Technics SP-10 Tonearm Pod instead of Plinth/Base

Thanks All!
Lewn- I'm pretty sure from reading the blogs that Raul's armboard is separate from the turntable- ie not touching. However, I do see your point of keeping an even playing field by having the tonearm and the platter sharing the same plane. That being said... some brands of TT have a separate pod for the motor when the platter is driven by a belt. I had this idea in mind as I wondered of a pod for the tonearm. Maintaining geometry is still a vexing question.

Jax2- The Porter plinth is beautiful, yes. It also looks one step away from being gilded with gold... ie very expensive as you suggest.

Rnadelman- I've googled Mr Campbell and found a couple of pics of what looks like a very nice plinth. I'll drop him a line.

The other plinth option is a layered plywood plinth with the odd layer of lead or aluminum. A better option than solid/heavy/dense wood plinth?

Hi Dsa, I am very reluctant to contradict Lewm but the so
called 'theoretical arguments'(aka 'scientific') are regulary used in our forum as long as they don't contradict
with our preferences. Well I have an 'armbase' next to my Kuzma S.R. and I prefer this combo (Reed L2A+Reed base+ Phase Tech P3) above Triplanar VII+ Benz Ruby 3 'on' the Kuzma.

Regards,

Dsa, Jim is making the layered plywood plinth with aluminum for me at this time.

Guys, If I am wrong about Raul's rig, I stand corrected. It means that I have been under the wrong impression for several months. In fact I thought Raul agreed with me when in other places I had stated my case against having separate arm pods. Nandric, I know Kuzma does do it that way in their top line product, so evidently Mr Kuzma does not agree with me that it is a bad idea. He is probably smarter than me, too. But there is a difference between a minimum plinth SP10 and the Kuzma table you own in that your table AND your outboard arm pod have enormous high mass. Also your table does not potentially suffer from being spun on its own axis by its motor (due to Newton's 3rd Law of Motion), as could happen with an SP10 chassis that is just sitting on a set of Audio Technica feet, a la Raul. (I have seen this happen with my own SP10; it does not actually spin around of course, but it twists at start up, if you just sit the chassis on a table. Eventually after several start-ups, it will move across the table top. This would tend to screw up geometry.) I also would point out that there are other smart guys (turntable designers and builders) who agree with my opinion on this matter. Eventually, Raul will see this thread and trash me. In fact, if he likes his SP10 set-up, it probably sounds good. This is all meant in good fun.

I have such a setup, I got an Sp10, I took out the plinth, given a cheap one, but it was like taking the bell out and leaving only the little metal ball inside it.
I made a pod for the tone arm with 3 different metals and it is pretty heavy, trust me it wont move. The Sp10 is sitting on its own with no plinth at all, I have cones holding it from the original chassis, we actually discussed even taking the chassis off.
The improvement was impressive, in micro-level detail and air around the instruments.
Isolation is very important and the cones that support the SP10 can change the tone of the setup, for a tubed Phono preamp I like solid steel cones, for SS I use the famous Audio Technica Support Isolators with metal cones. Actually my favorite sound came from a combination of cones.

The Pod base stands on cones also, that improved the sound a lot also.

I dont want to rub the people with plinths the wrong way, this is my private setup and I like it, my system consists of triamplified 5 way horns.

Check out theanalogdept.com/stefano_bertoncello setup, he uses a Garrard with a Pod also.