yea the new Yamaha has a tonearm that is completely straight with no offset. wtf??
I think Micro went back to belt drive due to the fact that Technics, Pioneer and Denon spent so much on DD research and development that MS could not keep up.
Belt Drive Turntable sucks ? What do u thk
- Thread starter audioblazer
- Start date
yea the new Yamaha has a tonearm that is completely straight with no offset. wtf??
I think Micro went back to belt drive due to the fact that Technics, Pioneer and Denon spent so much on DD research and development that MS could not keep up.
Yet this GT-5000 has garnered very favorable reviews, in spite of its unfashionable arm design. Zero offset arms trade one significant compromise (bias compensation force) for another (increased tracing errors compared to offset arms), so this is very much a matter of choosing your compromise. Viv Labs arms have no offset and similarly seem to confound accepted wisdom when it comes to arm geometry.yea the new Yamaha has a tonearm that is completely straight with no offset. wtf??
I think Micro went back to belt drive due to the fact that Technics, Pioneer and Denon spent so much on DD research and development that MS could not keep up.
That aside I don't quite understand why Yamaha designed this turntable to be belt driven, when marketing a good direct drive design would (IMO) have been easier.
With after all of that R&D into direct drive, do you think the best DD tables from Technics, Pioneer, and Denon sound better that the big belt drives from Micro Seiki?
I guess they consulted extensively with the still living engineers of the GT 2000 table, and claim their decision was made on the basis of sound quality rather than topology prejudice. The turntable took a few years to develop, but they used the old fashioned industrial committee methods of spinning off prototypes with talented listening panels and designer inputs from various disciplines to refine the final concept.
The underhung arm also created some wrath and gnashing of teeth in places like pink fish media and Steve Hoffman's site. However, the underhung arm was already Yamaha's path to its ultimate high end vinyl playback way back in 1985 (YSA-2 tonearm), and the current arm is their update of the concept.
A cartridge in general has 2 points on a record where it is exactly on axis (with a non linear arm). It will therefore be off in all other cases. The choice now is to figure out where you will benefit the most of an exact alignment and where it will give the least issues if not.
Guru_protractor.pdf (vacuumstate.com)
Guru_protractor.pdf (vacuumstate.com)
Attachments
Last edited:
Without belaboring the controversies, the theory of the underhung arms is that pragmatic tracing behavior with the ultimately determinative forces at the groove will always trump the theoretical mathematical 'tracking' stuff belabored by the various over hung gurus and 'other arm' proponents. So, they make a distinction between 'tracing' and 'tracking', since tracking theory does not necessarily result in real world better tracing behavior. You close one can of worms in vinyl, you seem to open up several others no matter what you choose. (Hmm, is it better to be over hung than under hung? Guess that's another biologic controversy).
The 'under hung' arm has a single null point, requires no anti skating or other elaborate groove correction, compensating artifices required of over hung arms. The claim is that you get better groove tracing and phase coherence as a result.
I have the table and something works, because within the limitations of my customary cartridges and vinyl chain, it is the most detailed vinyl playback I have heard. That would tend to support the phase coherence argument, but don't ask me to wade the installed fanaticisms of the other arm types.
IMHO i think speakers, then cartidges, then phono stage then arm, then amp make often a bigger difference than comparably priced turntable drive types - in fact hate them though I do cables go higher up the list too...
I do have a couple of caveat and one is to do with torque - to my ears decks with a higher torque time much better particularly in heavy complex passages. I changed an Airpax/phillips to a powerful Berge Lars on my Townshend Rock Elite and i likened the change to focusing a lens Likewise, and secondly, the trough on my Townshend is revelatory (i've tried it with one of DD's and it worked there too)
I have multiple decks for the fact that I just simply love turntables if I am to be perfectly honest, as much as I love DD, I must admit I often come back to my belt drive decks...
I do have a couple of caveat and one is to do with torque - to my ears decks with a higher torque time much better particularly in heavy complex passages. I changed an Airpax/phillips to a powerful Berge Lars on my Townshend Rock Elite and i likened the change to focusing a lens Likewise, and secondly, the trough on my Townshend is revelatory (i've tried it with one of DD's and it worked there too)
I have multiple decks for the fact that I just simply love turntables if I am to be perfectly honest, as much as I love DD, I must admit I often come back to my belt drive decks...
Over the years I have owned 3 tables: Rockport Capella II belt drive, Brinkmann belt drive and most recently a highly modified Gates CB-500 idler. The Brinkmann has a soft sound that never excited me. The Rockport, with its linear tonearm, was very good, but at the time it was coupled with the wrong electronics, so I did not experience the best that it could be.
The Gates idler has something special: DRIVE/Pace/Transients. Piano attacks, violin staccatos, drum beats, etc. are unrivaled (in my limited experience) with the Gates. Keep in mind, the Gates has a 0.25HP motor (driven by Longdog Audio's quartz turntable power supply II) with a newly designed idler wheel that drives a 75 lbs. platter (17" outside diameter). yes, 17". The Gates is a broadcast table from the 50s. I am trying to fine tune the speed stability with a goal of 0.03-0.05% Wow/Flutter. The bearing is a completely new design that I created over the past 10 years. No vertical mechanical contact point and radial bearing can be used in either oil or dry with lower than teflon coefficient of friction. The bearing is very quiet and smooth. I forget the exact number, but the platter spins for 4+ minutes after the idler is disengaged. Lots of inertia to rip through those challenging transients / horizontal vinyl modulations.
I would love to get your recommendations on a potential motor replacement. The 0.25HP AC motor is big and has a slight vibration that is not audible, but I still think that replacing it with a smoother motor would be beneficial. Any ideas on a motor replacement?
The Gates idler has something special: DRIVE/Pace/Transients. Piano attacks, violin staccatos, drum beats, etc. are unrivaled (in my limited experience) with the Gates. Keep in mind, the Gates has a 0.25HP motor (driven by Longdog Audio's quartz turntable power supply II) with a newly designed idler wheel that drives a 75 lbs. platter (17" outside diameter). yes, 17". The Gates is a broadcast table from the 50s. I am trying to fine tune the speed stability with a goal of 0.03-0.05% Wow/Flutter. The bearing is a completely new design that I created over the past 10 years. No vertical mechanical contact point and radial bearing can be used in either oil or dry with lower than teflon coefficient of friction. The bearing is very quiet and smooth. I forget the exact number, but the platter spins for 4+ minutes after the idler is disengaged. Lots of inertia to rip through those challenging transients / horizontal vinyl modulations.
I would love to get your recommendations on a potential motor replacement. The 0.25HP AC motor is big and has a slight vibration that is not audible, but I still think that replacing it with a smoother motor would be beneficial. Any ideas on a motor replacement?
Banpuku, contact Audiophile Bill, I believe he has sourced a modern motor for his Gates renovation.
Not sure. While I have a couple of great Japanese DD, I have not heard a MS 5000 or 8000 at home.
I am sure both sound different thou and both sound great.
Without claiming any particular specific expertise myself, the cullings over the years from the various critics and commentators seem to fall into generalized observations about each topology:
DD: energetic presentation (for better or worse), possibly dry, possibly with so so bass
Belt: smooth (for better or worse, maybe too smooth) but capable of hefting very large desirable mass effect platters
Idler: PRAT (real, imagined, or whatever), with enjoyable rumble intermodulations and dither to spruce things up.
I can't see any problem with any of these in well executed efforts. However, it does allow a 'fashion cycle' for sales promotion, rotating the various types, where the 'old' suddenly become new again. And, maybe a few religious wars for entertainment.
DD: energetic presentation (for better or worse), possibly dry, possibly with so so bass
Belt: smooth (for better or worse, maybe too smooth) but capable of hefting very large desirable mass effect platters
Idler: PRAT (real, imagined, or whatever), with enjoyable rumble intermodulations and dither to spruce things up.
I can't see any problem with any of these in well executed efforts. However, it does allow a 'fashion cycle' for sales promotion, rotating the various types, where the 'old' suddenly become new again. And, maybe a few religious wars for entertainment.
Both Schroeder and Schick are anti-belts too.
As for others, most of the idler experiences are at the low budget of TD 124, Garrards, and Lencos. Extremely few have heard the Saskia and/or a good restore of the 927 or Commonwealth.
For directs, there are a lot of experiences around restores of technics. Again, very few have heard a newer DD like Kodo or wave kinetics. Apart from Technics, Monaco is probably the only DD that is more widely available to hear (Mad Mike had sp10mk3, monaco, kodo, wave kinetics, apart from Garrards and Saskia and CS Port...just saying. Oh and the Rockport which again very few have heard).
Do vintage DDs like Micro, Technics, Pioneer, Kenwood, Luxman sound similar? Anyone?
So, it is difficult to make any judgements given how easy it is to hear multiple belts. And there are good belts and bad belts and a whole spectrum, so why people generalize only with DD and idler am not sure. I found nothing to generalize between TD 124, Garrard, and Lencos that I heard, nor between them and EMT 927. You really cannot listen to a Kuzma and pass judgement on a vyger or vice versa.
One client of Steve Dobbins owned his restored Garrard, turned down his SP10mk2, then compared the mk3, and both he and his friend sold the Garrards for the mk3 immediately. If there is so much difference between 2 and 3, why bother generalizing?
As for others, most of the idler experiences are at the low budget of TD 124, Garrards, and Lencos. Extremely few have heard the Saskia and/or a good restore of the 927 or Commonwealth.
For directs, there are a lot of experiences around restores of technics. Again, very few have heard a newer DD like Kodo or wave kinetics. Apart from Technics, Monaco is probably the only DD that is more widely available to hear (Mad Mike had sp10mk3, monaco, kodo, wave kinetics, apart from Garrards and Saskia and CS Port...just saying. Oh and the Rockport which again very few have heard).
Do vintage DDs like Micro, Technics, Pioneer, Kenwood, Luxman sound similar? Anyone?
So, it is difficult to make any judgements given how easy it is to hear multiple belts. And there are good belts and bad belts and a whole spectrum, so why people generalize only with DD and idler am not sure. I found nothing to generalize between TD 124, Garrard, and Lencos that I heard, nor between them and EMT 927. You really cannot listen to a Kuzma and pass judgement on a vyger or vice versa.
One client of Steve Dobbins owned his restored Garrard, turned down his SP10mk2, then compared the mk3, and both he and his friend sold the Garrards for the mk3 immediately. If there is so much difference between 2 and 3, why bother generalizing?
Last edited:
For precisely the reason that no technology is superior I have at home a Garrard 301 (Idler), SP10Mk3 (DD) and MS 8000mk2 (Belt). They are all good and none wins convincingly over the others imo. They also impart very different flavours allowing one to pick and choose depending on your mood and music choice. Now all I need is one TT where you can switch between all 3 modes of propulsion with the flick of a switch.
Last edited:
How about a combination ? A belt driven TT with a DD motor to support it and adjustable between both (dual platter)?
Then there can be a new discussion about the setting between belt driven TT and DD, that would be fun !
Last edited:
Hi Howie,
There seem to be a couple of examples with dual mechanisms out there but none with all 3 from what I have seen.
Oh really? I never came across one and not sure if it's a good idea. Seems as though you wouldn't be able to maximise the potential of either system if both were present.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |