I am looking at the Denon DP-3000, which appears like it might be able to slide out and mount into a homemade base?

Basically I am looking for a dual arm setup.

Also my existing TT only takes 1 arm, and it is limited in which arms lengths it can support. 

Or are there other drive units which might be better suited to such a scheme?


Either the high end Denon or the Victor (JVC) motor units are perfect for doing a DIY turntable. Lots of information on either if you do a search.



Dear @holmz  : Try to find out the Denon DP80 or DP75:



Here the one you are asking for, the 80 is better:



Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,


+1 for Raul’s advice. The earlier Denons in the "thousand" series, DP3000, etc, did not have quartz-locked servo control. The later 2-digit series, DP47 on up to DP75 and DP80 do have that, and you want that feature. The DP75 and DP80 are the best of that later series, with the unobtainable DP100 at the top. DP100 is a very large studio type machine with a huge motor. I own a DP80; subjectively it is remarkably good for the cost, even now at somewhat higher cost compared to when I bought mine. The one thing you want to be aware of: the platter has what looks like a piece of recording tape lining the inner rim of the platter. That needs to be in perfect condition for proper speed control; there is a stationary device that reads the speed continuously by monitoring that piece of tape, and makes corrections when needed. Electronics can be repaired, but so far as I know that tape can be a problem if badly damaged.

Actually, now that I see the current prices in the auction that Raul quoted, it's a steal if you can get either TT at near that price.  BUT caveat emptor about that tape liner on the platter.

@holmz, I have a DP-3000 (no quartz lock) in a custom plinth so what you are asking can be done. You just need to spec the size of the plinth such that it can support two tonearms. You might also want to think about using arm boards that can be swapped out and support various types of tonearms you may want to use. My DP-3000 was made to support Denon arms only as my goal was to have an all Denon turntable set up.

I also have a Technics SP-15 (quartz lock) which is mounted on a plinth that supports two tonearms. If you want to explore choices outside of Denon the Technics DD tables are quite good as well.

As for quartz lock or no quartz lock, I won't go there. Both my DD tables perform really well in my system, but for what it's worth I am enjoying my idler drive table right now.

Thanks @clio09 @lewm @rauliruegas ​​​& ​@billwojo 

I did find a Luxman PD555 sort of near by, but it is ~5500 (USD). That would be a bit easier, but sucks up a lot of budget.

But maybe it is worth consideration too?

Thoren are pretty easy to fix up. You can get a TD160 super or any of those belt drives, they are easy and fun. Easy to add whatever you like as far as tonearms.

Most of the parts interchange. The 121 and 124 are a lot nicer but they are for recording, broadcasting or transcription. Playback really doesn’t need the speed to be perfect. Recording from it, could be an issue..

They have a GREAT factory suspension and a LOT of easy inexpensive mods too. As I mentioned a lot of the parts interchange on the light belt belt drives. I keep a cool 1/2 dozen on hand. TD124 and Russco are my favorites. You can always use a pedestal mount or mod the plinth for a pocket drop & swap.


Post removed 

I have a selection of DD TT's which are duplicated, a duplicate model is to undergo a Platter Spindle Bearing Rebuild to assess how a modern approach to a Bearing design can impact on the SQ.

Within the collection of DD TT's, there are thee Denon DP80's, of which one has the Gunmetal Platter.

I am intending on One Model to receive a complete rebuild of the Patter Spindle Bearing Housing with modern materials exchanged for the original Parts.

One Model to have the Bearing Serviced and One Model to remain as purchased.

I can then compare the rebuilt bearing with Both Platter Types to the Original with a Bearing Serviced and Bearing untouched with both Platter Types, mounted on a Lead Plinth using the same Tonearm>Cartridge.

The final experience will be to mount the TT's in a Panzerholz Plinth and see how the modern materials in use are comparable to the earliest used materials.

This method is already underway on another Vintage DD TT.

As stated before and not really picked up on, an Aurex SR-520 is a very affordable  DD TT which was a Top of the Range model and can be sourced at a very fair price, 

I don't foresee disappointment when cost to performance and SQ is considered in the purchase equation.

The individual that made myself aware of the model had compared, the most basic model, very favourably to a Micro Seiki Model.

Their Model now has a much improved Tonearm in use with it.  


Thanks @oldhvymec

@pindac I am tracking now. And look forwards to your efforts.

The lead platter is interesting. A bit more costly and slightly (maybe) technically better would be tungsten inserts in some other metal or plastic.
(Of course one cannot cast that at home from old range debris, or spent batteries)

I saw a few Aurex/Toshiba DR-510 but no SR-520 links.

I’ll likely await to se how your efforts go, and move other projects to the front of the queue.

That was an early morning post, the link will guide you, and there are more affordable models to be discovered than this price.

The Plinth is a Lead Version and not the Platter .

There is a Phosphor Bronze / Gun Metal Platter to be used on the DP 80's

The Gun Metal Platter has a Recess on the underside at the Spindle Pin Location, and an Engineer friend is to produce inserts that will enable the platter to be attached to other TT's.

The SP10 MkII is the first of the models I have requested to be investigated, to see how the marriage will work. This is appealing as the SP10 Mk II is to be used as both Standard in a Panzerholz Plinth and as a Kaneta Design in a Panzerholz Plinth.

The methods put to use are purely as a result of being a hobbyist with an interest and the knowing individuals who have very good machining skills especially where the need of HiFi is required.

Dear @holmz  :  " I did find a Luxman PD555..."

The 555 and the Toshiba 510 are both way inferior units against the Denon DP80/75 that outperforms it. The " atracttive " in the 555 is its vacuum hold down LP mechanism but you can have it in the Denons with after market devices.

In the other side and other than its excellent motors the double platter used is a characteristic that makes a difference for the better, Denon knew for sure the advantages of its overall TTs designs.


If I remember @lewm  mounted his Denon in a custom made plinth of slate and he was and is really satisfied with. He owns other great vintage TTs and owns a top audio system. As always with custom made plinths the critical issue is that be well damped for external and internal resonances/vibrations.

Anyway, you have options and if you like the 555 go a head it does not needs a custom plinth.



Pindac, you mention this: "three Denon DP80's, of which one has the Gunmetal Platter."  I am at a loss to understand how a DP80 can accommodate a gunmetal platter, which presumably would have much higher mass than the original, but most of all, how do you incorporate the tape liner that is needed for the motor and servo to monitor platter speed?  Are you saying the gunmetal platter was an option offered by Denon?  If so, I learn something new and amazing every day.  I never heard of it, and I would not have thought it possible, if the gunmetal platter is high in mass, like the old Micro Seiki types. 

As regards Raul mentioning my slate plinth for the DP80, I made an engineering drawing for a waterjet company to program their computer, and I supplied them with a blank slate slab.  They cut the hole for the Denon chassis and we even were able to reproduce the 3 holes for the screw fasteners.  I would be happy to supply that template to anyone, if I can find it.  In addition to procuring the slate slab, you'd need to engage a competent and willing waterjet company.  The one I used is in York, PA.

I have to listen to a TT to judge how it impacts on me and leaves a impression.

As I really enjoy the music and the pleasure of sharing in moments with LP's, especially the ones owned for numerous years, along with those purchased to offer a helping hand to upcoming artists. 

When taking part in such moments I don't use the time for analytically dissecting the equipment and deciding if one is outperforming the other, that is not where I am at.

If the equipment in use is making a good first impression, it can remain in use until such a time a different flavour is sought. That could even prove to be a period of listening to a CD.

Some Vinyl users attempt to indulge in a different flavour by having options on Tonearms and Cartridges, along with other means to create the experience, I do this with TT's and Phonostages, I am Cartridge and Tonearm Loyal and have throughout my experience used a range of Tonearms that I do not really wish to experience any longer.

The appreciation in value is quite nice though, the Grand Children will enjoy the trinkets when inherited.

Periodically I do have my version of being analytical, especially when trialling materials and creating new interfaces.

The outcome of the trials undertaken and experiences encountered, is that I have developed a preference for a light weight plinth structure and no longer create massy plinth structures. The selection of Granite  Slate, and Stone Composite I accumulated does not have a future use as a TT Plinth. The Materials are to found in my system as parts of a Sub Plinth Structure for mounting Speakers and Power Amps.

The TT's that have been demonstrated and used with lighter materials has proved to get my attention and approval, I have made the transition to the lightweight plinth material in an assured manner.  

One other benefit of having TT's mounted onto lightweight materials when compared to stone, is the ease of handling.                                                                Taking a Stone Plinth TT to another system to be demonstrated as part of a social gathering can create quite a few concerns, it is a very fit young mans sport.

I don't hesitate to offer a TT mounted in a Light Weight Plinth Material to be taken along for a demonstration. 

Certain of the owned Materials designated to be used for Plinth Materials is also proving to be a excellent material to be incorporated into a Sub Plinth Structure.

Making a Plinth capable of mounting Two Tonearms, will add a noticeable mass if Stone is the Selected Material, and potentially create a Weight that is difficult to control, if the Tone arm is increasing in Wand Length. 

There are Board Materials that are designed with properties that are very stable and will not change in a detrimental way in any environment encountered.

There are TT's that demand a high retail price that have Plinth and Chassis produced from Board that is quite unstable and can absorb moisture and warp.

If a careful consideration is given for a board material type, it will not add too much of a noticeable weight increase, if cut to a dimension that will enable the Second Tonearm to be mounted, even if going beyond the usual 9" and 12" Arm configuration.

There are Plenty of TT's that can be considered and Numerous Plinth Materials and designs for these that can be considered, looks like this venture will gather a few followers.

If your confidence grows and a want develops to work with the mechanical interfaces on the TT, I'm sure this extension of the interest will be met with some useful guidance. 


Thanks @pindac I guess I have a couple of questions:

  1. Is it worthwhile to have a 12” and a 9:” arm?
  2. For instance, I have only a single MONO LP, and will not be using a mono cartridge.
  3. I’ve been looking at a few 12” arms, none of which will fit on the current (old) TT.
    1. e.g. Star 12”
    2. A friend had an Origin-Live, and is vocal about his troubles.
    3. The SAT arm looked good, but that 32k Euro was 10dB higher than I would like.

If I select a plinth material that needs a water jet I’ll reach out.
I have been considering something like a Corian/metal and constrained dampening layer sandwich.

As for the 12" Arm I referred to it, as there are commonly seen configurations using a arm of this length on a Two Tonearm Plinth Design.

I am not an owner of  12" Arm but do listen to them. I have listened to the SME V/12" on quite a few occasions prior to Coved, there is a Glanz 12" Model I regularly encounter with a Miyajima Cartridge.

Again I have never detected at any time a difference that is perceivable as a separation between a 9" in use and a 12" in use.

The enjoyment factor during the replays is parity for me when both length arms are in use. 

Another friend who extremely analytical as a listener and in their Mechanical / Electronic Engineering approach, is assisting with rethink designs for a known Tonearm Producer and is the assembler and Tuner of the Brands Top of Range Models, along with being the EE, for the Brands next range of Phonostages.      This friend has recently gone to using a 12" version of a rethought out design for the one in use,  and this has now elevated itself,  as the main used Tonearm in my friends system. I am yet to receive a demonstration of this new addition to their system. 

The individuals I regularly speak to, who produce their own versions of Tonearms and are much more technically minded than myself, have not convinced me during my inquiries, a 12" Model will be a significant improvement. I am not convinced these individuals will be offering a option on a 12" design for their creations.

Again others might feel much more support for the design is merited and be more encouraging in the idea of choosing the length as a model. 

 CLD is a heavily debated method and has quite a few methods regularly seen that is not exactly CLD.

If you want to be guided to good CLD Construction advice supported with measurements for the works created, let me know and I will PM information on how to access it.

Post removed 


 " I’ve been looking at a few 12” arms.."

Even that you have several years in Agon and for your posts as this one seems to me that you are not very aware of what " happens " in the Analog Forum because the 12" issue was analised severakl tiems in several threads. Aniway, a 12" tonearm makes more harm than any real " help " to the cartridge works. Yes, the 12" arms looks really good but the cartridge quality performance normally is better through shorter tonearms than the 12" effective length. As larger the tonearm as slower bearing arm response to the cantilever/stylus tip tracking movements along that the inertia moment is higher and the 12" arm dynamic mass goes against the crtridge job but don't take my word  and read what the tonearms SAT designr says about and I want to tell you that I owned around 8 to 10 12" tonearms:



In the other side and if you decide to go for the DP80 let the double platter in stock way, the main advantage of that double platter is to " kill " resonances. Again Denon knew what they designed.

Now, the best plith is no plinth and you can run the DP 80 in " naked " fashion with tonearms mounted in tower pods.

Btw, which TT/tonearm/cartridges do you own?


Pindac, I asked about your claim that Denon made a gunmetal platter for the DP80, or that there is an aftermarket gunmetal platter for it.  Can you respond to that?

I have no beef with low mass plinths per se, but for a DD turntable, the plinth must anchor the motor so that it does not spin the chassis, or otherwise cause the whole TT to move due to Newton's Third Law of Motion (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction).  This is especially important if you use an outboard arm pod. You could use a low mass plinth, if you anchor it to a heavy shelf, for example.  But if low mass is your god, then one really ought to look at Rega turntables, which are designed from the ground up to be lossy in terms of energy retention. The notion that you need a low mass plinth so you can move your TT around to various audiophile gatherings is just not a factor for me or most of us. If portability is so important, then get a Rega which you could use just for that purpose.  I've seen Linn LP12s at audio shows, just because of their portability.  But neither would be my choice for home use.


is an absolute contradiction in terms. He revels in ancient cartridge designs and then he cow-tows to some pundit of shorter arms on the basis of technological theory. Just as measurements and specifications will not tell you how much enjoyment you will get from a piece of gear, reading white papers to decide which design is preferable is downright asinine. SAT/Gomez designs products for the 1% of the 1% and for systems that bear no resemblance to the relatively crude system of Rauliruegas. 

The truth is that a 12" arm can render more joy and appreciation of home vinyl playback than a 9" otherwise identical arm. I have lived with three different sets of otherwise identical 9" and 12" arms. The only time I preferred the shorter arm was with the otherwise awful VPI unipivots. For Rauliruegas to try to suggest that a vintage table ought to have a 9" arm because SAT arms are 9" is just, for lack of a better word, "precious". 

I have an old Sota Saffire TT with an SAEC WE0317 arm.
Current MI cartridge is a Garrott Bros p77i, which replaces a worn out Blue Point Special… They are sort of like the SoundSmith in that they are MI.

I just picked up a secondhand phono stage that allows for LOMC cartridges to be used. So the Hana ML, AT Art, etc can now be considered, where as the previous phono stage (old ARC PH2) only did 47k MM at 42 or maybe 48 dB of gain.

Holmz-ie, The title of this thread is "DIY TT".  So tell us about your DIY TT. It can't be a Star Sapphire.  I thought you brought up a few DD turntables, like the aforementioned Denons.

@lewm Iwas responding to Raul, who asked 

Btw, which TT/tonearm/cartridges do you own?

So yeah mentioning the TT - I guess also could mean that there are the implicit question of:

  1. Maybe just stick with the Sota?
  2. Cannibalise the Soto for motor and speed controller?
  3. Modify the Sota to accept a second tone arm?

But I think Raul’s question was more of a perspective to understand where I am coming from? (I dunno, I am not a mind reader.)

if you canabalize the SOTA, you should keep everything but the the cabinet. The platter, bearing, motor, subchassis, springs, etc, just make tge box that sits in bigger. the subchassis will need a whisker of modification to support the back arm. 


Thanks Jim - I am relatively handy with the wood tools.
Not great - but good enough to with table saws and routers.

I might pull the Sota apart and inspect the bearing and take some measurements.

I have referenced a  Denon DP-80 with a Gunmetal Platter as these become available for sale and might have proved attractive to the OP.

From my many years of acquiring Japanese Design Vintage DD TT's, I have not seen a Gunmetal Platter as a singular item for sale, even though I have seen the whole Platter Assembly, minus TT,  and inclusive of the Gunmetal part for sale.

There are commonly seen Gunmetal or Stainless Steel options for a Platter that are belonging to other Japanese Vintage DD TT's. Maybe there is a want for such add on parts to a TT within the Japan Market, and I was fortunate to find a DP-80 wiith this part included, I have seen m any since my purchase and there is a premium asking price for such a model.

The jury is out on Massey vs Lightweight Plinths, the point is argued in many forums, I let my listening experiences produce the evidence I needed to motivate my making a change.  

I do not get too caught up in the absolute mechanical theories for a device used in a TT Set Up, much of the precision that is suggested should be in place is inaudible to most listeners and definitely will be very difficult to determine to a well trained ear that has an older body coupled to them. 

There are multiple TT's that have a Platter Spindle that has an eccentric rotation in place as part of the poor design for the interfaces or usage has allowed the interfaces to wear.

The eccentric rotations are detrimental to the Stylus contact in the Groove and Speed Stability, but the replays on a TT with such a Spindle Interface are thoroughly enjoyed y the TT's owner.

Obsessing over thousands of a mm, is not for me, or in that case many manufacturers, who seem to have at time flagrantly flouted the ideas associated with tight tolerances, these things add to the bottom line.

I do meet and share time with individuals who do take microns seriously in the work they produce, one trusted friend also has devices that enable them to measure the effects of some of the work undertaken. They keep there keen eye on such concerns for the workshop, and can separate listening pleasure during demonstrations from the work produced, and I see this as a very attractive trait.

The listeners reactions to the demonstration is enough to see the qualities that are on offer.  

The theory of the mechanics and the obsession with the theories is good fuel for some to rant and attack over, and these rants from my experiences are seen to manifest from a small group only.

I have yet to see a Manufacturer go toe to toe with somebody on the design theories, and it is these bodies that the average user has only got to trust in such matters.

The challenges are usually directed at a user who has made known a choice they chose to use, and one which I am sure in many instances has proven to be a very enjoyable encounter. 

As most comes from a very small faction, it is quite tolerable, even though sometimes there is an unsavoury element to the expressions being made.

Why not just look for a nice Denon dp 37f or 47f quartz  lock direct drive with the servo tonearm and the gorgeous wood plinth already included? Those tables were terrific.

Dear @fsonicsmith  : There is no real contradiction. Over the time we learned in different audio subjects and I learned ( not because SAT but way before) that 12" tonearms in reality does not helps to the cartridge job, the 9"-10" tonearms can control in better way resonances/vibrations developed during play and that's why I sold almost all my 12" tonearms including the SAEC WE 8000 and the 506 even that these ones are really good looking " boys " but that double-knife bearing is not the best for LOMC cartridges and it's not my " voice " Dr. Sao Win that manufactured TT/tonearms/cartridges puts a warning in the operation manual of its LOMC cartridge ( truly good performer ) against the knife bearing with its LOMC cartridge, I owned that Win cartridge and time after sold it I really regret that decision.

The long arm wand in 12" arms develops higher resonances/vibrations/feedback than in shorter arms. Yes, the 12" arms performance are for some audiophiles a better quality and " rich " performance levels than the shorter but the true is that what those gentlemans as you like in the 12" are its higher distortons, nothing wrong with that and there is a " problem " with 12" tonearms and is in its cartridge/tonearm alignment parameters because when we make that cartridge/set up always exist the possibility that we made it 100%  accurated and the      tiny errors in the alignment set up in the overhang/offset angle/P2S and the like goes higher in a 12" tonearm than in a 10".

In theory the tracking distortionn in a 12" is lower than in a 10"-9" tonearm and we audiophiles always look that as an advantage but how much lower is that error in the 12"?

well the average distortion in a 12" is 0.31% and in a 9" is 0.38%. Maybe you can detect that distortion difference of 0.07% but certainly what you and any one can detect is the distortion between both tonearm groove after groove that is around at 0.0025% but that it's changing at each tracking groove. So in reality that distortion advantage in a 12" tonearms has no influence in what we listen and the disadvantages in the 12" certainly we can listen it.


But I have no problem with what you like it.




Dear @holmz : Yes, you are rigth I need to understand your whole " scenario ".

The SOTA is a decent unit, Iowned the Star one paired with the ETtonearm tha was the fashion in those old days. Btw, I like that Garrot that’s better that we could think.

If I was you what I do will be to put on sale your today TT/tonearm and go for a really solid alternative that in some ways is even better than the Denon DP80 option and I’m refering to the Micro Seiki DD units where the one in the link is the MS top one that permits almost mount " all " the tonearms you want it and where you have to make nothing about plinth or any other modification . Well maybe a TT mat alond the Basis Audio clamp. In reference to tonearms I will go with today ones as Reed, OL or Kuzma and with the AT ART cartridge series but if you are biased for Hana then the Umami one:


Well, that's me.



Raul, is that really you?  Most persons who have examined the M-S DD units up close (I have not) come away with the conclusion that they are not well made, in sharp contrast to their behemoth belt-drive models, but most of all you (and I) have not liked the idea of mounting a tonearm over a footer, thereby assuring that environmental disturbances are radiated right into the tonearm pivot.  Sure, there are possibly better DD TTs than the DP80, but I don't agree that the DQX1000 is one of them.  Not everything made by M-S is pure gold.  Also, to Holmz, the DQX is the only one to consider among the M-S DD TTs, because the Q indicates a quartz-referenced servo control.  The DDX models do not have that feature.

Pindac, If you ever again to see a DP80 with an optional gun metal platter, I would greatly appreciate it if you would call that to my attention; I am very curious as I have never seen it or read of it.  Moreover, the DP80 is basically a "lightweight" platter design, relatively speaking.  The Denon literature makes a big deal out of the split in the platter, between inner and outer elements held together by shock absorbing bridges.  It is difficult to imagine how gunmetal as a build material would fit into their split-platter strategy.  I certainly may be uninformed, and I am always curious to learn something new.

Dear @lewm : I don’t care what other people that I don’t know could tell about but I have first hand experiences with the M-S DD units and it’s not that way. You are only " speaking ". Good.


In the other side I have and owned the behemoth BD M-S and are bad performers but the SZ-1. Yes, very good looking but in reality are TTs over regarded. Only a first hand experiences with opinion.

Btw, @holmz , if you like the DQX alternative that auction ends in around 12 hours. Here read the flyer that have interesting information on this TT:


The OP I hope does feel there is time on their side and they do not have t rush into their decisions to acquire a TT.

I have made the Aurex SR 510 known and the information below are Copy and Pastes from the user of one that guided myself towards the model.

We have shared private mails on the TT Subject as well and there is not any  reason to suggest their assessment is incorrect. 

When the statement is made the TT is comparable to a MS RX 1500 TT, there will be a truth in this.

That is a £4000 - £7000 MS TT being slip streamed by a TT that can cost £6800 less.


Toshiba Aurex SR 510 drive with 12" Thorens tonearm.

The Toshiba drive was supposed to compete with the Technics SP 10 at the time is now and again at fair prices in the bay.

The weak point was the original tonearm at that time, and nowadays the integrated PhonoPre is no longer needed for the "special" Toshiba systems.





Now that I've played around with various off-the-shelf tonearms,       I kind of like a straight arm next to the direct drive motor unit, especially when it's a 12' arm.

I tried a Thorens TP92 12' tonearm in one of the existing "parking lot" holes on the side of the headshell to check whether the possible tonearm height fits. The direct drive unit is quite high and the wooden chassis is quite massive.

(I unscrewed the black aluminum cover)

My Thorens TP92 12' arm has continuous wiring that has to be soldered underneath the tonearm base, which fits perfectly with the existing cinch sockets of the Toshiba turntable.

With my other tonearms with DIN connection I would have led out a separate cable, but I like it better that way.

Maybe I'll have the built-in phono preamplifier overhauled, you can bridge it, since the Toshiba has 2 pairs of cinch outputs.


However, the Thorens TP92 in 12' is quite heavy with an effective mass of 21g, which somewhat limits the selection of possible MM pickups (the integrated PhonoPre is only MM), but a JICO SETO HORI MC system could work, since this is a high output MC system goes through and likes medium to heavy tonearms.

Hopefully it will be a bit colder again soon, then it will be even more fun to work on the lathe.



the Toshiba SR 510 also plays with a friend of mine and doesn't need to hide from a Micro Seiki RX-1500 with Koetsu tonearm standing next to it. Thanks to the interchangeable headshell, the comparison (with the contemporary Yamaha MC-9) can be made quickly.

With my SR510, unfortunately, the original tonearm can only be repaired with (for me) greater effort, insofar as the assembly of a modern tonearm in the 1000 EUR class.

The TP92 tonearm is mounted reversibly, if you want to mount the original arm again, this can be done optically and technically without any difference to the original, since the Thorens TP92 hole is covered by the (black) original tonearm base (see pictures).

In fact, it would have been possible to have a frame for the Toshiba direct drive drive built on the basis of a Technics SP10 frame, for example. But in terms of price, it would make the project unnecessarily expensive and since the original frame can still be used "originally", ie it is not damaged by the additional drilling, I went this route.

On one of the next cool days I will devote myself to connecting the tone arm.



@rauliruegas Then I fabricate some tone arm holders and mount them onto one of the 3 feet?

@pindac do you have a link to Aurex - somehow my search is coming up empty. Or maybe I need to change the search location to Denmark ?

Dear @holmz  : Fortunatelly you don't need to fabricate nothing. In the ebay TT link in the second photo you can see one tonearm board, that unit already comes with one arm board and in ebay you find out more arm boards for 12",10" or 9" tonearms. Here one of those M-S boards:


In the other side here the SP10 specs:

Motor : brushless DC
Speed lock : Quartz-Locked phase control
Platter : Ø 32cm / 3kg diecast aluminium
Startup torque : 6kg /cm
Starting time : 0,25s (33 1/3rpm)
Load characteristics : 0% up to 5kg /cm
Speed accuracy : ± 0,002% (10MK2)
Wow & flutter : 0,02% WRMS (JIS C5521)
± 0,035% (peak, DIN 45507)
S/N ratio : 86 db  ( DIN-B )


Here the Toshiba 510:

Type : AC servo motor
System : Direct-drive
Speeds : 33 1/3rpm
Wow & flutter : 0,03% (WRMS)
Pitch control : ± 4%
S/N ratio : 60dB
Platter : 30cm / 1,2kg


 Ignorance is the " mother of all wars " and that Juergen just had no idea of the Technics units, especially the SP10s radio studio designs. . You can take a look to the difference in the platter weigth of each unit, way different. Technics is in a different league as the DP80 or the M-S DQX.




@holmz  : I posted information on vintage TTs only because you asked for that Denon 3000 but today TTs are very good designs, cmes with full warranty and you always can fabricate stand alone tonearm tower board for a second/third tonearm. Even some today design comes with the option of two arm boards where you don't need fabricate nothing at all.

You need to take a look to today units by: SME, Avid, OL, Kuzma, Reed, Sota, Clearaudio, Rega, Technics, SAT,  etc, etc. Try to visit its web sites.

So, today TTs are an excellent option too and in some way the better option.

Obviously it's up to you .




There are probably 100's of Thousands of TT users of which a Large Proportion are types who do not know much of anything about TT's, apart from the need to level one, and have a Tonearm > Cartridge set to a particular geometry.

These types will I assume all be quite adept at replaying vinyl and useful disciplines to be maintained.

Within such a group a smaller proportion 'might' care to know a little more about their TT's such as the design for speed stability, torque, and the correct matching of Tonearm > Cartridge and maybe even consider the correct loading requirements for a Cartridge.

Within the smaller proportion there are a much smaller proportion and very rare type, that obsess in a manner that is a Polar Opposite and even does not seem to have any interest in taking part in the enjoyment of replaying music.

The whole attention is appearing to be focusing only on the the mechanics and electronics and not at any time reflect that the ownership of a HiFi System is basically about replaying music recordings and enjoying the moment.

I have travelled to meet many like minded individuals and throughout the years, during this time, I have encountered what is in my assessment the odd obsessional type, and I have found it to be best practice not to engage to much, as the fun of the days events can easily be obscured by excessive laborious Tech Talk.

The OP has requested that options on TT's are suggested and is working their way through the ones that has been offered.

There are quite a few things been made known, in relation to Plinth Materials to be used for a Design, along with the best configuration on the Plinth for the Tonearm Lengths to be considered.

Designing a Plinth for Two Tonearms is desired and if the Plinth Design was able to support a Longer Tonearm, that would be a future proofing consideration that can be incorporated.  

An alternative if the Plinth Design was not wanted to have a provision to mount a 12" arm or longer would be to use an ancillary that would enable this at a later date. 

The link will show a very recent thread that has discussed ancillary Tonearm Mounting devices, and give the OP a broader insight to how others, including contributors to this thread are expressing their thoughts on the use of such an item


I am sure that the OP's good judgement will help them make a choice for TT that produces a replay that is extremely satisfying, even if the TT has a 9",  12" Arm or longer and the performance is 0.025% rumble - 78dB - torque 1.5 and not   0.015%, rumble -92dB torque 6.0

It does seem from the overall input from the OP, they are keen to own a TT, that has a little creativity from their end contributed to the final assembly.

I am yet to see any concern from them for Microns, rumble and Torque available from a Model. 

  If the OP has been considering the Manufacturers Design Intent for a TT of interest.

The following has been supplied by Juergen, who is in  my view a trusted source, and the  Source of other info offered within this thread.   

I think the info' clearly explains a enjoyable experience can be had when replaying LP's and a Tonearm of choice can be added, as long as it is off a certain length.  

Source: Toshiba brochure from the 70s.


1. Direct drive

2. Electronically controlled servo motor

3.2 speed control

4. Sensor switching

5. Spot spirit level

6. Interchangeable tonearm

7. Preamplifier for electret condenser systems

1. Direct drive


In contrast to the previously known drive systems (friction wheel or belt), the axis of the turntable is one unit with the axis of the rotating part of the motor (rotor) in this studio turntable.

That means:

1. The rumbling noises that occur with this drive system are so low that they are well into the inaudible range.

2. Due to the direct power transmission, any slip is excluded; one reason for the exact adherence to the target speed.

3. The ramp-up time, in which the drive gets from standstill to the target speed, is within half a revolution.

2. Electronically controlled servo motor


The voltage level for the motor of the loudspeaker is constantly kept at the desired value by a photoelectrically generated control voltage.

That means:

Any deviation from the target speed is continuously compensated, the synchronization accuracy is better than 1/30,000.

3. Dual speed control

Advantage 1:

The target speed of 33 1/3 or 45 rpm can be roughly checked by means of a light display - too fast, normal, too slow.

Advantage 2:

There is a fine adjuster for each target speed, which can be used to adjust the indicator light (too fast or too slow) within a range of ±4%. The completely exact setting of the target speed is then carried out using the same fine adjusters with the help of an illuminated stroboscope.

That means:

With this ease of use, precise adjustment of the turntable speed has become possible for everyone; without additional measuring devices and also during operation.

4. Sensor switching


Turntable speed is switched by sensors. That means:

Sensors switch electronically without the application of mechanical force, ie only by briefly touching them. As a result, this process is completely free of cracking noises and vibrations.

5. Spot spirit level


A spot spirit level is installed in the housing of the drive, which enables precise sounding during installation with the help of the four spring-loaded and height-adjustable feet.

That means:

Uneven installation surfaces can be compensated with this device.

6. Interchangeable tonearm


The turntable and tonearm were mounted separately in the frame and have no other mechanical connection to each other.

That means:

The S-shaped tubular tonearm of the device with hydraulic tonearm lift and international tone head attachment can be easily exchanged for any other commercially available tonearm. 7. Preamplifier for electret condenser systems Advantage:

As a further component of the drive, a switchable equalizer preamplifier for electret condenser systems is already permanently installed.

That means:

The drive can be operated with both magnetic and electret condenser systems (e.g. Toshiba C-404 SY) without further upgrades.

Technical specifications

Drive: Type of drive: direct Motor: electrically controlled AC servo motor

Speeds: 33'/s, 45 rpm Speed ​​deviations: ±0 Speed ​​control range: ±4% Wow and flutter: ±0.03% Signal-to-noise ratio: >60dB

Platter: 300 mm~, 1.2 kg die-cast aluminum Run-up time: within 0.5 revolutions


Type: statically balanced S tonearm eff. Length: 237mm

Max. tracking error: +1.5', -0.5° Overhang: 15 mm Tape head attachment: internal. '/2 inch Bearing pressure: 0 - 4 p

Tonearm lift: hydraulically damped Pickup system:

(drive can be delivered fully equipped)

Model: C-404SY

Type: Electret condenser Frequency response: 20 - 50,000 Hz Output voltage: 30 mV Channel separation: 25d13 (1 kHz), 15 dB (30 kHz)

Differences in the sensitivity of the channels: 1 dB

Stylus compliance: 15 x 10-` cm/dyne Bearing pressure: 1.5p, ±0.5p Stylus: EXTEND (special elliptical bevel for reading CD-4)


Mains voltage: 110/120/220/240 V, 50/60 Hz

Power consumption: 14W Dimensions: W 550, D 414, H 190 mm Weight: 12.5 kg

Design: rosewood frame, smoke-colored acrylic cover Equipment: 2 cynch cables, 1 ground wire, 1 puck for singles, 1 screwdriver, liquid needle cleaner, velvet brush for cleaning records



Btw, @holmz  and if you decide to go with today full warranty TT/tonearm then add to look for Acoustic Signature and in wespecial way the Townshend unit that's is an exceptional TT/tonearm at really good price.

In the next link several audiophiles posted in a critical issue: tonearm damping or not. Obviously that the Townshend was in the whole dialogue. I don't know the budget you have about but I'm sure that so many todays very good options some of them will be inside that budget.

Now, the today TT/tonearm comes not only with full operation warranty but anything that could happens with the units you will have the service and support from the manufacturer. Could be an advantage.





Dear @lewm @mijostyn  and friends : Any one of us must have the Townshend experiences it does not matteras which analog rig we have. After do it  our analog world could chage in the way we are accustom to. Try to look for the opportunity to do it.

Here in Agon the audiophile that I know owns for years and in reality has all the information about is @lohanimal  .



In the other side here the SP10 specs:

Motor : brushless DC
Speed lock : Quartz-Locked phase control
Platter : Ø 32cm / 3kg diecast aluminium
Startup torque : 6kg /cm
Starting time : 0,25s (33 1/3rpm)
Load characteristics : 0% up to 5kg /cm
Speed accuracy : ± 0,002% (10MK2)
Wow & flutter : 0,02% WRMS (JIS C5521)
± 0,035% (peak, DIN 45507)
S/N ratio : 86 db  ( DIN-B )


Here the Toshiba 510:

Type : AC servo motor
System : Direct-drive
Speeds : 33 1/3rpm
Wow & flutter : 0,03% (WRMS)
Pitch control : ± 4%
S/N ratio : 60dB
Platter :

30cm / 1,2kg 


I am more inclined towards the 86 dB SNR than the 60 dB.
I put in a low bid for a DQX, which was declined.


As far as Townsend products, after hearing Einstein go off on non stop rants and personal attacks, I doubt I would consider any of the Townsend equipment… just on general principle (and disgust).


I have been email Sota for the last 6 months, and I got another last night from Sota. I’ll think the time frames.

@holmz I use a TT with a 86db S/N R, which is the SP10 MkII that has been fully overhauled by an Engineer, who is a recognised  authority on this model of TT in the UK.

This is my go to TT over all my other TT's, for three reasons,

One, being I really enjoy the replays when using it.

Two, a good friend has helped me source it and gave it their special attention on my behalf.

Three, I had an input in to the aesthetic that the chassis has had applied to it.

It was the SP10 MkII Model, when first encountered quite a few years past, that was the encouragement to change from Idler Drives as being my go to TT's.

The idea of leaving Idler Drives in Massey plinths was a wrench, but the DD in a Lightweight Plinth took the mantle. 

It has also been the impression that this TT has made, that has spurred myself on to collect a selection of different Brands of DD TT's, even though these are TOTR Consumer Models and not a Model produced to be used for professional purposes.

Interestingly Juergen also owns the SP10 MkII.

The following is an update on the work he has been undertaking with the TT last year.

I have a range of Platter Mats I use on all my TT's, when you are set up, maybe this can be a side bar inquiry to see if further improvement can be suggested by discussing Mats and the perceived impaction they have on a SQ. 

I'm curious what you report,
I'm also trying out different mats on my SP10 - MKII drive.

For example, the following bronze plate fits exactly into the plate cut-out:…db0097:g:uxkAAOSw34JgCcv2

I currently have the thick Zanden rubber mat on it

which also fits into the plate cut-out.
I had already looked at the OMA, but had not yet been able to try it.





@holmz , you really can't take a Sota apart. The cover (that is what Sota calls it) has the three feet attached to it and the sub chassis which has the main bearing and tonearm board is suspending inside from 4 damped springs. In all but the Cosmos the sub chassis are MDF and composites and not very attractive. The Cosmos sub chassis is machined from billet aluminum and is very cool looking but I still would not use it without a proper suspension. The Sota suspensions are precisely tuned for a certain mass which is why Sota makes specific weight tonearm boards for various weight arms. Some arms like the Kuzma 4 point11 are just too heavy for it. David Fletcher, the original designer of the Sota did not even consider anything larger than a 9-10 inch arm because as @rauliruegas has mention, given the physics involved it is silly to do so. 12" arms are bad news regardless of what anybody thinks they hear. I would trust the science way before anyone's hearing. Unless you want to buy a Dohmann Helix one, the best way to have a second tonearm is just get another Sota. You can get 6 of them for the price of one Dohmann:-)

I got the Garrott Bros p77i running today, and played 20 LPs (parts of them anyhow).
It was pretty enjoyable, and that cartridge was sounding pretty nice.

There is the eclipse more and roadrunner option for the Sota, and I was expecting that to be able to be done in the field. I do have a lathe and access to most shop tools… but we will see, and the idea of a long shipment is distressing.

But as it is playing now, I am a but happier than yesterday.

Pindac, I did some research on line.  From what I can tell, the DP80 was optionally equipped with a gunmetal platter MAT by some end users.  Not a gunmetal platter.  There was back and forth discussion of the benefits or lack thereof, on Audiokarma. Perhaps that is what you meant.

Like it (Mijostyn) or not (me), a Sota Sapphire in a different plinth (or "cover") is still a Sota Sapphire.  Not much innovation or creativity is involved.  I thought Holmz wanted to start from scratch. The best thing one could do for a Sota Sapphire is to equip it with the Sota Eclipse mod.  That would be a much bigger benefit to its performance than would a new plinth. My opinion, of course.

I had used the A&R Cambridge P77 many years past and have still go the main body stored.

This was the Cartridge that I felt was most impressive out of other MM's when used on my Belt Drive TT and in the early stages of my use of Idler Drives.

When I am done with my MC days, when the ears don't justify the expense of purchasing one.

I will be trying out the P77 once more, with a new Cantilever and Stylus along with my AT - 150's and HOMC's I have in the Cart' collection.

To be clear, I did not intend to say that the SOTA sapphire is uncreative ; I meant that to start with one and only replace the cover (see Mijo definition of cover) does not involve innovation with respect to the starting material. 

Dear @holmz  : " a low bid for a DQX, which was declined..."

Looks like you really did not want to buy it and is at a bargain price. No, problem fine with me.

Now, I understand that your SOTA is not the Saphire model or at least you don't stated that way.

Anyway and obviously is up to you. I can't understand why you want to go for a  TT:

"" which appears like it might be able to slide out and mount into a homemade base? ""

when today ( including SOTA. ) exist several TT/tonearms that can match your today needs and future LOMC cartridge.

Exist something that do'nt fulfill your way of thinking with today great TT/tonearms that impedes you go for it?


In the other side is weird that you don't make any comment in the most important and critical  " partner " of any cartridge: the tonearm. You own the entry level of knife bearing SAEC tonearm and if I were you and before the TT I change that saec for a way better tonearm specially for the LOMC cartridges.

Any one of us is a unique human been with our exclusive way to " see " things and I respect your " see " of the analog world.

I think you already have all options any one can ask for and for me I think that the " ball " is in your " court ". Tha's me, maybe other audiophiles can tink that you need more information so go a head.



@holmz The link is one that I have bookmarked in the past.

It might be off interest to anybody with an interest in maintaining a A&R Cambridge 77, and that is the reason I have it saved.

The Esco Paratrace has been known to myself for some time.

The most recent information shown in the link, also references the Esco Paratrace.

The discussion on this forum recently made it known the Paratrace, FGS 'S' and Ortofon Replicant 100 Stylus are all sharing the same form and the only differences that might distinguish one Companies to another,  'might' be if one company is selective in the tolerances for the dimension of the forms they select to be used on their models, hence Ortofons reference to a Special Polish on a Replicant 100 Stylus is seen in the tech data for many years and their ToTR Models.

The lesser models or Ortofon siblings in their Cart' ranges do not get the notification that the Stylus has received the Special Pampering Treatment.

My experiences with Cart's has been a continuous journey and one I am not sure if there is an end place for me.

I have enjoyed MM's, HOMC's and LOMC's and a Ceramic Cart' with an equal measure, each has supplied very pleasurable hours of enjoyment when listening to LP's.   

I do believe, I have moved on from Aluminium as a Cantilever, there is a little too much smearing detected in my system when aluminium is the material.                   A boron Cantilever will noticeably be an improvement and perception of a cleaner presentation is welcome, a beryllium cantilever is even better for this purpose and there is a added veil of smearing that is perceived as being lifted and details are much more present in a recording, even though the leaner side of the presentation might not be to all tastes. 

I have a Gold Plated Boron Cantilever in the AT 150 MLX, with OCC Copper used on the coils, the use of OCC is still quite cutting edge as a design. I am quite keen to see a PC triple C wire as a Coil Wire, it is only found in one Commercially Branded Tonearm at present, as a coil wire it might prove to be significant and much sought after. 

I also believe there is a MM Cart' with a Beryllium Cantilever buried in storage and in a usable condition.

I do like Beryllium and have it as a Cantilever in use on a rebuilt MC in use at present, when compared to the siblings from the same Brand with a Boron cantilever the Beryllium is much clearer in the micro details and backing singers at times in the recording can often share the same vocal presence as a Lead Singer, this is not happening with Boron, Aluminium or Ruby cantilevers used by the same Cart' Brand .

I would like to think I could achieve from a Service a Boron or Beryllium Cantilever with a Esco Paratrace or FGS 'S' on the A&R Cambridge when the time arises to return to a MM.

Prior to the time that MC's are seen to be an expense not offering value, at a time when the ears are not so receptive to the qualities on offer from an MC, there is an experience of a product I have been met with on one occasion, and will be experiencing once more in the not too distant future, as a German EE I know has produced a new device, it is also looking likely that if the encounter with the new device offers a very good impression, it is a product I may even end up owning. 

The German EE has produced a Phonostage that I have as a second Phon' and one that has impressed myself and a group of other individuals it has been loaned to, most recently the German EE has produced another device that has got the attention of friends and a new route is developing to be investigated.

The Phon' produced by the German EE, is one that I have a great deal of time for, and it is only referred to as a second Phon', as my go to Phon' is Bespoke Built and produced as a result of my being instrumental in making suggestions for boutique parts to be used in the signal paths, and having been part of the audience and assessor of the SQ at the various stages of the build becoming a final design.         

This Model built to the Spec of my own one, has also been selected to be demonstrated at the Munich High End Show as product belonging to a well known Brand, but has yet get to the event as COVID has been present and events cancelled.

I believe the design for the Phon' has now evolved further and the latest design is to be a Transformer Coupled version which is to be the Brands ultimate Phon' in their range that is being produced by my friend, I am not sure when the invite will be made for my receiving a demonstration of this one, or if it is now a industry secret as the Brand is involved and I am not welcome to be privvy.

My last discussion in latte 2021 on the progress was that there are bespoke Tranx's to be produced to optimise the circuit,  the comparing the different topologies will be a good day out if the invite is offered.

The Germany Based EE, has recently produced an Energizer/Equaliser to work with the DS Audio Cart's. There is a very positive initial response to this new released model, and as a fledgling product the orders are growing, a friend has now ordered a unit to be imported to the UK to be used with their DS Audio Optical Cart's.

Another friend who is an EE and is quite keen to experience the DS Audio Cart's, now they are in the possession of information I made them aware of, there are designs being put on paper to produce their own energizer.

A Bake Off is going to be arranged to compare the DS Audio, German EE's and my EE friends energizer/equaliser, using a DS-E1, DS-003 and Grandmaster Optical Cartridge.

I am keen to experience this myself, and to how learn of how the systems influence me, I am hoping the demonstrations can be carried out on Two TT's using Tonearms with detachable Head Shells that are compatible, as I have a range of Head Shells that are duplicates for such experiences, and I would like to hear a Idler Drive and DD TT during the demonstrations.       

If the use of such a system using my friends energizer design is desirable for myself to pursue, I am sure I will be offered a model in a very basic housing for a small outlay.

The sale of the additional ancillaries that are owned and used for the MC Cart's would comfortably cover the costs incurred and enable the DS -E1 Cart' to be owned at a very reasonable cost. 

I could also run the Three Cart' Types, Optical, MC and MM in parallel, using the detachable Head shell Tonearm and the German EE Phon' with the built in MC Stage.

The Bespoke Built Phon' can then be used for Special occasions as a MM Only or with a MC if used with a Head Amp my EE friend produces and has proven that it stands strongly in the company of the SUT's it has been compared to.

As said the Journey with  Cart's does not appear to have a destination, only stop off's that are used for taking in the sights.       

@Lewn I know what a Gun Metal Platter Mat is as I own a Tenuto, I also know that a Gun Metal Platter Mat can be sourced produced in various thicknesses and weights.

The Gun Metal Platter I am referring to that belongs to the owned DP 80 is a machined metal that is substantial and designed to be the Top Part of the DP 80 Platter, I would give this a status beyond that as a Platter Mat, and give it the status of being a purpose produced part of the DP 80 Two Piece Platter.

As said previously it is such a substance that it is to be assessed for use as a Platter for another owned TT.

I would not be having a typical design for a Platter Mat assessed by an Engineer to be suitable as a Platter, not unless he was in need of a expressing great volumes of laughter.        

Dear @holmz  : " a low bid for a DQX, which was declined..."

Looks like you really did not want to buy it and is at a bargain price. No, problem fine with me.

6 hours to go was a bit close. So I bid low offer.
Obviously I was tying to not be emotional and not too rushed.


Now, I understand that your SOTA is not the Saphire model or at least you don't stated that way.

You understand incorrectly. |t is a Saphire.


In the other side is weird that you don't make any comment in the most important and critical  " partner " of any cartridge: the tonearm. You own the entry level of knife bearing SAEC tonearm and if I were you and before the TT I change that saec for a way better tonearm specially for the LOMC cartridges.

Looks like I have a lot of homework to do in order to understand what makes a good arm and a bad arm.
+ I think that entry level was the 308 and the 317 was a step up?

@holmz If you are interested in a range of DD TT's from various Brands, from a Vintage Era and willing to PM these to me.

I can assist you with a search for some of the items, if this is something you would like a support with.