notice any background noise either.
Daily Driver, a humble PS-X5. A vote for DD. Rock solid. For me belts always stretched and I had had a few. BTW that big ass Pioneer pl 50 was my favorite belt drive even over the AR. It was a work of art and furniture and it was worthy of a high end cartridge. Not everyone shops in 4 figures.
Belt drive is boring and primitive from a technical point, its just a simple motor on a string. Thats why most TT today rely on this principle, no need for research and developement and the result is quite ok. A good DD is way more complex to manufacture, them motor unit and electronics have to be quite sophisticated to guaranty good wow&fluter and rumble. But i love still those old HQ idler drives most, most are build like tanks and have a lot of expensive precision parts, that today would be be imposible to build for a reasonable price because of economy o scale. Are they better than DD? No, absolutely not, but its like comparing a mechanical swiss watch to a japanese quartz one...
why sit here and regurgitate the same old audiophile tropes? "motor noise" can you quantify DD motor noise? Do belts really isolate? How can it when it requires tension to work?
It is a good point. The real issue for me is.....even though that motor is placed differently, it still in some cases shares the same platform that the platter is going to reside on and thus some motor rumble or noise can be present.
Most direct-drive turntables seem to lack detail compared to belt-drive turntables. Belt-drive turntables compared to direct-drive turntables seem to have a bit of smear(e.g. holding the pitch). Direct-drive turntables have a certain relentlessness to them, as in "let's get the speed right, damn everything else". I think the speed change micromanagement of direct-drives are the main problem. The latest Technics turntables aren't too bad, but still lack a bit of detail. The convenance of the new Technics compared to many belt-drives makes them the choice, until you get to certain high-end(not all of them) belt-drives. I'm generally a belt-drive lover, and own the first table you show.
From what I can gather "peed change micromanagement of direct-drives" (or cogging as it¨s commonly referred to) is/was mainly an issue on really cheap direct drives. A better DD, such as the Technics 1200-series, do not suffer from any audible cogging. If it did that would show up in the rumble specs and the frequency response plot. And it doesn't. According to spec an bog standard SL-1200MK2 actually has lower wow and flutter and rumble than a Linn LP12 for instance. Has anyone been able to measure the cogging thing on a better direct drive? If it's not measureable, it does not exist.
Holy crap? What kind of turntable your guitarist friend has😂. It must really suck. I play 11 instruments including guitar. My belt drive never changes pitch and i play along all the time.
You should have made a clear distinction between audiophiles and DJ's. I fall more into the former category, and getting up to speed quickly is irrelevant to me. Also, the weight of the deck isn't important. For example, look at the top of the range Rega decks - they are reducing the mass of the deck for better sound quality. Not to mention, the 1200 is a really ugly deck.
I disagree. The weight of the platter to reduce rumble is key as well as weigh of the actual casing to absorb any outside vibrations is also crucial. Not sure how reducing this weight helps in these regards.
@@jefffoster3557 The platters on Rega decks are quite heavy, and of course the subplatters matters in that regard too. As for the mass of the plinth, you'd be better off visiting Rega's site and getting their view on that than listening to me pretend I know all the details. I love the design of those high-end Rega decks.
