Albert
I measured those results in my lab on a Garrard motor I know is in good working order. I have also measured several other motors used in idlers and found very similar results. Since the results accord with the theoretical results expected from these designs I have no reason to suspect that they are anything but typical.
You are correct in saying that the torque numbers by themselves prove nothing, with one exception: they prove that the argument over motor torque does not provide a key to the sound of an idler table vs belt drive.
That variable being eliminated, we can now ask "what other characteristics of these tables may result in the sound we hear?"
I nominate two for discussion: the very small degree of mechanical creep in the idler transmission and the very high reflected inertia of the typical idler motor. Which is more important? I don't know. Yet.
I have designed a belt drive which has a very, very low level of creep. It is in the process of being built and will be on show at RMAF in the Galibier room if we get it finished in time. I do not expect it to sound like an idler table, I expect it to sound like a belt drive with the belt creep problems removed.
The drive design allows for the addition of a high speed inertial system. I expect that if this system were added the sound would change; it remains to be seen exactly what this change is and whether it is seen as a benefit. The inertial system is still on the drawing board, it will not be at RMAF.
One of the problems is that the "donor table" has inevitably been designed to perform with a different drive system. Accordingly I've asked Thom to audition the drive on his lowest model table on the grounds that this has had the least attention given to optimising the synergy between the drive and the other mechanicals.
Mark Kelly