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.

I suspect that some of the improvement I and others have found using versions of the outboard power supply for the GT 2000 is that transformer vibration is now removed from the plinth of the turntable. Conjecture on my part but feasible.

The GT 2000 series did not come standard with the external power supply but it was designed into the basic GT 2000 model to be purchased as one of the many available options. Any discussion about a GT 2000 needs to outline whether any of the options are being utilised because all of them will in some way affect the sound of the turntable.

The GT 2000 does not deserve to be omitted from the list of the multiple Japanese Uber Direct Drive turntables. Fully optioned the standard black GT 2000 had an external power supply, a 40 pound platter, vacuum hold down and spring suspension weighing a total of around 120 pounds. That really is the full fledged realisation of the GT 2000 series design concept. How anyone could leave it out of a list of the best Japanese Direct Drives boils down to lack of understanding/prejudice.

There is a misconception on the internet that the GT 2000 series utilised a ball in the bearing well. That is completley untrue. The contact point of the spindle was radiused (ala Linn Sondek). Also Liquid Audio reviewed a GT 2000 and reported it to have bearing play. Mike noted when he inspected the bearing closer that the thrust pad, (the contact patch for the spindle) had a crack which almost split the thrust pad in half. That ’bearing play/slack’ he found is in no way representative of a properly treated GT 2000 and is evidence that the turntable he was examining had been dropped with some force whilst the  removable platter was in situ. Thus his sonic assessment of that particular GT 2000 is dubious.

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.

No mate - they are nothing alike other than they are both DD.

P3 has motor/platter/tonearm mounted on a suspended sub-chassis.

P3 Electronics are mounted to the base.

GT2000 does not have a suspension other than rubber feet.

A significant difference also is that the P3 has an inverted bearing and stable platter with a low centre of gravity, the GT2000 has a conventional T ( for topple ) bearing.

Pioneer Exclusive P3/P3a and GT 2000 series nothing alike as Dover said. P3/P3a is an exceptional design.

GT 2000 optional accessory suspension:

https://www.hifido.co.jp/sold/23-39953-15768-00.html

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.