• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Numbers behind belt drive and direct drive.

toroechado

toroechado

Listening
Subscriber
Hi guys:

I recently bought a Technics SL-1800 Mk2 and I'm very happy with it, after fixing it's suspension of course. I have been reading a lot about it and I found this.

http://vintagetechnics.co.uk/turntables.htm

After reading the tech specs of the Technics, I wondered if all those much more expensive belt driven turntables can really beat these numbers. I could not find any so detailed specs of any hi-end turntables (or at least higher end than the Techics). If anyone can post any link with measurements or technical specs of hi-end turntables, it would be interesting to compare.

All I could find about expensive turntables were reviews and tests that looked more like wine review than a precision machine review "It sound is delicious, full-bodied, with plenty of punch" or somethings like this.

Yes, I know that not everything is in the tech specs but I'm curious about them. I agree with the idea that 'good sound' is relative so, cannot be explained with just numbers but also I'm engineer so I know good numbers mean good design.

I don't want this to be another direct drive vs belt drive thread, I just want to compare the technical specs or measurements of both systems letting the subjective adjectives apart by a moment.

Greetings from Mexico.
 
Last edited:
Register to hide this ad
toroechado said:
Hi guys:

I recently bought a Technics SL-1800 Mk2 and I'm very happy with it, after fixing it's suspension of course. I have been reading a lot about it and I found this.

http://vintagetechnics.co.uk/turntables.htm

After reading the tech specs of the Technics, I wondered if all those much more expensive belt driven turntables can really beat these numbers. I could not find any so detailed specs of any hi-end turntables (or at least higher end than the Techics). If anyone can post any link with measurements or technical specs of hi-end turntables, it would be interesting to compare.

All I could find about expensive turntables were reviews and tests that looked more like wine review than a precision machine review "It sound is delicious, full-bodied, with plenty of punch" or somethings like this.

Yes, I know that not everything is in the tech specs but I'm curious about them. I agree with the idea that 'good sound' is relative so, cannot be explained with just numbers but also I'm engineer so I know good numbers mean good design.

I don't want this thread to be another direct drive vs belt drive thread, I just want to compare the technical specs or measurements of both systems putting the subjective adjectives apart by a moment.

Greetings from Mexico.
Click to expand...

Not sure what numbers you're impressed by. The only tables I saw with a rumble better than -80db was the SL-M1, SL-M2, SL-MA1. Those numbers are with brand new bearings. Not sure what the specs would be on a 20+ year old table.
 
Hmm.. if anyone could post factual specs of these tables with -80dB rumble or better i'd be very interested in seeing that. Wouldn't be surprised to hear vintage tt's still hold their own in this regard.
In my mind, -70 overall snr is alright since many records won't meet that spec anyway. But of course the quieter the better.
 
Here's what's impressive... You can find a quartz DD Technics TT like my SL-Q3 for around $100-$200 on the 'Bay, get a decent cartridge for around $200, and enjoy it's -78 db s/n, .025% w & f, and decent tone, with relatively little money spent! Not bad when compared to the new stuff out there...

For about $300 more you could buy a belt-drive Pro Ject Xpression III, and only get .73db s/n, and .1% w & f.

At about $1,200 more, you could get a belt-drive Marantz Reference TT15S1, with the only slightly improved .80db s/n spec, and yet horribly inferior .2% w & f spec!

Technics are reliable, stable, and tough... though their tonearms typically leave a little to be desired. There are undoubtedly better sounding TTs out there. However for the money, nothing new will come close. Plus, Technics TT's can be improved with better tonearm wiring, adding platter and plinth damping, and a better quality platter mat. After looking at what's out there in the sub-$1000 market, I think I'll just keep my old Technics.
 
Last edited:
In previous posting by AK member ETI_5000 some Sansui direct drive turn tables have pretty impressive numbers.:music:

Sansui XP-99

Sansui XR-Q9

Sansui XR-Q7 *
 
Six of one ...

A quality direct drive is usually more accurate when it comes to speed control. Then again, you've got your hybrid quartz lock belt drives that adjust under load that are just as accurate to the ear. A well designed belt drive is better able to isolate the vinyl from the mechanicals. All tables will wear and go off spec over time.

Either way, the differences are minute enough that they shouldn't be all that noticeable during normal use.

Boils down to whatever blows your hair back. I'd pay more attention to setup than spec. The best of tables can sound like shite in the wrong hands.
 
Replacing the belt on a turntable is worse then replacing belts on vacuum cleaners. That why I have a Technics SL-10.
 
Last edited:
When I was a child of 3 years old my sister's hi-fidelity music system broke. The records would not play. The turntable stopped rotating as if the whole earth had stopped rotating. This was a year or two before stereo was released to the general public. The Moody Blues were the first rock and roll performance to be released in stereo it was called Deramic sound. I hope this answers your question.
 
I can change the belt on my pl-41 in less than 5 minutes, drunk. I imagine I could do it in 30 seconds on the Concept.

It's very rare that a belt just fails without prior warning.
 
The better belt drives in the 1970’s and 80’s were quite similar in performance to similar price direct drives, based on independent testing that was done then. It’s only recently (last 10-15 years) that hi-fi reviewers stopped measuring turntables, as calibrated test records stopped being made. Before then, wow and flutter and rumble measurements were regularly done, and figures such as -43dB unweighted and -75dB weighted rumble were recorded for turntables such as the Rega Planar 3, which was very similar to direct drives of the late-70’s with similar prices. Wow and flutter figures were also quite competitive.

Micro Seiki (who also made direct drives for a while) also recorded excellent figures for their better belt drives, as did Linn, Thorens, Ariston and Sota. Cheaper belt drives, such as the low end models from Japanese makers, or European makers such as Dual or Philips, usually weren’t quite as good as direct drives, but they were usually good value for money.

The performance figures do depend on how new the belt is with belt drives, and when they are getting old performance will suffer.
 
sm19422 said:
When I was a child of 3 years old my sister's hi-fidelity music system broke. The records would not play. The turntable stopped rotating as if the whole earth had stopped rotating. This was a year or two before stereo was released to the general public. The Moody Blues were the first rock and roll performance to be released in stereo it was called Deramic sound. I hope this answers your question.
Click to expand...
Small correction - it was released in Deramic sound, which was a variant of stereo. The first performance in stereo was classical and occurred in the 1930s. Wikipedia has the information.
 
sKiZo said:
...A well designed belt drive is better able to isolate the vinyl from the mechanicals.....
Click to expand...

I never understood this claim...a DD deck doesn't have "mechanicals". It's just a platter being pushed along by magnetic repulsion.

ETI_5000 said:
... It’s only recently (last 10-15 years) that hi-fi reviewers stopped measuring turntables, as calibrated test records stopped being made. Before then, wow and flutter and rumble measurements were regularly done, and figures such as -43dB unweighted and -75dB weighted rumble were recorded for turntables such as the Rega Planar 3, which was very similar to direct drives of the late-70’s with similar prices. Wow and flutter figures were also quite competitive.
Click to expand...

Back in the day, Magnavox/Collaro measured each TT individually before they left the factory. Not that the specs were impressive or anything, but they did measure them.

Magnavox%20023%20%281024x576%29.jpg
 
Aerobat said:
I never understood this claim...a DD deck doesn't have "mechanicals". It's just a platter being pushed along by magnetic repulsion.
Click to expand...

Really? No spindle in a bearing sleeve? No rotational thrust point? I wonder what could be producing the rumble numbers in the first place :scratch2:
 
Just an observation;
Some drives seem to 'listen' better than others regardless of technology and numbers. F.I, many DD TTs went to simpler 4-coil planar motors (Sony, ReVoX, Pioneer, I think Goldmund) and didn't suffer worse measurements spec, yet comments on their sonic acceptability abound.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom