Direct drive vs belt vs rim vs idler arm

Quite a difference between Nottingham and Linn tt's. The former use massive platters with a low-torque motor. The latter use a light weight platter with a low torque motor. The Nottingham philosophy has merit, IMO. Quite a few very expensive turntables are of the high mass/low torque type, including Walker Proscenium, etc. There are even a few direct-drives that ascribe to the low-torque/high mass approach, e.g., the Kenwood L07D. This can work very well if well engineered. I am not a "Linnie", obviously.

I am always fascinated from technical solutions and an idler drive is THE best (by far) way to transform any vibration and smearing from motor to the bearing and platter. These distortions are called Rhythm (well, the" Subway below Kingsway Hall" in every record), the loss of High frequency information is a result in better Bass (like a compressed MP3 file to the midrange). Most record stations replaced those units as fast as possible. Personally I think, the audiophile world waited for them. Here is a version with an updated motor.

PRAT counts

I'll take belt drive over the over versions and here is why. First, belt drive tt's in general have high mass platters. That provides not just speed stability but also dampening; dampening not just external vibrations but also motor cogging. The mass of the platter provides inertia to help keep the speed constant. For example, my tt has a 14lbs (6.36kg) platter. A 1 gram change in stylus drag (assuming a drastic change in the record groove) generates 0.00155Nm of torque at the outer rim of the record. Assuming all else is constant except for this torque change, the platter is going to lose 0.29% of its speed in 1 second. Of course the motor is going to increase torque to compensate, but for this analysis you can see the impact of stylus drag on the platter. The deceleration is proportional to platter mass, so if your platter weighs 28lbs, then the speed loss would be half or 0.145%. Conversely, the stylus drag will have a proportionally larger impact on lighter flywheels. Motor speed control and belt compliance play a larger roll in speed stability than inertia, but I wanted to point out the value of higher mass platters. Now imagine a low mass platter directly coupled to a motor. Not saying it is impossible, but it is definitely an engineering challenge to smooth out the torque ripples from the motor and isolate the record from external vibrations.

I would posit that one cannot argue from principles alone that one way to drive the platter is superior to another. I say this, altho I do agree with Syntax that idler drive turntables must deal with the issue he cites. Other drive systems have other issues. Tony, what you claim as a merit of belt drive is also a demerit. If the belt is elastic, then you have speed instability due to that. The big fat platter does provide inertia to minimize that problem. If you have an inelastic belt, then vibration (and cogging?) from the motor have a pathway to the platter, and "belt creep" occurs nevertheless. Any deviation from perfect roundness (or flatness) of the belt also can introduce speed instability. I say all this only to support my opening statement; they are all flawed in one way or another.

I never said that the Linn and Nottingham are the same - I was saying they have the similarity of being low torque designs and sounding excellent 'IN THEIR OWN WAY'. I have to say I was never a Linnie myself, however, I heard one with all the Funk Mods and thought it sounded wonderful - I never thought I would ever say that.