I am not sure that your description of Raul's set-up is correct. I thought he had mounted the tonearm on a short skirt of plywood that is also fastened around the tt chassis. In any case, that would be my preference, if I were to go with the ultra-light approach. If you isolate the tonearm from the vibrations of the chassis, then the chassis/platter/LP will vibrate while the tonearm/cartridge stands still. This in theory could maximize badness. Don't you want the tonearm/cartridge to be on the same roller coaster with the bearing/platter? The problems of maintaining geometry only add to the mess, IMO. I saw a nice plinth on eBay for a bit less than $500 from somewhere in the US or Europe. I saw a cheaper one from somewhere else in the world that I did not like nearly as much. |
This is yet another of those "to each his own" audio discussions. We can be comfortable knowing we are all in the right. Have fun. If any one of us besides Raul tries it both ways, please report back on your preference. |
Guys, If I am wrong about Raul's rig, I stand corrected. It means that I have been under the wrong impression for several months. In fact I thought Raul agreed with me when in other places I had stated my case against having separate arm pods. Nandric, I know Kuzma does do it that way in their top line product, so evidently Mr Kuzma does not agree with me that it is a bad idea. He is probably smarter than me, too. But there is a difference between a minimum plinth SP10 and the Kuzma table you own in that your table AND your outboard arm pod have enormous high mass. Also your table does not potentially suffer from being spun on its own axis by its motor (due to Newton's 3rd Law of Motion), as could happen with an SP10 chassis that is just sitting on a set of Audio Technica feet, a la Raul. (I have seen this happen with my own SP10; it does not actually spin around of course, but it twists at start up, if you just sit the chassis on a table. Eventually after several start-ups, it will move across the table top. This would tend to screw up geometry.) I also would point out that there are other smart guys (turntable designers and builders) who agree with my opinion on this matter. Eventually, Raul will see this thread and trash me. In fact, if he likes his SP10 set-up, it probably sounds good. This is all meant in good fun. |
Raul has a point; I have never heard an SP10 sans plinth. Really, there are two issues here: (1) plinth vs no plinth, and (2) outboard arm pod vs mechanical linkage of the tonearm mount to the tt chassis. I feel more strongly on the latter subject (pro-linkage) than on the former. It would be simple to take a piece of plywood to form a skirt fastened to the underside of an SP10, with enough area beyond the boundary of the chassis to allow for mounting of a tonearm. Then you could put the chassis on feet like Raul has done, and you would have no-plinth but with linkage. I may try that. But you guys can keep your outboard arm pod. One other issue that comes up whenever Raul gets into this subject; who else has a set of those Audio Technica feet? Since they are rare, what else would do as well? I could imagine that the no-plinth SP10 might have a nice open sound quality, or it might not. |
I don't have any idea why it might be so, but I have had negative reports on marble as a material for plinths. You can say it rings when you tap it, as does granite, but I have never understood how/why that should be the determining factor. I would stick with slate or wood. The Japanese have virtually no access to slate, which is why some of them may use marble, but I must say also that I have never seen a marble plinth in any of my several trips to Japan, during which I haunt audio stores. |
Concrete might be excellent. I recently saw a Kenwood L07D. It's plinth is made in part of a very dense particulate material, much like concrete. (The plinth is further damped by metal and wood layers.) By all accounts, the L07D is VERY quiet, so I assume the plinth "works". But this makes shipping of an L07D a nightmare, because that concrete-like stuff may crumble if it receives a blunt force blow. I would think also it might be difficult to make a precision fit with concrete, because does it not shrink while drying? But in principle, concrete would be an interesting choice and would probably work well. I see that you propose to start with pre-formed slabs of concrete. Can it be "worked" to accept the SP10 without crumbling? Anyway, it's a cheap experiment. |
You mean Corian? The scuttlebutt on Corian is that it does not sound so good as a plinth. This is only word of mouth information. I think Jean Nantais is one person who tried Corian as did some others with Lenco tts. Don't give up on concrete, IMO. Maybe you can make a mold and cast a piece with a square opening for the SP10 chassis. |
Fehhhh on perspex. Bad idea, IMO. I know that Clearaudio uses perspex for everything, but they are making belt drive tables. That's a different kettle of fish. |
Dsa,
You can get an exact 1:1 template for the SP10 chassis cut-out from Soundfountain. It even shows exactly where to put the screw holes. It costs only a few bucks.
What that person may have meant re the 12-inch tonearm is that the square shape of the SP10 chassis makes mounting of many 9-inch arms awkward at best, if not impossible in some cases, because you cannot attain the needed pivot to spindle distance without some real gymnastics. Mounting a 12-incher would be much easier, OR you can consider removing the motor from the chassis. For one example, I really could not properly mount my Triplanar next to my SP10, can't get it close enough because of the way that the Triplanar pivot point is offset to the outside with respect to its mount and because of the square shape of the SP10. Admittedly, this is an extreme case. |
Pryso, You got the same idea I had re Raul's non-plinth. When I described it here pretty much as you did, Raul posted that I was incorrect, that his tonearm IS on a discrete outboard mount of its own. While Raul is not alone in preferring that type of set-up, it does go against the prevailing philosophy that there needs to be some rigid physical connection between bearing and tonearm. I personally am not going to say that Raul's SP10 can't sound good. I have just made my own decisions in the other direction, in favor of mounting any tonearm in or on the same physical structure that houses the turntable mechanism. The analogy that is vivid for me is that of a race car driver who gets in an accident with or without his safety harness buckled up. The link between bearing and tonearm assures that both elements of the playback system remain coupled during those rough moments. |
Macrojack, Nothing "wrong" with your plinth. I did not get a plinth with my SP10, so had to improvise my own. The question is whether your plinth or my plinth could be "better", This is the hobby aspect. Pure music lovers need not pay any attention to it. There are days when I don't give a rat's arse about plinths and just want to listen to jazz. In fact, any time I am actually listening to my system, that is the case. |
Macrojack, I don't know about you, but I have been able to determine that most of us are old farts. What happens when we go to the happy LP hunting grounds, as far as the value of these turntables? I wonder how many of us are under 50 years old, for example. I worry about the resurgence of vinyl in the long run, if there is a long run. Well, I actually have more important things to worry about, come to think of it. |
Dsa, You wrote, "I'm talking about a small operator who buys 2nd hand (or new) SL1200s, pulls them apart and re-births them as a top flight deck with a different arm, plinth, power supply etc." By the time they did that, why bother with the SL1200 at all? And you left out the element that makes the biggest difference between, say, an SP10 Mk2 and an SL1200 - the motor. Fact is it would be best to start with a clean sheet, if you want to transcend the SL1200 by a wide margin, and then you are inevitably going to be the in Grand Prix Monaco price category. The SL1200 is capable of fine performance and will probably have to do for those who insist on buying new gear. By the way, if the business you specifically named were to get into the SL1200 upgrade game, the resulting modifications would probably cost enough to pay for an excellent SP10 Mk2. I think they already have a $400 bearing upgrade available, or so I have read. |
Dear Audioblazer, You wrote, "From my friends experiment with Garrard 401, it's seems isolated base is the way to go." Can you tell me/us just what experiment your friend conducted? I also wonder how it is possible to generalize from any one turntable, especially one that is rather esoteric, to all turntables on a subject such as this.
By the way, have you had any recent communication from Mark on his PSU? I too am awaiting a Kelly supply, for my Lenco in this case. |
There are megabuck turntables that do it either way, tonearm on outboard pod vs tonearm very firmly associated with the bearing/platter. Probably it works either way, if the design is done properly. As I stated several times, my main beef with a separate pod is the possibility that a careless bump will destroy the alignment. That's on the practical level. Then too on the theoretical level, I like the idea of rigidity of the connection between tonearm/platter via the arm mount and bearing.
Probably I should query Mark on the controller. |
To be fair, I don't think Raul ever advocated running the SP10 with no platter. As you suggest, the motor will go nuts with no platter. I agree with you on your solution; Raul has another way. |
Tim, Your description of Raul's table is exactly as I once envisioned it. I got the impression at the top of this thread that I was not quite correct. Anyway, it's water under the bridge, or a tonearm over a turntable, or something.
One "secret" of the success of Raul's approach may be that he has those Audio Technica feet placed under the chassis of the SP10 itself, not supporting the plywood per se. |
What type of plywood? That makes a huge difference. For example, Baltic Birch plywood is a proven good material for tt plinths, but in general such BB plinths have been massive, for idlers and DD tt's, to achieve best results. |
