audiofun, We are talking about turntables. I realize the "to do or not to do" of PSs for amplifiers and preamplifiers is a different kettle of fish, because the music signal is imposed upon the DC produced by the PS. In the case of a turntable, what matters is that the PS (of any kind) is delivering well regulated voltage and current to meet the demands of the turntable motor and of any motor control circuitry. Music does not ride on the output of a tt supply. Where one is not concerned with an audio signal, the filtering can be as intensive as needed to keep out HF noise. You or someone else mentioned the fear that SMPS puts noise back on to the AC line; all turntable motors are also capable of doing this, and turntables should be run from an isolated AC source, ideally. I think a large fraction of the benefit derived from external motor controllers is related to isolating the tt motor. (You mentioned putting a scope on an SMPS supply; did you do that? Did you see hash on the AC line as a result? Did you try the same experiment with a linear supply running a tt motor?) Anyway, I would not be concerned about a well designed SMPS for a turntable. You feel differently. That's OK, too.
David Berning is one of the most modest, unassuming persons I have ever met. Which I think is why he made the comments Chris quoted, in response to questions about HIS SMPS. In reality, he is an innovative genius, in my opinion. I have had a pair of ZOtls in my system, running my pair of Sound Lab 845PXs. While I did not think they were quite up to the level of my Atma-sphere monoblocks, I certainly did not perceive the slightest problem with HF noise, or any noise for that matter. (This proves nothing, I admit.)
|
I especially like how the responder to the posters questions refers to switching noise as "the devil’s harmonica" :) LOL |
lewm: I have ALWAYS been obssessed with power supply quality. It is after all what you are listening to arguably moreso than anything else. You are listening to a modulated rectified signal from the wall and SMPS spew a TON of garbage RF all over the place which will readily couple to capacitances all throughout your circuit/system. The following should help the curious to understand. A little lite reading :) https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/217212/how-can-i-observe-rectifier-switching-noise |
BTW, I did guess that SP-10r would be priced within $10k (for the motor only as there was no mention of the plinth at that time) :-D |
@audiofun, I too share your concern about SMPS in audio. I have sent my 1200G to time-step audio to get their linear PSU fitted.
Regarding the Berning PSU, I have had few conversations with Berning about it since I have been considering his amp too. My only reservation was the HF noise related to the SMPS he uses. As a gentleman, he clearly said that all PSUs have their compromises. Where SMPS has HF noise, a linear PSU is a lot heavier to build and also needs to be isolated from the rest of the amplification circuitry to prevent interference and thats why needs to be in a separate box for the best implementation. He has done that all and doesn't feel it is worth the effort. But he does say that SMPS has that HF hash which may be minimised but still there. His earlier ZOTL designs had a transformer at the output which filters out all the noise upto 250khz. Now he uses a transformer which filters out noise upto 500khz. So this noise issue it real and there. It may not bother everyone as not everyone is equally sensitive to HF noise. With an SMPS based equipment the location also matters a lot because SMPS is supposedly very sensitive to RFI/EMI. RFI and EMI also contributes to the electronic hash in the sound. All said and done I am not yet convinced that SMPS is a musical compromise :-). |
Hi Lew, Speak with David Berning directly, he is a gentleman and will address with empirical scientific data precisely and succinctly how the patented Berning ZOTL dc coupled, resonant switching power supply vastly differs from your typical commercial switch mode power supplies. White papers and patents exist #5,612,646, which expound on the topic at length. To be quite honest, at this level, technical summaries and true comprehension remains challenging for the majority of us to fully understand without an advanced electrical engineering degree.
|
So how do you think Berning manages to build an SMPS that does not offend you? He's been using such supplies for maybe as much as 20 years or more. Which is why one can lift his ZOtl amplifiers with one hand. Also, the linear supplies of vintage direct-drive turntables were hardly state of the art even for the time in which they were built, which was before we all got obsessed with power supply quality. Old school diodes with capacitor filtering into a voltage regulator, was about it. |
And yes, I unplug phones or iPads if they are charging before I sit down to do real listening :) |
Invictus005:
You are correct in that I have an OLED, cable box..etc all connected to the mains. The solution is that they are connected through multiple Monster power strips. When I want to really listen to my system without compromise, I press the main switch on the Monster power strip with my foot and it does a hard disconnect of those devices from the wall and yes it makes a difference. I'm so used to doing it now as a necessary evil of SMPS's I don't really think about it anymore. |
audiofun,
I'm sure you have at least something in your home connected to the mains which uses a SMPS, i.e. TV, Blu-ray player, Xbox, cable box, phone charger, computer, etc. Your mains are contaminated as it is, why worry about the turntable's power supply?
My reference amplifier for the past 20+ years was the Goldmund Mimesis 3. I could not find a better sounding analogue amp for any reasonable price.
It is true that I cannot test my Devialet with a linear supply, but in its current form, it matches my Goldmund and even surpasses it in many ways. It has a more textured sound with better drive and dynamics.
SMPS technology has come a long way and if the Devialet can better my very best analogue rig, I no longer worry about it.
|
Ok ok, I think I've beaten that poor horse enough :) back to the music.
Buy the limited edition album Greensleeves
feautring the Shoji Yokouchi Trio is beyond outstanding! You will not be sorry, you can thank me later. |
Invitus005:
not sure about the GAE and it's inlet as I've not taken it apart yet for the PS transplant. I've heard many devices with those filters and they are not terribly effective at blocking all the high frequency noise and the associated harmonics. Look at it on a scope, they can be really nasty. If you like what you're hearing, I'm glad for you. I literally stopped looking at the Aurender W20 when I found out it contained a SMPS, it's a deal breaker for me unless I can rip it out like I did with my Mac Mini.
The only filters that I have found thus far to effectively combat the nastiness of SMPS's are the Blue Circle Outposts which were designed by Gilbert Young specifically for the garbage that SMPS's spew and the iFi AC iPurifier. Even my PS Audio P10/P5 and Monarchy AC Regenerators can't protect against the bad influence of a SMPS in the system.
Concerning your Devialet, you really don't have a way of comparing what it would sound like with a linear. Note that digital amp manufactures will sometimes have a reference line and they almost always use a linear power supply for the amplifier. Acoustic Reality did it with the Thaumaturges, H2O used linear power supplies in his higher end switching amps even Wyred 4 Sounds Nextgen amplifier is/was slated to make use of a linear power supply. Mark Levinson used a linear for the no. 53 switching amplifier, even the new Technics reference switching amplifier uses a huge linear power supply. These manufacturers KNOW they sound superior but most of the time "cost" wins and then comes the marketing lies to sell it all to us, the consumer. I've designed enough power supplies to know better.
I was going to purchase the Halcro DM8 that's on Agon or was just recently for sale as I've always wanted to try that piece. Found out it has a SMPS, no go. |
Good SMPS should have an RF filtered IEC inlet to prevent contamination of the mains. Does the SL-1200G not have it? I would be surprised.
Going back to Devialet, all of their amplifiers and powered speakers have RF filtered IEC inlets. |
lewm: sorry about your name above, autocorrect butchered it and I didn't see it before posting. |
Lewis:
I have never seen a situation where a high frequency noisy SMPS was superior to a well implemented linear. Doesn't mean it's not possible but I have yet to experience a SMPS powered device that didn't degrade the sound. They always inject that high frequency hash into the wall and the circuit and it manifests as a reticent midrange with an overtly bleached character. The one exception may be Berning's resonant tube based supplies.
I have no beef with anything concerning the SP 10R except the SMPS and the strong possibility that it will do what every other SMPS I've been exposed to has done, mess up the overall presentation.
I was not mentioning torque in a way to indicate more is better :) just illuminating one of the differences between the tables. My GAE has plenty of torque, more than it needs. That table has drive and finesse, and a nasty SMPS.
The bearing info is from observation. I viewed my MK3 and the GAE bearings. The G/GAE motor is a template. The R motor is the same except for the added set of stators. Again I was just highlighting that the R is not the MK3 reimagined, more of a MK2.7.
SMPS's are cheap and low in weight and super efficient. Everything has a cost and for SMPS's it's the sound quality. I recall years ago the great Museatex Bidat was offered with a SMPS as an upgrade to the linear. Only a few were ever built and then it was pulled, with the reason being that the SMPS was killing the magic of the Bidat.
I have replaced enough SMPS's in various pieces of gear to know personally that as a whole, they don't work in high in audio FOR MY EARS :) |
audiofun, Once upon a time I would have agreed with you about the superiority of a linear PS in all cases, but in recent years there have been big improvements in the design and execution of SMPSs. And, like Invictus says, there are some pretty nice amplifiers and preamplifiers now sporting SMPSs. So, I would not assume that the SMPS incorporated into the 10R is necessarily a negative, compared to the Mk3. (I too own a Mk3, and I love it, but I like to keep an open mind about new products.) Also, the (slightly) greater weight of the Mk3 platter compared to that of the 10R is in part due to the massive circular magnet that is affixed to the bottom of the Mk3 platter. The 10R platter would not need such a magnet, because it uses a coreless motor (because of the way that a coreless motor is implemented in a DD turntable). Also, since the massive magnet on the Mk3 is not out at the circumference of the platter, it does not do as much for rotational inertia as one might think. Thus we cannot be sure that the inertia of the 10R platter is much less than that of the Mk3; it could conceivably be as high as the Mk3, if the 10R platter has proportionately greater mass at its periphery. With regard to differences in torque, it is difficult to build a coreless motor for purely high torque, because of heat and spatial limitations; I am quite confident that the Technics engineers gave the 10R motor "enough" torque to do its job of keeping speed constant in the face of groove friction, etc. In fact, the coreless motor of the 10R might make it superior to the Mk3 in terms of cogging and speed constancy. Based on my experience with the L07D and the TT101, a coreless motor is very desirable in a DD turntable. Albeit the Mk3 is king at my house, by a small margin over the L07D. You made another point about the spindle and bearings of the two turntables. I don't doubt what you say, but I don't know where you got your info, because I have seen nothing on the internet about the innards of the 10R, including the dimensions of its bearing and spindle. |
I have a Devialet LE 120 amplifier which has an SMPS and it’s one of the best sounding amplifiers I’ve ever heard. On par with the best pure analogue amps such as Goldmund Mimesis 3. I’m sure Technics can and did build a state of the art SMPS for their statement piece turntables.
|
Totem395:
I was surprised as well. I understand it for the G series as that table offer an incredible amount of technology and build quality for $4k, so I figure the SMPS was a way to save money in the building and the shipping of the units (weight). The SP 10R is a cost no object endeavor and it should have a linear supply. No matter who it is, no matter what tech, from Halcro to my former Acoustic Reality Ref amps (not the Thaumaturges, those have a linear supply) SMPS on supplies always seem to do a disservice to the quality of the sound.
Time will tell if Technics pulled it off with the SP 10 R because they sure didn't with the G series SMPS which is why I am replacing the SMPS with a custom regulated linear in that unit. Even with the upgrade it is still a flat out steal of a TT.
I now use it with a new phono stage. I was using the iPhono 2 which I preferred over the Pass XP25 (found it very thin sounding), ARC Ref 3, Sim Audio 610 or 810 (don't honestly recall now). It was far more fleshed out than the Pass, far quieter than the ARC and more rhythmically sound than the Sim (all while using an SBooster with an AMR MK 2 fuse for the iPhono 2). Then I came across something I hadn't heard of before, the SPL Phonos. Took me exactly one week to come to terms with how great this thing is, I purchased it. I use it exclusively with the GAE, it is phenomenal. I'll be writing a separate review soon. |
audiofun
the MK3 has a linear power supply vs the SMPS of the SP 10R. I haven't looked into it, but thats surprising. |
@chakster : The Japan Audio Bible says and is the correct information: 11/81 and received SOTA 82 and Best Buy 84 Audio Japanese prizes. Even in your link its refered as: near 1982 not released as in the MK2 tonearm.
Anyway, not an important issue.
R. |
@rauliruegas Dear @chakster : The MK3 was realeased in 1981 and the MK2 tonearm in 1982.
Both release in 1982 accdodring to this japanese site: 1) SP10mk3 (released in 1982, price 250000 Yen) http://audio-heritage.jp/TECHNICS/etc/sp-10mk3.html2) EPA-100 mk2 (released in 1982, price 130000 Yen) http://audio-heritage.jp/TECHNICS/etc/epa-100mk2.html @lewm Have you compared the EPA100 to the EPA100 mk2, side by side, using the same cartridge on the same turntable in both cases? No, i sold my EPA-100 to buy Reed 3p "12 long time ago, now i have EPA-100 MK II which was more than double in price when it was released in Japan in the 80s (compared to the original EPA-100 from 1976). Is that just for Boron finish? it must be more precisely tonearm, the price even in Japan is $2500 (in the rest of the world is about $4000), when the EPA-100 can be found in Japan for $600 (and for $1200 anywhere else along with EPA250 and EPA500 for the same price). |
I own a GAE and a SP10 MK3 NGS (Artisan Fidelity) and I can tell you that the new SP10R is not a new SP 10 MK3. The platter of the MK 3 has quite a bit more mass, the motor is far more powerful on the MK 3 but probably most importantly are the differences in the bearing. The new SP 10R motor is essentially the same as the G/GAE motor with a second set of stators. It will provide twice the torque of my GAE. The bearing bore and spindle diameter and spindle length are much greater on the SP 10 mk3, furthermore the MK3 has a linear power supply vs the SMPS of the SP 10R.
Please don't misunderstand me, I believe it will be awesome but it is not a MK3. I will pass on it as I'm pleased with my GAE and MK3 along with my fully sorted Tascam 42Br R2R. Now, if I didn't have a MK3 I'd purchase the SP 10R without hesitation OR a Dohmann Helix 1 which is the only belt drive table I've heard and really really liked. |
Dear Chakster, Have you compared the EPA100 to the EPA100 mk2, side by side, using the same cartridge on the same turntable in both cases? In that context, is the Mk2 version audibly superior to the base EPA100? I know that the mk2 was much more expensive, but I think the cost is owing mostly to the boron construction. I am just wondering whether it pays off on the listener's end. Thanks. |
Dear @chakster : The MK3 was realeased in 1981 and the MK2 tonearm in 1982. This tonearm was designed as a stand alone unit and can be confirmed due that received Best Buy reward/prize in Japan in 1984.
It's obvious that if Technics púts on sale the MK3 with a dedicated plinth the tonearm there must be the best they had in those years but that does not means that one or the other were designed to stay that way. Lewm is rigth about.
I understood your point.
R. |
Raul, i just tried to say that EPA-MKII was not available before the release of SP-10MK3 turntable and SL1000mk3 combo, until 1982. After anyone is free to use the arm on whatever turntable, they are paired very well (aesthetically) with a rare black SP-20 from 1976 btw. But in general is was a pinnacle of the Technics design, the last tonearm for their best turntable in the 80s, before they are wiped away with CD era. |
Dear @invictus005: This is what I posted to atmasphere days ago about the tonearm by Technics:
"""
You said the Triplanar has better bearings, maybe better for you but the Technics gimbal type with 20 precision ruby ball bearings and lower than 5mg. on friction level is no slouch about as it’s not on damping issue or low resonances in its design. Technics did it not only through the boron and titanium nitride build materials but with its unique variable dynamic damping.
Do you know that boron is used on cartridge cantilevers instead carbon fiber ( TP arm wand. ) because boron is less resonant?
The Technics are fully adjustable and that MK2 VTA mechanism is even today unavialable my any other tonearm including the Triplanar. This VTA Technics unique mechanism outperforms " easily " the one in the tonearm you are supporting. """
Boron is the main issue here, yes overall design and quality execution are really important too. I loved the MK2 tonearm.
In the other side, @chakster was only a " happy " coincidence the MK2 tonearm alond the MK3 TT because either of both can been buy it for separate by any audiophile. @lewm question was maybe because of that.
Anyway, Technics is second to none and good its " come back " to the true high end where the only thing they need is to have on board 2-3 true today audiophiles for they can know what all of we need.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R. |
As I thought, they're creating a very stiff arm tube. This boron layer over titanium and aluminum boron alloy headshell is where the significant increase in price occurs.
Im looking forward to your thoughts.
|
google translate from this japanese page: "Universal tone arm which adopted the world's first Boron Titanium pipe arm, boron aluminum head shell. The world's first Boron Titanium pipe with a boron diffusion layer formed inside by creating a boron layer on the surface of a metal Titanium which is lightweight and has a large mechanical strength and elastic modulus by special generation method is adopted as the arm pipe part doing. This increases mechanical strength and reduces harmful partial resonance such as bending and twisting and designs sound quality emphasis. In addition, we adopted boron aluminum which combined refining of boron fiber and aluminum for the head shell part, realizing high rigidity and weight reduction. For the tone arm, we adopt a high sensitivity gimbal suspension bearing structure. Rolyballs with extremely small coefficient of friction, about 1/3 of the wheel, are used for horizontal and vertical bearing bearings, totaling 20 stones, achieving a minimum initial sensitivity of 5 mg.
I adopt original brake variable variable dynamic damping method.
In this method, the movable weight part in the balance weight is supported by a spring with high strength and damping effect, and mass of the movable weight is divided by mass using its compliance. Furthermore, the spring support part is covered with a damping cylinder, silicon oil is built in it, and the effect of damping of the spring support part is enhanced by viscous drag. As a result, the low-frequency resonance peak (sharpness Q) has dramatically improved.
Furthermore, taking into consideration the fact that this low frequency resonance frequency varies depending on the compliance and weight of the cartridge to be used, in order to brush more effectively, the magnetic damping adjustment function is carried. This is a structure in which two magnets are provided in the movable weight portion and the resonance frequency of the movable weight portion is changed by changing the distance between the two magnets, whereby a low-frequency resonance peak (sharpness Q), reduce frequency impedance, reduce low-frequency mechanical impedance, reduce intermodulation distortion due to warping of records and ultra low-frequency noise to improve the performance of the cartridge and improve the trace performance I will.
In addition, it enables high fidelity, high SN ratio playback, and improves the blocking performance of external vibration.
The precision 12-degree helicoid structure zinc die casting arm height adjustment function is carried and the arm height can be adjusted within the range of 20 mm. " I have this EPA-100 mkII tonearm, but i need to modify my luxman armboard to mount it, i'm looking forward. Sold my original EPA-100 long time ago, so i can't compare them unfortunately. |
EPA-100 MKII seems like a very special tonearm. The wand states boron titanium. Does anyone know exactly what Technics means by this?
If they're using titanium alloyed with boron, then it could be an extremely stiff tonearm. Possibly even stiffer than SME III's titanium treated with nitride tube.
This would be incredibly expensive.
There's also nickel boron plating... We need more information. But one thing is for sure, nothing like that has been ever done since.
It seems like current top of the line Technics tonearms are taking the SME route and are using magnesium wands.
|
|
Basically what Technics did here is build the best turntable in the world for $20K retail. I assume a lot of small time manufacturers are scared right about now.
Have any any of you seen some of Fremer's YouTube videos? I especially like the one where SL-1200G sonically smokes his $150K turntable setup.
Fun stuff.
|
Here's a thought: What is the evidence that the relationships between the two turntables and the two tonearms that you cite was actually intended by Technics? I think it's just as likely that they were developing their turntables, on the one hand, and their tonearms, on the other hand, and it just happened that the MkIII and the EPA100 MkII were introduced contemporaneously, or nearly so. And anyway, why does it matter? |
EPA-100 tonearm was made for SP-10 mk II
EPA-100 MK II was made for SP-10 mk III
The difference between the SP-10mk2 and SP-10mk3 is huge.
The difference between an old EPA-100 and upgraded EPA-100 mkII for Technics flagship turntable must be huge too. Otherwise there would be no need to change the arm for SP-10mk3
Any thoughts? |
Just to be clear I think Technics did an outstanding job- while retaining the looks of the older products, they managed to also improve performance.
FWIW, Triplanar has a new wire that is *considerably* more supple. They began installing it about 3 years ago.
|
@atmasphere : I know the main importance of bearing in any tonearm design and all what you posted but I only ask for the EPA 100 internal wires in the unit you have that " per sé " is really important and makes a difference every thing the same.
Maybe I'm wrong but what I'm read from your posts in this thread seems to me that you are trying to diminish the Technics design " more " that could deserves. The TP is not perfect but comes with today silver wires and the EPA 100 is way inferior in this regards.
Anyway, understood your needs.
R. |
Sheesh Raul calm down.
Sounds like you have not in fact compared these arms nor have all the facts. Just for an example, while the Triplanar does use carbon fiber in the arm wand, its actually a composite and is also internally damped.
While jeweled bearings can be harder than metal, the problem you have then is that they don't survive over-tightening very well at all. The use of balls in the bearing increases sticktion. So the Technics bearings, while very good, are simply not **as** good.
The arm bearings are the plane of the arm wand, rather than the LP. This causes increased variability of tracking pressure depending on warp and bass modulation. I think this is my major beef with the arm; I have LPs that I have recorded and I know how the bass is supposed to sound. I've yet to hear an arm with this bug that plays the bass right.
While I think the Technics arms are very nice, I simply want to use one that is better and not have to pay for the arm I won't be using. I hope that's alright.
|
Dear @atmasphere : """
arm and the EPA-100; the Triplanar is easily a better arm... """
I think that any test evaluations between different tonearms needs to have " same parameters/characteristics " and I'm refereing here to that vintage EPA 100 internal wires against the fresh/today TP wiring and this sole characteristic in a tonearm evaluation has a heavy " weigth " for differences in the overall quality performance levels.
When I madeall my " thousands " of comparison tests of several vintage and today tonearms against mine all parameters were almost the same, of course always with the same tonearms internal wiring. I always mantained " test differences/parameters/characteristics " at minimum.
You said almost nothing of the comparison characteristics evaluations that are the foundation of your opiniojnn about.
R. |
Dear @atmasphere : First the 1000R does not comes with the EPA-100 tonearm and I was refering in specific to the 1000R.
Now, you are not speaking as an audiophile because if each single audiophile did think like you then no single of those very well regarded TT that comes with its tonearms that I mentioned/listed just never been sold and facts/sales says other very different history to yours one.
In the other side I had never in my system at the same time the EPA 100 or EPA 100MK2 and the Triplanar. All three/3 are very good performers with its own trade-offs.
You said the Triplanar has better bearings, maybe better for you but the Technics gimbal type with 20 precision ruby ball bearings and lower than 5mg. on friction level is no slouch about as it’s not on damping issue or low resonances in its design. Technics did it not only through the boron and titanium nitride build materials but with its unique variable dynamic damping.
Do you know that boron is used on cartridge cantilevers instead carbon fiber ( TP arm wand. ) because boron is less resonant?
The Technics are fully adjustable and that MK2 VTA mechanism is even today unavialable my any other tonearm including the Triplanar. This VTA Technics unique mechanism outperforms " easily " the one in the tonearm you are supporting.
With the rigth knowledge level almost any one can make that a removable headshell tonearm design can beats ( easily. ) the TP because that depends on many parameters: cartridges, set up, system chain, room interactions, music/sound knowledge levels and the like and as always in audio exist no perfection anywhere.
I think that you have a misunderstood in what you know on Technics tonearms/TTs, quality excecution design and quality level performance against the TP.
The 1000R is only the 100th anniversary item and not the today statement Technics TT/tonearm/cartridge design ever.
You have to remember that Technics is a little part of the gigantic japanese entreprise name it Mathushita with endless resources of every type/kind that mere " mortals " as you or me can’t imagine not even on our dreams ! ! If they want it they can build a product that can " easily " put on shame not only today items but even its SP10 MK3 ! ! or its EPA 100MK2.
Your very close link with TP maybe impedes an unbiased point of view not only against the Technics tonearms but the Technics today 1000R turntable.
You are a manufacturer designer and I know for sure ( first hand experiences. ) that your designs are not perfect ones and with several trade-offs.
Seems to me that when speaking of TP or TT you have an undisclosed agenda. No problem with me if you have it, as me you are free to give an opinion.
Again, Technics made its 1000R design not expresely customed for you or for me.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
|
@atmasphere have you tried the EPA-100 MK II ? No- but just by looking at it I can see an engineering bug. And I know that their bearings are not as hard as they could be, because the hardest bearings are available from only one source. Ralph, why not buy a SP10R motor unit, or were you hoping to buy the motor unit and new plinth but without a Technics arm? I'll design and build a plinth for the Technics if I have to, but would rather that the Technics engineers have done a job as well as they did on the SL1200G. I am indeed hoping that the SL1000R plinth is properly designed. The SP-10 was always tricky due to the plinth issue. |
If I understand this correctly I'm surprised by the confusion for both Ralph and Peter who I know to be very knowledgable designers/manufacturers.
Ralph, why not buy a SP10R motor unit, or were you hoping to buy the motor unit and new plinth but without a Technics arm? I agree buying a SL1000R only to discard the arm seems foolish. There are other Technics plinth manufacturers in addition to Albert Porter with good reputations.
Peter, the EPA-100 arm is slightly less than 10" (250mm) so why do you consider only 12" arms will be useable?
|
I spoke to the design engineer - or one of them - at this CES (2018) and I suggested that they made the back right corner of the plinth removable so one can utilize 9" tonearms on the turntable when mounted in a plinth. He seemed somewhat interested in the idea. As it is now only 12" arms are useable just like with its predecessor the Mk2 and Mk3.
Lets see what they decide to do once this goes into production
Good Listening
Peter |
@atmasphere have you tried the EPA-100 MK II ? |
So why that disappoint when vintage and today TT comes with its
dedidacted tonearm: Rockport, Goldmund, Denon DP100, Kenwood, Yamaha,
Sony, SME, VPI, Avid, Rega, Project, Clearaudio, and to many other to
name it here. It’s the rule.
In the other side: why think in other tonearm before test the 1000R?. Your disappoint and this makes no sense to me.
Makes sense to you? No. I already know that Triplanar has better bearings in the arm, is more adjustable, has done more to reduce resonance and so on. I'm disappointed by a lot of turntables that come with their own arm. Why have to pay for it if you're not going to use it? I've worked with the SL-1200G arm and the EPA-100; the Triplanar is easily a better arm IMO. The SP10R, like its successors, is going to need a good plinth to really show off its strengths (and that BTW is one reason the new SL1200G works so well- its plinth is properly designed). A plinth for teh SP10R is not an easy thing to come up with- it will have to be engineered. Albert Porter had a good one but he tells me he doesn't think he can get them made anymore. So I was hoping that Technics had solved that issue with the SL1000G. I'll have to see one to know for sure, but if they have one will then have to sort out how to engineer removal of the stock arm and replacement with something that does not mess up the engineering of the 'table (I've already done this for the SL1200G). I don't want to use the auxiliary armboard. |
Based solely on published specifications, design and industry reports, along with official manufacturer announcements, comparatively speaking, the Technics Sp10r appears to perhaps be something slightly closer to a modern Technics Sp10Mk2a successor, than a direct replacement for the Technics Sp10Mk3. Granted, a myriad of engineering factors come into play, and needless to say, at this point only fond speculation exists as to how playback will ultimately compare. I believe its safe to say we are all anxious for the upcoming release date.
Technics SL-1200 GAE/G - (factory specifications) Motor Starting Torque -
3.3kg.-cm (2.8 lb.-in), Platter weight 3.5kg. ~ (7.7 lbs.), Rumble
-78db (IEC 98A weighted), Wow and flutter: 0.025% WRMS (JIS C5521), Switching power supply.
Technics Sp10r - (Note: (*) Torque est., based on upgraded GAE/G motor
geometry) Motor Starting Torque - 6.6kg.-cm (5.6 lb.-in), (est. Published)
Platter weight ~ 7kg. ~ (15.4lbs.), Rumble (TBA), Wow and flutter: 0.015%
WRMS (Officially TBA), (Identical SL-1200G/GAE bearing architecture, motor design including coil (dual vs. single) geometry.) Switching power supply.
Technics Sp10Mk2A - (factory specifications) Motor Starting Torque -
6kg.-cm (5.2 lb.-in), Platter weight 2.9kg. ~ (6.4lbs.), Rumble -86dB
(IEC 98A weighted), Wow and flutter: 0.02% WRMS (JIS C5521), Linear power supply.
Technics Sp10Mk3 - (factory specifications) Motor Starting Torque -
16kg.-cm (13.8 lb.-in), Platter weight 10kg. ~ (22lbs.), Rumble -92dB
DIN B (IEC 98A weighted), Wow and flutter: 0.015% WRMS (JIS C5521), Linear power supply.
|
Dear @atmasphere : """ I have to say I’m disappointed especially with the SL1000R; its not available without the arm! """
Disappointed with?, well Technics not designed the 1000R customed for you. As a fact is not custom made for any one.
So why that disappoint when vintage and today TT comes with its dedidacted tonearm: Rockport, Goldmund, Denon DP100, Kenwood, Yamaha, Sony, SME, VPI, Avid, Rega, Project, Clearaudio, and to many other to name it here. It’s the rule.
In the other side: why think in other tonearm before test the 1000R?. Your disappoint and this makes no sense to me.
Makes sense to you?
For second time in this thread I applaud/congratules Technics for the 1000R ! ! ! even if it’s a heavy up-dated SP 10MK3.
@lewm , """
"""" the tonearm suggests a reincarnation of the EPA100 "", not only is different the arm wand build material ( magnesium as I told you. ) but is way different to the EPA 100. It’s obvious that you never owned or had an EPA 100 information.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R. |
@chakster , teasing your brother? If Lew , after comparing with his Lenco, Denon, Kenwood and SP 10,mk3 need to confess that 10 R is better, I will buy the ''thing'' and put in my SL1000 Obsidian plinth. This way I will save, according to you, 10 K and probably could afford the 10 R solo? |
Ralph, I knew you would want to use the TP on the 10R, but I did not want to "assume".
Seems I could plop the 10R down into my Mk3 plinth with the 10.5-inch Reed, but not for the moment will I consider it. Later, maybe. I am going to ask Tri about converting my 9-inch TP to 12-inch. |
the tonearm suggests a reincarnation of the EPA100 or EPA250, two very
very fine tonearms from the Technics past. Why is that so terrible?
Worst case scenario for someone who MUST use a different tonearm is you
buy the package and re-sell the tonearm. But also, you can buy the 10R
alone, for HALF the cost of the 1000R, and mate it to whatever plinth
and tonearm you like. I don't see a cause for disappointment. @lewm as you probably know, I want to put a Triplanar on the machine. But its more than that- I want to know that the plinth is rigidly coupled from the motor to the base of the arm (which is a prerequisite for the best turntables). I think they may have done that with the SL1000R but no way to know until you take it apart. I don't like the idea that I have to remove the arm and engineer something to mount a 12" Triplanar, but if that is what has to happen, I imagine I'll have to do it... |
Oh, it’s real :) Thanks for the video, so it is a rubber and alluminum. And those new armboards can be screwed to the old sp10 series too. I was more impressed by what’s the guy showed to Fremer on his iPad in this video (after 17:00).
Probably my EPA-100 mk2 can be used with that new machined armboard.
@nandric you can buy the new dust cover with this plinth just for $10000 now |
|
