I posted an almost identical thread on another audio site and receieved only one response, which was a bit surprising and disappointing. Maybe more ST'ers will respond to this one.

I've stated my enthusiasm for my recently-acquired Dual CS-5000 often, as well as the fact that it's the best sounding turntable I've ever owned. I've owned quite a few, but none in the genuine "audiophile" range - the Dual CS-5000 is the first venture into that area (in turntables, at least) for me.

Audiophiles have long eschewed direct drive over belt drive, and the fact that all the high-end turntables from dedicated high-end manufacturers have both straight tonearms and belt drive makes a pretty powerful statement in support of those two parameters. I fully understandd (and agree with) all the arguments for a straight arm over an S-shaped arm, but wonder what the reasons are for the support of belt vs. direct drive.

The one major argument I've heard often is that direct drive robs a system of bass. Frankly, I never gave this much credence until I got my CS-5000. With the exception of an AR turntable purchased in 1964, almost all of my turntables were either rim driven, or direct drive, and I have to admit that the substantial improvement in bass response on the 5000, in terms of tonality and depth, not just quantity, gives a lot of credence to this belief. Frankly, other than the huge difference the AR turntable made over the cheapo Garrard AT-6 that it replaced, NO other turntable out of the dozens I've owned made as much of a sonic difference as did the 5000.

Is this because of belt drive? Perhaps, but I think it's basically a combination of the drive system and a well designed, low mass tonearm. Still, I'd like to hear from other ST'ers as to their take on the debate between the two drive systems, and just why audiophiles overwhelmingly support the belt drive system over any other.

Here's a good link taht has a decent description of the differences. Hope it helps. http://www.turntablebasics.com/advice.html

Not having any experience with turntables to speak of (other than my Yorx), I would think that it is impossible to make a realistic comparison between the two drives on completely different TTs. That would be comparable to doing a Goodyear vs Firestone tire -*test*-('"), but using a Ford Bronco for one and a Chevy Blazer for the other. There are too many variables that have nothing to do with the tires themselves.

I would think the same would hold true for belt vs direct drive turntables.

I have only ever had one direct drive tt, I have had several belt driven tables. They both have the pluses and minuses and you can argue both ways, for me it has come down to the tables I have prefered without taking into account the drive have turned out to be belt driven but not neccesarily for the reason of being belt driven.



Jim

Don't you think the reason you have more bass could be the cartridge?

No. I'm using the Stanton Collector's Series C-100, which I used in the last three turntables I owned.

do you think it has anything to do with turntable padding?

honestly, I don't know jack sh*t about TT's, but I thought I'd take a stab at what could possibly be the problem.

"Turntable padding?" I don't know what you mean.

Any turntable's purpose is to rotate the platter at a precise speed, and to reduce any form of mechanical or electrical noise coming from the drive system. A phono cartridge is an extremely sensitive device, readily able to pick up (no pun intended) just about anything from a rotating record's groove.

With direct drive, the platter and motor are one and the cartridge rests above it/them. As any motor generates an electromagnetic field, I suspect it's entirely possible that such a field generated by a direct drive motor is picked up by the cartridge and that such information interferes with the material the cartridge is designed to trace from a record's grooves. this is only a wild guess, but it does seem logical.

The differences I'm hearing on my CS-5000 are no doubt related to both the belt-drive system and the tonearm, not just one or the other. I'm so pleased with it, and now an "almost believer" in the superiority of belt vs. direct drive, that I'm gearing up for the purchase of a new, legitimately high-end, audiophile belt-drive turntable. It'll be a while, but it should be fun when that day comes!

oh!

by turntable padding, I meant the piece of foam that some people put under their turntable to isolate it more from the speakers. probably a far from correct guess!

I can sorta see why a belt drive would be smoother, as the motor is not quite so close to the platter--or is this wrong too?

and, the heavier the platter is the smoother it should be, either way.

The theory of belt drive is to isolate the motor from the platter, and yes the heavier the platter the better, it then functions as a flywheel helping to keep a constant speed.

My Fairchild has two belts, a belt from the motor to a pulley, form the pulley to the platter.



Jim

Belt drive, direct drive and idler drive are merely DIFFERENT way of achieving the same goal, and result in different sounds as a result. Frankly, anyone who states that one is better than the others should be viewed with suspicion.

In general, you will find that a well designed idler or direct drive turntable will tend to have better bass as the motor is better coupled to the platter in these cases, making transient wow less of a problem - this is where the stylus encounters a highly modulated section of groove and the resultant friction causes the platter to momentarily slow. It is not perceptible as speed variation unless really bad, but can have a tendency to rob the music of its dynamics and pace.

However, as you have found, a good belt drive (Dual CS5000) will still have better bass than a more basic idler deck (Garrard AT6) - this is due to the quality of the parts used in them, and their design, rather than the particular methodology that they utilise to turn the platter.

A good turntable is a good turntable, a bad one is a bad one. The method by which they operate has little to do with this.

I´ll second Beobloke´s opinion.

There are plenty of examples of outstanding turntables from all camps, just as there are lousy ones. My Thorens TD-124 even has a mix of Belt / iddler drive, a rare case indeed, but one which has proven to be highly sucessful.

Any turntable is much more than its driving system. The Chassis, suspension, or lack of it, the bearing ( almost always forgoten and a crucial piece in the whole assembly - just look at the size of the bearing housing in Jim´s Fairchild ), the plinth, the arm, the cartridge, the motor and the drive system cannot be seen as isolated items, but as "systems".

Jorge

I appreciate everyone's posts to this thread. As stated in my opening post, I had posted an all but identical thread elsewhere (AR) and had received only one response. Since then, I've received a good many others, but the direction the thread took afterwards was pretty awful.

Aside from a few very useful comments as to the reasons audiophiles prefer belt to direct drive, as well as a bunch of other pretty useful stuff, one poster all but verbally eviscerated me repeatedly, claiming that belt drive was inferior to direct, S-shaped arms better than straight, and that the Technics SL-1200 was far and away the best turntable ever made by anyone, anywhere, ever, and that my Dual CS-5000 was a lousy turntable, etc., etc..

This fellow repeatedly misquoted me, and mixed up statements within my posts to "prove" how inconsistent and false my beliefs were, and used the somewhat questionable comments from KABUSA as all that he needed to substantiate his beliefs as to the superiority of both direct drive, and the sacrosanct SL-1200 as a "turnable without peer."

I did my best to soften this guy, stating again that, while I truly believe the SL-1200 is a very good turntable, it is by no means an audiophile turntable. Needless to say, that didn't go over very well.

As this guy's posts became increasingly frequent, and increasingly nasty, the thread was ultimately locked by a site mod, which was probably all for the good.

I'm certainly greatful that we at ST have no such posters, and that should someone like that crop up, our site mods will quickly ban him, as personal insults (calling one a "sissy," stating that that person's gay, and speaks with a lisp) has no place on any audio website.

Ed,

I´m sorry you had to go through that kind of crap at the other forum. I just can´t understand how some people get so uptight over something that should be a form of entertainment. It is a sad reality, though, that radicals and "truth holders" are everywhere.

Having said that, I must point out that no one has ever been banned from ST. We must all be very proud of that fact. We really are a friendly bunch and I believe it shows. That´s probably why fight pickers probably don´t pick on us, we´re just too nice.

Well said Jorge, if there was only one 'right' way then there would not be so many choices. If we all saw, heard and felt the same things there would be nothing to discuss, we each have our own opinion, right or wrong they are our opinion, we should have the oportunity to express them and others should respect our right to our opinion, that does not mean you have to agree, but not agreeing is not the same as lashing out at someone, nothing has ever been gained by attacting someone elses opinion, we are all different. Otherwise we would all be married to the same woman, drive the same car, listen to the same music and so forth.

Jim