All the turntables I've had (not that many in all truth) have all been belt driven. Back in the 70's and 80's it was always (well, nearly) said by dealers that belt driven TTs are superior to direct drive. Is this true? or is it a myth?
-
When should you upgrade your hi-fi? How to control ‘upgradeitis’
A quickie about TT drives...
- Thread starter plastic penguin
- Start date
chebby
Well-known member
There were always poorly executed examples of both.
When I bought my belt-driven Sansui SR222 MKII, I had to make this choice as there were a LOT of cheap direct-drive turntables around back then. (Especially the Sony PS range)
I went for the Sansui because it was made from solid particle board (no cheap, microphonic plastic plinth) and because it sounded and looked great! (Gloss black, clear lid, chromed 'S' shaped arm.)
The most popular example of a good DD was (and is) the Technics SL1200. but that utilised cast metal and solid rubber and was never a 'cheap' option even before the DJs 'discovered' it. It was always 'over-engineered' for a domestic turntable.
The mystery - to me - was how the Dual CS-505 ever managed to sound as good as it did. The original had a thin, hollow plastic plinth, wiggly arm, lightweight platter and a lot of extra bits and bobs for the auto-stop mechanism. (And it could play upsidedown - with a record clamp - due to the spring loaded tracking force and bias.) One of those successful 'freaks' that sounded good despite breaking the accepted rules of what should make a good turntable..
When I bought my belt-driven Sansui SR222 MKII, I had to make this choice as there were a LOT of cheap direct-drive turntables around back then. (Especially the Sony PS range)
I went for the Sansui because it was made from solid particle board (no cheap, microphonic plastic plinth) and because it sounded and looked great! (Gloss black, clear lid, chromed 'S' shaped arm.)
The most popular example of a good DD was (and is) the Technics SL1200. but that utilised cast metal and solid rubber and was never a 'cheap' option even before the DJs 'discovered' it. It was always 'over-engineered' for a domestic turntable.
The mystery - to me - was how the Dual CS-505 ever managed to sound as good as it did. The original had a thin, hollow plastic plinth, wiggly arm, lightweight platter and a lot of extra bits and bobs for the auto-stop mechanism. (And it could play upsidedown - with a record clamp - due to the spring loaded tracking force and bias.) One of those successful 'freaks' that sounded good despite breaking the accepted rules of what should make a good turntable..
I always remember when I purchased my Garrard from Laskys, I looked at a DD turntable yet the sales person redirected me in the direction of the Garrad range. Although around the same price, he was discouraging me away from the DD... I always remember the 5 star TTs from the early eighties were, in the main, belt driven.
A friend had a JVC TT with his system and seemed to notice his TT spun faster than the Garrard, allied to an awful lot of rumble. So always had the notion - and never really questioned the subject - that belt drive was superior.
A friend had a JVC TT with his system and seemed to notice his TT spun faster than the Garrard, allied to an awful lot of rumble. So always had the notion - and never really questioned the subject - that belt drive was superior.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram