Can't comment on Albert's product except to say I am certain it is very high quality. But I have "refurbished, replinthed, and rearmed" some of these direct drives in slate and/or wood (Technics Mk2, Mk3; Denon DP80), and the results are worth the expense and physical effort. |
Raul, You wrote, "So, this subject is more of what we are looking for about: quality performance or better look." Is there no room in your universe for an opinion that differs from yours? I respect your personal opinion that your SP10 Mk2 sounds best with no plinth. I would hope you could also respect my opinion and that of many others that the SP10 Mk2 sounds best with a well designed and in some cases massive plinth. I don't think that those of us who prefer the heavy plinth are merely interested in the appearance of the turntable, and it's unfair to imply that, IMO. And by the way, removing the metal bottom cover is not incompatible with mounting the chassis in a plinth. As regards plinth vs no plinth, the OP could obviously try it both ways and decide for himself. The no plinth solution costs very little money to implement, if one can find the rather rare Audio Techinica feet that Raul uses under his chassis. |
Isaac Newton gives us the best reason for using a massive and well-damped plinth. It's his 3rd Law of Motion, which is summed up thusly: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The motor of an SP10 Mk2 and especially the Mk3 has enough torque to rotate the whole chassis, if nothing else is holding it in place. Thus the rotational energy available from the motor is partially wasted in motion of the chassis, when there is no plinth. I have seen this phenomenon in action when I applied power to my Mk2 whilst it was sitting unfettered on my workbench. It nearly rotated itself off the bench and onto the floor. Granted, I am being melodramatic, because max torque is not developed except in the first second or two after start-up. And I really don't mean to be dogmatic on this subject; I am just going with my ears here. |
Dear Nikola, If my slate plinths are at all "beautiful" it is only because the company that cut the slate for me does a nice neat job. Once I got the slate slabs back here, I just sealed them with a mixture of oils, and that's all I did for beauty. (The sealer makes the gray-ish slate go more toward the black color.) I paid not much attention to beauty.
Dear Raul, I consider that we are friends, so this is a friendly discussion. To me the issue of mounting the tonearm on a separate base is a whole different can of worms. There are really good reasons to link the tonearm and turntable bearing solidly in space that have little to do with massive plinths. But I do admire your willingness to experiment with all sorts of unfashionable ideas. I HAVE heard an SP10 in a minimal, low-mass plinth, and it was quite unremarkable. I have not tried mounting any tonearm separate from the turntable chassis, because I just think that's not a good idea. Here is my thought experiment that leads me to this conclusion: Suppose you are in a small boat floating in a lake. Someone asks you to perform an intricate task by hand, like calligraphy for example. The paper on which you have to write can be either in a separate boat, so that you have to lean out of your boat and do calligraphy in an adjacent boat, OR you can have the paper and pen in your own boat. Obviously, the task is going to be easier when you, the paper on which you have to write, and your tools are in the same boat, because a second boat is going to bob up and down independently of yours, thereby increasing the difficulty of doing your job maximally well. That's how I think of the tonearm/cartridge vs the turntable; they should be in the same mechanical universe, not in two different universes. The tonearm/cartridge movements due to environmental influences should be identical to those seen at the platter bearing. If you mount the tonearm on a separate pod, there are no guarantees of that. You are introducing another source of error, needlessly. I know there are fancy, expensive turntables that feature separate tonearm pods; I think the idea is fundamentally flawed. |
Hi Downunder, I presume that the judgement of the relative merits of the turntables is completely subjective. Yes? (But what else can it be, really?) Can you disclose what type of system is in use? (Speakers, preamplifier, amplifier, etc.) Have you heard the various competitors and do you agree with the conclusion? Raul (and I) would also want to know what tonearms and cartridges are at play. With the P3 and the Walker, one is "limited" to the single built-on choices of tonearm, and by the same token those two tonearms cannot be used with any of the other tables. (I say limited in quotes, because in both cases the respective tonearms are superb, although very different from each other.) This hobby is so freakin' difficult. Interesting that the mighty Micro Seiki's are not in the top 2. |
Thanks for your response, DU. When I remarked about the difficulty of this hobby, it was more in fun than anything else. If in the end all of this were not subjective, there would be no fodder for these discussions. But I do have to agree with Jlsemrad in the sense that there DOES seem to be a "sound" associated with the best DD turntables that one either does or does not prefer. One can easily learn to hear through the tonearm and cartridge to discern that quality imparted by direct-drive (and for me idler-drive as well). And the plinth (or the no-plinth) is very much a part of that equation. As I mentioned to Raul, when I bought my first SP10 MK2, it came in a mediocre lightweight wood/MDF plinth. To me that sounded "gray", dull, lifeless, even though the pace of music was well recreated. Similarly, my Denon DP80 came to me in a Denon DK300 plinth, the best of the ones Denon made for that table. Like the Mk2, the DP80 in the DK300 was rather lifeless. The DP80 really came to life, however, in slate (and admittedly after an electrical restoration as well). I am not at all arguing that slate per se is any better than a well conceived wood plinth. Slate was just the easiest route for me, since I am no kind of woodworker and could not afford the best of the wood plinths. |
I have heard the Walker in a friend's system, and I think it is fantastic. I never heard it side by side with any direct-drive turntable, and frankly I would be surprised if an SP10 Mk2 could "trounce" a Walker, regardless of the plinth used, but I have no argument with what someone else heard. However, the finding spurred me to experiment with direct- and idler-drive turntables, because there is no way I am going to afford a Walker.
My completely empirical thoughts on the subject of plinths and platters is as follows: For belt-drive turntables, minimal or no plinth and a very massive platter correlate positively with performance. One can argue all day long about whether the motor for a BD table needs to be strong to control the platter or weak to allow platter mass to dominate. I don't know; both ways could work if designed well. Multiple motors for BD seems silly to me. For direct-drive turntables, a well-designed plinth seems to help. I will grant Raul's contention that I/we have not experimented with no or a minimal plinth, but I certainly have experimented with light weight bad plinths, and they do harm rather than good. I think platter mass is probably less important for DD than for BD. I think I am going to like core-less motors over other types (based on what owners say about the Exclusive P3, and what I hear from my Kenwood L07D), and I think there should be "enough" torque to control the platter, but massive or excessive torque may not be a dominant requirement. For DD, the motor control mechanism is very important (duh!). |
Jlsemrad, Interesting idea. Perhaps the reason that Raul likes the outboard tonearm pod with his plinth-minimal SP10 is related to isolating the tonearm from undamped resonances created by the motor. Still, I think the tonearm and bearing need optimally to reside in a closed system with each other. |
Mapman, You have fallen prey to a common fallacy regarding direct-drive turntables, one that was first foisted on the audiophile public when we were led to believe that belt-drive is inherently superior. That is the idea that a direct-drive turntable would naturally be "noisy", because after all the motor is right there at the spindle/platter interface. But if you will take note of the actual manner in which all of the better direct-drive turntables are built, you will see this is a fallacy. Generally the magnet structure or stator of the motor is part of the platter itself or is firmly affixed to the platter when the platter is in place. Then the rotor part of the motor is a fixed non-mobile structure around the circumference of the magnet/stator. Thus when the platter is in motion there are zero moving parts separate from the platter; it is driven directly by the electromagnetic interaction of the stator and rotor. Only the bearing itself can contribute any noise into the system, just as it can also do in a BD or idler-drive. Moreover, the DD motor only has to rotate at 33.33 rpm, in contrast to the motor of a belt- or idler-drive turntable which has to rotate at many times the speed of the platter. Slower motors tend to be quieter than faster motors. As further evidence of this, all you have to do is look at the fantastic S/N ratios thus achieved by the best DD turntables. So, you are free to prefer whatever you prefer, but don't say that DD turntables are noisy per se. |
I made no comparison between direct- and belt-drive turntables on any level, especially to say one is noisier than the other. I was just addressing what I perceived to be an inference by Mapman that direct-drive turntables are inherently noisy, because of the positioning of the motor. Nor does it follow that because a DD turntable might (or might not, according to Raul) sound best in a massive plinth, this is an indication that DD tables have special issues with noise. To me the rationale for the massive plinth is the high torque of DD motors in the more expensive tables. This torque is applied at the center of mass of the platter and so is best counter-acted by a massive plinth. Earlier I made mention of Newton's third law of motion. The acceleration of the platter by the motor is exactly counter-acted by a force to twist the motor/chassis. If we firmly fix the motor/chassis in a massive plinth, then the angular acceleration on the motor/chassis goes down in proportion (In a linear system, F = ma; where m = mass and a = acceleration. If m goes up, a goes down.) Thus vibrational forces induced by the very torque of the motor (not by noise per se) is diminished. This is the way I think of it. |
Mapman, You are quite right that not all that torque is used during play. We like to think that some torque now and then is needed to maintain speed stability in the face of stylus drag, which can vary in degree related to the tortuosity of the record groove. Torque is also in play when the platter goes off speed for any other reason, like due to cogging, etc. I never saw anyone put any numbers on these forces, so I don't know how great or small they may be. If we ever had any real facts to go on, we would not need to have these rambling discussions. |
What is the weight of a CU-180? The stock MK2 mat weighs a bit more than half a pound. I would not use a mat that weighs much more than 1.5 lbs. It is not the bearing I would worry about; it is the servo action. The servo and motor were designed together for a specific total mass of platter + mat. But this is REALLY off-topic. |
Raul, I guess what I was speculating about earlier is as follows: Many/most of us equate the good qualities of the Garrard/Lenco/SP10s/etc to the "high torque" of their respective motors. Turns out in real analysis done by Mark Kelly that the Garrard and Lenco motors are in fact not particularly high in torque; they are just large in size and relatively inefficient in converting AC input to power output. Yet without a doubt both are wonderful sounding turntables (even better when installed in proper plinths, I would insist). With the SP10s and some other DD tables, they really do have high torque motors and do also sound good. I just don't know whether the two facts (torque and sound quality) are linearly related. It seems to me that what we are liking about these idler- and direct-drive turntables is inherently related to the drive mechanisms but not necessarily to motor torque. I had promised myself not to make any more sweeping generalizations for which my listening experience is totally inadequate, but here I've done it again. I can also say, to support my thesis in part, that the Kenwood L07D motor has only "adequate" torque, yet the L07D just is a fantastic turntable. For another thing, my tricked out Denon DP80 has much less torque than my SP10 Mk2 and sounds as good, in similar slate plinths. |
Halcro, you raise in interesting question. Those old M-S direct-drives are not rated in the top tier, but a modern equivalent is the Grand Prix Monaco, which could be said to be plinth-less, even though it appears that the carbon fiber bits are there to provide some resonance control. The GPM certainly IS top tier, as is the Teres Certus. The latter basically has no plinth either, but once again, there is a lot of wood in the Certus, and it's not entirely there for looks. It would be nice to hear from those designers.
By the way, in view of the original post, I don't think this is off topic, but if it is, I do apologize. |
Knowledge is power. Educate yourself on basic electronics, and you will no longer be naive or subject to the foolish rhetoric of audio advertising or hyped up reviews in magazines. |
Wonder if you can cut it with a waterjet, a la slate.
For comparison, a slab of Pennsylvania slate that is 12 inches square (one square foot) and one inch thick weighs 15 lbs. (Slate from other sources can be more or less dense. For example, Vermont slate, from northern VT, is more dense.) So, a slab of PA slate that is 7 ft long by 39" wide (lets say 3 ft, so I don't have to use a calculator) by one inch thick would weigh 315 lbs. By no means do I mean this (the fact that slate is more dense) to infer that slate is "better" than Panzerholz for plinth-building, because in fact I am coming to believe that a combination of these and/or similar materials might be optimal. And it's quite possible that Panzerholz is superior to slate; I haven't tried it. To be honest, the foregoing information about the difficulties of obtaining and working with Panzerholz just shows the wisdom of ordering a finished plinth from Albert. |
Dear Halcro, Have not laid eyes on a live GPM, let alone heard one. Maybe I will see one at the RMAF, if I get there.
Dear Dbcooper, I am constructing a combination baltic birch/slate plinth for my SP10 Mk3. Albert was kind enough to lend me his idea of an energy absorbing metal block and rod, built into the (wood part of the) plinth. It is taking forever, and little problems take me a long time to solve, because I have a profession and a family with more important problems that have to come first. But the end is in sight. (So too is mine.) |
Jfrech, Do you recall or can Albert tell us what turntable mat he is using on his Mk3? Surely the factory stock rubber mat can be beaten. The choice of a mat makes a huge difference, once the other elements are optimized.
I like your choice of the word "wetness". If we are on the same wave length, this descriptor indicates that Albert's plinth is probably fully successful. IMO, the stock MK2 has only one major fault, and that is, or could be described as, "dryness" or a faint gray-ish coloration. (I have not heard a Mk3 yet, not even my own, so I don't know to what degree the Mk3 is inherently free of this character.) Raul might fairly say, and maybe I would also say, that the dry, gray coloration is a sign of an inadequate plinth that is adding its character to the sound. Perhaps this sonic character is mitigated BOTH by using "no plinth" AND by adding a well designed plinth. Pure speculation. |
If the M-S mat weighs 4 lbs, consider that the platter + mat now weighs over 12 lbs. (If memory serves, the MK2 platter alone weighs about 8 lbs.) This represents a nearly 50% increase in mass over the stock platter + mat (8 to 9 lbs total). I'm just sayin'....
Maybe it's harmless; maybe not. |
I use a SAEC SS300 metal mat on my Mk2 and Denon DP80. Weighs a bit over 1 lb and seems to be well tolerated in both cases.
Mike, I presume Steve Dobbins made your beautiful copper mats. (Well, he surely made the one on The Beat.) Does he sell them to the general public, or only to those who purchase a larger enchilada? |
Dear Radicalsteve, 4.5 KILOGRAMS? Really? Holy patootie; that is 9.9 lbs, which is more than the platter weighs on a Mk2. How long does the table take to get up to speed, not that this alone is any measure of how the servo functions with such a huge increase in total mass? The proof is in the pudding, I guess. |
Thanks, Mike, for the info on your "copper tops". We've discussed this before, and I should have remembered that those surfaces belong to the respective platters, not to any mat.
Logenn, or anyone, as long as you have the correct adapter in place so that proper rotational speed is achieved (the name of the part escapse me), can you tell me a reason why a Garrard will sound any different with a 60Hz AC supply vs a 50Hz one? I've read endless arguments about the effects of high vs low voltage on the performance of that motor, but this is the first time I have seen anything about the effect of frequency. |
Albert, Thanks for your response on mats. It is surprising that your favorite and second favorite mats are wildly different in material construction AND in weight. The Micro, according to others above, weighs ca 4 lbs and the Boston Audio Mat, which I like a lot on my Lenco, must weigh much LESS than the stock rubber Technics mat, which weighs a bit more than half a pound, if memory serves. I have already expressed my concerns re using the Micro mat on the Mk2, due to the fact that it increases total mass of platter + mat by about 50%, which one would think would not be good for optimal servo performance. But the proof of the pudding is in the listening. |
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. Thanks. Hope a response does not create a conflict of interest for you, as a dealer.
By the way, I think you and Raul are both correct. The best most scientifically "valid" comparison is the one performed as Raul suggests. But that was not possible in this case, and Albert's comparison must be the next best thing. I especially am swayed by the "months" of listening by Albert and many other skilled listeners, and the use of several different cartridges, that went into the decision process. But the conclusion is that the Walker table with its tonearm, etc. was not loved as much as the Mk3 with its tonearm, etc, where "etc." includes mostly the plinth materials, since other variables WERE held constant. |
Dear Albert, Thanks for the further clarification on which turntable gets the Micro mat. I fully agree that the Micro and the Mk3 would go well together. My reservations only relate to using the Micro with the much lighter and much less torque-y Mk2. There are guys who do it, however. |
Sorry, I should have directed my remark to Travis, aka T_bone.
An added fact is that the pattern for the 5 threaded inserts provided for the bolts that fasten the tt chassis to its plinth in all 3 models, the MkII, 2A, and 3, is identical. Hence, you can drop a Mk3 into any of the 3 plinths that Travis described. The MkII and Mk2A would not fit into the dedicated Mk3 plinth, however, because the underside of the former two is square whereas the Mk3 is circular. |
Tim, I saw that post several months ago. The guy is somewhat of an engineer and seems to know a lot more about materials science than I do, but his conclusions don't remotely compare to my personal experience, certainly as regards MDF vs slate. In fact, it could be said that his results are proven wrong per se by anyone who has listened to plinths made of these two materials using the same turntable chassis. MDF sucks for direct-drive, IME. I owned a Jean Nantais Lenco plinth made of alternating layers of MDF and baltic birch which was excellent but not as neutral as my slate Lenco. His work did make me more curious about Panzerholz, however,which fared very well. The relationship of his test results to goodness of a plinth material could be a case of "True, True, Unrelated". Remember that choice from College Board tests?
I argued the issue with the poster. For example, I pointed out to him that the result one gets using his technique might be dependent on the orientation of the slate (parallel vs perpendicular to the layered structure) with respect to the vector direction of the stimulus and the placement of the measuring gear, but he insisted it would make no difference without offering proof. I notice that slate is kind of ring-y if struck with force perpendicular to the layers (I.e., top surface of any of my plinths) but is dead as dead can be when struck by a force parallel to its layering. Then there is the whole question of whether the results of striking any material are relevant at all to how it may perform in this application. |
Mapman, In less sophisticated terms, that's what I said to the guy who posted those data on Vinyl Engine, to which Tim referred. He responded that orientation of the grain structure of the slate would make no difference to the outcome of his study, but he offered no relevant proof. Really, it does not matter. The very fact that MDF = slate by his method of analysis is proof to me that his method is irrelevant to the issue of what makes a good plinth. My SP10 Mk2 came to me originally in a custom-built MDF plinth; the MDF enhanced all the potential colorations inherent to the SP10 (a kind of "grayish" slightly dull coloration). In slate, and I am sure in Panzerholz too, the SP10 is transformed. |
Mapman, Do not agonize over the science, because there IS no good science in this endeavor. Experiments could be done but who would fund them and who has the time (and who cares enough)? The path is open to you based on empiric observation. Obsidian is probably excellent. Slate and Panzerholz, using some new tricks and probably more mass than the Technics obsidian plinths, seems better based on a consensus of opinion. Other kinds of hardwood probably also work well. I once considered buying an obsidian plinth and then mass-loading it with slate or other dense material. That might work, too. |
Nealw, What "other designs" are you referring to? It seems to me that the integral armboard is most usual with plinths. Outboard pods for mounting the tonearm seem to be the exception rather than the rule. In principle, I don't like the idea of a totally separate arm mount, and I have stated my reasons elsewhere. But in practice, such arrangements could possibly sound very good; I wouldn't know.
Mosin, I wish I had known in advance about that "shoot-out" in the DC area. It would have been fun to get in on that. Would you really say that the Continuum tables have no plinth? I see that the works are enclosed in a rectangular box-like structure, rather than mounted on the box as per a conventional plinth, but I would think that the box has an effect on coloration of the sound, be it good or evil. |
Tim, I think a suboptimal plinth can do negative things to the sound that cannot be corrected by choice of tonearm or cartridge. So, first of all, it is important to be happy with the plinth. Ah, but how to define "happy"? |
The more I think about it, the more I agree with myself re my statement about poorly designed plinths. Denon plinths definitely hold back the ultimate performance of Denon turntables, with the possible exceptions of the DK300 and DK2300 pliinths. However, a good slate plinth crushed the performance of my DK300 plinth for my DP80. Similarly, I mentioned the badness of the SP10 in a large, heavy, homemade MDF plinth. In both cases, the plinths imparted a baseline coloration that could not be subtracted by tonearm/cartridge combinations. (The Technics obsidian plinths for the Mk2 and Mk3 would seem to be good efforts, however.) |
Dear Vertigo,
Some days it hardly pays to get out of bed.
But I don't think the situation is as hopeless as you paint it, in terms of predicting outcomes. I find that if a "system" (using your definition of the term) affects the sound a certain way in a certain context, then it will tend to do that in other contexts as well. The unpredictability lies in the ear/brain of the listener.
Also, if we take that the job of a plinth is essentially the same no matter what it is made of, which is to be "neutral", then it follows that Panzerholz and slate should not be so different from one another.
Anyway, my head is spinning. |
Hi Albert,
You can see a photo of my SP10 Mk3 slate and hardwood combination plinth on my system site. The wood base is made of solid cherry and baltic birch. Underneath I have mounted a brass block, recessed into the wood base and dead center under the bearing housing, with a threaded brass rod that contacts the bottom of the housing. Same idea as yours, only I used brass for all parts, and the brass rod has a slightly finer thread pattern compared to yours. I am very thrilled with the results, needless to say. Paul Dang (I think) in Houston made the wood base for me to my specs. Very nice guy, and his workmanship is superb. The Mk3 is or was NOS, but I had Bill Thalmann work his magic on it nevertheless. Six bolts hold the slate to the wood base. Five more hold the Mk3 down tightly against the surface of the slate. |
Dear Vertigo,
If you wait for a scientific definition of perfection, when it comes to vinyl reproduction, and even when it comes to digital, you will be standing by the side of the road forever. Most of what you wrote is true; but there is still a lot of fun to be had in the subjective pursuit of happiness. This lack of precision actually works in our favor. If there were any absolute standards beyond what pleases the listener, audio would be a pretty boring hobby, in fact. We would be without eccentrics like Simon Yorke, probably.
Right next to my SP10 Mk3 sits a Lenco, using a different tonearm and a wonderful MM cartridge, in contrast to the MC Ortofon on the Mk3. Both sound superb and not terribly different to my ears. (Both give a big, free, open sound with plenty of depth and stage width.) I could live with either tt alone and probably will pick one, as I ride off into audio Valhalla. On the other side of the Mk3 sits a Kenwood L07D, one of the few tables ever built with a well engineered plinth that needs no mods whatsoever. Constrained layer damping a la 1979. It sounds great too. Record mats are very very important, I agree, by the way. Is that a bad thing? |
Which obsidian plinth? I think there were at least two different ones made by Technics for the Mk2. The heavier of the two is likely to be not at all bad, perhaps only a notch below Albert's plinth or a good slate plinth or anyone else's personal obsession. |
Dave, The MkII and the Mk2A are physically identical, so any plinth that fits one will fit the other. |
