Vintage Japanese DD Consult and Suggestions Please

The Pioneer Exclusive P3 is a TT, I have looked at over the years, and see it when discovered for sale in Japan, priced as a model to share a similar asking price as the Yamaha GT 2000X.

The P3 has not crept up to the Value of the asking price for the DP 100 or SP 10 Mk 3, even though the R&D behind it, as a result of the Exclusive Department in Pioneer was really cutting edge for the advanced thought used.

The P3 and GT 2000 Models share a similarity in their design where the Motor / Stator / Bearing Housing are embedded into a Chassis / Plinth.

The P3 Isolates the electric circuits from mechanical influences by having them mounted on their own Sub Plinth that is separated by Spring Couplings from the Chassis / Plinth.

The GT 2000 design has the electric circuits off board, which does seem to be the most cost effective method to Isolate Electrics from mechanical influences.

The P3 and GT 2000 will benefit substantially from adopting materials becoming more common in their use and having the Mechanical Assembly embedded into a Resin Impregnated Densified Wood Board Material.

I am now in possession of a Kaneta Design SP 10 Mk II, which is mounted into a Phenolic Resin Impregnated Densified Wood Board known as Panzerholz. The Electrics are off board and there is something more attractive in the end sound, but difficult to nail down.

Does the electric circuits being isolated from mechanical influences really bring something to the forefront that is perceived as an improvement to the sonic, or is the perceived improvement in sound, solely due to creating a new environment for the mechanical assembly to function within?

Time constraints have not allowed for an evaluation to be extensively undertaken using the same TA>Cart' > Audio System with a Typical Design SP 10 Mk II incorporating Speed Control Upgrades and an improved Bearing design, mounted on a Panzerholz Plinth.

It would make sense to have the improved bearing design used on the owned Typical Design SP10 Mk II added to the Kaneta Design MkII, but the Kaneta Design allows for a whole new rethink on how a Bearing Design can look and be produced.

My own observations remain, there are similarities, the statement that was made remains unchanged.

 "The P3 and GT 2000 Models share a similarity in their design where the Motor / Stator / Bearing Housing are embedded into a Chassis / Plinth."

I'm sure a list that is produced, that points out where there are differences between the Two Models will be quite long.

The Newest Design used for a TT, that I  have adopted also mimics the methodology for the mounting of the Mechanical Parts, which is also seen either on the P3 or the  GT 2000.

The earlier design and the methodology for the Mounting of the Mechanical Parts is quite changed. There is no longer in use, a Purpose Produced Chassis that has the mechanical parts attached, which is then seated upon a Purpose Produced Plinth, which over time become available in a variety of designs .

There is a merged Chassis / Plinth  design that has the Mechanical Parts embedded into the material used. 

In relation to Suspension Support, I use a Panzerholz Sub Plinth, which is separated from the Chassis / Plinth using Solid Tech 'Feet of Silence' which Superseded the usage of AT 616 Footers for TT Duties.   

As stated, there are assessments to be undertaken, but not to be rushed into, where the intention is to get an improved understanding of where the merits of the design are showing their strengths. 

When expressing an Interest in Vintage Japanese DD TT's, there are two ways to observe them, which are loosely described below:     

1, Is the observation through 'Rose Tinted Glasses' where the assembled product with a unknown hours of usage life of close on 50 Years is not considered.

An individual is somehow missing / avoiding what a 50ish Years in the real world can mean for a TT's Electronics and Mechanical Parts.

2, The Link will show an individual a good insight into what is being bought into, the Link is representative of most Vintage DD TT's to be seen on a Shortlist.

Mechanical Parts are limited and the Electronic Parts are quite substantial and quite complex. 

Mechanical Parts can have had way too many rotations where critical parts are functioning in a non ideal environment, where a minimum negative effect developed is that the axis of the Spindle may not run true, creating a eccentric rotation and speed fluctuation.

Furthering regular usage of a TT with an eccentric rotation in a non ideal environment can lead to excessive wear on a sacrificial part such as a Bush. The excessive wear of a Bush/Bushes can result with a scribing showing on other Sacrificial Parts or even worse, scribing can show on parts that should be a Polished Finish, where scribing that has developed is most likely caused by metal particulate from worn Bushes being encountered in a very dry shaft with all signs of Factory applied lubricant long long dried up or leached from the Bearing Housing the Bearing Housing many many years passed.

Good Luck with the Electronics being Top Drawer, I only know Specialists who can comment on this when they have the TT on their Workbench.

The reality for quite few TT owners of all types from this period is commonly as follows:

I bought a Vintage TT, I Powered on and it rotated, Eureka, I have a perfect TT.

I'm looking for the Perfect Tonearm for my TT, after a Hum and Ha, I've just bought a TA at £2K - £3K - 4K for my Perfectly Working Vintage TT.

I'm now looking for a Cartridge to mount on my TA to get the best out of my Perfect Vintage TT. I am now the proud owner of a £2K - £3K - £4K Cartridge.

My take is use others known for their knowledge on a particular TT, to inform if the Vintage TT is a Perfect TT. Once this is a done deal, spend however one wants on how the other ancillaries are chosen to be used with the TT.    

http://amp8.com/amp-etc/record/denon/dp-80-3.htm

For the record, all owned TT's are from a Vintage Period and ones Vintage DD ones used daily are brought to a fine fettle, by an individual who knows the Brands very very well and are reputed for their work undertaken. Both Bearing Condition and Overhaul and Electronics Function are addressed when on the Workbench.

The extra outlay for the TT's is a monies very very well spent.

@pryso  Thank You for your contact, unfortunately I can't reply through the private mail as I can't access mails on this forum. 
Your mail sent was seen in my personal email account.

Making a contact through a private mail is fine, I assisted a selection of Gon Members over my period of membership through their contacting me privately.

A Plinth Design for a TT and a Structure Material used for a  TT Plinth are two different entities. 

A Plinth Design can incorporate a selection of materials, which might have different Intrinsic Properties that impact on a attractive coefficient of expansion (CTE) in heat or humidity being maintained.
Rate at which Shrinkage occurs to a material is also a consideration when moisture is absorbed.
A design can also be one where there is not too much thought in place, to show there is a discipline used to optimise the Critical Geometry.  
When the above design is encountered as an incorporation into the Structure for a TT. It is inevitable that optimised set up will be quite difficult to maintain and a sonic will become compromised as the interfaces become lesser in their optimisation.

Choosing a Material as a Structure to support a TT can speedily remove some of the above concerns, if the correct materials are selected and used that are with intrinsic properties that make them noticeably stable in a cross a selection of environmental conditions, the need to be overly concerned about optimised set up conditions being maintained is much lesser of a consideration over time.

The next to consider is what is the want from the individual for the selected Plinth Material:
1, Is it selected to function as a Massey Material ?
2, Is it selected to be a Light Weight ?
3, Is it selected using the Materials Intrinsic Properties, supported through data, that shows the materials has a very desirable Damping / Dissipation for managing Mechanical Energies being transferred or alternatively managing local environmental kinetic energies being transferred ?

Each material type that can be adopted from the sections above will have their own unique sonic, as a result of how energies transferred though the material are managed and how the material itself is isolated from the local ambient environment energies being transferred.

How does a individual discover which id their most attractive material to have maintained as a Structure to support a TT?
In my case trial through experiencing many different materials as a Plinth,  where a small selection of trials were carried out experiencing the same TT > Tonearm > Cart' in the same system on the same supporting structure for the system.

My selection for a Plinth Material and ongoing investigations into how to best attach a TT mechanical system to the Plinth, does not indicate I have discovered something that is ubiquitous to all tastes. I am very confident I have discovered a methodology that is the most transparent in use that I have been familiarised with, and that this is most favourable to my tastes for a sonic.

I can't inform an individual where their journey stops when it comes to getting on Bus and venturing into selecting a Colouration is most attractive to them, in this subject, most are very unique in what their preference is. 
Each individual has their own stop where they get of the Bus.

Linn as an example has produced the Bedroc using a material type that is becoming more and more popular in use from a Commercial Entity or a enthusiast DIY Builder.
This material used in a Linn TT Design be a step further in managing ambient energy transferal, Linn have remained on the Bus and are inquisitive, in my opinion, they found a material that has attractive qualities, even though they overlooked some of the most attractive properties in what a structure should be when selecting the material.  

My own experiences to date has lead me to using Resin Impregnated Densified Wood Board Material as the Plinth to support a TT, this material has excelled used with DD TT's, especially those from a Vintage Japanese era..  
 

The Link is a New Brand of Material to me, but in keeping with the design for a Densified Wood that I am adopting to use.

Call up the Brand, there is a vast range of Colour Finishes, making the end aesthetic a very attractive option.

0.7mm veneers with a Compression to 0.35mm makes a extremely nice board.

It can not be found in the info if the Structure selected for Board has the Plies/Veneers in Cross Grain orientation.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/395627466927

The Link was to only show the product with a guideline price.

The Brand Itself can be investigated through the Company Website, their is a vast range of Colours Produced which I am sure will widen the appeal for the material type. The Company if contacted, may be able to offer a delivery or show where the distributors are, increasing the likelihood the Material in a desirable colour and Dimension can be acquired.

It is a chore today to source these types of materials in small volume without incurring too much cost.

My Last purchase was a 2000mm x 1000mm x 25mm Panzerholz Board brought in from Germany, which was plenty enough for 10 x Plinth Blanks or Sub Plinths.

This was dropped of at a Depot, and I had a 200 Mile round trip to retrieve it plus the cutting fee for producing the 10 x Blanks.

All in I was not north of £100 per blank. 

I could have went with a different approach, but paid up to 300% more per Blank Dimension as the minimum uplift in price.

I also could have profiteered, but have not made one penny whilst assisting others have the experience of Panzerholz used in their audio systems. It is interesting that the materials that have been acquired very fair priced by the inquisitive individuals assisted. Where a plinth produced in this material for the TT’s selected, will sell on very very quickly. With the outcome to date, the assisted who are now advocates, still remain with their P’holz Designs and speedily make it known, using P'holz has offered something that gives the impression using it, creates the best Vinyl Set Up to date in their own systems.

Others with a different approach, prefer to charge significant monies to enable another to buy into to the experience of using a Resin Impregnated Densified Wood Board.

Taiko was the first I become aware of who were to attach a Substantial Uplift in price for the material type (Panzerholz), with their DAIZA Sub Plinth. Approx’ £900 added to the base material for a Fibonacci CNC produced pattern.    

Linn has excelled further in showing what a Uplift in price for this material type (Resin Impregnated Densified Wood Board) can attain, I’ve got approx’ £7000+ to CNC shape the Peripheral for the LP12 TT, maybe they used the likes of Clearaudio as a means to gauge a price in the Market Place.

I wonder what Clearaudio attaches as the Uplift in Value for their usage of the material (Panzerholz). They use 2 Different Board Thicknesses and can use up to 4 x Tiers of the Board. 

For all producers, not limited to TT Producers only, who have become adopters of using a material type, being a Resin Impregnated Densified Wood Board, "It is not a Gimmick" , it brings something quite attractive to the influence on the end sound.              

Materials used for a role in audio can be discussed endlessly, as individuals only know what they know from their experiences of a particular material being used in conjunction with a unique support structure, as well as a quite unique environment.

Is there really a wide interest within Audio Equipment users to take on the interest in getting a betterment from a Support Structure for the System and devices used in the system?  

Narrowing down on the materials that are available to be used as a support structure, especially honing in on the Analogue Source, if a Board Material such as a Birch Marine Ply has an attraction to be used, then why not use it. It is sound enough to be used as a Structure to be a Plinth for a TT or support for a TT.

If the sole objective for the Birch Marine Plywood is to be a structure able to support the TT as the Plinth or a Sub Plinth, then users are on to winner.

If other properties are sought in conjunction with the capability of being sound enough to be used as structure, then the investigation will extend beyond one type of Material only.

Keeping the subject around the Board as the Material, and using my own  experiences of different Board Types in use. Where different Board Types have been purposely selected to be used to support a TT's mechanical assembly and a Tonearm.

As an outcome, can influence individuals who have had the experiences, make decisions that deselect a commonly used material an make a decision that puts them at a place they are selecting a not too commonly selected materials.

It helps reinforce ones own choice for a material, when they discover others across many Countries, albeit DIY enthusiast or a Commercial entity, who share a similar interest, are being witnessed discarding older used methods and are making very similar decisions to ones own, for the adoption of using not too commonly selected materials.

In my own case, I relate to the above through my own adoption of a Resin Impregnated Densified Wood Board,  especially as the material used for Structures where Analogue Devices are the Topic for a rethink for their Design.

Making changes for myself is not with difficulty, I have been evolving in relation to material selection for close to 30 years, I am certainly attached to the following ways of thinking.                                                                                                          When those with a shared interest on a TT's function moved on from their accepting as the only choices, Leaking Bearing Housings, Sintered Bronze, Steel Balls and Metal Thrust Pads and Metal Platters. There was an applause across the Globe and there are numerous cases reported Globally over the past 25 - 30 years of those adopting the changes, where the positives of the changes having been made stand out for the betterment created.

My experiences are not too many, but enough have been had, to allow myself to state, that a Densified Wood used in conjunction with an old and not too fettled TT, has the properties that are ideal for tidying up audibly what is present due to the TT's foibles. The TT used with a Densified Wood, certainly surpasses what was the end sound as a result of being mounted on an original design plinth. 

When it comes to a fettled TT, an original plinth in use, has proven to destroy the values added through overhauling the TT's Mechanical Interfaces and in the case of the DD TT, the Electrics. The use of the overhauled TT in conjunction with materials such as Resin, Lead Topped Board and Board Materials used in the Vintage Plinths, from my assessment from experiencing them in use, are noted for their negative impact on the end sound. Each type is difficult to recommend when alternative materials experienced in use have made a much improved impression., With the outcome being from alternative materials used, that Densified Wood Board has been the most attractive when experienced.

When using an overhauled TT to the condition achieved above. Such a TT being used in conjunction with Densified Wood as the Support Structure, produces to my own assessment, an end sound that is easily perceivable for the improvement. There is discernible sound being produced that can easily be described as having become more than the sum of the parts. 

Did Linn discover a Night / Day improvement with their selection of a Densified Wood for the Bedroc Peripheral Design for the LP 12 Plinth? I myself based on owned experiences doubt it.

I do suspect Linn has detected a change to the end sound that is perceived as a betterment to what has been the earlier option as a periphery on the TT's Plinth.

The discernible differences between the Bedroc and other versions being noticed  will be dependent on a variety of factors, especially the ambient environment and the overall structure used for supporting the TT. 

In relation to the Panzerholz used by myself at approx' £100 for a Plinth Blank and an equivalent dimension in Marine Plywood at approx' £12.

For myself the benefits of the P'holz being used at approx' £88 uplift as a cost is a no brainer. The qualities known from the usage of the material makes known off alternate board options obsolete.

Alternate Board materials are kept to be used to demo' to others the differences that occur to the sound across the use of the different Board Materials. There are Plinths available in a Birch Marine Plywood @ 700Kg / m3 - Compressed MU 25 Plywood @ 950Kg / m3 and Densified Wood @ 1400Kg / m3. Not anybody who have been given a demo' have needed an extended period to decide on where the ideal choice lays. The lesser weight boards are to date the rejected board, with favour shown for the heaviest board material.