Lew, they use hardwood far eastern ply on regular basis or Baltic birch (for just 90 quids extra). What you can recommend for sp-10? |
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. |
Albert, In the future they might be using panzerholz and slate for double price as the panzerholz not only expensive but virtually impossible to get in the UK. Acoustand Audio now use plywood primarily in construction. |
I'm in the middle of a new plinth for my
Victor TT101 DD and thought Id mention my primary material is Bamboo ply.
Very solid, heavy, and stable with inner and outer stacked layers at 90 deg to each other.
It can be hard on cutters to machine and wears carbide faster than other materials I have used. There may be more than one variety on the market as this version was sourced from a cabinet shop where they use a CNC vacuum setup using double compression style cutters that leave a cut line very smooth.
|
That's what Mr. Lee Drage (Acoustand Audio) told me: "We use mainly hardwood plywood which has proved excellent for the sp10 as it doesn't require a massive plinth it is so well engineered, and the sizes are 45.5 deep by 53 cm wide, approx height is 4" 10cm". |
Any idea about internal construction? Is it available with Panzerholz or other heavy non resonant materials?
I know shipping becomes an issue with Panzerholz and Slate but would be a nice option if they offered. They are attractive and I appreciate their designs |
Albert, their price is reasonable and plinth maker Lee Grage respond quickly on email. For example their kenwood style plinth for sp10 cost £400. Lee own his own workshop and he can make any custom plinth.
I got some info from Lee about his obsidian style plinths:
"We are offering a premium model version of this plinth, it's the same design but is 36mm thicker than standard and has a premium quality high gloss piano lacquer finish, this is a proper perfectly flat like glass lacquer and looks wonderful. It will also be available with more exotic veneers like Brazilian rosewood or Brazilian mahogany, bubinga if our supplier can supply us, just about any veneer is available. It will also be a little deeper with the top panel back bar being 1/2" thicker, it's substantially better." |
The plinths from Acoustand look nice, would be great if someone had a way to test so we know performance.
The Acoustand website does not mention price, what do they sell for and are they shipped from UK? |
Nice old thread, now a fantasy arround the new deck from technics is reallity. Not an sp 10 mk4 unfortunately, we will see...
I'm here to answer about this plinth option for SP-10:
http://www.acoustand.co.uk/pages/customers-acoustand-plinths-turntables
Anyone familiar with Acoustand's products?
The craziest thing is their custom SP-10 plinth ala Kenwood Plinth (pictures on their website) And they can do whatever customer dream plinth by request. |
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. |
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. ;-) |
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. |
Just to end this idle discussion, try taking a SP10 motor and platter unit out of its housing and run it with no plinth, and no platter. It will not work at all. This is very close to the condition that Raul mentions, and is extremely ill advised.
OMA has a new system for the SP10, with the motor control boards located in a separate enclosure, and the motor and platter securely anchored to a 210 pound slate plinth. This is the right way to do it.
Disclosure- We are OMA.
Jonathan |
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? |
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. |
No communication since 1 mail that project is starting. However from wikispace it's seems there is a delay from April deadline. I heard a Garrard 401 not optimumly set up with isolated tonearm and it was exciting and full of prat. That's why I decided to experiment with a properly refurbished Garrard 301, purchased a reed turret , 12" reed 2p , ortofon a90 and dynavector x-1vs , mark Kelly psu. Let's see whether it will outperform my raven ac3 with raven 10.5 tonearm. Suspect it will be great for rock and classical music. Yes, listening to 1 set up is not conclusive but looking at stefano set and how da Vinci turntable is designed with isolated tonearm, I decided to take the route. Another reference go to promitheusaudio dot com |
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. |
I suggest u look up turntable dot it or google reed tonearm. The manufacturer of reed tonearm do produce tonearm pod/ base or turret . It's make of certain matrixes, cork and stainless steel. Beautiful and not too expensive . From my friends experiment with Garrard 401, it's seems isolated base is the way to go. I hve not set up mine on a Garrard 301 yet while waiting for Mark Kelly psu and finally decide to build a birch ply base even though I would prefer a slate plinth which unfortunately is difficult to come by in my country . Buying a slate plinth with shipping due to it's weight wld be pretty expensive |
I don't know if it was stated above but the SL-1000 was the SP-10MKII with the base, dustcover and arm included. |
Downunder: That's just the sort of comments I'm looking for! Put it up there. There many jazz, Weavers and 'Famous Blue Raincoat' lovers out there and I read their comments all the time. However, what about the music lovers who dig a massive bass-line, big drums and huge dynamics?
Some arms are good on acoustic music, voice etc but come undone when called upon to 'get up and boogie'. For example, pace, rhythm and timing can be lost in transit across the grooves. Other arms are good on the highs and mids, but have little or flabby bass- some unitpivots fall in this camp. Full orchestral music is perhaps the best test for any rig, but playing dance, rock and alternative music well is also desired in an arm. I want an arm that can do both, and do it well.
Lewm: OK- a good SP-10 goes for about $1,000 to $1,500. Then you add a plinth ($400-$2,000 ish), then an arm ($300 to $5,000), renovation work on caps, bearing oil, etc etc ($300 to who knows where) Get my drift? That SP-10 (with, granted, a u-beaut motor) is now getting into high-end price territory.
Now, buy a second hand SL1200 MK2 ($500 ish, it can be beaten up- who cares?). Remove the motor and electronics, build a plinth, build the outboard PSU, sell with provision to carry a Rega (that would encompass the Origin Live models too) and 9" SMEs. The customer could also specify a 12" arm.
It could be done on an exchange basis. (this is how the Origin Live started with their RB250/300 arms mods) You provide the SL1200, a cool small operator could do the work and give you back a bloody good TT. Alternatively, they sell the lot as a kit for OS customers or the DIYers.
I reckon the right operator with the right connections could offer the above for about $1,000 complete. Nothing fancy. Not high-end. Yet, it would blow a Rega P3 or a low/mid priced Thorens and other entry level TTs into the weeds!
There are millions of SL1200s out there just waiting.... |
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. |
Dsa - not sure I can add any value to the SME thread.
I own the Ortofon AS-309 12 inch arm. Sounds fine with rock/alternative however. Just been playing some new Morrissey & Bloody Beetroots on it.
Who said SPU's can't rock!! |
Downunder: Yes, I agree. However, now 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. Hello Sound HiFi UK! Are you listening? Take the next step.
As for the GP audio. Nice. Tad overpriced. Yet, for the first 'X' amount of units, they won't make much moola.
BTW- I'm glad to see you chimed-in 'DOWNUNDER'. Could you get some comments onto the other thread I have started? It's about 12" SME arms. It would be great to hear from someone who is into rock/alernative. How does a SME 12" go with that style of music? |
I don't think Grand Prix Audio has made themselves rich out of designing the Direct Drive Monaco turntable at 20K.
There is no way in hell that any of the Japanese companies will make any high end turntables for such little perceived returns.
|
The age comment was a dig at myself BTW just in case I invoke the ire of a million baby boomer audiophiles... |
Macrojack- I still say that the resurgence of interest in direct drive TT, in spite of the belt-drive flat Earthers, may deliver a spark in the mind of a smart hi-fi business person.
I'm sure that somewhere in the UK/USA/Oz or elsewhere there is a set of busy hands dismantling a SL1200 for parts.
Like Origin Live and so many other 'cottage' companies, this person's little industry will produce a sparkling gem hewn from a MK2!
Perhaps Sound HiFi has some piece of equipment about to emerge from behind a shop front in the UK.
Yes- the CD is dying faster than the LP (and the LP is shipping more units each month in spite of its death)
However, I always considered the CD a replacement for the cassette. Portable and all that. We didn't get a replacement for the LP. And this point, I believe, addresses the last two posts- there will be a demand fore the LP and LP playback equipment as long as it remains the superior source for the playback of music. (DVD-A and the like are are dead as the dodo, so don't even go there!)
As for your offer on an SP-10. I have one! Besides, I would need 240V. Or may be I do need two... you have planted a seed.
I still, however, am in the market for a nice tonearm. 12", methinks.
As for the age argument, I refuse to be associated with the likes you bunch of 50 year olds! Indeed, I am only 49 and 3/4 years young.
BTW- these postings have wandered just a tad from the centre of the topic... |
Lewm - You raise an important question. Supply and demand will certainly dictate the value of these devices. Right now interest is fairly high because the tables are sorta scarce relative to the number of us who think we want one. As we leave the scene, will we be followed by younger people who want these? I tend to doubt that there will be anything approaching one to one replacement in the U.S. Possibly a lot of our stuff will be bought up by aficianados in other parts of the world.
Or maybe Google will manage to have non-digital media outlawed worldwide.
For now, I'll keep spinning a few discs a week and let the gray get white and whiter until it all falls out. |
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. |
Business is all about returns and there is simply too little upside to justify the necessary outlay.
Kevin at KAB told me that the motor is what keeps the SP-10 performance beyond the reach of anything that could be done to improve the 1200.
You have to understand that all of the high end audio sales worldwide in the last ten years wouldn't add up to a good month at Panasonic. We are a small niche market. When the classic, direct drive statement pieces were manufactured, stereo was a growth market and every family in America was buying a sound system. These were comprised of two speakers, a receiver, a turntable, and sometimes, a cassette deck. Variations on this standard existed but they were statistically insignificant until the 1980s when high end audio began to erupt. As this was happening, CD was being introduced. After just a few years, the L.P. had been pushed aside by the recording industry and turntables went with it. The small resurgence we are seeing now will never grow too much but I like its chances better than what CD is looking at.
Downloads are killing it.
So your best bet is to offer me an unconscionable amount of money for my SP-10 and modify it as you see fit. I'm not presently planning to sell but my head can be turned by figures.
Just trying to maintain useful perspective. |
Good points, Macrojack. Then, rather than re-inventing the wheel, follow the example done many including Origin Live. Buy the parts from the manufacturer and 'build' a 'new' DD turntable. Geez, they put Ford engines into exotic cars (Aston Martin- yeah, yeah Ford owned it at the time), and Toyota engines are tweaked and used by Lotus.
Even the standard SL1200 Mk2 can be made to sing (Dave at Sound Hi-Fi UK, KAB in the USA). Then why not either (a) buy the bits from Panasonic and 'make' a deluxe version (decent plinth, external PSU etc) or (b) Bulk buy the SL1200, use the parts and do the same. In this economic climate, Panasonic just might be all ears.... |
The SP-10 MK 4 would have to sell for $20,000 or much more and would therefore only sell a couple thousand units at best. Companies like Panasonic are not interested in offering products with such limited appeal.
The original high end tables were statement pieces inspired and funded by a burgeoning turntable business that was selling millions of low end units. Those days will never return. |
Hey everyone. Read this blog (which what I should have done earlier)
'SP10 Mk II vs Mk III'
BTW Has anyone tried the afore mention cement or plaster plinth?
I hope someone at Panasonic is reading this blog. They might get the idea to reissue the SP-10 with updates for the 21st century. Think about it: They probably have all the manufacturing equipment still and the design start-up costs have paid for themselves years ago.
SP-10 MK4 or 5? **BRING IT ON!** |
Thank you, Jonathan. Any idea when Ferrari will be introducing their Direct Drive? |
Nope, I'm married to a Van Elk.
People modify cars all the time, get them to run faster, to handle better. But there is nothing wrong with driving a factory stock Ferrari.
I hope that analogy is of some use.
Enjoy your SP10. |
Thanks, Weisselk, but it's too expensive for me even with the waterjet technology. By the way, are you related to Black Elk? |
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. |
Hi Macrojack. I think the original Obsidian plinths from Technics are fine, and I own two of the SH- B3 and one full Obsidian SH-B5. As stated above by Pryso, these all weigh under 20 kilos.
The OMA slate plinths weigh about 100 pounds for the two layer versions, and half that for the single layer, so we are talking about very different mass from what Technics put out as a product- I doubt plinths of pure stone like slate weighing that much would have gone over well with their marketing people.
Not to mention the fact that without a waterjet, making complex and precise cutouts through slate 2 inches thick would have been difficult if not impossible. It certainly would have been too expensive at the time to offer as a product. |
Thanks, Lewm. It really is that simple, isn't it? This whole audio thing seems to be fueled by a self-conscious dissatisfaction. Why are we never happy for long? Why the drive for more, more, more always?
Lately I've come to believe that we are treating the wrong end of the equation. Instead of constantly trying to modify our systems to please us, wouldn't it be easier, less expensive and less frustrating to simply change ourselves and our expectations. Perhaps the glass really is half full.
I'm currently using 1973 issue JBL speakers, a Kenwood KT 917 tuner and this Technics table with a Denon DL 103 cartridge. My horns could have been built in the 1930s. All of these items stand very tall in comparison to this months review items. So why the push to modernize? Why the belief in the latest and greatest? Why not just settle in and enjoy what we have? You know as well as I do that it's pretty damn great. There will never be a last nth. |
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. |
Mine just says SL-1000 MK II on the back but I think it must be an SH-10B3 according to your description. If mass is the key, perhaps I should just remove the feet and bolt it to the credenza on which it sits. That would add at least a couple of hundred pounds. |
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! |
I dont think it is a question of who is right and wrong, This is a wonderful Turntable exceptionally well engineered, it was designed for professional use mainly in a radio station, what you need there is precision and reliability, for a High End Turntable you need only good sound, In High end we dont care if your power supply is ready to explode or your cables can catch fire at any moment, or if your speakers barely fit in your room, we just care for sound. I dont think a separate Pod could be fit for a radio station.
Audi uses the same engine for a station wagon and for a sports car, the difference is on the application and what you need it for, you want to carry 3 kids or you want to go fast!
A lot of High end TT do have a separate Pod for the tonearm, and on the SP10 in my experience the comparison is not even close, plus it is very easy to implement, try it out and let us know your opinion. |
Dear Macrojack: Maybe nothing but today there are a different way to think or different solutions to the same " subject ".
IMHO there are no perfect products out there, vintage or today ones, and the original SP-10 is no exception.
Maybe your original unit performs better or maybe a little different than any other " solution " that you read through several SP-10 threads.
The only way to be sure if what we have is the right " road " is to test/try a different " road " and decide.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
I have an SL-1000 MK II. That's an SP-10 MK II in the original Technics obsidian base. What is wrong with it and what improvements would I be seeking by changing to slate or some other material? I have read threads like this often but have never yet been prompted to try something different. Part of this is a respect for the integrity of the original design and part is skepticism. If Technics was able to build one of the finest turntables ever made available, would they not have provided a very suitable base? Would they not have experimented with many materials and different masses? When this turntable was offered it was extremely well funded and very capably engineered from a cost no object perspective. What did Technics do wrong? |
LEWM: thanks for the tip on the cutout. Thanks also for the explanation of the arm length issue. Weisselk has also suggested that removing the base of the SP-10 could be a good idea, especially sonically.
Raul and others seem to have had success with a plinthless setup. It's looking like slate for a plinth or semi-nothing. Reports coming in on the cement option are poor. I imagine that resonance is the problem (like granite).
Hello Pyrso: Yes, there is a plethora of info on plinths for the rim drives, and much less for DD crowd. The OMA plinths are expensive...but I starting to believe that a finely made slate plinth is the best (plinth) option. The OMA models look exceptionally well made.
Yes (and Lewn said this earlier too and details it again above)- I think Raul's no-plinth setup is more correctly a semi-detached armboard setup. However, dibs to Raul for the application of his clever thinking.
Plaster of Paris, eh? Any other takers on that idea? Making the mold could be a pain though. I have trouble laying carpet tiles to fit a room let alone making a mold!
Yes- there is a strong valid argument for keeping the tonearm connected to the turntable proper
I'm thinking it's like when there a two cars drive next to each other, trying match speed, and a passenger attempts to pass a egg out the window to the other car while both cars negotiate pot holes and speed bumps!
It might be good 'ol 3/4 chipboard for a standby plinth after-all.
Oh, but those OMA slate plinths... |
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. |
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. |
Dear Weisselk: +++++ " This is yet another of those "to each his own" audio discussions " +++++
No, it is not absurd or " bad idea " ( it is only a different " road " and you don't have to like it. ) to run the Sp-10 with out plinth if you have the right " tools " ( including know-how ) to do it.
Certainly your bad experiences about means you don't have those right tools.
Anyway, if what function to you is a different " road " good for you this is the important issue: that you be satisfied.
Like Jsadurni I'm satisfied using no plinth.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
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. |
Hi Weisselk,
Well, your comments are borne from experience that I do not have- they are very welcomed- thanks. Did you ever try cement or a conglomerate for a plinth? It's heavy. It's cheap. But, would it be any good?
Lewm- I had good laugh at the "Fehhh" in your comment. I had to say it out aloud to get it. Fantastic, I had always wondered how that was written!
I suspected as much regarding the use of perspex. I think you are also being kind in regard to it's use with belt drive- still a bad idea methinks. It does, however, LOOK good....
Does anyone have a link for the dimensions of the SP-10 showing the unit graphically and the same for a suitable plinth?
Another challenge is the use of an arm with limited or non-existent VTA. I imagine that I would have to use a small block mounted on the plinth to bring the arm to the correct height.
Another person suggested that "a 12" tonearm is best because of the SP-10's large platter". Does anyone know what this means? |
