why does my cheap TT sound better

[440hz]

I have been using a technics SL-1700 with grado MM cart for some time.
Its a direct drive TT and easy to set up, I have been very happy with the
sound.

A few weeks ago I bought a technics SL-23, a dirt cheap belt drive with a
particle board plinth. I posted some pics in this thread

I ended up putting new pots for the speed adjustments and changed the
caps in the motor control PCB as the speed of the platter was all over the
place, now it is rock solid.

Here's the problem, this cheap TT sounds fantastic compared to my 1700
which I thought sounded very good. I have tried a couple of different carts
on both machines and the sl-23 sounds so much better. I can't pin down
exactly what it is but the belt drive seems more alive or something, that
sounds stupid but I can't put the difference into words. The direct drive
sounds dead and boring in comparison. Is it possible this is due to the
different tonearms or the platters?

I am now thinking about getting a good belt drive/tonearm combo. I might
have to sell a few bits of gear to help fund it. Any suggestions on a great
belt drive set-up for around $1000.

 

[Rybeam]

Your observations may explain why there are no high end tables that are direct drive.

 

[mhardy6647]

Probably (semi-educated gues) it's the belt drive vs. DD. Any speed fluctuation of a DD (e.g., 'cogging') goes straight to the platter, as does any noise generated by the motor. The belt acts as a filter and as a buffer.

The SL-23 is a pretty old table... particle board or no, it was fairly robust for a massmarket Japanese table.

Did you swap headshells/cartridges between the tables? As I read it, your post was a little vague on how systematically you investigated the difference you heard ("I have tried a couple of different carts on both machines and the sl-23 sounds so much better"). Tracking/alignment (even antiskating) may be set more accurately on one than the other?

 

[Sansui Louie]

I agree with the above poster. How scientific *was* your A/B comparison?

To really compare the two fairly, you'd need at the very least to have two identical cartridges, each set up properly for each turntable, with the same record. If this is not the case -- for instance, if you have one kind of cartridge, or even an older, worn cartridge of the same model/make on one turntable and a different one on the other, well, your results are flawed. If you have one cartridge on a headshell and are swapping between the two turntables, your overhang and azimuth may be different as well.

I'd bet that something like this is what's causing you to hear a difference between the two turntables. A cheap belt drive isn't likely to sound better than a good DD.

 

[440hz]

I agree with the above poster. How scientific *was* your A/B comparison?

Well I am actually a scientist by day, and I can tell you my comparison
wouldn't cut it for publication but it was good enough to convince myself
I was hearing a real difference. I didn't say I A/B compared them but I
aligned the carts for each table. I have tried both carts listening to different
records at different times.

I have a pretty good ear, I play music also, and maybe I should qualify
what I mean when I say the belt drive sounds better. This belt drive
isn't the last word in hi-fidelity by any means, thats why I want to get
a better one. The DD still sounds good, and to be fair I would pick the
DD over THIS belt drive if I could only keep one. Probably sounds contrary
to what I have said, but the DD is a better day to day TT in some ways.

This belt drive has a problem with acoustic feedback at high volumes, it
doesn't like having a heavy record clamp on it due to its little motor I think,
the platter is much lighter than my DD and that just bothers me for some
reason. And the DD is just really well built.

BUT, the belt drive even with all of its flaws has something that my DD
lacks. I have them both set up in my rack and I keep going back to this
crappy belt drive. I can swap the carts and I still go back to it.

I suppose its possible my 1700 is the problem, maybe it has a worn out
bearing, or some other problem. But I just want to get the most I can from
my LPs and I can't ignore what I am hearing. Rather than upgrade the DD or
get a better one, I think I might try a belt drive thats all. I know its a stretch
to compare these two decks and blame everything on the drive mechanism,
but if I am going to get a good TT, I want to spend my money on something
I will really enjoy. And I would be happy to spend money on a belt drive that
sounds as good and perhaps better than my cheap one, while addressing the
issues I have with this little sucker.

I appreciate your thoughts on this though, I still want to make an informed
decision on what to look for.

 

[stylus_guy]

For what it's worth, ther are a number of factors that can affect the sound quality of a given turntable. A decent belt drive with a composite wood base will usually sound better than a direct drive (or even another belt drive) in a plastic case. Isolation and absorbtion of unwanted resonances is key to reducing colouration. The tone arm will obviously also make a deciding factor in the sound quality.
You're right that finding a better belt drive table with a good arm and cartridge will give you much better listening pleasure. A Dual 505 or better should be your minimum starting point. You might be lucky to find something like a good used Ariston with a nice arm for bargain price. Regas are a good choice as well but are hardv to find at bargain prices. Good luck with the hunt

 

[goldear]

Very real differences in sound exist between turntables. And many of these differences simply cannot be explained as a matter of wow-and flutter, or rumble as many would have your believe.

And yes, about the only high-end turntable to ever use DD was the Goldmund. Virtually all others have used belt drive before and since (I am purposely ignoring the rim-drive varieties like the TD-124). So I would have to conclude that there is probably some very strong reason for this trend.

You can get many excellent used older tables for under $1k. Some older units that I would recommend looking into would include: the Thorens TD-125, TD-126, TD-150, TD-160 Even better is a table like the Linn LP-12, which can often be had for not too much money on the used market. But there are some issues that must be considered with vintage units like this that include: potential shipping damage if purchased by mail (very likely), and potential bearing darmage, if a turntable has been moved much at all (especially likely with the sintered bronze bearings like Thorens uses).

If you have to go the mail-order rout, then you might want to consider looking at one of the current variety of middle-end TTs that can be found at online retialers like audio advisor. Many of these are actually very nice units, and can be had for under $1k.

Good luck!

 

[doug s.]

Your observations may explain why there are no high end tables that are direct drive.

this would be true, except that it isn't.

ever hear of goldmund, nakamichi, rockport, micro-seiki, kenwood, luxman, technics? there's a reason why folk still pay thousands of dollars for a technics sp10, mk-II or mk-III. and as much, or more, for the others i mention. sometimes a *lot* more. maybe you're not familiar w/some of the hi-end offerings of d-d decks by some of these mfr's.

in this case, since the sl1700 is a not-too-distant relative of the sl1200, i would suspect something is either defective, or not set up properly. while i personally prefer shopping used in this (or any) price range, for those shopping new, in the $500 range, i would put a technics sl1200 at the top of their list. or, if they're wanting to spend a bit more, then a kabusa modded sl1200. these are killer decks; don't knock 'em if ya haven't tried 'em.

ymmv,

doug s.

 

[Sansui Louie]

in this case, since the sl1700 is a not-too-distant relative of the sl1200, i would suspect something is either defective, or not set up properly.

I'm with this guy. Something's not right. A low end plasticrap belt drive Technics is not going to take down an SL-1700 Technics if the playing field is level and all other considerations are equal. Something isn't right.

And for you high-end belt drive afficiandos, you *may* have a point that a belt drive turntable costing roughly $1000 or more new may, possibly even will take down a high end direct drive, but some $125 mid-fi belt drive sure as hell isn't going to. Remember, the Japanese manufactures in the era in which these two tables were made put the Direct Drives at the top of their line and used Belt Drives for entry level. Right, wrong, or indifferent, that was the situation at the time.

I don't know how one *could* fairly set up an A/B at this point. Each table would have to be swapped into the same exact location in the room, and the same cartridge would have to be re-mounted, re-aligned, etc. etc., for it to be fair, and because the owner already has a psychological bias towards the belt, the time that would elapse in setup would be enough to cloud objectiveness between trials.

Even something as simple as a dust cover can get overlooked, but play a huuuuuge difference in what each turntable sounds like. The poster mentions that the belt drive came without a dust cover in another thread. If the dust cover is still in place on the 1700, depending on the room and volume, that could make things entirely unfair in the belt drive's favor, particularly if he's not using any sort of isolation.

But I'll tell you what...since the poster isn't too happy with the SL-1700, I'll gladly take it off his hands! Bottom line is this...if it makes YOU happy, enjoy it!

 

[B3Nut]

I've heard really good things about the SL-1200 + M97xE combo, a A'goner posted an in-depth review of that rig. I don't remember if he had the KAB silicone-damper gadget installed on the arm or not, but good things were said and the 1200 itself is an impossibly robust machine. If I ever buy a new 'table that's what it's gonna be. Steady and musical, and I can tune it if the record's off, too.

TP

 

[Micropassatman]

B3,

Do you have a link to that A-G setup and review? I'd love to read it.

 

[doug s.]

...And for you high-end belt drive afficiandos, you *may* have a point that a belt drive turntable costing roughly $1000 or more new may, possibly even will take down a high end direct drive...

*NO WAY* a retail $1k belt drive deck will take down this deck; forget about hi-end derect drive decks:

http://www.kabusa.com/KAB_AST.htm

ymmv,

doug s.

 

[440hz]

hmmm I didnt realise there was a rivalry of sorts between belt drive and
DD turntable users. Don't fight fellas, lets gang up on the digital format
people instead LOL.

I don't know how one *could* fairly set up an A/B at this point. Each table would have to be swapped into the same exact location in the room, and the same cartridge would have to be re-mounted, re-aligned, etc. etc., for it to be fair, and because the owner already has a psychological bias towards the belt, the time that would elapse in setup would be enough to cloud objectiveness between trials.

I understand what you are saying, and I am the first person to advocate
thorough testing to debunk cable myths etc. But to be fair to me Sansui.L
I never had a psychological bias toward the belt drive when I noticed this,
I paid $300 for that 1700, no that is not a typo, too much? well maybe
but I thought Technics DD were the dogs bollocks because I used to DJ
in clubs (years ago) and owned 4 x 1200MKIIs.

Could there be something
wrong with the 1700? for sure, could set up be an issue, I doubt it they
have both been checked and recheck and checked again, they have been
swapped in their positions, I have played the 1700 with lid on AND off.
But what I am hearing is not subtle, it is very significant, when I first
played the belt drive (I bought it with the intention of cleaning it up
and reselling it) I was shocked, it wasn't even keeping accurate speed
but the sound had a quality that just really had my jaw dropping. I had
already spent a lot of time setting up my 1700, and many more hours
listening to it. The first thing I did was forget the belt drive and put the
same record on the 1700. I thought there has to be something wrong
and started checking everything on the 1700, spirit level to check it was
positioned level, cleaned the contacts on the head shell and tonearm,
got the protractor out, stylus force, antiskate, swapped carts, everything.
I 'wanted' the 1700 to sound better it has pride of place on my rack.

Now I suppose in a way it is correct, of course I do have a bias
towards the belt drive NOW, the bloody thing showed up weaknesses
in my 1700! I love that 1700, the engineering and build quality are beautiful.
I have considered getting another 1200 instead of a better belt drive to
replace the 1700. I remember those sounding so good, even with my
Stanton 500mkII carts they sounded great at the time, but I am worried
that I am just relying on memory, and what if they don't sound better
than my 'possibly' flawed 1700?

I still 'want' the 1700 to sound better, I started looking for a different
cart, thought maybe the one I was using was a poor match for the tonearm
or something. I know that there is a problem now because I think the drive
mechanism might be responsible, but intellectually I still think a DD could
be even better than a belt drive. Shouldn't a good DD be able to
respond and adjust speed on the fly, getting continuous feedback as it
goes? Is that another reason to have a massive platter on a belt drive,
does it compensate for any changes in stylus drag by the shear fact that
they are insignificant in comparison the the energy stored in the spinning
platter?

I have so many questions now.

BTW I really appreciate the feedback you guys are giving here, including
the feedback that questions what I believe I am hearing. I am still open
minded enough about this to see both sides of the argument here. If I
had the money I would just buy a great technics DD and a great BD and
enjoy them both

 

[440hz]

aaahhhh you guys have got me looking at SL-1200s again. I was originally going to get a 1200, then I opted for the 1700. I think there is a big difference between these 2
decks as far as how they are built. Do I go for another DD? I was getting convinced
belt drive was the way to go but now I am finding I still have a soft spot for the 1200.

How many people are using the 1200 and how does it compare to the 1700?
I have to give up this hobby its too much work

 

[VinylHanger]

Is it possible that you are just hearing the differences in the two designs. I've always felt that my belt drives are a bit more delicate in sound, whereas the DD's seem a bit more solid sounding. Neither is better, just different. I prefer the DD sound, though I spin my belt drive TD-145 most lately since it is set-up and I'm too lazy to put anything else in the system. I really prefer my TD-124, which is both belt and rim drive, though the comparison isn't really fair to the reast of my units which are mid level at best. Second favorite deck I ever had was a little T-35 H/K deck. So I guess it just matters what you like and what sounds good to you.

 

[Beobloke]

Personally, i've always thought that the sound of a turntable is to do with whether it is well designed and made and is comparitively little to do with what drives the platter. There are good and bad belt, direct and idler units out there!!


Having said that, i would expect the SL1700 to be better than the SL23!!

 

[440hz]

OK I have played around with these two decks some more and I think I
can describe the difference I am hearing a little better. The thing I am
noticing the most is the DD sounds 'muddy'? or not as detailed as the
DD. Its almost like a low level of distortion that is evident especially
through the mid and bass frequencies.

In contrast the belt drive sounds crisp and more detailed, the frequencies
are more seperated than on the DD. I would almost say there is a kind of
droning sound to the DD, but its not really obvious, it was only when
I listened to the belt drive I could instantly hear the absence of that
quality in the sound.

LOL I just realised you are probably thinking, droning sound? that 1700
must be stuffed and this guy is as deaf as a post if he didn't hear it
right away. Seriously though, although the overall sound is vastly
different, picking that particular quality out of the sound isn't easy but
it is there even though the DD is very quiet between tracks.

I am suspicious of the DD now and I feel there must be a slight problem with it,
nothing really obvious at first but I am sure it is there. It is possible I prefer the
sound of the belt drive and therefore perceive the differences as imperfections, but I reckon it has issues.

As for the belt drive, I thought I fixed the speed stability problem, well I fixed part
of it, now it has an intermittent problem where the speed cycles up and down, I think
the chip is bad on the servo controller board thingy, I might try to find a replacement,
just so I can sell it to someone in good condition.

I am now definately looking for a TT to replace the 1700, that will either be
a belt drive or a 'good' SL-1200 I still haven't decided on that.

But I'll tell you what...since the poster isn't too happy with the SL-1700, I'll gladly take it off his hands! Bottom line is this...if it makes YOU happy, enjoy it!

I think the shipping would be too much to make it worthwhile, plus I am
convinced there is a problem with it so not sure you would want it. I
might keep it for my workshop, its not like it is terrible to listen to, just
not audio nirvana.

Thanks for the input guys, I still haven't completely lost faith in DD turntables
just looking at the options now.

 

[440hz]

Well if nothing else I am persistent. I think I solved the problem with the 1700!

I was sitting at the computer and the damn thing crashed, I went into the
living room to put on a new record. I have been looking at the modded
SL-1200s on the net while at work today and the fluid damping add on
was still in my mind for some reason. I was looking at the 1700 and thinking
I wounder how hard it would be to knock up something like that for other decks.
I remembered how it fitted near the height adjustment ring on the 1200s,
which made me think of how there is no height adjustment on either the
1700 or SL-23. Then it hit me, I had tried swapping mats etc but how did
the tonearm height and resulting VTA compare?

The SL-23 tonearm sat parallel to the record surface with my thick mat,
but the 1700 record surface was too low with this mat in use. When I
bought this deck the original mat was missing, instead it had a DJ slipmat
on the platter. I had a thick nice quality Denon mat that did the job nicely
BUT it need to be thicker to get the tonearm parrallel to the LP surface.
I placed the slip mat under the rubber mat as a temporary fix just to try
and guess what. It sounds bloody fantastic!

I would have found it hard to believe this small adjustment could make so much
difference but what a difference it does make. Has someone got an original
SL-1700 mat they can tell me how thick it is out of interest.

I tell you what it goes to show how much more challenging it is to get a TT
set up correctly than CD, but it is a lot of fun. I think it is wonderfull you can
gain so much from simple tweaking. Thankyou everyone for suggesting there
might be a problem with set up. I was sure everything was right but I am still
learning how to do vinyl right. I thought there was a more serious problem with
this TT, I had to remove the slipmat a couple of times because I couldn't believe
the difference it was making.

Something like a new SL-1200 is definately on my list of possibilities now
A long while back before I bought the 1700 I asked if people used
1200s on an 'audiophile' forum, I naively thought a lot of people would use them
beacause I used to think they were one of the best TT you could buy, I knew
nothing about the really high end stuff that was out there. Some of the people
there just about laughed me out of the place, they said it was a DJs turntable
and not for serious hi-fi. Well I like what I like, I still want a better TT, I might
still go for a belt drive in the end, but at the moment I can't say for sure, I will
take peoples advice, shop around and buy the one that does it for me.

 

[mg196]

My TT choices are based on ease-of-use as much as sound! I prefer FULLY automatic tables. I like to drop vinyl on the platter and press a button. No muss, no fuss.

Some people here may enjoy the act of gently placing the needle onto the LP, but I really dont care! I use a Technics SL-D3 as my main table.

 

[Rybeam]

I am all for any type of table and the people that use them. But......

I have always had a problem with plastic, and style over function, most of the Japanese tables use too much of both. I have owned and used Germany made tables for over 30 years. Miracords, Duals and I am working on a PE at this time. They are a great buy, heavy and solid. I recently learned to remove the spring suspension on these tables and bolt them down to the wood base and than add mass. I was able to frame out the inside of the base with short pieces of 2X4, and put a 5 pound bag of aquarium sand in the bottom. Try that with the short molded Japanese table bases. In my experience weight equals good sound in tables. I have a Dual 1209 with a Shure M91ED sounding absolutely silent between tracks with gut punching bass and killer highs, I was honestly shocked at the change.

Yesterday I took the bait from Amazon and have a new Shure on the way, see if I can take another step up in sound.

I am no expert but I also have two Technic tables, an Onkyo, Sanyo, Sony an old Garrard, BIC and a BSR, plus my Dual salvage yard out in my shed. I have always liked playing with turntables. Thinking about getting a Rek-O-Kut to jack with.