Technics SP-10 Tonearm Pod instead of Plinth/Base

Dsa, I think there may be some confusion over the meaning of "pod" in this discussion, but I'll come back to that.

A couple of years ago when I got an SP-10 Mk2A, I started researching plinth design. Initially I cut out a 20" X 18" sheet of 3/4" particle board (not even MDF) so I could mount an arm to enjoy the table while designing and building a proper plinth. I experimented with different mountings, from the Technics bottom pan directly on a shelf to various absorptive materials either under the pan or supporting the particle board frame. I have not liked any springy support and the differences between stiffer support and no support are minimal. But unlike Lew I've not had any problem with the table moving from start-up torque.

Researching plinth design was initially disappointing since there is little info on SP-10s compared to all the rim-drive sites for their Garrards, Thorens, Lencos, etc. One good source for information is the DirectDrive site (see review of plinth materials) but I can't access them now to provide a link. Another is Soundfountain which has already been mentioned. Many great ideas are available from Albert Porter, even if you choose not to buy one of his plinths. I'm sure the OMA slate plinths are excellent but they are costly (at least for my retiree budget).

One other thought for plinth material comes from Townsand Audio, make a mold of the proper plinth and use plaster of paris, possibly including lead shot. Still messy but easier than concrete.

Since I had met Raul and had several discussions with him, I ask for his opinion. Here is where I think there may be some misunderstanding. When Raul says he favors a non-plinth design, my understanding is that he is saying it is not a standard box frame or solid wood plinth. Rather it is similar to what I'm using except even smaller in dimension - just enough wood attached to the platter base to mount the tone arm. Then he places his AT suspension feet underneath the bottom pan of the motor unit.

Many commercial turntables include what is called an arm pod but they are attached to the base mounting the platter/spindle housing in some fashion. I believe this is what Lew is addressing when he talks about the mechanical integrity of the platter/arm mounting. Very few offer an isolated pod for the arm which could simply be picked up by itself because of the lack of a mechanical connection, other than weight. While I'm not an engineer, much of my reading discussed the importance of stability between platter mounting and arm mounting. Given the microscopic undulations of the record groove, the need for such stability makes sense to me if we want to insure the only vibrations picked up come from the stylus in the groove. And even with a very massive separate pod to stabilize the arm, imagine moving it for the small increments required for proper alignment overhang and offset!

Anyway, for a long list of reasons, my proper plinth has not been built yet, but I must say my SP-10 sounds pretty good bolted up to the single 3/4" board.

Macrojack, which Technics plinth came with your table? Technics made four different plinths for the SP-10 series.

First was a standard box frame for the original SP-10. It was all wood and weighed 5.2 kg.

Next was the SH-10B3 introduced with the SP-10 Mk2. This was a combination of Obsidian and wood and weighed 12 kg.

The third plinth was the SH-10B5 that came out at the time of the SP-10 Mk3. It was all Obsidian and weighed 19 kg.

Their last model was the SH-10B7 and sold with both the Mk2(A) and 3. It too was all Obsidian and the listed weight was 17.3 kg.

So other than the slight mass reduction with the 10B7, each plinth was made heavier than it's predecessor. Trusting that Technics engineers knew something of what they were doing, I took all this as a clue that mass is important to performance. But as Raul reminds us, we may never know until someone tests a minimal mass structure against a 40-60 pound plinth.

I will say that I do not see or feel movement with start up, running, or stopping my table. But then my sense of touch is not quite equal to a stylus in the groove!

Lew, you offer one of the best comments ever on an audio site -

"There are days when I don't give a rat's arse about plinths and just want to listen"

I started out in this hobby as a music lover but hoped to increase my enjoyment with better equipment. Had I only known what a slipper slope that can be!

Like any addiction step program, getting off the equipment merry-go-round is not easy. And that m-g-r can be a great hobby in itself if that's what you want. But I found I've actually gotten further away from the music so am taking steps (my own program) to settle on a good basic system and just listen to the music.

I agree with Lew regarding rigidity of connection between cartridge/tonearm and the platter/record. Considering the small margin for error in proper cartridge set up, I just don't see how any lack of absolute coupling between them could be beneficial. And inserting any sort of suspension between the cartridge and headshell seems it would be worse, but I know there are some who advocate this.

One friend has a Garrard 401 mounted in a massive (solid) maple plinth with the arm(s) mounted outboard on tall, massive brass pods. Possibly they are heavy enough not to move but there is still the issue of exact positioning. I will admit his set up sounds very good. But could it be better with a direct coupled mounting?

I believe there is much confusion about Raul's table, possibly due to his non-English native language, although I think he communicates quite well.

I attempted to include a link to a photo of his SP-10 but cannot figure out how to do so. It is a wood frame which surrounds the motor unit and extends to one side to provide a mounting area for the arm. In answer to the OP, this is a secured fixture between the mounting for the motor/platter casing and the arm base. It is NOT a separate arm pod so that is not what he is recommending as an alternative. His solution is only this minimal frame (possibly 3/4" thick) to hold and position the arm, plus three suspension feet underneath the motor pan, and not a more massive plinth as most others have constructed.

If I may be allowed to continue speaking for Raul, his position is that a high mass plinth is not necessary for good performance with an SP-10 Mk 2. I have been using a similar mounting for my Mk 2A for over a year with pleasing results. Whether this is inferior, as good as, or better than a more massive plinth I cannot say -- I haven't tried one yet.

But two discussions have developed within this thread: comments on separate arm pods as ask in the OP, and the question of desirable plinth mass, now with an even further diversion by Weisselk in suggesting the removal of the controls and electronics outboard with only the motor/platter attached to the plinth (whereby I assume he eliminates the cast mounting frame for the motor, electronics, and switches). Hopefully all this discussion may be useful to the OP and he/she is still reading after all this time. ;-)