Is Direct Drive Really Better?

Perhaps the original question should have been: Why do belt drive turntables have a reputation for better sound quality than direct drive turnatables? (This ignores the rim drive fans who are definitely a niche market group). With the question phrased like that the answer becomes much clearer. It is in two parts:
1 The Linn/Naim axis in the 70s did a superb job of marketing the Linn LP12 to such an extent that the audio press started to doubt their own ears. The result, only belt drives were worthy of audiophile ears.
2 The japenese giants saw DD as a way of producing TTs cheaply and sacrificed sound quality in name of the God profit.

As a result the point marked 1 became a self fulfilling prophecy in the domestic market. It was only in professional markets (broadcast studios etc) that the true benefits of DD were realised.

Which is better? Neither, each has its own pluses and minuses. Execution is all in the quality stakes. It is a fact that the domestic turntable development suffered irreputable harm at the hands of the Linn/Naim hysteria of the 70s. (That and the arrival of CD) stiffled the development of the TT.

One last thought: I would never buy a turntable without specifications, not because the specs dictate the neutrality of the sound but because if I am to lay out hard cash I want to make sure the manufacturer is not ripping me off and I have something to bash them with if my purchase does not measure as it should

Specs...It is obvious that the sonic character of a loudspeaker cannot be defined by specs, although some things like frequency response can be usefully measured. However performance requirements of a TT (not the arm/cartridge) are so simple that I think that specs can tell the whole story.

1..A TT must rotate the LP at exactly correct speed, and without speed variation for reasonable stylus drag force variation.
2..A TT must not generate a magnetic field at the cartridge.
3..A TT must not generate vibration, for example rumble.
4..A TT must attenuate vibration of the base it is mounted on.

All these can be accurately measured. The only issue is to determine what acceptable values might be.

And remember that the real reason for specs is for the manufacturer to verify that each unit he builds has been properly manufactured and assembled so that it performs as well as the design permits. Use of specs to assess the quality of the design is something extra that people do with specs. It is more valid for TT than for most other audio equipment.

As a proponent of the "niche market" rim drive group, I would suggest that Eldartford omits probably the most important character of the TT-resonance frequencies. I grant that he does mention vibrations. My real question, as always, is how do specs. capture this. Again as always, all I want is to hear the TT. I did hear the Shindo/Garrard 301, and I bought it.

I should say that regardless of how good it sounded, putting it on the Halcyonic base greatly improved it. Again resonances. Would it not be great to have freedom from resonances.

Dear friends: There is other point that " speaks " in favor of the DD system:

from what I know the cutting lathe machines ( that " make " the LP ), like Neumann, Fairchild, Scully, etc, etc, has DD design not BD/IW. Wonder why?, yes you have the answer.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Thanks Teres for elaborating. Guess it's a good thing you feel your product development results have affirmed the theoretical reasoning which preceded them :-)

On somewhat of a sidetrack note, let me toss out a bit of theoretical reasoning of my own. I think almost everbody in the business could have it backwards in placing substantial platter mass out near the rim. I know why it's done, but suspect that in a different sense it might be a disease worse than the cure. IMO it could be much better from a resonance standpoint to concentrate whatever mass is required for inertial effect as close to the bearing axis as possible and make the outer regions as light as practical. I understand this would entail use of greater mass overall if one wanted to achieve an equivalent inertial effect. But locating mass very far away from its point of mechanical constraint (the main bearing) is inviting trouble in my estimation. Given that a platter must have a flat top, I think maybe a parabolically-curved underside, yielding a constantly varying thickness, might work well...something like this half-profile:
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________
______________________________________
____________________________
____________________
______________
__________
________
_______

(Sorry, the system doesn't permit the full illustration without justifying it, so imagine it mirrored with the bearing axis at the left margin.) Of course the bearing-point itself would be up inside the shape, slightly above its center of mass. Looking at this, I wonder if possibly the York TT that Fremer has sometimes pictured in his column might not have a similar platter profile, but I don't really know and can't think another myself. But if it does, that makes more sense to me than the common approaches. End of off-topic musings...