2. analog
  3. 123260-117

Do top Idler drive tables fall short to top belt drives in any particular area.

In the current Reed table thread, a user makes mention that he compared running it in Idler mode, and then using a belt. He goes on to write, the belt was superior with decay, and I believe more organic sounding as well. Please don't fault me if I used the wrong word, but that's what I got out of reading it. Certainly it's tough to generalize, since there are always more variables than the turntable itself. I auditioned the Brinkmann Bardo and Spyder tables last year. I understand I'm talking DD vs Belt in this case, but please stay with me. I easily preferred the Belt driven Spyder, to it's DD counterpart. I found decay to be one of the areas where the Spyder won out. It was more organic, and I heard subtle spatial cues that were not as discernable with the Bardo. Now that I'm considering a Garrard 301 in a well implemented wood plinth, this all has me curious to say the least.  



fjn04
lewm
6,770 posts
 
Ochre and fjn, My reference to the Lenco L75 was by way of complimenting it and recommending it to anyone seeking an idler-drive turntable as best bang for the buck and (in my opinion) better than the usual suspects, depending of course upon the extravagance of the restoration and modifications to a Lenco vs to a TD124 or 301.  Mr. Salvatore happened to fall in love with one particular version of a refurbished Lenco.  I don't disagree with him that the Nantais Lenco is excellent (but not the absolute best iteration, IMO). 

I don't know what AS is talking about as regards the need to pay attention to an idler.  All turntables require some level of maintenance.  For an idler, it's the motor and the idler wheel, but the Lenco and Garrard motors are truly built like tanks, have lasted already several decades, and can easily be rebuilt to as new.  Idler wheels wear out and can then be replaced or restored.  These things take several years to happen.  For a belt-drive, many users are constantly fretting about the belt, replacing the belt, upgrading the belt, changing from one type of belt to another, etc.  Then too, the motors on average are less robust than those of the vintage idlers, bearings get noisy, etc.  I am not saying one is worse than another, just that audiophilia nervosa is a risk in both cases.

dhcod
397 posts
 
Any good turntable requires some TLC, as it should be. It's a hobby. I wouldn't want something that didn't need intervention occasionally.

 I don't think there's any right answer to the idler wars. I think any idler can be made to sound great. I would chose by looks and the sensory process of playing a record, if I were you. We all hear differently so what I think sounds good may just not reach your ears the same way and if you want brighter or a different soundstage, there are so many variable elements so you can get what you want on the table you love as a piece of art.
hiho
451 posts
 
Lewm: "Hiho, I don't see how the Garrard geometry alleviates the issue of out-of-round wheels. If its interfacing rubber wheel goes out of round, you would have speed instability just the same."

You are right that out of round wheel would present speed issue just the same but it's much more forgiving provided the wheel is compliant enough. The diameter size of the rubber wheel is less of a speed issue in Garrard/EMT/Lenco style idler-drive table than in the "direct-couple" rim drive genre, which does have the advantage of removing and extra moving part. I still prefer maintaining the relationship of (rigid/metal/pulley) to (compliant/rubber/idler) to (rigid/metal/platter) arrangement. I hope I am explaining this correctly. 



stringreen's avatar
stringreen
5,112 posts
 
I had a belt drive VPI Superscoutmaster which I modded to their rim drive.  I certainly heard a difference for the better after the mod....same turntable, same cartridge, same arm.
More to discover