It is up to you to decide what interests you or is too long for you to read. But, unless you are the arbiter of how long a posting should be, or you somehow believe that your opinion is paramount, what was the point of posting TLDN?TLDR. Seriously?
A lathe benefits from the speed stability/torque provided by DD. As far as I know, the cutting process is not accompanied by actual playing the master using full range speakers, so acoustic vibration from that source is not present. In a home setting floor and air vibrations can affect the record player. The problem with DD was never 'cogging' or 'hunt and peck' speed variations. It was that almost none of them had any suspension to speak of, allowing mostly LF vibrations to break through.After Lyrec stopped making lathes and the motors in the mid 70s, Neumann used Direct Drive DC motors sourced from Technics. So, for all the belt drive turntable fans, I am afraid you are listening to Direct Drive records.
This means that the test discs cut on these lathes have lower performance than the turntable they are measuring.
As far as I know, the cutting process is not accompanied by actual playing the master using full range speakers, so acoustic vibration from that source is not present.
A lathe benefits from the speed stability/torque provided by DD. As far as I know, the cutting process is not accompanied by actual playing the master using full range speakers, so acoustic vibration from that source is not present. In a home setting floor and air vibrations can affect the record player. The problem with DD was never 'cogging' or 'hunt and peck' speed variations. It was that almost none of them had any suspension to speak of, allowing mostly LF vibrations to break through.
I'm a big fan of the Technics direct drive linear tracking turntables. The SL-10 and SL-7 were exceptional. Aside from some sub 20hz rumble, they're very quiet. The SL-7 has less rumble than the SL-10 even.
The whole design is a styling excercise, there is no proper engineering in it to isolate properly, the hanging weight does nothing of any value as far as accurately playing a record is concerned.A question for the TT experts here. Doesn't hanging that huge counterweight that low create some troublesome mechanical lever effects with respect to lateral vibration?
Now, wow & flutter and rumble. Ladegaard shows that these measurements can change with different tonearms, all other things being the same. It also shows they aren't very useful. As I said, the paper is well worth the read.
How can we do better ?I can take an indexed reading from a W&F track 5 or more times in a row and never get the same reading twice.
I don't think we can really and since the W&F inherent in imperfect records is probably at least as high as most record players the record player is not often the main culprit for poor W&F.How can we do better ?
What should we measure and how?
Higher, if you've noticed the way the inherent eccentricity of test discs has to calculated out of W&F measurements. There are no test discs that can match the W&F numbers of a decent turntable.I don't think we can really and since the W&F inherent in imperfect records is probably at least as high as most record players the record player is not often the main culprit for poor W&F.
Even the very best record players have quite poor speed consistency compared to CD.
I have two SL-10s, an SL-Q5, and an SL-6 in the album sized, Technics TTs. The iconic SL-10s have become so expensive these days, whereas I got the other two for very little money. To me, they all perform much the same. Did your SL-10s come with a working EPC-310MC? Unfortunately, mine came as usual, de-cantilevered. I missed an SL-10 with working 310MC that was up for sale a mere 100kms away from where I live as I was in New Zealand at the time. The Australian site where it was listed would not allow international sales. By the time I got home, it was gone, only later did I think I should have just sent my brother to go buy it sight unseen - it was $120aud.
Even the very best record players have quite poor speed consistency compared to CD.
There are no test discs that can match the W&F numbers of a decent turntable.
There is an LP by the guitarist George Cromarty, about 19 minutes a side. Ten years ago, maybe a little more, I was transferring the LP to a digital format in the hope of being able to reissue the recording commercially. My click repair got rid of most [not all] audible surface defects on my mint copy. The project was abandoned in the hope of finding a better source. Yesterday, looking up the artist on YouTube, I found that LP posted as a single file, so no demarcation of tracks. Not an official issue. Initially I thought [hoped] that the source tape was found. Backgrounds are close to silent, the usual surface noise issues were dealt with very effectively. However, moving the cursor to the 19:00 mark I heard the congestion I always hear with IGD. One would think a recording of a solo acoustic nylon strung guitar with limited dynamics would not be a challenge to cut to vinyl. If this was an orchestral recording with the climax of the finale in the last track on an LP side over 19 minutes in length, the distortion would be awful, obvious, in your face. This recording has the textures thickened as the stylus approaches the deadwax.Two turntables I've lately used are a Garrard Z-100 (synchronous motor, no electronic servo speed correction, but idler reduction drive coupling the platter to a tapered pulley) and an SL-1200 (quartz PLL). In practice I can hear no wow and flutter or other speed related artifacts using commercial pressings from the '50s to the present.
In fact, I can't recall a time when I was really noticing speed related variations on any record player, from early idler Garrard/Duals, AR belt drives and knockoffs like the Thorens, and later Japanese DD, both with and without quartz regulation. I think that since at least the mid 1960s (when I became interested in the hobby) the issue of audible speed related artifacts in the turntables themselves have been moot. I'm not talking about tonearm differences, or acoustic feedback related problems. I only mean the perception of speed variation over time.
Those with better ears for this sort of thing will no doubt think and act differently, but my eyes roll when I hear people complain about the 'audible' effects of DD cogging v speed consistency with belt drive.
From my perspective the basic limiting 'sonic' factor when using records are records themselves, not so much what they are played on.
As an 'old timer', the only thing that would interest me now would be a modern high quality record changer, since I like to put a couple of discs on the Garrard when I'm casually listening, doing something else. Or in order to stack my 45rpm EP sets. Convenience. But very few people are interested in buying a record changer anymore, so they will likely never be made ever again; if you want one you have to buy second hand, hoping for the best.
Some people are much more sensitive to it than others. Despite my musician training (such as it is), I am not particularly sensitive to it.Seeing this topic pop-up again I remembered that Knowzy.com has LOTS of turntable reviews & recommendations. Well, maybe "summaries" rather than "reviews". He doesn't do measurements and he's focused on low to mid-priced turntables for digitizing vinyl.
BTW - I've never actually heard wow or flutter from a turntable or tape machine unless it was broken.
Long term speed drift would likely be noticeable for someone with perfect (or even really good) pitch hearing ability. On piano music or classical guitar I don't discount someone hearing flutter on a old changer..The worst speed variations I've heard were with rim-drive 'tables. I somehow didn't get rid of the cheap, plastic and dependable belt driven Panasonic turntable that my wife has had for over 30 years. Amazing how well it functions considering it would have been considered a throw-away 'table even in its own time.