@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. |
@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.
|
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.
|
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. |
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 ??
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. 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.
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.
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 must have had 3 disparate views on how speed control circuits affect sound quality. 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. |
@jpjones3318 Hi Dover,
The Technics "Quartz Locked" units utilize PLL motor control.
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. |
this SP10 MK3 w/ FR64fx tone arm was designed with The tonearm is NOT the 64fx, you’re lucky, because it’s the 66fx ! Amazing tonearm (very expensive and rare), much better than short 64fx. If you don’t know, the market value of your 66fx is about $5k today. |
|
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.
The Technics SP10 servos use algortihms to estimate predicted errors and employ rapid response times (limited by the technology of the day). The servo action includes error and overshoot.
It is no better than the jitter endemic in digital reproduction, and sounds like it to me. Hi Dover, The Technics "Quartz Locked" units utilize PLL motor control. |
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. |
@lewm not vodka, Rum. I’m guessing 101 will be in Miami soon. Each fix JP makes requires a run time. I'm in no hurry. |
From another Victor TT, but I don’t know the details
I understand, with this the whole discussion falls away as I have already verified; I don’t think anyone with a cannibalizing engine wants to share even paying his parts with others. It is a pity. |
Do you know which engine and turntable model the sensor was extracted from to run your 101?
From another Victor TT, but I don't know the details, JP responsible for that. |
motor hall sensor has been replaced
this 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? |
@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.
|
What are the character flaws in your TT101? Does it sing the song of the Volga Boatmen? Does it run on Vodka?
|
Congrats @rich121
My Victor 101 is with JP but on stand by as it has a few character issues. I expect JP to go surf with it when finished. Glad you kept the SP10. When JP's finished it will be new again. Don’t ever let it go! |
|
Finally got the SP10 MK3 sent to JP last week.
He will be doing everything he can and I also will be purchasing a 'spare' speed controlling chip, in case it is needed in the future.
Now I'm looking for a
TTM Monitor Mat...
|
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.
|
The best mat I ever heard was made by Warren Gehl of ARC (prior to his working with ARC). The last one I saw sold anywhere was $1700.00. They were heavy- about 5 pounds, owing to lead content.
|
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 |
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.
|
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! |
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! |
"and expensive", not "and the expensive". Autocorrect on my iPhone.
|
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. |
@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. |
I have and use on my turntables with excellent results: Sakura Systems The Mat, Micro CU-180, SAEC SS-300. All are great mats, Micro is the most beautiful (and most expensive). |
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.
|
I have the TTM mat (thanks to Albert) and matching Oil Damped Stabilizer for my SP10R, and I bought the Micro CU-180 to compare. IMO, there’s no comparison. I found the Micro to sound colored and slow by comparison, so it quickly departed.
|
|
|
lewm,
No, TTM is no longer available. There are at lest two versions, the bright stainless steel one is the one to get. I don't know dates but imagine it's a 1980s Japan product.
|
Never heard of the TTM mat. Is it still in production?
Also, Hi Albert! |
What did you use for polishing ? @best-groove |
|
au_lait,
If you have the TTM Monitor Mat you have the best mat, at least in my opinion. I've had many mats, including the ceramic Kenwood, Micro Seiki CU180 and the more rare Micro Seiki CU500.
Also had Funk Firm, Copper TT Weights platter mat, a glass mat with Teflon sheets on either side (cannot remember name but was from Japan).
I still have half a dozen clamps and weights to use with various mats. The sound from the turntable pretty much mimics the mat material. Meaning soft rubber mat or Vinyl mat like Funk Firm is slower and rounder.
A metal mat like Micro Seiki CU-180 is much more controled and the Micro Seiki CU 500 even more so.
The TTM Monitor is the most controlled, fastest and lowest distortion, some LPs get suprisingly close to my master dubs. Very low overshoot or smear, very quick but without artificial hardness.
The Micro Seiki would probably still be second choice if I could not find a TTM Monitor mat. Be aware though, the original genuine Micro Seiki is the best of the "copper colored" mats because it's made from Gun Metal, not just copper.
Last, if you use either Micro Seiki mat or the TTM Monitor mat the TTM damper with oil is by far the best. This weight continues the sound of the mat deeper into the music.
Second best record clamp is the discontinued TT Weights Copper/Brass version with damping and third would be the Pierre Lurne / Audiomeca record clamp.
I still have all these still and continue to retest from time to time. I recently changed all my electronics so I will go back and see if my opinion will change with this new sound.
|
|
I’m using the TTM Monitor Mat, no complaints and is much better than the stock rubber (in either thickness). I’m curious to hear the difference l, however subtle, between my stainless mat and the Micro Seiki.
I recall seeing the TTM mat in your system pics @albertporter - what was your impression? And have you tried the Micro in comparison?
Thanks! |
Micro CU-500 was incredible on my ex Technics SP-10 mkII Now I'm using CU-180 on my Luxman PD-444 and I have this spare set (CU180 + ST20 in mint condition). This is definitely the best mat, so rare and hard to find in perfect condition. |
rich121 Very curious what platter mat recommendations you have for the MK3? You also might wish to try one of the following platter mats as well. I have both of these presently and they are really quite superb. Micro Seiki CU-180 (Gunmetal alloy - vintage) Artisan Fidelity (Pure Copper) atmasphere I think the SP10MkIII is better than the new 10R because it has so much
more torque. But a good deal of that was so it could be used for LP
mastering and I suspect that was not their goal with the newer version. I agree this is a critical part of the equation. Many more differences exist between these models though than just the torque output which affect playback. |
Chakster Or you can send to our JP Jones for inspection if you want to make sure about condition of the electronics.
Not sure why do you think you need Kreb’s mod for mk3? It’s amazing turntable without any mods!
One of the best turntables ever. Even if you will spend up to $60k I doubt it will be any better.
As for the new one you have to check Technics SP-10R (and its retail). Agreed with this posters sentiments. Btw, a new Technics Sp10R runs about $11k without a plinth. |
dover
If Technics SP10 owners are contemplating the krebsupgrade they should be aware that there are legal exclusions of liability for any breakages incurred during the modification and that the modifications are irreversible. I also see that no measurements or objective tests have been provided to support the krebsupgrade claims. Over the past decade, I’ve owned differently implemented Technics Sp10Mk3’s from completely stock form, to one with a cld Panzerholz plinth to a Dobbins direct mount and Artisan Fidelity NGS and none have had this specific modification done. The permanent nature of this procedure involving oil(y) substances applied to the internals meant a firm no-go for me. I listened to a for all intents and purposes stock Sp10Mk3 as well before and after this mod at a friends place as well which did not change or alter my opinion on the matter. |
rich121 I was wondering how this would compare to what is out there for modern turntables after all the work is done? Any well sorted, restored and serviced Technics Sp10Mk3, in the proper plinth, will very favorably compete with and in many (if not most) instances readily beat modern turntables at this price. Or, would I be better off selling it, and adding what I was going to spend for the upgrades to a new turntable? For $7.5k brand new, I doubt any brand new turntable which retails at this level could compare favorably. If investing say $13k - $15k on something used you can likely find other decks offering different "flavors" but in certain areas the Mk3 may still prove rather difficult to beat. If you do keep the Technics, then a properly implemented plinth is mandatory, as the stock SH series obsidian plinth simply does not allow this direct drive design to perform as well as it is capable of. 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. The FR64s is a legendary tonearm design, you should be very happy with this choice. The Moerch DP8........well, that one is an entirely another story. IMO, for €4,2k you can certainly do much better. |
Late to this, sorry for not noticing but looks like good answers have been provided for all the questions.
I will add that I have a SP10 MK3 (you can see in my system here at Audiogon) and it has Krebs mod as well as complete mechanical and electrical rebuild.
Short answer is it's the best turntable I've owned and I've had a lot including the Walker Black Diamond Proscenium which the MK3 replaced.
I do not own the new Technics SP10R nor have I had it in my system but I imagine it's wonderful. It’s certainly handsome in both fit and finish.
As for question about tonearms, the Fidelity Research mentioned is world famous for it's performance but so is the new Kuzma 4 Point 14" which is available new and can be ordered with your choice of wire and connectors.
I‘ve owned several dozen tonearms, both modern and classic. There are several top flight and depending on match up with your favorite cartridge superb results can be had.
|
@au_laitGood idea, I wish I had thought of pre and post recording. Unfortunately this hasn't been done. cheers. |
@richardkrebs I’ve been on the fence of getting your upgrade a few times, but have been hesitant because of the irreversibility. Not really fussed about measurements, but, have you or anyone A/B’d a stock vs modded MK3 and recorded? Would be very intersted in hearing recordings if so! |
Turntables have already improved enough not to need them over the years, you don't need to improve a performance by 0.1%; rather they should considerably improve vinyl recordings and prints even of ordinary ones lagging behind in technology IHMO.
|
|
