Anyone moved from a high-end vintage DD to new entry level belt-drive?

[Brett A]

Short version:
I would love to your reports of swithing from a vintage direct drive turntable to an entry level modern belt-drive.

Long version:
For the last year or-so, I've been running a Pioneer PL-550 direct drive turntable mounted with an Audio Technica AT440MLa cartridge, running through a Cambridge Azur 640p phono stage. It's my first 'real' analog set-up. And if I can quantify its performance, I'd say it provides 80% of the detail retrieval, image focus, and soundstaging of my Rotel RCD 1070 CD player. (Both are hooked up with Siltech IC's) I'm impressed with the TT's performance, as i have less than 1/2 the money in it compared to the Rotel.

Now I have the opportunity to pick up a Music Hall MMF 2.1 for a little over $200. It would not match the build quality of the Pioneer (which was TOTL in '77), but would offer basic modern (whatever that means:smilewinkgrin: ) belt-drive operation without sacrificing the adjustability of the Pioneer (such as VTA). And for $200~, it's a pretty low-risk endeavor. I would run the Music Hall with the AT 440 MLa cart which is a much better performer than the Goldring that comes with it.

Any thoughts on what I might expect? Would this be a waste of time and money?

Attached, you'll see a photo of my current set-up. That's a DIY sandbox it's sitting in. And racquetball halves it's sitting on.

[BRANDONH]

Short version:
I would love to your reports of swithing from a vintage direct drive turntable to an entry level modern belt-drive.

Long version:
For the last year or-so, I've been running a Pioneer PL-550 direct drive turntable mounted with an Audio Technica AT440MLa cartridge, running through a Cambridge Azur 640p phono stage. It's my first 'real' analog set-up. And if I can quantify its performance, I'd say it provides 80% of the detail retrieval, image focus, and soundstaging of my Rotel RCD 1070 CD player. (Both are hooked up with Siltech IC's) I'm impressed with the TT's performance, as i have less than 1/2 the money in it compared to the Rotel.

Now I have the opportunity to pick up a Music Hall MMF 2.1 for a little over $200. It would not match the build quality of the Pioneer (which was TOTL in '77), but would offer basic modern (whatever that means:smilewinkgrin: ) belt-drive operation without sacrificing the adjustability of the Pioneer (such as VTA). And for $200~, it's a pretty low-risk endeavor. I would run the Music Hall with the AT 440 MLa cart which is a much better performer than the Goldring that comes with it.

Any thoughts on what I might expect? Would this be a waste of time and money?

Attached, you'll see a photo of my current set-up. That's a DIY sandbox it's sitting in. And racquetball halves it's sitting on.

If you do decide to get it we would love to hear your review comparing the 2.
Although it would be only fair to try them both with the same cartridge.

is that a plant on top of your receiver?

[emaidel]

You might find my experience with a turntable I "won" from ebay a little over a year ago - the Dual CS-5000 - of interest, and a respectable comparison to your "old," and possibly "new" turntable. The Dual replaced my dead Denon DP-62, which was a TOTL Denon model in the early to mid 80's. The CS-5000 sold for around $600 in the late 80's, and was the best turntable Dual ever built (a fancier looking version, the CS-7000 had improved cosmetics, but was functionally identical). I wasn't expecting a world of a difference between the Denon or the 5000, but was astounded at the results.

The first thing I noticed was the dramatic reduction in surface noise. Next, was an all-new, noticeably increased clarity of everything (bass, mids, highs), as well as a substantial reduction in inner groove distortion, and the reduction of distortion I heard on many an LP which I had attributed to overmodulation, and faults of the recording engineers. Overall, I was simply blown away. None of my LP's had ever sounded this good, but, I'm still not a vinyl "junkie," and prefer the sound of both CD's and SACD's I get from my Marantz SA-8001 player.

Why were there so many differences, and why did the CS-5000 sound so good? Well, it too is a belt-drive turntable (like the MMF you're looking at), which, whether right or wrong, audiophiles prefer overwhelmingly to direct drive, and has a straight, low mass tonearm with an adjustable VTA as opposed to the stylish, but somewhat massive S-shaped arm of your Pioneer. None of the turntables I've owned in the last several decades were belt drive, but none sounded as good as the CS-5000.

Like you, I'm using the same cartridge (a Stanton W.O.S. Collector's Series 100, which almost no one ever heard, or heard of) and found that the Stanton considerably outperformed the Shure V/15 Type V Mxr that came with the Dual. And, best of all, the CS-5000 (with the aforementioned Shure) cost me only $299.95.

This is only conjecture, but I think that you'll obtain much the same results between your old Pioneer and a newer MMF.

[02audionoob]

I currently have a direct-drive Marantz 6300 set up right next to a belt-drive Music Hall MMF-5...both hooked up to the same Adcom GFP-565. The Marantz runs to the phono input and the Music Hall to the tuner input through an old solid-state phono preamp. The Music Hall had the same Shure M97XE cartridge on it that the Marantz does now. On the Music Hall, the cartridge is now a Goldring GL 2200.

My Music Hall is a step up from the one you're considering and my Marantz might even be a step down from your Pioneer. So...my "modern" belt-drive 'table should have a more decided advantage over my vintage direct-drive than the comparison you're proposing. That said...I can't honestly say I hear a difference when they use the same cartridge and preamp. I do like the Goldring better, now that either I've gotten used to it or broken it in. But the Marantz seems to sound as good with the Shure cartridge as the Music Hall does.

I would also add that I think the Shure M97XE sounds better than the Audio-Technica Studio Reference 8008 that I just removed from the Marantz. I bought a new stylus for it and then promptly sold it on craigslist.

One last thing...The Music Hall runs a tad fast and offers no control of that. The Marantz is pretty-much dead on 33-1/3 with the pitch control, despite not being quartz-locked. Great thing about the quartz technology like that on the Pioneer...it's infallible, as far as I know.

[Brett A]

Thanks for the thoughtful responses. The Music Hall was spoken for when I decided to buy it. So I won't get to satisfy my curiosity at this point in time.

It's a funny thing the way the mind works. Now that I've considered spending ~$200 on a turntable, it opens the possibility of buying a new cartridge for the Pioneer instead of replacing the whole TT. Dollar for dollar, that would probably be a greater cost-to-benefit ratio.

My curiosity about the Pioneer v. a modern belt drive is based solely on wondering what I'm missing and not on any glaring deficiencies of the Pioneer. My current set-up does not produce any extraneous mechanical sounds other than the gentle, quiet wooshing across clean vinyl. (Which I actually have to listen for). Although I'm not sure it'd ever produce a background as black as my Rotel 1070 CDp (does any table?), It seems to play as quiet as the vinyl is clean. And as 02audionoob mentioned, the pitch is dead-on.

As it is set-up, the Pioneer makes music. Fairly clean, well-imaged music. But, this observation is made in a vacuum; the only other 'table I've ever hooked up was a $99 POS belt-drive Sanyo (with this same cart) and it had all kinds of issues. I could hear the motor buzzing through the speakers, the bearing produced its own rumble in addition to the vinyl's surface noise; the thing just didn't seem to care much for music.

Even though I can tell you how satisfied i am with the Pioneer, I still can't help but wonder what I'm missing not having a decent belt drive: Maybe something, maybe nothing.

So, now that I've freed up $200+ in my mind, I'll entertain the purchase of a better cart. I really like the AT 440MLa I have now because it tracks so well, it makes inner groove distortion a bad memory. And it images surprisingly well for a $100 cart. But perhaps this is a conversation for another thread.

In the mean time, I'm still very interested in hearing about any experiences switching from a decent direct drive to a decent belt-drive.

Thanks again.:)

[Brett A]

is that a plant on top of your receiver?
No, I wouldn't do that. :yikes: The plant is sitting on a plant stand/stool. I have two identical plants placed on the insides and slightly behind the speakers not only for decoration and air filtration, but also for sound diffusion. My integrated amp (don't actually use a receiver) is that shiny aluminum block to the right of the turntable. :)

(My signature has a link to more photos if you're inclined---even if you're not inclined, I guess the signature still has links. Unless of course it's some kind of Schrödinger's cat signature. But I digress.)

[hifitommy]

goldmund, tech sp10 and MAYBE a couple of other technics. some denons and i think the rockport sirius.

a used mid line belt drive will cost a bit more than an entry level belt tt new but may be the way in the door to high end. a used vpi or sota is what i am eluding to. of course, there are others.

one can be quite happy with a dd, its not like i dont own a couple. but you DID want to go high end, right?

oh oh, i see some flamethrowers in the edges of my field of vision.

[E-Stat]

oh oh, i see some flamethrowers in the edges of my field of vision.
Not from moi. Back in '73 I upgraded from a Lenco L-75 to a Technics SL-110a DD table with a SME Type II Improved arm. Nice table. Had supermodel looks with the textured strobe platter skirt. Waay kewl. Unfortunately for the eyes, a relatively homely looking belt driven Ariston RD-11s (immediate Linn predecessor) I acquired in '75 ended up sounding more neutral with a lower noise floor. It remains in service today with the vintage system.

Actually, the ultimate approach I've heard is a belt driven lower platter magnetically driving the main platter - the Clearaudio Statement. :)

rw

[gillsev]

Even though I can tell you how satisfied i am with the Pioneer, I still can't help but wonder what I'm missing not having a decent belt drive: Maybe something, maybe nothing.

In the mean time, I'm still very interested in hearing about any experiences switching from a decent direct drive to a decent belt-drive.

Thanks again.:)

We're on the same boat Brett. I presently have a Denon DP 62L Servo Controlled DD which plays perfect and tracks warped records superlatively on its Dynamic Servo Tracer Tonearm (cartridge AT 440ML). Looks great, plays great. But why am I still looking at high end belt drive/ floating sub chassis TT (or even the legendary rim drive vintage Thorens TD 124) for that matter? As you've said, we might be missing something, maybe nothing. Honestly, I think the latter is true.

I think it all boils down to conservatism. In the heydays of the rim drive era (before DD), there wasn't much of an option. It was either idler wheel for the most part, or belt/ idler combo such as in the transcription table like the Thorens TD 124. Then the belt drive era became full blown on the mid 70's until the DD's debut. In the meantime, the same trend was occuring on the electronics side of components: from vacuum tubes to transistors to integrated chips computer controlled intelligent decks. It looked like we were advancing from hi fi to high tech. Was it getting better? Heck yeah! When CD's came along in the 90's, everybody jumped on the bandwagon not only for its convenience but also for its superlative dynamic range. People preferred the cleaner, more detailed sound; the convenience of travelling with it and playing it in the car; and the space it saves in storage. They felt no more nostalgia for vinyl than a housewife with a washing machine has for a washboard.

But now, conservative audiophiles are saying that the analog world of LP's and turntables have a warmer, richer sound and/or that vacuum tube amp reproduction have more warmth and musical (whatever that means!). The same analogy may apply for the vinyl junkie who prefers belt drive over DD. But is there really an advantage? It's just a matter of personal taste to sum it up.

[Jack in Wilmington]

Hey Brett, I too was on the same road as you're on. I had a nice Technics SL-3350 DD turntable that I used for many years. I loved the conveniance of an automatic TT, so when I decided that it was time to try something new, I got a Dual 1225. After about a year of auditioning new speakers and other pieces of gear at the same time, I got the bug to go belt drive. Settled on the Music Hall 2.1 LE and my vinyl thanks me for it by supplying me with a room full of warm rich sound. I feel it is definately an upgrade over the entry level tables from Rega and Project.

[Brett A]

A couple weeks ago, I bought a used Rega, so now that I can really side-by-side these rigs, I'll share with you my thoughts.

The Pioneer PL-550 (c1977)
The thing that strikes first about the Pioneer next to the Rega is the build quality; so much more engineering and machining technology went into building the Pioneer. It obviously took 100’s more parts to build and weighs about four times as much as a result. All of the exposed metal looks very well machined and finely finished. The platter is larger than an LP and is machined with a thick outer edge to provide flywheel inertia. As for the drive system, I can only guess the amount of R&D that went into its brushless “Hall elements” motor and PLL quartz speed monitoring system. Every part of this rig exudes a certain type of high quality. This includes the tone arm, which not only has adjustable VTA, but the cuing mechanism and arm rest are also height adjustable-a tasty little detail. Mechanically (I mean externally-before the signal path), it runs silently without audible noise or vibration.

But the whole point of a turntable is play records, right?

Well, you might be surprised to hear that even within the signal path, it runs nearly silent without obvious noise or vibration. I was surprised to discover that it has a much quieter noise floor than the Rega). For most of the time I ran this rig, I used an Audio Technica 440MLa (Try finding a bad word about this cart on the internet---go ahead, try.) Even though in retrospect, this cart is too high compliance for the nearly 20 gram arm on the Pioneer, it still delivered a dynamic, detailed presentation with good instrument placement, image focus (helped by the use of a record clamp) and “air”. I was quite happy with this as my first decent vinyl rig. But I wanted to move up the food chain and, if nothing else, the nearly 20 gram arm on the Pioneer was going to limit my cartridge options going forward. So I decided to buy a “modern” ‘table. Enter…

The Rega: Branded “Planar2”, but fits the description of current P2’s. RB250 tonearm modded with Incognito wiring, Expressimo Heavy Weight and 12mm glass platter.
I love my new Rega. I’m not turning back. But it’s funny; because all I can really say about it is that it sounds f&@king fantastic! Although I believe it is reliable and will likely last for years to come, as a physical object, it’s nothing special-just a piece of MDF on simple rubber feet with a platter and a tonearm screwed to it.
The sound:
I don’t like to use words like “musical” to talk about gear. It’s such an ambiguous and subjective term. But I now know what others mean when they say Rega ‘tables are musical. I find it strange how smitten I am with this machine. I mean, it does so many things I never thought I could live with; I have to start it with my finger before powering it up just so I don’t have to listen to the belt and motor pulley skidding and chirping as the glass spins up to speed, as I said earlier on, it has a higher noise floor than the old Pioneer and I’m pretty sure it runs a tad slow. But the darn thing makes exciting music!
The used Rega came with a used Grado Gold which, despite its warm charm, I did not keep mounted (I couldn’t accept the relative darkness, poor inner groove tracking and dreaded “Grado hum”). So I moved the AT440 MLa over to the Rega. The RB250 really allowed this relatively high compliance cart to do its thing. All the carts strengths were magnified and better bass to boot! So, just last night I mounted an Audio Technica 150MLx and stayed up ‘til 2:00 am spinning records, amazed that I never thought my system was capable of such performance!

Anyway, I’ve gone on far too long. So to conclude: the old Pioneer I believe is a stately, capable rig, worthy of impressive achievement, but not for the tonearm. The Rega: nothing special in the way of build quality (couldn’t imagine actually paying $500+ for one), but sounds better than the sum of its parts would imply. I suspect this P2 with its ‘mods and maybe others (Deep Groove subplatter anyone?) will be making the hair on the back of my neck stand on end for years to come.

[Gino]

There is bad belt drive design and good direct drive design.
There is good belt drive design and bad direct drive design.

What do I mean? The kind of technology is not better or worse between them. The most important thing is HOW you apply this technology.

I have two turntables. One is a Technics SL-1200mk2 with a Rega RB600 arm and Shure m97xe cartdrige. The other one is a vintage Rega Planar 2 with J.A. Michell Tecnoarm and Shure m97xe cartdridge. I use a Project Speed box SE II with the Rega.

These turntables are different but they have something in common, they are real HIFI turntables.

The weakness of the Technics SL1200 was the arm, I resolved this with the OriginLive armboard and a Rega RB600 arm. The weakness of the Rega Planar 2 was the suspended motor, I changed it with the Rega motor upgrade kit and the Project speed box SE II.

I make high quality recordings on CD with the Technics through my Dell computer and NAD digital phono preamp PP3. I have already put the Technics in my HIFi system with nice results. The Technics with Rega RB600 and Shure m97xe cartridge sounded as good as a Rega Planar 25 with RB600 and Grado Prestige black cartridge.

I enjoy music with the Rega Planar 2 in my HIFI system. The Tecnoarm sounds great. The Project Speed Box SE II gives accurate speed to the Rega. The Shure cartridge is a good match with an average mass arm as the Tecnoarm.

Finally, you can take a look to my turntables in the photo gallery on this website.

Regards,

Gino

[hifitommy]

while the athena was working in my system, i had never heard such vivid music from a tt. and that wasnt with a four figure cartridge either. for the life of me i cant remember which mm i was using at the time but it WAS mm.

these days, it would be a mc as i have four and find them to be more complete in performance than MMs. one day i will get off my duff and put the athena back in its proper place.

if any mm could get me back it will be my F9E which sounds quite a bit like my favorite cart of all time-the ADC XLM. that should be in service soon in my newly acquired black 707on my venerable old kd500 (once mine, sold, given to another friend by the guy i sold it to, then re-given to me).