RedGrant wrote:

I know the latest super high end burmeiser cd player employs belt drive for sonic quality.   

 

That kind of stuff always sounds my personal bullsh1t detector at full volume. From an engineering point of view, it makes absolutely no sense. But then again, I'm an engineer and not a high end mystician. I can appreciate it if somebody thinks they are hearing a difference, though, but I'm not falling for any of that...

Anyway, that's completely irrelevant to the point, which is vinyl table drive. 4000 and the earlier 4002/6000 models with AC motor drive should be pretty good, and even measurably so. The AC motor has a fairly constant torque through its rotation, and the inertia of the heavy platter and the large belt diameter should help as well to kill the flutter that remains after the belt itself. Theoretically, I'm not sure I'm completely happy about how the mechanical noises from both the main motor and the servo are isolated from the carriage, put I certainly don't hear them in practise.

Can't comment on the direct drive generation, I've never really listened to them.

But really, you're comparing these turntables according to what you've found on YouTube? 😕

tournedos wrote:

 From an engineering point of view, it makes absolutely no sense.

Please explain why it absolutely makes no sense.  The person from the link I provided made sense to me from mechanical/acoustical point of view.

tournedos wrote:

But then again, I'm an engineer and not a high end mystician. I can appreciate it if somebody thinks they are hearing a difference, though, but I'm not falling for any of that...

Well, I think/hear the definite difference between belt drive and direct drive as far as cassette decks are concerned, in front of me.

tournedos wrote:

Anyway, that's completely irrelevant to the point, which is vinyl table drive.

Please explain why it is irrelevant to the point just because it's a vinyl table drive.   Physics/acoustics of why belt-drive is sonically superior  to direct drive (unless one's willing to put far more effort to direct drive than belt-drive) still applies whether it be vinyl or cd or cassette according to the reasons provided from the link.

tournedos wrote:

  Theoretically, I'm not sure I'm completely happy about how the mechanical noises from both the main motor and the servo are isolated from the carriage, ....

Please indulge me.   How would you have done it differently?

tournedos wrote:

Can't comment on the direct drive generation, I've never really listened to them.

Well, I can after having listend to direct drive turntable too long.  They suck sonically compared to well-tuned belt-drive.

tournedos wrote:

But really, you're comparing these turntables according to what you've found on YouTube? 😕

Indeed.  The trick is to listen to a device in real life in front of you, and then listen to it again from youtube, and extrapolate the difference, after that, listen to other devices from youtube, and compare them to the sound of the device you're familiar with in real life as you listen to it from youtube.

This way, you can differentiate the relative, not actual, but relative sound quality of different devices.

Analogy would be this:

Obviously you know how Paul McCartney sounds.  You also know how people who are not as gifted as McCartney sound.

Can you tell the difference, the relative voice/sound quality?   I can, even if I have never listend to Paul McCartney's voice in real life in front of me, even if I have never listend to people not as gifted as McCartney in real life.....all from youtube.

Of course it helps if I listend to either McCartney's voice or the people not as gifted as McCartney in real life.

(Geez what a pain it is to try and keep the quotations sorted...)

RedGrant wrote:

tournedos wrote:

 From an engineering point of view, it makes absolutely no sense.

Please explain why it absolutely makes no sense.  The person from the link I provided made sense to me from mechanical/acoustical point of view.

 

tournedos wrote:

But then again, I'm an engineer and not a high end mystician. I can appreciate it if somebody thinks they are hearing a difference, though, but I'm not falling for any of that...

 

Well, I think/hear the definite difference between belt drive and direct drive as far as cassette decks are concerned, in front of me.

Yes, but those cases have a direct connection between the mechanical rotation and the sound that comes out. The difference is obvious once you know how a CD player works. The rotational subtleties of the disc have absolutely no effect on the bitstream that comes out from the error corrector / decoder, and is later fed to the D/A. The stability of that is taken care of by the clock system that runs these non-rotating bits (that clock is subject to better and worse implementations).

All the spindle motor and its servo system need to do is to keep the read buffer approximately half-full, and they might use wooden cog wheels to achieve that goal for all that it's worth.

tournedos wrote:

Anyway, that's completely irrelevant to the point, which is vinyl table drive.

Please explain why it is irrelevant to the point just because it's a vinyl table drive. 

You are constantly misreading my text. What I wanted to point out was that a belt drive CD and whether somebody thinks it sounds better have no relevance to the matter you wanted to discuss, which was vinyl decks.

tournedos wrote:

  Theoretically, I'm not sure I'm completely happy about how the mechanical noises from both the main motor and the servo are isolated from the carriage, ....

 

Please indulge me.   How would you have done it differently?

None of my business since I didn't design them 😕 But take my Beogram 6000 (early AC version) which has a non-working muting circuit. This means that the audio stays on while the carriage is travelling with the arm raised. I can hear that in my speakers. This means that the same sound will be there while the pickup is down playing a record - it will be much lower in frequency, probably lower in amplitude, but it is there. Not that it matters a bit to me, I can't hear it.

tournedos wrote:

But really, you're comparing these turntables according to what you've found on YouTube? 😕

 

Indeed.  The trick is to listen to a device in real life in front of you, and then listen to it again from youtube, and extrapolate the difference, after that, listen to other devices from youtube, and compare them to the sound of the device you're familiar with in real life as you listen to it from youtube.

This way, you can differentiate the relative, not actual, but relative sound quality of different devices.

Fine in principle, but I still hold that you're comparing more the relative merits of different Youtube recordings, each crappier than another, and gone through a number of random quality A/D and D/A conversions. The moment your comparison samples don't come from the same source, there are too many variables.

In my view, the 4000 is good because of the heavy platter. The drive is by belt and in that way very similar to the 4002/4004/6000 but these have lighter platters. Not convinced the AC or DC motors make a lot of difference and I cannot hear the arm motor working. The motors on all these decks are completely silent, unlike that of my Thorens Beogram 3000 which is audible.

As far as the 8000/2 is concerned, this again has an inaudible motor, it being a linear induction motor, and in the case of the 8002, it also has better record support. I prefer the sound of my MMC20 type cartridges to the MMC2 but have no criticism of the playback.

tournedos wrote:

From an engineering point of view, it makes absolutely no sense.

RedGrant wrote:

Please explain why it absolutely makes no sense.  The person from the link I provided made sense to me from mechanical/acoustical point of view.

tournedos wrote:

But then again, I'm an engineer and not a high end mystician. I can appreciate it if somebody thinks they are hearing a difference, though, but I'm not falling for any of that...

RedGrant wrote:

Well, I think/hear the definite difference between belt drive and direct drive as far as cassette decks are concerned, in front of me.

tournedos wrote:

Yes, but those cases have a direct connection between the mechanical rotation and the sound that comes out.

So vinyl turntable doesn't have a direct connection between the mechanical rotation and the sound that comes out?

tournedos wrote:

The difference is obvious once you know how a CD player works. The rotational subtleties of the disc have absolutely no effect on the bitstream that comes out from the error corrector / decoder, and is later fed to the D/A. The stability of that is taken care of by the clock system that runs these non-rotating bits (that clock is subject to better and worse implementations). All the spindle motor and its servo system need to do is to keep the read buffer approximately half-full, and they might use wooden cog wheels to achieve that goal for all that it's worth.

So why did burmester engineers go all that trouble building proprietary belt-drive?   Does this mean they were all stupid/incompetent?

link

Below is an opinion of burmester cd player by Jonathan Valin, the reviewer at Absolute Sound:

While I'm not ready to give up tubes quite yet, I'm not

willing to give up the Soulution 710 either, which is just

a new kind of animal I've never heard before. The only

other time I've had an experience like this one was when I

first heard the belt-drive Burmester CD player about ten

or twelve years ago, which didn't sound like any other CD

player I'd ever listened to and opened up a whole new

realm of possiblities. That's what this amp does. -

Jonathan Valin

link

Peter wrote:

In my view, the 4000 is good because of the heavy platter. The drive is by belt and in that way very similar to the 4002/4004/6000 but these have lighter platters.

I read from different sources that the only way direct-drive can equal the belt-drive is to use heavier platter than the belt-drive, of course, which means the direct drive with heavier platter will require more solidly built chassis, and stronger, more reliable motor.

Now let's forget about those messy quotes, and I'll try just one more time to get across the message I originally had (which was a digression anyway):

• I agree that vinyl decks and cassette decks may sound different depending on the drive type, since the rotation has something to do with the sound that comes out
• I completely disagree that a CD player would sound different depending on the drive type, since the rotation has nothing to do with the sound that comes out

Am I making my stand clear now?

I'll classify spikes under CD players and other voodoo right down with the lower point, no matter who is selling them and no matter how much they dare to charge for them.

tournedos wrote:

I agree that vinyl decks and cassette decks may sound different depending on the drive type, since the rotation has something to do with the sound that comes out

I agree.

tournedos wrote:

I completely disagree that a CD player would sound different depending on the drive type, since the rotation has nothing to do with the sound that comes out.

Based on my personal experience, I have to agree tenatively.  I have only listend to cd players with direct drive, some really good and cheap, some expensive, not so great.  some cheap, and horrible.

I have no personal experience with belt drive cd players.

tournedos wrote:

Am I making my stand clear now?

Yes.

tournedos wrote:

I'll classify spikes under CD players and other voodoo right down with the lower point, no matter who is selling them and no matter how much they dare to charge for them.

You know what, I think I'll have to agree with you on that tenatively at least on sonics, since I have no experience if they really work or not.

But considering the amount of money they charge, I'll pass, I'd better off spending the money on restoration of vintage equipment than fancy stands with fancy price even if they work.

RedGrant wrote:

tournedos wrote:

I'll classify spikes under CD players and other voodoo right down with the lower point, no matter who is selling them and no matter how much they dare to charge for them.

 

You know what, I think I'll have to agree with you on that tenatively at least on sonics, since I have no experience if they really work or not.

But considering the amount of money they charge, I'll pass, I'd better off spending the money on restoration of vintage equipment than fancy stands with fancy price even if they work.

Whether it sounded like it or not, I actually agreed with you from the start as well - that belt drive CD just got me on my toes. There's so much else in a CD than the platter drive that actually can and does make a difference, even measureably so. The problem with high-end hifi industry is that they mix proper engineering standpoints, stuff that can perhaps be just heard, and plain voodoo. Along with the vinyl, they lost one huge point over which to argue (belt vs. direct drive, and the quality of either), so it is only natural that they try to carry it over. I'm sure that Burmeister sounds great, but I firmly believe that has nothing to do with the belt drive, the spikes nor the elaborate suspension...

Getting back to the charter (and the other topic you started), I believe you would be happy with either a 4000 or 4002. Any of the B&O tangentials will be easy on your rare vinyl since the stylus force is so low. It would be much easier to get a good cartridge for the 8002 which uses a MMCx, though.