Henry, As I now understand it, the 300 series Acutex's are induced magnet types (of that I am certain), but the later end of run 400 series cartridges are conventional moving magnet types. So, it would not surprise me if they sound very different. I own a 420 and a 412, but I have never heard either one. The LPM series has an optional "headshell", which word I put in quotations, because it does not look like a headshell, more like a P-mount. This is called the "Saturn V". The LPM320 has a compliance of 42, which makes it even more strange that it works so well on the FR64S. Using the Saturn V mount with the LPM320 would reduce the total effective mass by at least 5-10g, so it may be worth trying to re-mount my LPM320 into the Saturn V. (I've got one.) Based on a OEM compliance of 42 and an estimated effective mass of (FR64S plus DV505 headshell plus LPM320 in conventional adapter) at 30g, I calculate an expected resonant frequency of around 5 Hz. Maybe this is cool, as long as the LP does not have a warp or the floor does not shake. My best guess is that because the 320 is now pushing 30 years old, the compliance is reduced from its OEM value due to aging of the suspension, which may be working in my favor on the FR64S.
Either you or your machinist is very talented to have made that beautiful and probably effective mounting system for your TT101. Congrats.
JB, I am glad you are happy with the Krebs mod; I've been touting it for months after hearing how it positively affected my Mk3. I was previously a skeptic. As far as I know, the mod is less expensive when applied to the Mk2 vs the Mk3, so doing it on a Mk2 is even more of a no-brainer. Also, it will get even better over the first 20-50 hours of use. At first, I was not sure whether I was really hearing it or whether it was partly my imagination and listener bias. Then after 10 hours or so and counting, all self doubts evaporated.
|
Good to see that the TT-101 is finally working Lewm...and that you find it appealing. You've a lot of fine decks to compare it to so your opinion is valuable. I'm running the Acutex LPM 420STR on the SAEC WE-8000/ST around my Victor http://i.imgur.com/lzxFU1b.jpgand from all reports.....your 320 is better. One thing I found was that the 420 just came 'alive' when I mounted it in a Yamamoto HS-1AS Ebony wood headshell which surprised me. It might be worth trying for you.....🎧 Regards |
|
Just finished an evening of listening to my SP10 MK2 back from Krebs upgrade by Bill Thallman. Also added a new PBN Audio power supply and the TTWeights carbon fibre/kevlar/cork mat. Focus and resolution have very much improved. The difference is not subtle. The mat plus TTWeights heavyweight brass/aluminum collet clamp weight close to the stock mat. Well worth the cost. |
Peter, It's more like "TT101 vs Mk3 vs L07D". There are too many other variables to reach a scientifically objective conclusion, especially since the conclusion is unavoidably subjective. I am thinking the TT101 does crush my Lenco, and I am a little sad about that. Like the Lenco a lot. As I tried to say above, the Mk3 and the L07D are sitting side by side in my upstairs system (very modified Sound Lab 845PX), whereas the TT101 and Lenco are downstairs (Beveridge 2SW). No two of them are using the same tonearm and cartridge, either.
I saw Halcro's latest plinth-ification of his TT101 on his photo website. Fantastic work.
Totem, Don't scald yourself on my account. Science conquers superstition, I hope.
|
Lewm
I didn't want to comment on finally getting your TT101 going
until you had a chance to put a little mileage on it.
Not that I'm superstitious, but I did drink from the opposite side
of my coffee cup.
Glad your enjoying it!
|
Lewm,
TT101 or SP10MK3 ? Which is better ?
Good Listening
Peter |
Cheers to you as well, JP.
Just to bump this thread, which to me is more interesting than "what cartridge to use on a Reed 3P?", I will add after another night of listening to a wide variety of LPs, good and mediocre in sonic quality, that this combo of TT101, SS300 mat, FR64S tonearm, and Acutex LPM320 cartridge is THE quietest vinyl set-up I have ever heard. On better LPs, one could easily convince oneself that one is listening to a CD, except unlike CDs, which have a "noiseless floor" that seems to lie above the musical noise floor, this combo gives you ALL the lowest level musical cues (which CDs mask, usually). On top of that, you get that fluidity and effortlessness that I now think may be characteristic of coreless motors (and the SP10 Mk3 with Krebs mod). I am going to try other mats, of course. For starters, I can borrow the Boston Audio Mat1 from my Lenco, which is sitting next to the TT101. If I can find a pigskin, I surely will try it. And I may shell out for the reproduction of the CU-180.
|
|
I've had two days listening to the TT101. I am beginning to actually believe that it is going to work consistently. Saturday I listened to it for a few hours with the OEM rubber mat. Then today all day, I switched to the SAEC SS300 mat. This combo is a winner. This turntable is wonderful. I can only directly compare it to my highly tweaked Lenco, because it is in my basement system feeding the Bev speakers. I think it has a lower noise floor than the Lenco. I am using an Acutex LPM320 cartridge, which I am quite used to hearing in the Lenco, but the FR64S tonearm, which I have never heard before. To my ears, the Acutex, which I always liked a lot, sounds even better in the FR64S on the TT101 than it did in the DV505 on the Lenco. Still using the DV 505 headshell on the FR64S. I expected a problem with mismatch between compliance and effective mass, but that cannot be happening because the low bass detail is superb, not overblown, and my Transmission Line woofers are not "pumping", which they would be wont to do if there were very low frequency resonant peak. (The TL cabinet affords no dampening of spurious woofer motion.) This is not just another good turntable. Julie London at 45 rpm is crystal clear and highly musical. LA4 on direct to disc recording just blew me away. Sarah Vaughn singing a ballad moved me to tears. Here's to JP.
|
RGS0008 is the thinner version of the RGS0010A/SFTG172-01.
RGS008 - this is what i have, not impressed by the sound. It was creamed by Micro CU-500. |
Thanks JP, appreciate the full reply. I also happen to own a SP-15 which is why I included that. But I didn't want to sidetrack the post any further.
|
My experience agrees with JP's. The OEM mat(s) on my Mk2A and Mk3 were identical, although I don't know the part number.
|
|
chris74,
Or any others familiar with the SP-10 series of tables. The mat on my SP-10 Mk 2A is the SFTG172-01. That one "feels" heavier than Technics mats I've seen on a few other tables but I can't be sure.
So does anyone have a reference for which mats were original to which models? Mk 3? Mk 2A? Mk 2? SP-15?
Thanks
|
Yes, I measured the circumference of both, and I noticed that the TT101 casing/shield has a larger circumference by about ~1.5", which, divided by pi, would be consistent with an ~0.5" difference in diameter. I had hopes that the Denon cut-out would accommodate this slight difference, but I can see why it would not; the bolt holes run pretty close to the circumference. (I supplied the water-jet guy who cut the plinth for my DP80 with a template I made according to a factory drawing. He did a superb job.)
I do have the QL10 plinth for my TT101. I replaced the MDF tonearm mount board with one made from aluminum. I then also re-enforced the remainder of the plinth with slabs of aluminum bolted to the bottom, wherever there was room. One large piece of alu runs across under the tonearm mount opening, and a large bolt conjoins the piece under the chassis with the new aluminum mount board,which is drilled and threaded to receive the bolt. Thus I've increased mass, ridigity, and created a little constrained layer dampening, between MDF and aluminum. We'll see how that sounds. In my opinion, the plinth is where Victor really dropped the ball by comparison with Technics, Pioneer Exclusive, and Kenwood. It's nothing much by itself. Same goes for Denon with the DP80, which is why I am sure your DP8(?) is a huge upgrade over the stock DP80 plinth
I have a longtime friend who is a professional machinist, owns a large business making scientific equipment. At his home, he has a machine shop that is beyond belief, analogous to what we would do with unlimited resources to put together a vintage audio system. He has huge lathes that are no longer made and every possible accessory for them. And he loves to mess around. If I ask to use his equipment to drill or cut, he ends up taking the job over from me, and does the work far better than I could ever hope to do. So, it was really he who made all the aluminum parts for the QL10 plinth. Then we get stoned.
|
Lewm,
Unfortunately the metal casing that house the electronics on the TT101 is larger in diameter then on the DP80 (DP80 =10.5" Diameter) (TT101=11" Diameter).
I'll be making a very nice plinth for my TT101 maybe you want one too :-)
Good Listening
Peter |
JP, Thanks very much for your informative response. If you ever do get to do some additional experiments with DD’s toting heavier-than-OEM platters, let us know.
Here is a question that maybe Totem or Peter can answer, particularly Peter: Will a TT101 fit into a plinth made for a DP80? Here I am asking only about the hole in the top deck and the placement of the bolt holes. My DP80 is sitting in a very nice slate plinth cut for it. I might like to try the TT101 in that same plinth, but not if it requires modifying the slate. Obviously, I could just try it, but that requires me to do work. Hate that. Thanks.
|
dd
The Denon DP-80 has the saucer shape like the Victor TT-101. In fact
the Victors copied the Denon look. I have a copy of the DP-80 mounting
template. Was it the chicken or the egg with regards to the copying. But we won't get into just who did the manufacturing and design not that it matters. |
lewm
03-15-2016 12:10pm
JP, can you amplify on your cryptic comment about the effect of a heavy platter mat? "Drive gain"? Okay, but I’m more than rusty on root locus and complex conjugates. :) My very hasty research this morning indicates rotational mass isn’t going to have an affect on the PLL if the drive is compensated. It may not have a meaningful effect regardless. Increasing the rotational mass means a given correction to be performed in the same amount of time will require more energy. If not the reaction time will be slow. Note the sync position timing for the MK2A and MK3 are the same, yet the MK3 platter is just over 3x heavier. Most of that mass is inboard but it’s still a significant difference. I think this is one of the reasons these DDs can be so polarizing - there’s no way to tell how different techs are calibrating them without measuring one first-hand, thusly no way to really know that they’re performing the same. A MK3 can be dialed back so far the motor will actually overshoot and bounce off phase lock 2-3 times before settling, or set over-critically such that the drive MOSFETs will self-destruct in seconds. I’ve mentioned I’ve seen these running in belt-drive emulation mode before - that’s wasn't a joke. I haven’t measured a MK3 or MK2A with additional platter mass. On the MKII the W&F measurements were negligible, but I don’t think that’s a spectacular measurement for how a drive system reacts to real-world conditions anyway; more of a steady-state baseline. The TT-101 at a block level is really no different than an SP-10 aside from what it takes to drive their coreless motor, so I wouldn’t expect a little extra mass is going to have a broad affect on what you hear. The motor will not be as critically controlled, though depending on the mass that may be negligible, or actually preferable. |
When I owned "only" the SP10 Mk2A and the Denon DP80, both in very similar slate plinths, I gave a slight edge to the DP80 and eventually sold the Mk2A. But I agree, the Mk3 surpasses both by a considerable margin. Prior to applying the Krebs mod to my Mk3, I would have said that the L07D was slightly preferred, not that I could hear anything wrong with the Mk3. The two were just different flavors of goodness. The Krebs mod seems to make the Mk3 sound as fluid and open as the L07D with slightly more "drive" than the L07D.
JP, can you amplify on your cryptic comment about the effect of a heavy platter mat? "Drive gain"? I was thinking last night that I wished I could modify my statement that a heavy mat might mess up the servo mechanism. Obviously it's also about the motor and its torque. I thought that the original designers had to match platter inertia with torque and servo action, a triumvirate of factors.
Also, you guys, my concern about a heavy platter mat was not about bearing wear. It was about the possible effect of a very heavy mat on speed accuracy and constancy. See above. I'd give the CU-180 a try on the TT101, based on Halcro's comment, but pigskin too.
|
Ddriveman, The DP80 is a very nice machine especially when retrofitted into a GrooveMaster plinth, which can easily be customized to accommodate two arms, it'll be a large machine especially if you want to use 2 ea. 12" arms. Because of the size of the platter I'd recommend at least 10" arms, the DP6000 and the DP80 have larger platters than the DP3000 and DP2000, which is why I supply the DP6 and the DP8 with 10" arms and the DP3 and the DP2 with 9" arms. As far as a comparison between the Technics SP10 Mk2 compared to the DP80 I would state they are about even as far as performance, the SP10MK3 is in a different league altogether. Now if I could just get a hold of a DP100 :-) I did a full restore of the Denon DN308 a number of years ago - that was a fantastic machine but rather large, below a link to a picture of this machine. The motor for comparison is about the size of a gallon paint can. http://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/one-mother-of-a-turntable.180085/This now resides with a fellow audiophile, kftool, whom has his system listed here on Audiogon. https://systems.audiogon.com/systems/723Good Listening Peter |
|
I'll have my MK3 back on the bench in a week or two, time permitting. If someone wants to lend a heavy platter mat to the cause, I can perform some measurements to try and determine the impact to motor performance.
My intuition says it's less about PLL alignment, and more about drive gain. |
Agree and concur with numerous posters above, the Technics Sp10Mk2/Mk2A bearing structural architecture indeed can safely support the additional weight of a Micro Seiki CU-180 or the rarer CU-500 series Gunmetal Copper alloy platter mat provided the spindle's thrust pad is in good order, of course, thrust pads can also be changed and improved, if desired. Clients have mentioned over the years rumors of Pass Labs using a Stainless Steel based replacement platter with reported success directly in place of factory Sp10Mk2 platters although I have yet to personally listen to one or actually examine one myself. I believe it was roughly 2.5 - 3 years ago when we sat down and designed, prototyped then began to manufacture a suitable direct oem replacement Copper and Magnesium/Aluminum alloy based platter for the Technics Sp10Mk2/Mk2A models. This is the same platter found on the AF Sp10Mk2 NG model. If anyone is curious as to how it performs in comparison to a stock setup, please feel free to PM me directly for further insight. As many are aware, the Sp10Mk2 design incorporates an electronic braking system, in addition to the mechanical brake belt facilities, which will tolerate the added weight of a heavy platter mat or higher mass replacement platter but the subsequent braking affect is slightly diminished in stock form. When it comes to actual platter-to-record interfaces, naturally, each individual users system to a degree will react uniquely through difference playback characteristics, this applies when changing Sp10Mk2 platters entirely and/or platter mats and the reality is with all things high end audio related, no "one size fits all" solution exists. This is the subjective and sometimes perplexing nature of the hobby and something I for one believe makes things all the more interesting in our niche world.
Just for kicks, below are some additional weight specifications gathered over the years.
- Technics Sp10Mk2 Factory platter weight - 2.9kgs = 6.4 Lbs.
- Technics Sp10Mk2 Factory Rubber Mat - .54kg = 1.2lbs
- Misc. Outer platter periphery rings - (Various manufacturers measured over the years) ranges - .5kgs - 1.4kgs / 1.1 lbs. - 3.2lbs.
- Oyaide MJ-12 Aluminum record mat - .68 kg = 1.5lbs.
- Artisan Fidelity Copper/Magnesium/Aluminum alloy replacement Technics Sp10Mk2/Mk2A platter - 5.4kgs = 12lbs. (designed to be used without a record mat)
- Record Clamps - too many to list - typically ranging from 6oz - 4lbs.+
|
Lewm, I used a Micro Cu-180 on my TT-101 and it sounded wonderful.
Trouble was....the brake-action when the stop button was pressed couldn't cope and at the time I didn't know that there was a variable resistor to adjust this brake action.
I, like you....was concerned by the weight on the bearing and also I doubted that the bi-directional servo control could possibly work as designed...🤔
I thus began a search for the platter mat that would sound the closest to the Cu-180 and believe it or not......the gossamer weighted Victor Pigskin came within a whisker of the same sound.
What's the science of this...❓‼️
Go figure...
|
Hi Peter (pbnaudio),
I'm defintely interested in converting my DP-80 into a similar version of your Groovemaster DP8. How do you compare your DP-8 to your SP10Mk3? Also can you make a 2 arm version of your DP8? I'll send you a pm via your website.
|
I was incorrect about the SP-20 not having quartz lock. The motor is also brushless. http://audio-heritage.jp/TECHNICS/etc/sp-20.html
Model Direct drive turntable Turntable 32cm aluminum die-cast, 2.5kg Inertial mass 345kg · cm 2 motor
Quartz phase locked control Brushless DC motor Drive system Direct Drive Rotational speed 33 1 / 3,45rpm Wow and flutter 0.025% (JIS C5521)
WRMS SN ratio 60dB (IEC17B) 73dB (DIN45539B) Starting torque 1.5kg · cmStart-up time 0.7 seconds (90 °) within (33 1 / 3rpm) brake Pure electronic brake Load fluctuation Within 1.5kg · cm 0%Rotation speed deviation Within ± 0.002% Power supply AC100V, 50Hz / 60Hz power consumption 4W
External dimensions Width 368.5 × height 99 × depth 368.5mm weight 8.0kg
|
Driveman, can make any plinth you'd desire - but you will gain much more from removing the DP80 from its tin pan. This is what I do with the DP80's http://pbnaudio.com/audio-components/audio-turntables/groovemaster/groovemaster-vintage-direct/pbn-d...For the Victor TT101 ill make something similar to what I make for the Technics platform as its much harder removing it from its top plate with all the electronics mounted in the bezel around the circumference - sh should you choose to keep the Denon in its platform Id recommend something like that, remember that you will need a 12" arm in this scenario - a 10" is too short and will interfere with the 14.5" diameter of the platform. https://systems.audiogon.com/systems/4909Good Listening Peter |
Hi,
I just bough a refurbished Denon DP-80 TT from Japan on Yahoo auctions. The seller is a Denon tech and for JPY 16,000 (about US$150) he will replace all caps, diodes and key transistors and also service the bearings and motors. DP-75 is JPY 14k. So fo Denon DD fans, there is now hope to service and rescue these great direct drive TT.
I am now looking for a plinth. Can PBNAudio make me one? The Denon DP-80 has the saucer shape like the Victor TT-101. In fact the Victors copied the Denon look. I have a copy of the DP-80 mounting template. |
No - last Wayne posted they use a stainless steel platter that they had made with a BA Mat 2. |
Ok. If you guys sanction the use of platter mats that are way heavier than the original mat, some even as heavy as the platter upon which they sit, I must be off base. I was given to believe from reading on this subject that the servo action was tuned to the rotational mass of the "platter", which must of course include the mat. As an aside, it is gratifying to know that Nelson Pass is into vintage DD turntables enough to use one at an audio show.
For clarification, when you say that Pass uses an 8kg stainless steel platter, do you mean that he puts an 8kg ss mat on top of an 8.8-lb platter on an SP10 Mk2? (Because 8.8 lbs is the weight of a Mk2 platter, IIRC.) So, here you’re going from probably around 10 lbs total (accounting for the weight of the OEM platter + OEM rubber mat) to a total weight of more than 28 lbs (OEM platter + 19.4-lb ss mat). Is that what you meant, JP? I think at that point what must happen is that rotational inertia takes the place of servo action much of the time.
This has nothing to do with wearing out the bearing, by the way. I am wondering how it affects the servo.
By the way, I have no doubt that metal mats can sound great; I just think that the Boston Audio Mat2 sounded more neutral than any metal mat I have tried, albeit none of them weighed 19 lbs.
And finally, here I am talking about a TT101. Someone said he tried a heavy metal mat on his TT101 and was not enthused. Has anyone else got an opinion? I think Halcro has a copper mat on his TT101. One potential advantage of the copper mat on TT101 is that it would act as a shield to block EMI coming up from the motor. I made a shield for my L07D out of TI Shield placed under the platter "sheet" (as Kenwood calls the stainless steel mat), and it seemed to remove a coloration that was not noticeable until it was expunged. Lots of L07D owners do something like that. The coreless motor stator and rotor in both the L07D and the TT101 are oriented such that there would be a possible field projected upward toward the platter surface. Does this make sense, JP?
|
@lewm cu-500 on my sp10mk2 only improved the sound quality to another level of performance. One of the best upgrade i have ever made. |
|
lewm
03-14-2016 5:54pm
2.7 kg!!!!!! (...) Perhaps Peter and JP can chime in on this subject. If you go to a show where Pass Labs have their source setup, you'll likely see a MKII with an ~8kg stainless steel platter. My understanding is their 'tables have been setup this way for years without issue. Stainless platters for the MKII show up on Yahoo every once in a while. I had one (a platter) here for a bit on one of my MKII. Takes a little longer to start and stop, but I didn't notice any ill effects. I didn't measure any circuit parameters while running it - having a MK3, it was doubtful I'd even keep a MKII around. W&F was about the same as the stock platter. You'll see stainless platters show up on Yahoo every once in a while. I'd monitor the thrust pad a bit more often. |
Lew, re: metal mats
Some time ago I believe it was Raul who recommended the Audio Technica AT666. That is a metal mat with vacuum hold down. His preference was simply as an added mat, ignoring the vacuum. I looked that up and it weighs 1.4 kg, still pretty heavy but within the range listed in the SP-10 MK 2 manual.
|
Forgot to say that my TT101 is running but not "up and running". Time got away from me this weekend, and I have yet to mount a cartridge. I did install the chassis into the QL10 plinth, which I have modified extensively with metal arm board and metal re-enforcements underneath the MDF stock plinth, to add mass and structural rigidity, and constrained layer dampening.
Has anyone unearthed any data on the Victor UA7045 tonearm, particularly its effective mass? I have an FR64S mounted on the Victor plinth, but I might want to go back to the UA7045, if it would be a better match for a higher compliance cartridge than is the FR64S.
|
2.7 kg!!!!!! That is nearly doubling the weight of the entire platter of an SP10 Mk2. I would never do that to any DD turntable. You could probably get away with it on a Mk3, because the base platter weighs 22 lbs to start with. The servo is tuned to the rotational mass of the platter. You may well have enough torque to get that much extra mass moving, but you are probably losing something in terms of performance. Perhaps Peter and JP can chime in on this subject. Lots of modern day users of vintage DD's do these things. Keep in mind that M-S made the mat for their belt-drive turntables. In any case, I won't be looking for a CU-500 for my Victor.
The SP20 sounds like an economy version of SP10 Mk2. You sacrifice 78 rpm, probably some electronic sophistication, and the cost of an outboard chassis, to save some cost. I'm sure it's excellent.
|
Lew if you’re not familiar with gun metal CU-500 mat from Micro Seiki i’m pretty sure you know at least their CU-180. However the CU-500 is thicker and heavier (2.7 kg) and very rare along with their super heavy gun metal record clamp Misco Seiki ST-20 (not as easy to find as Micro Seiki ST-10). I don’t have any pictures of my stuff on audiogon, but this is picture of my own Misco Seiki CU-500 to check in high resolution on SP10mk2. And this is another view on the same CU-500 on the same deck. And old picture of my teak wood plinth for SP10 with EPA-100 and Technics EPC-100c MK3 cartridge retipped by AXEL in Germany (curently for sale or trade btw:). |
@lewm while the first sp10 released in 1969 the SP20 released in 1976 This is what i have about Technics SP-20 from this source: forgive me for google translate from Japanese: And high performance at that take advantage of the development know-how of the SP-10mkII, Quartz phase-locked control DD turntable. Starting torque 1.5kg · cm, a large turntable of its own weight 2.5kg (inertial mass 345kg · cm2), and to rotate at a constant speed in a quarter rotation from the start. Due to the large starting torque and powerful magnetic circuit, there is no change in the rotational speed using 150 pieces of the tone arm of the needle pressure 2g. In addition, it is also possible to use a cleaner during a performance. With pure electronic brake to provide users with a smooth stop of the turntable. It has adopted a strobe LED illumination by fringes of Article a row. Finish and has prevented the surface change and wrinkle finish was special surface treatment of the aluminum die-casting. TECHNICS SP20 PRICE: 60,000 yen (1976）
Driving System : Servo Controlled Direct Drive
Speed : 33-1/3 and 45 rpm Platter : Aluminum diecast 32cm, weight 2.5 kg. Starting torque Characteristic : 1.5kg × cm // Less than 0.7 （90゜） second to reach normal speed (33-1/3 rpm). Load fluctuation : 1.5kg x cm within 0％
Rotation speed deviation : ±0.002％
Wow & Flutter : Less than 0.025%（JIS C5521）wrms.
S/N Ratio : 60dB（IEC17B） // 73dB（DIN45539B）
Power Consumption : 4W
Inertial mass : 345k × cm2
Outline Dimensions : 368.5 × 99 × 368.5mm
Weight : 8.0kg
I assume this is not as good as SP10 MK2 for sure, but must be better than old classic SP10 with different (older) platter design etc. |
Hello Lewm This one is the one I just finished on Saturday, this is one amazing table. Total weight with the Steve Blinn large Isopeds, (highly recommended btw) is 88 Lbs This plinth is also available for the Mk2, below is one that I recently delivered to a customer, this one had the Stillpoints Ultra 6 for footers, also highly recommended but more than 3 times the cost of the Steve Blinn Isopeds https://systems.audiogon.com/systems/4909The Victor is a work in progress :-) have not had the time to look at it for the past week or so - have you got yours up and running, if so how do you like it ? Good Listening Peter |
Thanks, RW. So maybe SP20 is a black version of the original SP10.
Peter, On your system page, I see the SP10 Mk3 in a beautiful wood plinth reminiscent of Albert Porter's plinths. Is that your new one or is that an older photo?
How's it going with the TT101?
|
The SP-20 does not have an outboard PS nor does it have quartz lock.
|
|
Chakster, I had never heard of an SP20 before your post. My Googling shows a photo of something that looks like a black SP10. No outboard PS is shown in the photo, but that wouldn't necessarily mean that none was ever supplied. Does yours have an outboard supply? If yes, then it seems the SP20 was a black SP10 Mk2. If no, then I would liken it to an original SP10, not quite as great as a Mk2.
I've never tried a Micro CU500 platter mat. Nor do I even know anything about it, except that by name it would seem to have been made by Micro Seiki, out of copper. Does the "500" indicate weight, in grams? I tend to think that metal mats are of a kind, in terms of sonics. Except maybe copper sounds different from whatever alloy is used in the SAEC SS300, or stainless steel, used on the Kenwood L07D. Weight of the mat might be a factor, because one TT101-user reported that his TT101 did not like a heavy metal mat. (Perhaps the motor needed calibration; a motor that is out of calibration will exhibit subpar torque. I know this from JP's work on my TT101.) However, 500g is rather light for a metal mat. Some monsters made of copper by TTW were as heavy as 4 lbs, nearly 2 kg.
|
@lewm nice, my Micro CU-500 belong to SP10mk2 and i’m looking for another Mat for technics SP20 deck i’ve bough not so long ago. Have you tried Micro CU-500 ? I’ve bought Saec SS-300 recently, waiting for postman. Actually my SP-20 coming with the mat that looks exactly like Boston Audio Mat on photos. Waiting for delivery. I will be happy if it will be BA Mat2. If so, i can check ’em all.
BTW Technics SP20 is something between SP10 and SP10mk2 ?
The platter looks exactly like SP10mk2 (not like cheaper SP10 first version).
How do you guys rate this turntable ? I like the design and this special black finishing.
There is no external power supply and of cource it is not in the same league as sp10mk2, but anyway...
that's why i'm looking for EPA-100 MK2
|
Chakster, You could say I did that experiment. I own one of each and have heard both on SP10 turntables. The SAEC is very good, but I give a slight edge to the BA Mat2. (So someone is wondering why I am looking for a Mat2, when I already own one. Because the Mat2 that I own "belongs" on the SP10 Mk3. I would like to find another.) I can actually do the experiment again using the TT101. There is no a priori guarantee that results would be the same. And pigskin too.
Halcro, I note from the Top Class advert that was attached to a post here that the Victor pigskin mat is actually a 2-part affair, where the pigskin goes on the platter, and the lucite mat goes atop the pigskin. Thus, the surface that contacts the LP is actually lucite. I gather you and the other fortunate few who own the Victor pigskin are using ONLY the pigskin, no lucite. Yes?
|
|
So has anyone tested BA Mat2 vs. SAEC SS-300 on SP10mk2? |
Lew was able to contact me. I however found another mat in the Mat2 box, so I have to find it. Moved about a year ago and am digging through boxes. |
