08-17-10: Azjake
Perhaps Steve or Albert would care to discuss the why 's and how's of they're respective plinth applications and what they feel it has achieved for them?
Azjake The original SP10 Technics was released late 1969 or early 1970 and it operated with feet (no plinth) as Raul describes. Matshusta engineers found lack of stability and solidity of performance and from that point on offered later versions with increasingly massive plinths. As for design, materials make a big difference. Technics in an attempt to add mass with beauty, designed the obsidian (volcanic glass) plinth which had a nice shape and was beautifully polished. However, when Hi-Fi Choice reviewed it, they reported that the bass frequencies were lacking and there was a shallowness overall in the mid and upper mid frequency region. Cause was reported to be from amorphous "structure" of volcanic glass and that other solid glass plinths and / or platters exhibit similar characteristic. I agree with this British review, it's an accurate description of what I heard in my experiments. Noteworthy too, SAEC Japan (the wonderful tonearm builder) designed a massive, ultimate plinth for SP10 that is still sought after today. If you dont believe material has an effect on the outcome of the plinth please consult data on density, sound propagation, stiffness and transfer. A good source to begin is: The practising Scientist's Handbook, Alfred J. Moses. (Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1978). Anyone who wants to try their Technics or other high torque direct drive table with slender footers and no mass are welcome to do so and report back their findings. |
So far in one year I have managed to get only about four delivered.
At that rate and from my list of waiting customers you should get your sample about 2014. |
I owned the Walker Proscenium with Black Diamond arm, the upgrade air suspension (yes Walker were available without), Prologue platform, latest version silver tonearm wire, two tonearm termination blocks both (RCA and XLR), the latest pump and of course, the Walker Ultimate motor controller.
The Walker was plugged into a dedicated 20 amp circuit separate from my digital. Porter Port plug (of course :^) and a very expensive top line power cable.
This rig was (and still is) one of the finest turntables ever made, I owned it for many, many years and the last upgrades were done here at my home by Lloyd Walker himself with help from Fred. It just does not get any better than that.
At the time of the test my electronics were Aestheitx Io and Callisto with every possible upgrade (including some that were not yet released to the public). World class equipment regardless of what Raul or anyone thinks of it.
The Walker was tested with three phono cables, two were RCA termination and one was XLR.
This test occurred over many, many months with dozens of participants. Raul was here for only a few hours so he has no idea what all went on. All together there were 15 or 20 from my own group, two reviewers, three audio manufacturers and various visitors invited from Audiogon.
The Walker was played as a system since the arm cannot be removed and we tried three phono cartridges and multiple tonearm cables in an attempt to hear every possible variable.
There was no agenda other than continual search to learn and work to improve my reference system. It's always been that way and will continue. |
I think the person asking the question about plinths should do his own test about nude plinth and disregard what both you and I say. If you read back on my post of 8-18-10 Anyone who wants to try their Technics or other high torque direct drive table with slender footers and no mass are welcome to do so and report back their findings. I think that sums everything up precisely, except I could take a cue from Raul and say: "Raul, do you already tested the sp-10 Panzerholz version? becasue IMHO is what the thread owner would like to know." |
++++ " Even seems to me that my SP-10s and Denon's could perform even better with out its metal bottom cover. I don't try it yet but maybe is time to make this test and see what happen. " +++++
Regards and enjoy the music,
raul. Mike is not suggesting running the Technics MK 3 nude. His comment does not support what you've been pressing since the beginning of this thread. One Technics MK3 renovation by Dobbins removes the MK3 top cover with speed switches (which is often damaged) and puts the rest of the table into his heavy plinth. Speed change is still accomplished at the motor controller. I leave the cover and switches and support the entire works with a heavy brass rod attached to an iron block fastened to the chassis with stainless steel. This mechanism locks down any vertical movement and flex while absorbing motor vibration. I have no doubt Steve has addressed this problem in another way and gets excellent results. With either method, both of us and most others such as the famous original constrained layer MK3 plinth by Akito Knita rely on multi laminations, mass and constrained layers to bring out the best performance of these powerful tables. |
08-22-10: Brianw
Which turntable makes/models are covered? Technics SP10 MK2, Technics SP10 MK3 and Garrard 301 |
Addressing a couple of points: I totally disagree for many things ( between others ) that you take ( hipothetically )two different sources ( phono cartridges ) with two different tonearms with two diferent tonearm wire to make a two TT comparison: how can we do it? when both sources has its own " signature " I've stated this at Audiogon many times but want to post a response again since it keeps coming up. The two turntables were fitted with identical cartridges, one was obtained from Lloyd Walker himself for the comparison. Tone arm wire was the same or in favor of the Walker (better quality on Walker for part of the test). Phono stage, power cables, cartridges and all electronics were identical. Perhaps even more important, the test was not an A-B comparison, but rather long term listening with multiple visitors over a period of many, many months on a wide variety of software with every conceivable adjustment to tweaking the variables. Albert had a pretty good idea of what cartridges worked the best on the Walker. and in any case; the Walker does not allow for an alternate arm, so you are stuck with comparing the Walker with it's fine linear tracking arm. Mike Lavigne is stating what I posted earlier in this thread. The Walker is manufactured with it's own arm and it's not removable. Test was done the only way it could be. Every variable that could be equalized was done and the impossible was left as is. |
09-16-10: Lewm
Dear Albert, Now that you may be lurking here for a moment, can you say what mat you are using on the Mk3? Someone said "copper" but now which copper mat. As you know, there are several in the marketplace. Also, it would be interesting to know what other mats you may have tried and not liked. I tried many combinations with both Technics MK2 and MK3. Both versions of the stock Technics mat with and without Texas Instruments FerriShield (FerriShield helped a lot with MK2!). Also the Boston mat, TT Weights (2, 3 or 4 of these, with and without periphery ring). Also the Funk Firm from GB, the Micro Seiki CU-180 and Herbies mat. My absolute all time favorite is the Micro Seiki CU-180 (I have three of them now). Be sure it's genuine if you are buying one, there are lots of copies and counterfeits. Second place is the Boston Carbon Fiber and then the rest sort of fall wherever, depending on what compromise you prefer. Mapman wrote: If done well, each optimized phono SYSTEM should perform well. Each better or worse perhaps in particular aspects of the resulting sound. Which is better will often be a matter of personal preference and also how that phono system fits into the larger system as a whole as well. Obviously, use of high quality components in the properly integrated system is an insurance policy of sorts towards better performance, but not necessarily an indicator of better sound. We can close the thread now, that's pretty much perfectly stated :^). |
Lewm,
I don't think the MK3 is effected by the weight of either of these mats. All I'm hearing is the difference in construction or whatever else is going on between these two "hard material" designs.
My MK2 was not effected by the Boston mat or Funk Firm. I don't remember trying the Micro Seiki CU-180 with it.
The Micro Seiki mat is so expensive I was late moving into them. The Boston is a superb alternative and far less expensive. I think very fairly priced based on construction and performance (at least in my system). |
Jonathan, you posted this in another tread: 11-01-09: Weisselk
I make slate plinths, under the OMA name, so obviously I am not unbiased. And I HAVE listened to an SP10 with no plinth. Which is why it strikes me as rather absurd to go that route. Same with people who like a skeletal or box plinth with decks like the Garrards.
Weisselk (Answers | This Thread) I realize this was in response to "nude" or no plinth but it got me looking at designs on the OMA website. I see Technics SP10 are left in their original casework and you obviously have had good results with that. I also leave the Technics in it's case but support it with an aircraft aluminum sandwich within the interior. On the bottom an iron block is secured with stainless screws that join the Panzerholz and aluminum sandwich. This iron block is drilled and tapped, a brass rod screw tensions up against the Technics bearing after the table is installed in the plinth to further reduce any possibility of chassis flex. Mikelavigne answered your question about Steve's plinths and I have answered about mine. You're not being ignored. |
Jonathan, Steve should be at RMAF but I'm going to be taking photo's as usual.
I heard the OMA rim drive at CES and was mightily impressed, probably the best source at the show. If your SP10 plinth is indeed 200 pounds of slate it cannot help but sound wonderful. I'm all about the belief that mass is required to tame the powerful MK3 and Slate is another way to get there.
In some ways we're doing the same thing. Slate naturally has constrained layers, formed by nature. I'm getting mine by using layers formed under pressure (German Panzerholz). |
Jonathan, I thought you were partners with Win Tinnon. I stood in the hallway with Win and spoke at length about how good the table sounded.
Maybe it was another show other than CES? I've covered almost every audio show and they sometime run together in my mind. |
Radicalsteve,
Where did you get the Plattentellerauflage mat you mention that's made in Germany? What is the cost? |
To have answers why these vintage tables react so positive to certain material and built methods would be of interest would it not? I have ideas about that. First of all the Technics SP10 MK2 and MK3 sound good in their original Obsidian plinth. They sound good with the original Technics arm too. The MK3 is especially powerful, expending a lot of energy keeping speed perfectly as set. I think any after market plinth, even one made only with multiple layers of Baltic Birch properly bonded, result in an improvement over the original Obsidian. When you move into a plinth like Steve Dobbins builds, Oswald Mills builds and I build, you simply improve upon lesser methods. Higher quality, heavier, less resonant materials push these tables up against the best out there, regardless of when they were built. I think belt drive is less sensitive to this but also result in improvement when heavier designs are implemented. In other words, Mapman is correct Heavy + rigid = better isolation.
Is it any more complicated than that? As Raul frequently states, mating these tables (new or old) with proper arm and cartridge combo finishes the job we begin with table and plinth. |
Franks,
There is a Boston mat that does not completely fill the recessed "cut" area on Technics platter but works wonderfully.
In other words there were two sizes available when Boston Audio and I spoke on the phone, I ordered the slightly smaller than standard diameter. |
I've received a lot of email inquires since this post began so I'll answer here for everyone to read. Porter Plinth has evolved into exclusively a dual arm design, different than images featured at SoundfountainAll Porterhouse plinths are made from layers of Bass wood, Panzerholz, aircraft aluminum and have the iron block and brass rod to support the original Technics design chassis. Panzerholz compromises the majority of these from base model to level three. Level three gets real lumber (not veneer) one inch thick in places. Real Ebony lumber has been the choice for the few we've delivered. Other lumber such as Rosewood, Wenge, Walnut, Cherry, Maple (or customer choice) for anything available in the market. Image of the new dual arm plinth are on my system thread here at Audiogon and I will add to my PorterHouse Audio web site as soon as I capture images in my studio that do justice to its appearance. This is not a money making deal, I do this because I love it. So far we're managing (at max speed) about two or three a year. Hardly a mass produced item. |
