[macrojack]

In the era of Japanese statement turntables, there was no competing technology (yeah, I know, you think there still isn't) and millions of low end models were sold which subsidized the R&D on the top units.
Chair Guy is incorrect about the Japanese making only low end belt drive. Yamaha, Luxman and Micro Seiki are three companies I know of that continued to offer a high end belt drive option.
Also, I think that analog is largely purchased by old timers who have long since passed the entry level. Add to that the dominance of Rega in both price point and prevalence, and you have too steep a hill for a part time start up to climb successfully.
In his efforts to be gracious and self-effacing, Chris Brady is being too hard on Chris Brady. Why does everybody want to kick this guy? I like him.

[cbrady]

The small makers of today don't have the resources to develop a direct drive model for sane dollars.  The cost of development can't be overcome by the small numbers of units to be likely sold.  So, they must sell for a lot of money for these small makers to recoup their development costs.  ( I intend no offense to Chris Brady of Teres with this statement, it's simply inherently true in light of the turntable market today)

It does take a substantial investment to develop a direct drive motor. But it is not as big of an investment as some may think. Of course I have to recoup some of the development costs and that is added into the price of a Certus Turntable. But the development costs really are a small portion of the overall costs.

A lot of direct drive tables were developed in the 70's and 80s but most of them were not that good. Listening to them showed that the topology was promising but the overall result was just so-so. I think that the problem was the inexpensive implementation and not the topology. My experience leads me to believe that it's both difficult and expensive to get direct drive right. Since there is zero motor to platter isolation even minute flaws can present major sonic problems. I know because I ran into a bunch of them. Because of the unforgiving nature of direct drive I don't anticipate that anyone will be able to produce a true high end direct drive motor that is also low cost. Even though I am a major fan of direct drive I still think that if the budget for the motor is less that say $500 belt drive will deliver superior results.

After we wrapped up the Certus design the next project was to figure out how to bring the price down to a more affordable level. I spent months looking over the design trying to figure out where to cut costs without sacrificing too much quality. In the end I decided that it was a no-go. In order to cut costs sufficiently it looked like the performance would be compromised to the point where it would fall behind our best belt drive motor.

Thats where rim drive came in. Having given up on a low cost direct drive I started looking more seriously at rim drive. I see rim drive as being in between belt and direct drive. It's more forgiving because there is at least some motor isolation but far less than with belt drive. The cost to implement a good rim drive setup ended up being significantly less than our direct drive. Not as good overall but it looks to be a high value proposition.

Chris

[JoshK]

Even though I was a critic, I appreciate your no bs reply.    By the way, what made you quit selling components individually?  Do you allow previous customers to still upgrade?  Like say a previous owner wants a newer platter?

[TheChairGuy]

Chris, thanks for your forthrightness on all of this  It's really great.

I've long wondered why the Japanese makers of the direct drive tables ladled their units with small, too light and ring-prone platters    The platter weight, damping abilities and platter mat may well be as, or more, important than those on belt drivers. For belt drivers,  as they are better isolated by nature - you use massive/dead platters for rotational inertia (so you minimize stylus drag and the like).

Perhaps their price points were dictated largely by the 'market'....that something more substantial back then couldn't be sold. 

For Direct Drives, as the platter (and mat) functions as the only buffer from motor noise and vibration...it's equally important. Yet, the vast majority of direct drives from that era had platters weighing well under 5 lbs...and all that I know of where steel or aluminum with only a rubber mat offered as additional buffer.  The better rim drives from an earlier era, had more substantial platters to help guard against this.

The Technics SP-10 Mk. III (not Mk. II or oroginal) had a relatively massive platter...the rest of the Technics line made do with 4 lb ring-prone, platters that were not even oversized (direct drivers still benefit a bit from additional inertia applied to the outside platter upon rotation).  The 17oz Technics Supermat helps damp it, but not near as much damping is used as it should be. 

If you, or anyone, has a direct drive there you can use as a donor.....go get some 'damping compound'...the type of spray they typically use in autosound applications on the ring-prone metal surfaces to make the car quieter. A can of Dupli-Color UC103 (fast drying formula) cost about $8 in auto parts stores.  Spray liberally on the underside of your direct drive platter...the sonic results will be quite pleasing    Pair it with a good dead mat to further damp the platter...but one in which doesn't overdamp the record of life (I use an old Audioquest mat with some Herbie's damping dots as record interface).

The effect of the damping spray ( you can also or alternatively use Plast-i-Clay on the underside of you have clearance...and, unlike belt drives, you don't have to worry about platter wobble if it's not 100% distributed equally/perfectly on the underside). 

These are inexpensive upgrades to address direct drive's major failings (in mass produced units)....damping as much motor vibration before it reaches your cartridge body     

[woodsyi]

Chris,

In an idealized world of perfect implementation, would a TT with 3 independent motor/belt system perform better than one with a single motor/belt?  If so, how would it compare to Certus or Rim Drive you are developing?

[cbrady]

By the way, what made you quit selling components individually?  Do you allow previous customers to still upgrade?  Like say a previous owner wants a newer platter?

We still sell individual components, always have. Just follow the components link on our webpage. We have motors, bearings, clamps and VTA adapters available. What has changed is that we currently do not have any platters that are for sale separately. The reason is simply that they are in short supply and we want to make sure that we have platters to sell with our turntables. We have always offered customers an upgrade path.

From a business perspective selling parts has not worked out very well. It takes a lot of time and the return is less than with complete turntables. It also makes inventory management a lot harder. The third problem has to do with company image. You can't be a kit/parts company and not have it dilute the brand value for $17,000 turntables.

But I am still a DIY'er at heart and at least for now want to stay in the parts business in spite of the business challenges.

Chris

[mcrespo71]

Chris,

These were some of the most enlightening and forthright responses I have seen from a manufacturer.  Thanks for being so level headed while some were taking shots at you.  Kudos to you!

Michael

[cbrady]

In an idealized world of perfect implementation, would a TT with 3 independent motor/belt system perform better than one with a single motor/belt?  If so, how would it compare to Certus or Rim Drive you are developing?

Some time ago I tried using dual motors and the results were poor. Definitely not as good as a single motor. From a  theoretical perspective I can't see any advantage to using multiple motors. There seems to be at least some consensus that tables that have options for multiple motors will generally sound best with a single motor. Not a path that I would recommend.

Chris

[JDUBS]

The new rim drive motor will be quite easy to adapt to other turntables. The height just needs to be adjusted so that the wheel lines up with the platter the motor simply leans against the platter with gravity providing the proper pressure. The controller has dip switches that make it simple to precisely dial in the correct speed.

Very cool stuff, thanks Chris!  I know its partially bearing dependent, but will it be capable of spinning really heavy platters (i.e., 100+ pounds)?

-Jim

[BobRex]

Chris, thanks for your forthrightness on all of this  It's really great.

I've long wondered why the Japanese makers of the direct drive tables ladled their units with small, too light and ring-prone platters    The platter weight, damping abilities and platter mat may well be as, or more, important than those on belt drivers. For belt drivers,  as they are better isolated by nature - you use massive/dead platters for rotational inertia (so you minimize stylus drag and the like).

Perhaps their price points were dictated largely by the 'market'....that something more substantial back then couldn't be sold. 

BINGO!!!  Give the man a Ceegar!

Why cheap platters?  Because then the motors could be cheaper and the whole package sold for less.  If you want to saturate the market (the Japanese market philosophy at the time), you don't do it with expensive goods, you do it with pieces that everyman could afford.  Think about it, there really weren't Technics or Pioneer (or Kenwood, Sansui, or JVC) franchises per se back then (nor today for that matter.)  If you wanted to sell these goods, you called the local warehouse, placed an order, and "poof" you were selling hi-fi.  Qualifications?  None needed!  Business plan?  Fugettaboutit!  "Real" hi-fi stores wouldn't touch those brands or the price wars that came about.  So what was the impetus for selling the high quality stuff to "Stupid Americans" ? - which was the philosophy BTW.  It's also why you couldn't get repair parts for most tables - they became throw away items.

There were a few tables that had decent mass platters - Micro Seiki, Luxman come to mind.  These tables were sold through franchised dealers and did have support.  I sold a number of them during the 70's and 80s to people that cared about sonics.  Ironically most of the truly heavy plattered tables were belt drive - even the good companies apparently didn't want to spend the time and money developing the proper motor. 

I'm sure that if you compared the motors and bearings from the 70s tables to what Chris developed, you'll find that Chris' products are much more robust and designed to work with the loads presented by a massive platter.  Of course, that does cost money.

Be careful with that damping compound. If you're not careful you'll throw the platter out of balance and wear out the motor or bearing.

[lcrim]

As a very satisfied Technics 1200 owner I have a different take on this issue.  The development and engineering costs involved in this TT are simply out of range for any small manufacturer.  The motor employed, judging by the TT's preeminent status in the "scratching" world is a high quality item.  The fact that dealers were unable to charge huge markups for what you could buy elsewhere for list price is one reason why the dealers never liked them.  BTW, all the parts for all the Technics 1200 various models are readily available from Panasonic.

[TheChairGuy]

Hey Bob, thanks for the perspective 

As there is not much clearance between platter and underlying plinth on my JVC.....I could only spray the damping compound on the underside and coat it with a light layer of Plast-i-Clay (2 sticks or about 0.5 lbs). The benefit was rather large...a nice increase in resolution was the result. 

If the motor/bearing can't support and extra 0.5lb, it probably wasn't doing the job to begin with 

[macrojack]

Direct drive tables of the period under discussion had to support the weight of the platter on top of the motor. Luxman got around that problem by magnetically suspending 75% of the platter weight so that the motor only had to deal with a couple of pounds. I believe Teres is doing something similar.
TCG - I think you were being warned about balance rather than mass with the additional damping that you apply.
My SP-10 has a sub platter and an upper platter which bolts to it. I can detect slight ringing at the perimeter when there is no mat on it. With the Luxman mat in place, no ringing can be detected.

[mgalusha]

FWIW when I decided to build a Teres for myself (no way I could afford Chris's tables) Chris was very helpful to my DIY efforts. I purchased the bearing and motor and he was happy to discuss platter and motor housing design and cheerfully offered suggestions on building the best turntable possible within my budget and capabilities.

He still has design drawings on the site for both the bearing and a base. The motor controller schematic is available as is the strobe disc image. I hope Chris can keep selling parts to DIY folks as there is precious little available for those wanting to roll their own table but I totally understand the concerns over image when selling a product such as the Certus and still offering parts.

Lastly I want to say that Chris is one of the nicest and most genuine guys I've ever met, in or out of the audio business. This is not in his defense, it's simply a fact.

Mike

[cbrady]

We do not levitation in the Certus, just a beefy bearing. The confusion probably comes from the fact that the Certus uses magnetic damping, an eddy current brake that is used to further stabilize rotational speed. The bearing shaft is 1" in diameter and can carry a load of over 100 lbs. Here is a shot of the Certus motor stator and bearing assembly. The OD of the motor housing is 5.75".


Jim, The rim drive motor should work with a 100 pound platter but it probably would need to be customized to use a slower startup profile.

Chris

[BobRex]

I apologize if this ends up hijacking this thread but.....

As a very satisfied Technics 1200 owner I have a different take on this issue.  The development and engineering costs involved in this TT are simply out of range for any small manufacturer.  The motor employed, judging by the TT's preeminent status in the "scratching" world is a high quality item.  The fact that dealers were unable to charge huge markups for what you could buy elsewhere for list price is one reason why the dealers never liked them.  BTW, all the parts for all the Technics 1200 various models are readily available from Panasonic.

Well lcrim, have you ever worked retail?  Or more importantly did you ever work audio retail during the '70s and '80s?  I did.  I spoke out of direct experience dealing with various manufacturers.  I've heard the claim about "engineering costs" before, and frankly it's just a lame excuse made by those who don't know any better. Matsushita didn't invent the direct drive motor, so the R&D expenses were minimized, and when applied to the MacDonalds school of production, they were, unit for unit, virtually nil.  That motor may be used by the "scratching" world, but 1) Honestly, what choice do they have? and 2) Have you compared the 1200 motor to that of an SP10?  Trust me, the motor is substantially cheaper than what they could have included.

The crack about huge markups tells me that you have no clue how the retail world works.  Most items come with a suggested retail price from the manufacturer.  Dealers (at least when I was involved) usually sold with a roughly 10% discount (my customers got that just for walking in the door.)  I don't know of ANYBODY that would "charge huge markups for what you could buy elsewhere for list price".  If you know of such dealers, please elaborate.
Since Technics, Pioneer, Sansui, Kenwood, and JVC (to name a few) sold through a different outlet scheme, those items typically went out the door with a 25 - 30% discount.  Now the only way to make money on those margins was to buy in large quantities (to get the best discounts) and move the merchandise quickly with little expended effort.  This is the antithesis of the true audio store.  But it is the province of big box stores (SILO in my day and region - Best Buy, Circuit City now), mail order catalogs (J&R and such), and appliance stores that just sold audio as a sideline where qualified sales help isn't necessary and is in fact a detriment.  Oh, and forget after sales service, you can't afford it at those margins.  Again, are you speaking out of experience?

From 1978 through 1995 I worked for an audio store that actually did servce - kinda rare these days. During that time we took in numerous Technics pieces (since the people that sold them couldn't service them) and tried to order parts.  I guess I should apologize; parts were sometimes available, it just took up to a year to get them.  The situation was so bad that we eventually told people that if parts were necessary we wouldn't fix the unit.  It was either that or piss the customers off while we waited for a shipment.  Technics and Pioneer were the worst manufacturers to deal with.  

Once again, I'm not basing my comments on the purchase of one table, but rather on years of experience dealing with many manufacturers.  Yes, for a very short period (2 months) I sold Technics and Pioneer for the appliance store mentioned above, but I also sold lines like GAS, PS Audio, Yamaha, Denon, conrad johnson, McIntosh, Micro Seikei, Lux, Moscode.... so I feel qualified to compare these companies.  I also feel qualified to understand the marketing decisions that drove many of these companies.

I have a great deal of respect for people like Chris who can make a go out of audio in this day and age.  (I figured I'd better bring this back on topic)  While I'm not going to drop cash on a Certus - everybody has limits, I would like to see a 320 with the rim drive.

[BobRex]

TCG - I think you were being warned about balance rather than mass with the additional damping that you apply.
My SP-10 has a sub platter and an upper platter which bolts to it. I can detect slight ringing at the perimeter when there is no mat on it. With the Luxman mat in place, no ringing can be detected.

Yup, balance is the potential problem.  I doubt you would have sprayed on enough damping compount to affect the bearing, just look at some of the heavy mats that were used - Platter Matter anyone?

Jack - Give one of the carbon fiber or graphite mats a try, they should sound better than the Lux mat.

[Psychicanimal]

Perhaps all these moves might prompt Matsushita to make the SP-10 again.  Wouldn't be too hard for them... aa

[TheChairGuy]

BobRex,

The spray-on damping compound can't be more than a couple ounces or three (it's a 17oz can and there is plenty left in there).  It was applied relatively evenly by eye so it should be fine.

The Plast-i-Clay applied to the underside was all of 8 or so ounces.  It, too, was applied as evenly by eye as possible.  The cumulative effect of 10 ounces of damping stuff, applied by eye pretty evenly, shouldn't affect bearing wear.

The sonic effect, on the other had, was great.  That upper midrange/treble glare that is evident with string, small woodwinds and piano with direct drivers was greatly diminished after the application of the damping.

Leads me to believe there is more sonic benefit to some further damping with a constrained layer sub-mat (between record interface mat and ring-prone aluminum platter) 

And, heck yeah, it ain't easy making a living in this high-end audio biz.  Anyone that does gets major kudos from me 

[lcrim]

At the risk of going off topic as well, I need to respond as a very satisfied owner of a Technics 1200 TT. 
My earlier posting apparently needs clarification.  I have become very aware of the attitudes of high end audio regarding  the Technics 1200 TT line.  When you could buy the TT from a DJ outlet for slightly over cost, why would anyone buy it for list?  Dealers were and are far more likely to push those units that allow a more generous margin. 
Regarding the motor, the facts are that the Technics SP02 had a hi-torque 48 pole motor as it was part of a disc cutting system.  This same motor was carried over to the original SP10.  The 1200 uses a 12 pole motor because it was designed from the beginning as a playback only machine.  Playback only, no cutting, different requirements.  That motor and bearing assembly developed by the Panasonic Special Projects group was used in every TT developed with the MKII designation.   It is simply not true that parts were unavailable then or now.  You can get the full range of parts directly from the Panasonic website today.