Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mmm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!mmm!schley
From: schley@mmm.UUCP (Steve Schley)
Newsgroups: net.audio,net.consumers
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Turntable Controversy
Message-ID: <171@mmm.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 8-Jul-85 12:09:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: mmm.171
Posted: Mon Jul  8 12:09:21 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 12-Jul-85 01:49:21 EDT
References: <496@leadsv.UUCP> <430@enmasse.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: 3M Company, St. Paul, Minn.
Lines: 24
Xref: watmath net.audio:5259 net.consumers:2554

> > 	When you are looking at an expensive range of turntables, the
> > belt drive tables are better.  When more money is put into the system,
> > refinements are possible with belt drives that allow them to improve
> > upon the direct drive.
> > 
> 
> 	Not true.  How come radio stations mostly use direct drive.
> This is what I have always heard to be true.  Maybe it is just in the
> really high end (>$800) that direct drives excel and in the mid range
> ($200 - $800) that belt drives excel.

How come (sic) radio stations use direct drive?  Generally, they aren't
interested in the sound qualities as much as they are the start-up
torque.  Direct drive has the near-instant starting torque DJ's need,
even on classical stations.  Also, without a belt to replace (remember
that radio stations are using these things far more than you or I),
direct drive can deliver consistency if not audible quality.

Just look at all the really top 'state-of-the-art' tables: belt drive
sounds better.
-- 
	Steve Schley

	ihnp4!mmm!schley