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.
Im 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.
Id 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.