Reed Muse 3C turntable

I've only ever listened to the table using the friction drive. My plan is switch over to the belt drive today. I'll report my experience here and on my system page. I too wonder about speed control as the two idler wheels start to wear so I'm going to order some spares.

Reed also sent me their 3p tonearm to try out . I listened to it for a couple of weeks while they were preparing a mounting plate for my airtangent arm. I loved the sound was getting from the Reed arm and table. The soundfield had a better foundation and better bass than I've ever heard in my room. When I put the AT in I heard something quite different. The midrange was incredible and the music had room-filling freedom. I was more in touch with the music emotionally as well. I miss the benefits of the 3p but I prefer the overall presentation of the AT.

One of the things that drew me to the Reed Muse 3C table was the fact that it had a rim-drive (idler drive; friction drive). In my old setup, I replaced the belt drive that came with my table with a Teres Verus rim drive and the sound was greatly improved. When I decided to upgrade my table I was looking for either an idler or direct drive, but had pretty much ruled out belt drives based on past experience and the experience of some folks whose ears I trust.

After listening to the Reed table for a few weeks now using the friction drive, I switched over to belt drive to see how it compared. The switch over was pretty easy and going back and forth between the two drive systems only takes about 5 minutes.

I’m not sure what to say other than; I much prefer the belt drive. Needless to say, I was very surprised by this. There is so much more tonal information with the belt. As notes decay you hear all the overtones and nuances of the instrument – everything just sounds so much more real and this is especially true of instruments made of wood. The belt drive is also more musical. One can follow the line of the music and get what the musicians were intending and feeling, with ease. The belt drive presents better separation between images and the images ‘pop’ with more weight and density. I was expecting a smooth, blended, and homogenous presentation with the belt but with this table (and my arm and cartridge) there is plenty of drive and specificity.

I’d have to go back to the idler wheels to see if there is anything at all I like better about what I hear when they are in the system. Maybe there is greater drive and authority at the absolute bottom end, maybe? As I play with different tonearm and cartridge combinations I will be sure to keep trying the belt vs. friction drive in the table.

Exlibris, Thanks for the candid nature of your post. I suspected that in this design, the belt drive might actually be superior to the rim drive mode. (I think of "rim drive" as the situation where the motor direct drives a wheel which is directly driving the outer rim of the platter, a la the Verus. Whereas "idler drive" describes a situation where the motor drives a shaft that drives a wheel that drives usually the inner rim of the platter, a la Garrard 301/401. The Thorens TD124 is both fish and fowl, the motor drives a belt that drives the idler.) Anyway, I have always thought that if I were ever to go back to belt-drive, the Kuzma Reference would be one of my top contenders, along with one or two others that take care with regard to belt creep and other ills associated with belts. The Muse in BD mode seems a lot like the Reference.

Lewm,
It just proves that there is really no substitute for trying something out and judging for yourself.
I was just looking at your system page. Very nice. I used to have A-1s and MA-2s so I think I have an idea of what it must sound like.
I'd like to hear more about why you like the vintage cartridges over the contemporary MCs. If I look through the thread on your system page do you talk about that there? The reason I'm curious is because after using a few MC cartridges (Dynavector, Kondo, ZYX) I have gravitated to two non-MC cartridges and I actually prefer these. I wonder if the elimination of the step-up transformer is playing a significant role here?