SP10 Mk II vs Mk III

slarty, That seems like a good idea. How did you do it? I imagine you could just disconnect them from their supply voltage.  Then the strobe goes dark, does it not?

Actually, unless it's a Mk2A, it is at least 30 years old, since date of manufacture. Obviously, I agree with Albert. My Mk2A had been fully serviced by Panasonic/Technics in 1989 and was not used thereafter; it was still in its shipping carton when I bought it. Nevertheless, I did the work noted, or I had it done by a pro. (I serviced the bearing and replaced the caps in the PS myself, then I gave it over to Bill Thalmann, to replace remaining caps in the on-board electronics, check speed, calibrate, etc.)

Thanks Albert and Mike. I completely agree with everything you say about how to make a valid comparison. The weird thing about "noise" is that one may think that noise is not a factor in one's own system, if one can't hear noise per se. Then, when something is done to lower supposedly inaudible noise, it becomes so obvious that music reproduction has improved. I agree with Mike that it becomes more "alive and involving". I think it also affects the soundstage in very good ways. Maybe that's the same thing. Anyway, please do report on your eventual findings, guys. Finding a Mk III is another matter entirely. I haven't seen one for sale anywhere in many months.

I'm probably inclined to spend my money on proper refurbishment of my Mk II and hope in the meantime that I happen upon a Mk III serendipitously. I know of one in Asia that is so relatively low in price, compared to Mike's and Albert's quotes, it must be a scam. Having written this, I may yet contact you, Albert.

Albert and/or Mike, While I've got your attention, I am told there are two or three critically important electrolytics in the Mk II power supply that should be replaced empirically, due to age. Can you describe to me which parts these are? I have a service manual, so I can figure it out if you can give me their designations on the schematic, e.g., C1, C2, etc. I guess this is off topic.

Thanks, Albert. I just completed the total restoration of a physically mint condition Denon DP80. I used the new Panasonic TS series of caps, which have incredibly low ESR. I also replaced all the transistors and the one major IC. I'll probably replace only the electrolytics in my SP10, because it's running fine. Mike Percy and I are well acquainted after all these years, but I bought the Panasonics from Digikey. I am anxious to compare the DP80 to the SP10 MkII.

The answer to your question about whether or not the power supply governs the strobe function must be "yes", based on your own observation. It's most likely that the power supply supplies a voltage to the circuitry that runs the strobe. If that voltage is not present, the whole strobe circuit would not work. If it's as simple as that, repair should be no big deal. Have you replaced the electrolytic caps in the power supply? In a Mk II, if they have never been replaced before, then they are at least 25 years old. That's ancient for an electrolytic cap and maybe failure of one of those caps could account for your problem. Does the PS that can't power up the strobe still work properly for all other functions?

Schematic is available either from Vinyl Engine or from a pay site. (I can't remember where I got it.) If you're knowledgable, you may be able to read it yourself. I build tube stuff all the time, but I cannot make out what's going on in the SP10 schematic.

Kmccarty, I know of such a tech, in the Washington DC/northern VA area. He is highly skilled and of very high integrity. Consequently, he has a backlog of work for 6-8 weeks at all times. (He's got my Mk II now and previously did my Denon DP80.) If you want more info, please contact me via e-mail.

Albert, Assuming I ever could find a Mk III, does it too have an oiled bearing, and does it require a shipping bracket for transport?

Thanks, Albert. As far as I am concerned, this could become a miscellaneous SP10 thread, in which any relevant info to the care, feeding, and resuscitation of these great tables could be discussed. So no worries about hijacking.

Nice! Did you make the plinth?
I've seen repro SP10 platter screws for sale in sets of 3 on eBay, but not in recent weeks. Check it out, anyway. Maybe Albert has a better lead. Failing that, you can probably fashion some using the proper metric screws plus a piece of tubing or metal stand-off to create the sleeve over the threads. Check McMaster-Carr for odd metric stuff.

When you say your SP10 is "very good", what are you comparing it to? I see an RS-A1 sitting on something over to the left.

Dear Radical, I had the impression from your first description that your SP10 plinth was made of some kind of metal, which is why I suggested you try wood or slate, not because I thought the mass was too low. So, what is it made of, in fact?

Raul, you and Albert may have arrived at the same endpoint in different ways. In Albert's wood plinth (which can be seen on the Sound Fountain website), he employed a steel rod that is threaded so it can be tightened against the bottom of the SP10 chassis. That rod is also attached to a dense metal block at the base of the plinth, so as to drain energy from the SP10 chassis. In a way, that achieves the same end that you achieve by sitting your chassis right on the three feet. I am trying to figure out how to do something similar with a slate plinth.

Lonestarsouth, Read the thread for an answer to your question. One person here sold a Walker Audio Proscenium after he got his SP10 MkII up and running in a custom wood plinth. This suggests that a properly set-up SP10 is competitive with anything out there. But the same is true of Lenco and Garrard, IMO. However, consider too that the tables have different characters, and one person is not necessarily going to agree with another on which is "best".

Also, if your SP10 is really NOS, you might want to put it on a Variac and bring the voltage up very slowly at start-up. The electrolytic caps in your unit may need replacing or at the very least they need to be treated gently at first. They are ca 30 years old and have never been charged up. Applying full voltage could damage the caps and also damage irreplaceable parts that they subserve.

Radicalsteve, I am very surprised at your slight preference for the Oracle among the three tables you've compared, but you obviously know what you're doing. You might feel differently if your SP10 was in a proper slate or wooden plinth. Do you have any plans to try that?

Pryso, Thanks for that input. I was unaware that the rod in Albert's plinth actually goes thru to the bearing housing. Very ingenious. So you're correct; that IS different from what Raul has done. You've given me some food for thought; a similar device could in fact be placed under a slate plinth.

Raul, As regards your remark that the SP10 MkII and III may not be the best of their contemporary Japanese brethren, that may or may not be correct, but the point is moot, since those tables are so rare and unavailable. In any case, I would bet that any of them would also benefit from re-thinking the plinths they came in. In many cases it was a big hollow wood box, a nice box, but still a box. Last time I visited my son in Tokyo, I saw a mint Yamaha GT2000 sitting on the floor in an audio salon. Sadly, it had been promised to another customer. The price was actually quite reasonable, about $1500, I think. Anyway, the subject of this thread is the SP10 and its variants.

Silverprint, As far as I know, graphite has some excellent qualities for audio use, but I don't think it's very dense. In other words, the weight per unit of volume is not great. Therefore graphite might not be so good for mass loading. This is not to say that it could not be useful in building a plinth, but probably in conjunction with other more dense materials, like hardwoods or slate.

Cpk, If you beat me to it, let us know how it sounds in slate. My slab is sitting on the floor in my living room, but a little thing like needing to write a chapter for a medical text is keeping me away from installing the SP10 into it.

Silverprint, I have not done the listening tests necessary to have a valid opinion myself, but the prevailing opinion is that some coupling between tonearm base and bearing/motor is preferable. IOW, those designs you may see with the tonearm mounted separately from the bearing/motor/platter or deliberately decoupled from it seem to get criticized by those who have heard it both ways. What Ralph is saying, I think, is a little more extreme in terms of advocating a specific rigid physical coupling between bearing and tonearm. I actually cannot imagine how to do that with an SP10 or most DDs, because the bearing is of necessity surrounded by the motor assembly. Ralph, please correct me if I'm misrepresenting your view.

Hiho, Have you ever actually seen the Kaneta modifications applied to an SP10, other than the one in those photos? That URL is frequently cited, but there is no hint anywhere else on the internet that I can find to indicate that help (i.e., kits or assembled PS units) in obtaining the Kaneta outboard supply or the custom plinth are really available. I would be interested to read your response or that of anyone else who has been up close to a Kaneta-modded SP10. The schematic is posted, but it looks quite formidable as a DIY project. (I am quite at home reading schematics and building tube gear but have limited experience with ss devices, particularly ICs.)

Lonestar, Your sentiments are commendable. The Walker Audio Proscenium is built out of lead too, but at that price, not many of them are going to end up in landfills, ever.

As far as tubes for the SP10 power supply, I quite agree that that sounds impractical. Perhaps Albert has heard the optional tube power supply available for the Brinkmann table. (That's the only tube tt ps I know of.) But that PS only has to supply sine waves to run the Brinkmann motor and to control its speed. There is no servo mechanism, etc, to worry about. It would be nice enough if any of the known ongoing projects to build modern outboard supplies for the SP10 would finally come to fruition. I refer to Mark Kelly's project and to that of "Steerpike" over on diyaudio. Either of those devices, like the Kaneta, would enable one to remove the electronics from the chassis and sink the motor directly into a plinth, thereby dramatically improving the coupling of the motor to a high mass.

Robyatt, What cartridges work well in the RS-A1? I've got one too, largely because it is so easy to move between tts, it will facilitate my ability to compare one tt to another. But the darn thing is so unorthodox in construction and implementation that it is difficult to know what cartridge to use with it, except by experimentation perhaps. For example, what is the effective mass of that crazy arm tube with the swinging counter-weight? (It's a rhetorical question, unless 47 Labs have given the into in the manual, which I don't have.) I heard it sound great on a Lenco with a simple Pickering MM.

Ralph, I'll take all the Pioneer Exclusive tts you can find. No snobbery here. For that matter, there are top-of-the-line Kenwoods, Yamahas, and Denons that deserve to be mentioned in the same breath with the SP10 variants. Raul mentioned those tts somewhere up-thread from this post. But there are sufficient numbers of SP10s extant to have stimulated this revival of interest in maximizing their potential. Not so for the others.

Ralph, sorry for my confusion. Could you be referring to the EPA-100, when you mention "that heavy Technics tonearm"? I have no opinion, but others say this is a really good unit.

Silverprint, I own a Boston Audio Mat I, which is made of graphite. Is that the material you have in mind? As Cpk says, it does seem a little fragile in the context of the mat, but maybe a thick block of it would be much stronger. I think that stuff would be great for absorbing and dissipating energy, but you might want to combine it with something denser, for the mass effect alone.

Rnadelman, Look for a good standard SP10 Mk2 or 2A. (There is some scuttlebutt around that the 2A is less reliable. The excellent person who has serviced both my 2 and my 2A and many of Albert's tables sees no important differences. I think the 2A may use more ICs in its circuit vs discrete transistors.) Try to avoid tables that have been abused at radio stations. Some of these will have oddball power suppies, which is a sign that you are looking at such a beast. Basically, if the table runs at all 3 speeds and does not look beaten to death, you should be good to go, because you should plan on replacing all the (about 20) electrolytic capacitors in the circuit right away. It's not as bad as it sounds; excellent quality modern electrolytics will only cost you $1 or $2 each. I recommend Panasonic FC (for low voltage) and ED (for high voltage) types. It's important to do this, because a leaky electrolytic can take down an irreplaceable IC or transistor. Then you will want to clean and re-lube the bearing, which is no big deal either. A step by step instuction is to be found on the internet..

Silverprint, Don't know what Albert is going to say, but in general it is not a good idea to decouple the tt and the plinth. The whole idea is to couple them as efficiently and completely as possible. Rubber grommets or any similar devices will defeat the purpose. As far as your plinth idea, I think it has real possibilities. Where and how have you got hold of thick pieces of graphite and the ability to machine them?

Dear Silverprint, I doubt that "decuplicating" is a word in English, but it is a very good invention, and the meaning is obvious. Yes, there is a lot of decuplicating going on in the computation of the prices of audio products that derive from materials used in other applications. Sad but true.

This thread was about to fall off the first page. Mike and Albert, any time you do have anything to say about the MkII vs MkIII comparison, please let us know. My MkII is almost ready to go in a slate plinth.

Hiho, Go over to Lenco Lovers and take a look at the PTP3 top plate, made to conquer the very problems you cite as regards idlers. I'm working on that one, too. You can have a used Lenco and a PTP3 for under $500.

Do you think one could just remove the motor assembly from the existing SP10 mkII, extend the cables that go to the motor from the underslung part of the power supply, and then mount the motor in a plinth? All you'd need to do would be to craft a top cover for the tray of parts that lies underneath in the stock unit. Could conceivably be done without any fancy new electronics. Or could it? Albert, did you think of that?

I use the same tech as Albert, and I can confirm what he says. But Bill Thalmann would be the first to say that he is not the only man in the world who can restore the electronics of a MKII or III. The point is really that replacing the electrolytic caps throughout is a good idea when resurrecting any of these 30-year-old dd tables. Other upgrades to the parts, e.g., use of Schottky diodes, etc, are icing on the cake.

As regards the added benefits of removing the motor and platter totally from the brushed aluminum chassis to install the works alone in a plinth (be it wood or slate or whatever) is not something to be taken lightly. In the process, all the on-board electronics have to be moved outboard, of course. This makes the leads between the motor and its contol system commensurately much longer than the Technics engineers foresaw. I don't know whether this would have a negative effect on the servo system, but it might. The main weakness of the standard chassis is potentially the way the motor is bolted to it, which might allow movement or bending under stress at start up, but during play flexing should not be a problem. IMO, Albert's idea of supporting the bearing assembly with a steel rod imbedded in a heavy metal block probably mitigates any potential problem with flexing of the stock chassis. In sum, I decided against such a radical procedure. My SP10 Mk2A has been up and running in an 80-lb slate plinth for several months. Of course you know I am going to say it sounds great, and it does indeed.

Hiho, Are you saying that for the SP10 MKII you just lengthen the wires from the chassis-bound electronics to the motor, when you install the motor only into a dedicated plinth? How long are the leads between the motor and its electronics when you get done with this mod? If it works, I am all for it. I just wonder whether it is dramatically better than just installing the whole assembly in a big piece of slate, as I and others have done. This says nothing about Mike Lavigne's MkIII set-up, of course. Despite what I wrote, I am tempted to try this with my second MkII, but I would also re-install the electronics into a cosmetically nice chassis. Six inches diameter for both the MkII and the MkIII?

I fully agree that nearly all production dd tables can be improved by improving their plinths. And I take your point about the suspension of the motor in the SP10. Albert addresses this issue by supporting the motor/bearing assembly via a brass rod that is imbedded in a dense metal block. I am using Albert's support system underneath my slate plinth. What do you do about the on/off switch when you take the electronics away? Also, can you answer my question; is a 6-inch diameter hole correct? I have a remaining blank slate plinth, a company with a waterjet machine, and a second MkII, so I may try it too.

By the way, how do you get a belt around the SP10 platter in order to use it to drive a second platter? The SP10 platter has a beveled edge.

FWIW, I have removed and replaced the platters from two different SP10s, a MkII and a Mk2A, in order to lubricate their bearings and in order to replace electrolytic caps in the electonic module. (In medical training the aphorism regarding procedures is "see one, do one, teach one".) I simply forgot about the flat area on the edge of the platter because it is not visible when the tt is put back together. However, as I recall, it is pretty narrow with no ridges to prevent a belt or tape from wandering off course. But if it works for you, that's all that counts.

I know all about the Kaneta modification, but he re-designed the electronics (as far as I can tell without being able to read any of the Japanese text), so his work is (probably) not relevant to the question of whether lengthening the leads will negatively affect function of the stock servo mechanism. Again, if it works for you, then I may be wrong to worry about it.

So I now finally get the picture that you use the stock chassis intact as a housing for the electronics that don't go into the plinth. Do you do anything cosmetically to cover the hole left by the motor/platter et al?

Thanks for the idea.

Dear Raul, You were once kind enough to post photos of your SP10 with "no plinth". As I recall it does sit in a piece of plywood, but it is supported underneath the chassis by some Audio Technica or similar compliant "feet". I always thought that this was the key to your satisfaction with that setup, rather than absence of a plinth per se. As for mounting the arm on a pod that is totally outboard from the chassis and not physically associated with it, I do think that is a bad idea. But to each his own; certainly a few tt-makers now do it that way too, altho I know of no vintage tts designed that way. In your earlier photos I got the impression that your tonearm is mounted on the plywood that also is forming a surround for your SP10, thereby creating a coupling of sorts between the two. I thought that was OK. Anyway, we can argue theory all day long. As you suggest, the proof of the pudding is in the listening. I still like slate; I think it's uniquely suited to this endeavor. I think slate is way better than some of the materials that have traditionally been used, e.g., wood, marble, granite.

Here's the thing. If you fire up your SP10 MkII while it is just sitting naked on a shelf, you will see that IT will "do a little dance" (altho I never saw one make a little love). It does a little dance because of Newton's 3rd Law of Motion, and because of the high torque generated at start up for which force there is an "equal and opposite" reaction, as Newton told us. The job of the plinth is to soak up that force and stabilize the system. After start-up, the torque needed to keep the speed stable will be much less, so Raul could argue that a high-mass plinth is not needed once the correct speed is attained. However, I think a well built plinth dissipates vibrational energy that can otherwise color the sound. However, there's no harm in trying Raul's idea.

Had a similar experience this weekend with my Denon DP80 in slate with a Triplanar/Colibri. A friend brought over an LP of Ray Brown playing with Laurindo Almeida. The first cut is "'Round Midnight". Almeida plays a little solo verse, and then Brown comes in with a really low bass strike on his bass. We both nearly jumped off my sofa. We didn't listen to it on the SP10/slate, but I bet the effect would have been similar. Once they are mounted in the same type of plinth, and if that plinth is effective, the DP80 and the SP10 sound quite similar, based on my several hours of comparative listening. Both give a big sound with tremendous "jump" and rhythm.

Dear Raul, I hope you are correct, for your own sake. I would argue with your conclusions:
(1) You misunderstand the potential problem. I/we do not say that electrolytic caps will "dissolve" or physically leak damaging fluids into the circuit (although in extreme cases, that can happen too). We are talking about caps that are "leaky" in that they leak DC voltage. The stray DC voltages can have two negative effects. First, DC voltage can alter the operation of the circuit, so the servo mechanism may not work as well as it otherwise can. Second, if the voltage is sufficient in magnitude, it can destroy associated parts, like ICs and transistors that are no longer made.

I should add, Raul, that my Denon DP80 was operating just fine when I bought it, but we found several caps that were leaking DC when we restored it. Measurements taken before and after the replacement of the caps showed that the turntable was performing better after this was done. I don't consider that a waste of money or "anguish".
(2) Electrolytic caps will eventually self-destruct. Just when that will happen is impossible to predict, but 20-30 years of service is pushing the envelope. Moreover, modern electrolytics are way better than those available back in the 70s, so swapping them in can have unexpected benefits in performance.

As I noted, since the caps are so cheap and so easily obtained compared to an IC that just plain does not exist any more, and since the service can be performed by a professional for little more than a couple of hundred dollars or by DIY for much much less, it seems foolish not to take this preventive measure. It's cheaper than most of the alternative upgrades that you mention above. You can do what you want, and so can anyone else. This is just advice, not an imperative.

Hiho, It is quite possible that your speed "error" (if you want to call 200 rpm a mere error) is due to a leaky or deceased electrolytic. The best way to find that out is to replace the lytics with new ones. It really does not matter much what brand you use; all modern lytics will be an upgrade. Panasonic low voltage caps (FC type) are superb and cost a bit less than the ones Albert listed. I would start with the power supply. Disconnect it from the main chassis, turn it on, and measure the DC voltages at its outputs. (You'll need a manual, perhaps.) You should see 140VDC, 32VDC, and 5VDC with very little ripple (less than 1VAC, for example). If the voltages are only slightly off, and if there is acceptable ripple, then the supply is probably not to blame. There are pots inside the PS chassis with which you can re-adjust the DC outputs to conform to the expected values. OTOH, if voltages are way off or if there is significant AC voltage at the outputs, THEN you might change the caps first of all. If you have a cap meter, you can test each cap individually for leakage, or you can empirically change them all, because if they are not detectably bad now, they might soon be. There are only about 8 caps in there. If you can snag a service manual from Vinyl Engine or some other source, you can look up the parts list for the PS and simply order the ones you'll need. I bought my Panasonic caps from Digikey, I think, but there are other vendors, too. There is one high-voltage cap, maybe the 1000uF/80V in Albert's list. I actually used a 2000uF/200V Panasonic TS-ED type, because it exactly fits the clamp. It way outperforms the original. There's no harm in using a higher value in this position, but in other cases it's wise to use the same value in capacitance. The DC voltage rating can be the same as original or higher, but not lower. After you have checked out the PS, then turn your attention to the on-board electronics. This is a crapshoot, because it IS possible that one of the ICs has already blown, in which case you will be searching for it. I think Albert can help you there.

I take the position that any modern electrolytic of recent manufacture (and of proper value and voltage) will be fine to use anywhere in the MkII. Ergo, I use Panasonic FC or TS-ED types, depending upon voltage needed. They are cheap and have vanishingly low ESR, compared to anything that was made back in the 70s and 80s. Others might tell you that they can "hear" the differences among electrolytics in this circuit and would therefore use boutique brands of caps. I don't choose to argue that point either way. IMO, the caps on board the main chassis are every bit as critical as the PS caps, and maybe moreso, since they reside in proximity to the ICs and transistors that function in the servo circuit. Getting at them to replace them looks to be not too bad. I am going to give it a try myself.

If I wanted to restore an SP10 cosmetically, I would have it done professionally by an experienced company. Such a one can be found in the UK; I don't know their web address. Google will find it, I think. Unfortunately, their service is not cheap. Fortunately, the workmanship looks excellent.

I think all those units really are for voltage.
Re the body shop approach, go for it; it belongs to you. I agree that 500GBP for a re-finish is way too high. That's why I was very fussy about cosmetics when I bought mine. It's quite possible you could find someone to do it well for less money than Vantage Audio.

Lonestarsouth, What did you do re the on/off button, when you had the chassis painted? Did you leave it in brushed chrome? That would look cool.

Are you certain this is a list of electrolytic caps, or is it a list of ALL caps used of any type? For example, I find it hard to believe that they used a 1 pF (that's picofarad) electrolytic. That's a teeny tiny value. Even the 1uF caps are likely to be film types, or film types could be used there. 10uF and above are likely to be electrolytic types. Anyway, thanks for the list. I am about to suck it up and do the work on my Mk II, too. As for the units of "WV", perhaps it will be clearer when you look at the actual caps, which are usually labeled to indicate their voltage ratings.

I am not certain whether it is available as a "free" download, but you can buy it for a very reasonable sum at Soundfountain. Look in the SP10 section. The Owner's Manual of course can be downloaded at Vinyl Engine.

Sorry, Lonestar, I thought you needed a copy yourself. I have one already that I bought from Soundfountain. (So it is not in e-format, only a hard copy. Soundfountain sends hard copies from Germany.) Thank you for your kind offer, however.

How about 1 pF?

The diodes are by and large Germanium types. No one uses those any more except in special applications. They have a low forward voltage drop, compared to some other even more modern types, so probably they should not be "updated" indiscriminately. Schottky diodes, the latest craze, have a low forward voltage drop too, and in one case I know the Germanium types in the PS can be replaced with Schottky's. Bill Thalmann, the guy who serviced my 2A and Albert's tables too, used some Fairchild Stealth diodes here and there. Problem is I don't know where. The only advantage of messing with diodes is possibly lower noise, which is all it takes to make us audio-dudes drool with desire. Bill advised me as a general rule not to worry about it, using the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" approach. You could go crazy and start replacing film caps, if there are any. No real reason to do it.

Has anyone tried any of the various after-market outboard PSs available for the MkII? I know there is one sold via eBay and one sold by Vantage Audio (for much bigger bucks). The VA unit looks really nice, with separate transformers for each PS voltage output, darnit. I could build one but it ain't gonna happen in this lifetime.

I just re-capped an entire MkII. You are correct. There is no 1pF cap anywhere, but then again I/we have found a few other errors in the Service Manual, most notably in the regulator circuit for the 5V supply in the PS module. One of the transistors is incorrectly designated as PNP type when it should be NPN (or vice-versa?), which caused me to have to give my PS to Bill Thalmann (super tech in Springfield, VA), who found the error quickly and easily. In point of fact, I doubt that a 1 pF cap exists; it is too tiny in value to manufacture with any degree of tolerance and moreover it is too small in value to make much difference. You get much more capacitance by just twisting wires. That's why I doubted its existence in the first place. There sure were a lot of those 1uF/50V caps, however, in the onboard electronic modules.

I did not bother with the film caps, as per the opinion of Bill Thalmann, who says they tend to last indefinitely unless they are subject to excessive voltage beyond their rating. Also, I refuse to believe that one could "hear" the difference between the stock film caps and boutique audiophile caps, in the context of the tt electronics. One would be better off upgrading the diodes with lower noise parts.

Rnadelman, Choosing feet is like choosing a way to comb your hair. Everyone has a different idea of what is best. I recently purchased some of those huge feet that TT Weights make for their own Christine turntable. The feet are for sale here on Audiogon. I have not yet had a chance to audition them, but they provide no "suspension" effect, per se. I had a special need for feet at least 2 inches in height so as to clear the lead or iron block I use to drain vibration from the bearing. (Bought it from Albert Porter, so don't know whether it is lead or iron.) Other good feet for heavy tts include cerapucs, symposium roller block, etc., all of which are costly. You might find a used set here on Agon.

Impulse, The only place you might ever see that big a piece of pure carbon would be in a pencil factory (kidding). Can you post some photos of your SP10 with external electronics. Also, can you say how you know that outboarding the electronics results in a "far quieter" background. Have you heard it both ways? Thanks.

Cknicker, I see now after all these months that I misunderstood your question of 11-07-09. You asked whether I replaced the 1uF electrolytics with 1uF film caps. The short answer is "no". The new Panasonic lytics in 1uF look to be very high quality stuff. On 11-08, I originally responded to your question in the belief that you were simply asking whether I had changed out the film caps per se. Did not do that either.

Impulse, Forgot also to say that just yesterday I read a thread on the French Lenco site suggesting that Panzerholz may be a better plinth material than slate, not that I am about to ditch all my slate plinths. Anyway, on that thread we have a materials science guy who has measured energy dissipation, resonance and damping factor of a number of different plinth materials. Nice data, but we have no way to know he is measuring the "right thing".

Dear Johnp,
First of all, thank you so much for taking the time and energy to type out your report and post it here. It seems you took great pains to get valid data relevant to a comparison of these great turntables. But I must confess, there is so much information in your post that one essential element eludes me; were the MkII and the Mk III BOTH mounted in Steve Dobbins' plinths? Also, what platter mats did you use on the Technics tables? One conclusion that I have come to is that the stock rubber mats, supplied with the Technics tables and with my Denon DP80, and with most of the classic vintage Japanese tt's, are suboptimal at best. I found that an SAEC SS-300 metal mat makes both the DP80 and the Mk2A sound much better.

Also, in some respects your report is at odds with what others have told me, mostly in private, which is that the Mk III is better than the Mk II, as one might expect, but that the differences are subtle and of degree rather than of quality. For example, the Mk III was said by one person to have better bass reproduction, period. Another user who owned both tables told me not to bother with a MkIII if I have a MkII, because the upgrade was so subtle. I have also read and heard that the Mk II had a "dry" sound, as you suggest, but I never read a similar comment about a Garrard 301, with or without Steve's platter. The 301 is generally said to sound full and lush, as you say of your Dobbins-modified version. In an unsophisticated solid slate plinth and using the SS300 mat, my Mk2A definitely does not sound dry, but I can tell where that criticism comes from based on previous listening to a totally stock SL1000. None of this is to say that you are "wrong" in any way. It's just to point out how we each may experience the same thing in a different way. The fact that your panel of listeners reached a consensus is very convincing and makes me think my own judgements may be in error or that this is also dependent upon downstream components. Anyway, I now own a Mk III, so I will soon be able to listen for myself. (BTW, if anyone knows how to access the bearing of a Mk III so as to check and replenish the lubricant, please let me know here or in private.)