This is definitely the best mat, so rare and hard to find in perfect condition.
this is it. :) https://i.postimg.cc/5yW53qfh/Dopo-1.jpg
Technics SL1000 MK3 (SP10 MK3) performance/value VS modern turntables?
I have a Technics SL1000 MK3 in beautiful condition and in it's lifetime has seen very little use.
I am ready to send it off for complete electronics restoration/upgrade, upgrade the speed control processor module and have the Krebs mods done. Will cost about $2500.00 to have all this done.
I was wondering how this would compare to what is out there for modern turntables after all the work is done?
Or, would I be better off selling it, and adding what I was going to spend for the upgrades to a new turntable?
I believe these should sell in untouched condition for at least $5K? So that would put me in the $7.5K range for a modern table?
For tonearms, I already have:
New, unmounted Moerch DP8
Fidelity Research FR64S, in beautiful condition that I sent off to Ikeda/Japan and they re-wired (better silver wiring, I still have original wires) and completely tore it down and rebuilt/re-lubed.... it's just like a new FR64S.
I think this table would be hard to beat at the $7500.00 price point, but would appreciate others opinion.
Rick
I am ready to send it off for complete electronics restoration/upgrade, upgrade the speed control processor module and have the Krebs mods done. Will cost about $2500.00 to have all this done.
I was wondering how this would compare to what is out there for modern turntables after all the work is done?
Or, would I be better off selling it, and adding what I was going to spend for the upgrades to a new turntable?
I believe these should sell in untouched condition for at least $5K? So that would put me in the $7.5K range for a modern table?
For tonearms, I already have:
New, unmounted Moerch DP8
Fidelity Research FR64S, in beautiful condition that I sent off to Ikeda/Japan and they re-wired (better silver wiring, I still have original wires) and completely tore it down and rebuilt/re-lubed.... it's just like a new FR64S.
I think this table would be hard to beat at the $7500.00 price point, but would appreciate others opinion.
Rick
87 responses Add your response
What did you use for polishing ?I think we had already discussed it in the past; a simple copper cleaner Before https://i.postimg.cc/VNrkfbsd/Prima-1.jpg |
And the best for Micro mats is Micro clamp, this is very rare one. |
I’ll add that other mats I like are the Sakura graphite "The Mat" and the thicker Funkfirm Acromat. The former is laudably neutral although less dynamic and immediate on transients than the TTM; the latter has excellent dynamics, similar in that regard to the TTM, but loses some drive, bass weight, and definition. At least on my turntable. |
@albertporter Thanks for that detailed info on the TTM Monitor mat. It’s the best dive heard as well. I have the shinier one, looks like the 2nd iteration, I’m glad I went through the trouble having a friend hustle me one from a local market seller in Moscow, was no small feat! I’m still hunting for the the oil damped clamp though, and have been using the Micro ST-10 for some years. Still want to hear the Micro gunmetal. My other SP10 MK2A uses the Jeweltone / Nagaoka GL-602 Crystal mat, which is interesting but I haven’t truly compared to anything yet as they’re in different locations and different systems. (This is also discontinued but I found a guy in Czech Republic with some warehoused NOS, if anyone is interested shoot me a DM.) I have also tried Funk Firm Anchromat and Herbie’s Way Excellent II mat. |
Micro Seiki mat was one the best from the beginning when it was made in the 70’s, it was an expensive mat from the start, maybe not as expensive as today, because a MINT- condition of everything from the 70’s and 80’s is normally expensive (even cassette tapes from the 90’s are expensive today, some of them cost $250 each). Apart from many other that looks like rubber (or even worst) those Micro mats (CU-180 and CU-500) are beautiful mats and it’s huge benefit too. Micro Seiki COPPER mats are inspiration for others and today instead of Micro people can buy less expensive from gunmetal mats from Tenuto or very expensive pure copper NEW mats from Artisan Fidelity. All those copper mats are beautiful and it’s hard to arguing about it. Most of the other mats are absolutely ugly compared to them. I don’t have mk3, but for Mk2 this is the mat (CU-500). For Technics platter it’s simply amazing! |
Mats come and go, and it’s common for the best of them not to be recognized as such until they are no longer being produced, whereupon they become”rare” and the expensive. We audiophiles are a crazy bunch. Exactly haha. To be honest though, I've spent most of my life digging for obscure music all over the world, in moldy basements and junk shops, so doing some detective work to find an ultra rare Japanese mat is just exactly the kind of fun challenge that makes me happy. And if it doesn't live up to expectation there is always resale! |
While I am sure that the M-S metal mats are very good, based on the accolades, the cost is more based on the mystique that now surrounds anything made by M-S in its heyday. That was my point. I had a new pure copper mat custom-machined for my Kenwood L07D. (It looks a lot like the one that someone else posted in a photo up the thread.) It was not cheap, but it did not cost nearly as much as an original M-S mat. |
Pure copper mat from Artisan Fidelity cost $1200 and it’s more than Micro Seiki CU-180 in MINT condition made in the 80s. In Japan where Micro Seiki are cheaper it’s not a big deal to buy even thicker replica for half price, but people prefer original Micro Seiki. I've spent most of my life digging for obscure music all over the world, in moldy basements and junk shops, so doing some detective work to find an ultra rare Japanese mat is just exactly the kind of fun challenge that makes me happy. And if it doesn't live up to expectation there is always resale! Same here, yeah It's fun! And those mats are so beautiful |
I paid $700 for my custom pure copper L07D mat. The L07D comes with a stainless steel mat. My copper mat is an exact replica, weighing only a few ounces more, and includes the threaded holes provided in the original for lifting it off the platter. Why did I do this, you might well ask? Because I had convinced myself that copper would be a better shield from any EMI coming from the motor. I have to say the copper mat sounds better, but why it sounds better I cannot say. |
@lewm After recap and resoldering all the joints, one bad transistor has been replaced, bad wire connection has been fixed, motor hall sensor has been replaced (donor part has been found). Platter edge has been polished, thrust adjusted (the difference was about 1.5 mm :) The minor pulsing noise from the motor (if your ear near the platter) is gone. All these solved. The last issue was a cyclic fluctuation in motor drive JP need to troubleshoot. It’s like a scientific lab where JP x-ray all the invisible problems. |
motor hall sensor has been replacedthis is what interests me; over time I bought motors with the soldered pcb of other turntables by taking the sensors and even after several replacements of all 3 sensors my TT 101 is still not able to work; I don't like buying used sensors that force me to also take the engine just to extract what I need and check that my TT 101 is working; now I'm stocking up too much of engines that I don't need and I'm tired, plus the pcb where the sensors for the 101's engine are housed begins to compromise too much after several replacements. Do you know which engine and turntable model the sensor was extracted from to run your 101? |
In Miami, you can get the best rum from Cuba, easily. I view JP as something of a genius with direct drive. He fixed my TT101 after several very smart and competent persons had tried and failed over a period of 2 years. And I am pretty sure that mine was the first Victor TT he ever worked on. He found a crack that ran across a tracing on one of the PCBs, causing an intermittent problem. The defect had eluded detection because it ran underneath a glob of solder, rendering it invisible unless one knew exactly where to look. I don’t think he had to replace any parts at all. I’ve also got his chip in my SP10 Mk3. |
Yes but no one has addressed the major problem with the SP10mk3 - that is the antiquated error correction circuitry based on obsolete chips that results in errors and overshoot. Hi Dover, The Technics "Quartz Locked" units utilize PLL motor control. |
Since this is on topic: I’m currently debating whether I’m re-soldering the springs into the wooden box of this original M.A. Cotter Plinth that this SP10 MK3 w/ FR64fx tone arm was designed with or going with a more modern plinth. This was a very special custom built setup for an audiophile who purchased it from Mitch in the 1980s. (see links to photos of the unit before and after taking it out of it’s base. It weighs probably between 200-300 lbs. https://ibb.co/sPtdCjn https://ibb.co/FqFVMVy https://ibb.co/pyJ23h1 https://ibb.co/4N0kx42 https://ibb.co/x37KH35 https://ibb.co/F8Mb2NG https://ibb.co/f1n3kzs https://ibb.co/hcjpySd https://ibb.co/WDS3wry https://ibb.co/ftppszr https://ibb.co/k2yMxdj https://ibb.co/K2VmVH7 |
@jpjones3318 Hi Dover, So you believe the frequency generator, speed and phase control circuits meet current state of the art performance do you, even though the SP10 uses 70’s chips and we now have chips capable of switching at a trillionth of a second, and computer power millions of times faster today ?? If indeed the SP10mk3 controller is as crude as described in their advertising - then basically it is correcting instantaneously any speed deviations calculated using data generated from those 70’s chips. It is no different to digital jitter in my view. The advertising implies there is no smoothing of the error correction. I note that Technics again claim in their advertising that the higher platter mass of the mk3 ( 10kg ) is key in generating a more stable FG used in the speed and phase control circuits. By comparison the Victor 101 calculates the error over a period of time and feeds the correction in over a period of time to "smooth" the correction. Also as you would know the L07D relies on platter mass for stability, the error correction only kicks in when the speed deviation is beyond quite a wide range. It is clear that Technics, Victor and Kenwood, 3 of the supposed best direct drive TT’s from the 70’s, had 3 quite different views on how best to implement speed control of the platter. They must have had 3 disparate views on how speed control circuits affect sound quality. Since I believe you own all three decks - I would be curious to know if you believe they each have a sonic signature. I have heard multiple SP10mk3’s and L07D’s and each motor has a signature sound to my ears that is readily identifiable irrespective of arm/cartridge. I have not heard the Victor, but I have heard the Thrax which I believe uses similar principles to the Victor 101 in the way the error correction is implemented. |
Hi @dover - hope you've been well. So you believe the frequency generator, speed and phase control circuits meet current state of the art performance do you, even though the SP10 uses 70’s chips and we now have chips capable of switching at a trillionth of a second, and computer power millions of times faster today ?? This implies, as did your previous comment, algorithms, prediction, data, computational error, etc. In other words, computing. The SP-10MK3 uses analog PLL speed control. Computing in the sense you conveyed is simply not relevant here, and as such your claimed deficiencies are also not relevant. I note that Technics again claim in their advertising that the higher platter mass of the mk3 ( 10kg ) is key in generating a more stable FG used in the speed and phase control circuits.FG is the speed proportional feedback from the motor, so I don't understand what you mean by 'more stable', as frequency stability of the FG is directly proportional to speed stability. The platter mass is a low pass filter, hence 'smoothing'. Not to say that low mass platters are drastically inferior - it's a system where the components are designed to work with each other. The 101 is also analog PLL controlled. The lighter platter works well with the low torque of the coreless motor, and the PLL is tuned for such. There's no 'calculating' error over time or applying correction over time, aside from the bandwidth, gain, and filtering of the system, as with any PLL implementation. Also as you would know the L07D relies on platter mass for stability, the error correction only kicks in when the speed deviation is beyond quite a wide range. I know that's been claimed on L-07D.com, and I also know it's a false statement, or at least a very confused one: "The PLL system plays backup, only being activated when platter speed varies by +/- 3.7% at 33.33 rpm or +/- 5.0% at 45 rpm. Within that range, PLL is maintained and the controller makes no speed corrections. Motor speed is regulated by a quartz crystal (vibrating at 5.5296 MHz) to precisely 33.33 or 45 rpm with zero tolerance." The first sentence says PLL plays backup within the range yet the second sentence says PLL is maintained within the range. Can't have it both ways. It's just another analog PLL motor control circuit, though with a couple of unique features. It is clear that Technics, Victor and Kenwood, 3 of the supposed best direct drive TT’s from the 70’s, had 3 quite different views on how best to implement speed control of the platter. They all put a different spin on analog PLL motor control, but they're not necessarily that different. They clearly couldn't implement motor control the same way due to IP, and they'd presumably want to achieve real and/or marketable differentiation. Since I believe you own all three decks - I would be curious to know if you believe they each have a sonic signature. You tell me how to eliminate all variables such that only the motor control implementation is different and I'll tell you if I think there's a sonic signature between them. |
I own a Mk3, an L07D, and a TT101. I listen to each of these regularly. They do have a very subtle sonic signature I think, but the last thing I would do would be to try to describe it in words, for one thing because of the factors that JP mentions. Moreover, the differences that may apply are very subtle and certainly would not include a perceptible issue with speed stability. What I wonder, however, is why Dover is so intent upon discrediting these vintage turntables. It’s all very well to love and prefer whatever it is that you own over all other TTs, but why does that require that all other solutions to the problem of playing a record are wrong or sub par? If you want to say that direct drive turntable X is superior in speed stability to these vintage direct drive turntables and in the same price range, that would be very interesting, and I would like to hear about it. |
I want to retract my criticism of Dover for his dumping on vintage direct drives. He has a perfect right to say what he wants, and thanks to JP Jones for his informative responses to Dover's points. On the question of the L07D servo, I think it does say in some vintage factory literature that the servo is only activated when there is a fairly significant deviation from correct speed. Having read that, I came to think of the L07D as an attempt to achieve constant speed partly through the use of a heavy platter, a la many belt drive turntables. While the platter is not very heavy, as compared to some behemoths found on belt-drive turntables, it does have its weight concentrated at the periphery, so as to maximize any flywheel effect, and Kenwood did also supply an optional fairly heavy peripheral ring to add to platter mass where it does the most good. When you use that ring, you also engage a switch on the power supply that changes the operation of the servo circuit. |
@jpjones3318 I think you misunderstand the point I'm making - I'm not saying the Technics is "computing" - I'm saying the speed measurement and correction system is built on old technology. Your own improved chip replacement circuit has already demonstrated measureable improvements are possible. Even the reference quartz crystal can be producted to much higher tolerances today. At the end of the day do you agree that in principle the FG servo is a negative feedback system that corrects speed anomalies - right ? Quartz reference crytals have inherent jitter - right ? The PLL circuit has filter out the jitter to deal with this - right ? Re the Victor TT101 - the averaging of speed errors and correction system, I dont have time to trawl the net - this was based on comments by both an owner and a designer of a current production high end direct drive. Sound of the TT's With regards to the SP10mk3 and L07D - I have friends that own these and have listened to them for over 30 years with a myriad of arms/cartridges. Also had them in my own system. If I were to summarise their sonic attributes - to my ears the SP10mk3 consistantly presents a leaner, cleaner more precise presentation. The L07D to my ears consistantly sounds slightly courser, slightly less precise. I cant say this is due solely to the speed correction systems, because the mechanical structures, including platter, plinth and mounting are substantially different. But I can say that the differences are consistant and audible to me across muiltiple systems - enough to blind test and identify each deck in a system that I know. |
@lewm What I wonder, however, is why Dover is so intent upon discrediting these vintage turntables. It’s all very well to love and prefer whatever it is that you own over all other TTs, but why does that require that all other solutions to the problem of playing a record are wrong or sub par? I think you read too much into comments. When someone claims X is the best, I offer my opiinion if I have owned or heard X in a system I know well. If I prefer Y to X, it does not imply that X is junk - it may well be the 2nd best TT on the planet. I have consistantly stated that I am not opposed to direct drive system, or any drive system, and offered some possible explanations. I am inquisitive by nature and like to learn as much as I can. For me discussion and sharing of ideas is critical to learning. As far as turntables go design integrity and quality of implementation is arguably as important as the actual drive system chosen. |