A Happy New Year to you all from Canada!! I have recently had some very interesting experiences with regards to both DDs and Idlers, and the effects and importance of Direct Coupling, having had the opportunity to compare the servo-controlled Sony 2250 - which according to common wisdom is an OK DD until one gets to the serious/classic Technics SP10 MKII (which is to DDs as the Garrards are to idlers according to the common wisdom) - and the Technics SP-10 MKII. Results have a bearing as well on the Lencos and their motors.
Both DDs were set up on plinths of equivalent mass and construction. While the Sony can be Direct Coupled, having, like the Garrard 301s, holes for bolts to pass through, the Technics SP-10 MKII sports integral bolts which must be tightened to the plinth from underneath. Construction of the Technics, as well, means that unlike the Lencos holes cannot be drilled through the bottom to achieve Direct Coupling.
The Sony is servo-controlled, which according to the accepted understanding (i.e. press and industry promoted this view to the point where it was accepted wisdom; same process as led to the hegemony of the Belt-Drive) is inferior to quartz-locking, as servo-control leads to endless hunt-and-seek as it endlessly responds to speed variations caused by stylus force drag, thus seriously affecting overall speed stability. Quartz-locking provides an independent reference (the regular pulsing of the quartz crystal), not responding to speed variations brought on by stylus force drag (interesting that while both idlers and DDs were built to combat stylus force drag, belt-drive was not until much later in its history, or via a very few Japanese manufacturers and Thorens with their massive models, via the use of massive platters), and so was deemed and pronounced the superior system. As with belt-drives, I had accepted this as true as well, though I had accepted the superiority of the belt and so never investigated this further until after I had discovered the Idlers.
After I had already been seduced by the Idlers and started the original Home Despot thread, I investigated the DD system via Technics' SP10 MKII, as the only "threat" to the Idler, the Technics being pretty well THE DD to have (as with the Garrards for the idlers). I built one into a truly massive Giant plinth, and found that despite great neutrality, information-retrieval and bass detail, reach and control, it could not match the Lenco for fluidity, PRaT or musicality, while not being able to beat it in the aforementioned audiophile areas. And this was in the days before Giant plinths and Direct Coupling (which yield HUGELY better results). The Technics also had a characteristic "dry" sound which is reminiscent of digital artefacts. While these experiments were going on, I tripped over as Technics SL-1100, Technics' first DD (in fact, the first DD ever built and marketed I believe), and servo-controlled. It came with a removable armboard as standard, mounted with a Grace 707. Now, by this time I had pretty well dismissed DD as dry and unmusical overall (compared with both Idlers AND Belt-Drives), so imagine my suprise when I plugged it in and found it to be both fluid and musical!! When, eventually, a Sony 2250 motor unit ('table/chassis same as the Garrards designed to be built into a plinth with separate tonearm) came my way, a servo-controlled unit, I jumped on it to test it out, as I had come to the conclusion that quartz-locking was the problem, which was audible to human ears via a sort of sampling ratio (the quartz pulsing), resulting in both dryness and a constriction/reduction of the dynamics.
The Sony 2250 has going for it heavy and superb construction, ESPECIALLY the main bearing which is superior to the Technics. But its platter is lighter than that on the Technics, it has less torque than the Tehnics, and its construction, while excellent, is not as heavy as the Technics. The Technics, in addition to this, has a large and hefty separate power supply/quartz-locking reference. It would seem on the surface of it to be the superior machine, even by idler standards (i.e. more torque). To even the playing field, I plugged the Sony into a Monster power conditioner. I was shocked to hear by just how much the Direct Coupled Sony 2250 outclassed the Technics when I switched the handy-dandy RS-A1/Denon DL-103"E" combo from one to the next, playing the same source material. I had thought that due to the Technics' various advantages, it would outclass the Sony in strict audiophile terms (detail, imaging, etc.) while the Sony would take it for fluidity, PRat and musicality. But switching the tonearm fror one to the next was, first of all, like doubling the volume control on the preamp, dynamics were HUGELY superior to the Technics! In addition to this, bass was deeper on the Sony, detail was VASTLY superior, as was clarity and transient speed. On first audition, using an "a capella" tune, the Technics seemed to be telling the truth. But switching to songs with instruments, the truth of the Sony's superiority became evident. The digital/"neutral" sound of the Technics, as with digital media, was mistaken for truth. But music should be first and foremost musical, and this type of neutrality (flatness/lack of colour) is in fact a severe colouration. Some, however, are seduced by this sort of bogus "truth". Music is NOT cold and analytical, as so many audiophiles seem to believe it should be but, in its natural state, musical and rivetting.
Finally, I mounted the RS-A1/Denon combo on the Giant Direct Coupled Lenco, and the gap between it and the Sony was as significant as the gap between the Sony and the Technics. But, the Sony has PRaT, musicality, fluidity and extreme detail (just not as extreme as the Lenco) and, given a better power filter (a frequency regenerator which does not rely on quartz-locking, if such a beast exists) and a better platter (you can't mess around with platter mass with DDs, as the mass of the platter is carefully calculated into the drive due to the extreme slow revolution of the motor, 33 1/3 RPM at 33 1/3, and 45 RPM at 45). The solution for the Sony is then, the Boston Audio Mat 1, which being made of graphite should not weigh much, but add much-needed solidity to the platter. Who knows how good the Sony would then be? I hope to answer this question eventually. But I will say this: in standard trim but with a power supply/filter/regenrator, I will challenge all Technics SP-10 MKII and EMT DD owners, as I did the Lenco vs belt-drives, and go around crushing these fabled machines, and lay to rest another suspect Dogma :-). I throw down the gauntlet ;-)!! I have every confidence that a Giant Direct Coupled Sony 2250 will outperform an EMT DD. Hopefully chances for these shootouts will materialize.
So what happened with the rise of quartz-locking in the case of the DD? Well, precisely the same process as occured with the rise of the Belt-Drive vs the Idler, a program of misinformation and the acceptance of the judgment of "experts" by the general population, in contradiction to their actual auditory experience. As with the idler which had superior PRaT, gestalt, dynamics and overall musicality to that achievable by belt-drives, the press and industry simply declared all these sonic/musical attributes as subjective and thus illusory, and so removed them as issues. In addition, the rising Belt-Drive Hegemony saw the DD as a threat (to profits as well as belt-drives are MUCH cheaper to manufacture), and came up with the criticism of the servo-control system in order to nip it in the bud. The industry (Technics) responded with the quartz-locking system, which with the appropriate measurement system yielded very impressive measurements indeed, and damn all that subjective stuff. It became the standard, and the opposition of the belt-drivers (fluidity/musicality) vs the DD-ers (analytical/"truth"/control) was born, the Idler for the moment releagted to a simple footnote in history.
One more lesson to be learned: though the Technics has far more torque than the Sony, the Sony STILL beat it by a very significant margin, meaning that torque only takes you so far. Of course, the Tehnics' torque is contantly reined in and so defeated by its own quartz-locking mechanism, and the Sony's ability to be Direct Coupled makes more effective use of what torque the Sony does have (i.e,. Direct Coupling to a high mass goes a LONG way to stabilizing whatever motor system is used). Extrapolating with respect to the Lenco's own Mighty sonic results, we see that the Lenco motor is FAR better than it is generally considered to be, as its fluidity and audiophile performance is still vastly superior to that of even the Sony (so far), while having considerably more torque.
Digesting all these results, the most effective DD should in fact resort to no cuircuitry/correction whatsoever, apart from clean electric power, and rely instead, as with the Idlers/Lenco, on pure mommentum/mass of the platter to even out the motor's imperfections (a delicate balancing act) in order to achieve perfect - i.e. FLUID - speed stability. THIS machine (torque and build of a Technics SP-10 MKII and main bearing of a Sony) might challenge the Mighty Idlers!!
Recently I Direct Coupled a quartz0locked Technics SP-25 (it can be Direct Coupled, but has a lighter platter and less torque and lighter construction) to a high-mass plinth and achieved far more musical results than from the bolted but heavier SP-10 MKII, so soon I will compare the two to see how much Direct Coupling increases overall musicality.
For the moment anyway, the Idler is at the Top of the Analogue Heap, Vive la Idler, Viive la Lenco!! Enjoy your respective projects/experiments all!!
Both DDs were set up on plinths of equivalent mass and construction. While the Sony can be Direct Coupled, having, like the Garrard 301s, holes for bolts to pass through, the Technics SP-10 MKII sports integral bolts which must be tightened to the plinth from underneath. Construction of the Technics, as well, means that unlike the Lencos holes cannot be drilled through the bottom to achieve Direct Coupling.
The Sony is servo-controlled, which according to the accepted understanding (i.e. press and industry promoted this view to the point where it was accepted wisdom; same process as led to the hegemony of the Belt-Drive) is inferior to quartz-locking, as servo-control leads to endless hunt-and-seek as it endlessly responds to speed variations caused by stylus force drag, thus seriously affecting overall speed stability. Quartz-locking provides an independent reference (the regular pulsing of the quartz crystal), not responding to speed variations brought on by stylus force drag (interesting that while both idlers and DDs were built to combat stylus force drag, belt-drive was not until much later in its history, or via a very few Japanese manufacturers and Thorens with their massive models, via the use of massive platters), and so was deemed and pronounced the superior system. As with belt-drives, I had accepted this as true as well, though I had accepted the superiority of the belt and so never investigated this further until after I had discovered the Idlers.
After I had already been seduced by the Idlers and started the original Home Despot thread, I investigated the DD system via Technics' SP10 MKII, as the only "threat" to the Idler, the Technics being pretty well THE DD to have (as with the Garrards for the idlers). I built one into a truly massive Giant plinth, and found that despite great neutrality, information-retrieval and bass detail, reach and control, it could not match the Lenco for fluidity, PRaT or musicality, while not being able to beat it in the aforementioned audiophile areas. And this was in the days before Giant plinths and Direct Coupling (which yield HUGELY better results). The Technics also had a characteristic "dry" sound which is reminiscent of digital artefacts. While these experiments were going on, I tripped over as Technics SL-1100, Technics' first DD (in fact, the first DD ever built and marketed I believe), and servo-controlled. It came with a removable armboard as standard, mounted with a Grace 707. Now, by this time I had pretty well dismissed DD as dry and unmusical overall (compared with both Idlers AND Belt-Drives), so imagine my suprise when I plugged it in and found it to be both fluid and musical!! When, eventually, a Sony 2250 motor unit ('table/chassis same as the Garrards designed to be built into a plinth with separate tonearm) came my way, a servo-controlled unit, I jumped on it to test it out, as I had come to the conclusion that quartz-locking was the problem, which was audible to human ears via a sort of sampling ratio (the quartz pulsing), resulting in both dryness and a constriction/reduction of the dynamics.
The Sony 2250 has going for it heavy and superb construction, ESPECIALLY the main bearing which is superior to the Technics. But its platter is lighter than that on the Technics, it has less torque than the Tehnics, and its construction, while excellent, is not as heavy as the Technics. The Technics, in addition to this, has a large and hefty separate power supply/quartz-locking reference. It would seem on the surface of it to be the superior machine, even by idler standards (i.e. more torque). To even the playing field, I plugged the Sony into a Monster power conditioner. I was shocked to hear by just how much the Direct Coupled Sony 2250 outclassed the Technics when I switched the handy-dandy RS-A1/Denon DL-103"E" combo from one to the next, playing the same source material. I had thought that due to the Technics' various advantages, it would outclass the Sony in strict audiophile terms (detail, imaging, etc.) while the Sony would take it for fluidity, PRat and musicality. But switching the tonearm fror one to the next was, first of all, like doubling the volume control on the preamp, dynamics were HUGELY superior to the Technics! In addition to this, bass was deeper on the Sony, detail was VASTLY superior, as was clarity and transient speed. On first audition, using an "a capella" tune, the Technics seemed to be telling the truth. But switching to songs with instruments, the truth of the Sony's superiority became evident. The digital/"neutral" sound of the Technics, as with digital media, was mistaken for truth. But music should be first and foremost musical, and this type of neutrality (flatness/lack of colour) is in fact a severe colouration. Some, however, are seduced by this sort of bogus "truth". Music is NOT cold and analytical, as so many audiophiles seem to believe it should be but, in its natural state, musical and rivetting.
Finally, I mounted the RS-A1/Denon combo on the Giant Direct Coupled Lenco, and the gap between it and the Sony was as significant as the gap between the Sony and the Technics. But, the Sony has PRaT, musicality, fluidity and extreme detail (just not as extreme as the Lenco) and, given a better power filter (a frequency regenerator which does not rely on quartz-locking, if such a beast exists) and a better platter (you can't mess around with platter mass with DDs, as the mass of the platter is carefully calculated into the drive due to the extreme slow revolution of the motor, 33 1/3 RPM at 33 1/3, and 45 RPM at 45). The solution for the Sony is then, the Boston Audio Mat 1, which being made of graphite should not weigh much, but add much-needed solidity to the platter. Who knows how good the Sony would then be? I hope to answer this question eventually. But I will say this: in standard trim but with a power supply/filter/regenrator, I will challenge all Technics SP-10 MKII and EMT DD owners, as I did the Lenco vs belt-drives, and go around crushing these fabled machines, and lay to rest another suspect Dogma :-). I throw down the gauntlet ;-)!! I have every confidence that a Giant Direct Coupled Sony 2250 will outperform an EMT DD. Hopefully chances for these shootouts will materialize.
So what happened with the rise of quartz-locking in the case of the DD? Well, precisely the same process as occured with the rise of the Belt-Drive vs the Idler, a program of misinformation and the acceptance of the judgment of "experts" by the general population, in contradiction to their actual auditory experience. As with the idler which had superior PRaT, gestalt, dynamics and overall musicality to that achievable by belt-drives, the press and industry simply declared all these sonic/musical attributes as subjective and thus illusory, and so removed them as issues. In addition, the rising Belt-Drive Hegemony saw the DD as a threat (to profits as well as belt-drives are MUCH cheaper to manufacture), and came up with the criticism of the servo-control system in order to nip it in the bud. The industry (Technics) responded with the quartz-locking system, which with the appropriate measurement system yielded very impressive measurements indeed, and damn all that subjective stuff. It became the standard, and the opposition of the belt-drivers (fluidity/musicality) vs the DD-ers (analytical/"truth"/control) was born, the Idler for the moment releagted to a simple footnote in history.
One more lesson to be learned: though the Technics has far more torque than the Sony, the Sony STILL beat it by a very significant margin, meaning that torque only takes you so far. Of course, the Tehnics' torque is contantly reined in and so defeated by its own quartz-locking mechanism, and the Sony's ability to be Direct Coupled makes more effective use of what torque the Sony does have (i.e,. Direct Coupling to a high mass goes a LONG way to stabilizing whatever motor system is used). Extrapolating with respect to the Lenco's own Mighty sonic results, we see that the Lenco motor is FAR better than it is generally considered to be, as its fluidity and audiophile performance is still vastly superior to that of even the Sony (so far), while having considerably more torque.
Digesting all these results, the most effective DD should in fact resort to no cuircuitry/correction whatsoever, apart from clean electric power, and rely instead, as with the Idlers/Lenco, on pure mommentum/mass of the platter to even out the motor's imperfections (a delicate balancing act) in order to achieve perfect - i.e. FLUID - speed stability. THIS machine (torque and build of a Technics SP-10 MKII and main bearing of a Sony) might challenge the Mighty Idlers!!
Recently I Direct Coupled a quartz0locked Technics SP-25 (it can be Direct Coupled, but has a lighter platter and less torque and lighter construction) to a high-mass plinth and achieved far more musical results than from the bolted but heavier SP-10 MKII, so soon I will compare the two to see how much Direct Coupling increases overall musicality.
For the moment anyway, the Idler is at the Top of the Analogue Heap, Vive la Idler, Viive la Lenco!! Enjoy your respective projects/experiments all!!