I have noticed in recent threads by SpiritofMusic and others that there is again some discussion about different turntable drive types. And recently, a WBF member sent me a private message asking for my thoughts about a direct comparison that I made between by belt drive table and a friends direct drive table. So I would like to share with you my impressions of that comparison and open a discussion about a few topics: directly comparing turntables in one's system; what we can learn and conclude; what we can not; and can we attribute these impressions specifically to drive type or are there just too many variables between different turntable designs? Finally, with a vintage design like the SP10, are there so many variations to plinths, modifications and different supports that specific conclusions about their sound are difficult to reach?
In March 2016 my good friend and fellow audiophile, David, agreed to bring over his newly set up turntable in order to hear it in my system. David is very familiar with my system having heard it in its various iterations over the last several years. Our intention was to directly compare his Technics SP10 Mk3 to my SME Model 30/12A. We both own an SME V-12 tonearm and an AirTight Supreme cartridge, so this comparison would be very direct between the two turntables only. The SP10 was positioned on my Vibraplane just as my SME is.
David's SP10 is a refurbished original with the Richard Kreps modification to the bearing. The motor controller and power supply unit is a NOS which he found on line. The turntable is placed in a panzerholtz plinth designed by Albert Porter, and he uses the copper platter mat recommended by Albert. I think there are four Stillpoint footers under the table. We used my Transparent Audio phono cable so the only variable was the turntable unit itself and the different samples of the same SME arm and Supreme cartridge. I did the cartridge/arm set up for both turntables using the same music.
I first made mention of this comparison on my virtual system page #10 but never got around to sharing my listening impressions. As it was a year and a half ago, and my memory is not that good, I will refer to two emails I sent to friends for the sonic details. I do not remember the specific recordings we heard, but we did listen to a variety of classical, jazz and pop, of both large and small scale. Here are some quotes from the first email:
(with the SP10) I heard a slight hardness to the high frequencies and some vocals, especially when the volume was turned up. There was also a sameness to the recordings. I could not really relax while listening and it did not quite sound natural to me. It was also not that engaging. There was a very slight mechanical haze to most music. It was less evident with loud jazz horns and drum solos, but with strings and upper piano notes, it was pretty distracting.
We tried with and without a record weight, we tried the metal platter mat and the rubber platter mat, we played with lots of VTF and VTA settings until we got what we think was the best sound out of it. We got it to improve, but we could not eliminate it. By contrast, my SME sounded just as big, with the same degree of high resolution, but without the fatigue. It was smoother, more relaxing and more natural sounding. Presence was great with both, and the SP10 may have dug slightly deeper with bass extension and bass articulation in the most demanding complex music. Drive was also slightly better, but dynamics were about the same. Violins sounded a bit steely with the SP10.
It was a very interesting experiment and comparison. We both learned a lot about our tables. Critical listening for five days to all kinds of music for what were at times pretty subtle differences can get very tiring after a while.
In the end, I preferred my own table. It is more natural sounding, is just as resolving, with slightly less very deep bass control, but it is much easier to listen to for an entire evening or very long term. There is just no fatigue or high frequency glare. I don't know if this was because of the hunting for speed from the servo, or the modern panzerholtz plinth, or something else, but I was clearly reminded of your general comments in the thread that you started.
And here is the second email:
(referring to the SP10) At first I was astonished at what I thought was slightly more detail and information, but the more I listened the more I heard the same thing. I first noticed it with violin, then upper keys on piano, then on midrange horns. The DD SP10 adds a hardness to the midrange and upper frequencies as well as a slight coolness and glassiness to everything. The balance of violin string to wooden body is not the same as with a viola or cello. With the violin, you dont hear much wood, only strings, and they are steely. It is almost like digital glare but not as pronounced, but with all of the resolution of very good analog. Now that I have noticed it, it is hard to ignore and it gets fatiguing after a while.
The SME by contrast is more natural sounding, with the same or slightly less ultimate resolution but very smooth, relaxing and non aggressive. But it can be very dynamic and detailed with the right recording. Resolution with no aggression. It sounds more real. In a few days when I switch back, I will know if the SME has the same resolution or not. It might be like the VDH Colibri versus the AirTight. One has edge and excitement, but the other is more natural and real sounding.
I am left to wonder if the character I heard from the SP10 is specific to how it reacted to the rest of my system or if my system revealed an inherent character of the turntable which will remain and be heard in other systems. Perhaps those with more extensive experience with SP10s will share their views. Because this was such a direct comparison, the differences in sonics in this case could easily be attributed to the two turntables. On the other hand, having heard this SP10 in my friend David's system, what it contributes to his overall sound is not so clear because we have not compared the turntable to any other turntables in his system and there are just too many variables between his room and the rest of the system to fully understand what the SP10 is contributing to his overall system sound. In the case of the SME, I have also directly compared it to my previous SME Model 10 with the same 9" arm and Supreme cartridge, so I attribute certain traits to the Model 30/12.
Complicating matters is that various samples of SP10s are found in varying conditions. Some have modifications, some have none. Some have different kinds of modifications. Some have different plinth designs, platter mat materials, footers, record weights etc. not to mention arms and cartridges. I have learned to treat these comparisons more as specific data points about how one component sounds in one system and room and not to necessarily form generalizations about something like a turntable drive type based on such limited exposure.
It was a fun experience and I appreciate the opportunity to have done such a rare direct comparison of two large turntables in the same familiar system over a number of days.
In March 2016 my good friend and fellow audiophile, David, agreed to bring over his newly set up turntable in order to hear it in my system. David is very familiar with my system having heard it in its various iterations over the last several years. Our intention was to directly compare his Technics SP10 Mk3 to my SME Model 30/12A. We both own an SME V-12 tonearm and an AirTight Supreme cartridge, so this comparison would be very direct between the two turntables only. The SP10 was positioned on my Vibraplane just as my SME is.
David's SP10 is a refurbished original with the Richard Kreps modification to the bearing. The motor controller and power supply unit is a NOS which he found on line. The turntable is placed in a panzerholtz plinth designed by Albert Porter, and he uses the copper platter mat recommended by Albert. I think there are four Stillpoint footers under the table. We used my Transparent Audio phono cable so the only variable was the turntable unit itself and the different samples of the same SME arm and Supreme cartridge. I did the cartridge/arm set up for both turntables using the same music.
I first made mention of this comparison on my virtual system page #10 but never got around to sharing my listening impressions. As it was a year and a half ago, and my memory is not that good, I will refer to two emails I sent to friends for the sonic details. I do not remember the specific recordings we heard, but we did listen to a variety of classical, jazz and pop, of both large and small scale. Here are some quotes from the first email:
(with the SP10) I heard a slight hardness to the high frequencies and some vocals, especially when the volume was turned up. There was also a sameness to the recordings. I could not really relax while listening and it did not quite sound natural to me. It was also not that engaging. There was a very slight mechanical haze to most music. It was less evident with loud jazz horns and drum solos, but with strings and upper piano notes, it was pretty distracting.
We tried with and without a record weight, we tried the metal platter mat and the rubber platter mat, we played with lots of VTF and VTA settings until we got what we think was the best sound out of it. We got it to improve, but we could not eliminate it. By contrast, my SME sounded just as big, with the same degree of high resolution, but without the fatigue. It was smoother, more relaxing and more natural sounding. Presence was great with both, and the SP10 may have dug slightly deeper with bass extension and bass articulation in the most demanding complex music. Drive was also slightly better, but dynamics were about the same. Violins sounded a bit steely with the SP10.
It was a very interesting experiment and comparison. We both learned a lot about our tables. Critical listening for five days to all kinds of music for what were at times pretty subtle differences can get very tiring after a while.
In the end, I preferred my own table. It is more natural sounding, is just as resolving, with slightly less very deep bass control, but it is much easier to listen to for an entire evening or very long term. There is just no fatigue or high frequency glare. I don't know if this was because of the hunting for speed from the servo, or the modern panzerholtz plinth, or something else, but I was clearly reminded of your general comments in the thread that you started.
And here is the second email:
(referring to the SP10) At first I was astonished at what I thought was slightly more detail and information, but the more I listened the more I heard the same thing. I first noticed it with violin, then upper keys on piano, then on midrange horns. The DD SP10 adds a hardness to the midrange and upper frequencies as well as a slight coolness and glassiness to everything. The balance of violin string to wooden body is not the same as with a viola or cello. With the violin, you dont hear much wood, only strings, and they are steely. It is almost like digital glare but not as pronounced, but with all of the resolution of very good analog. Now that I have noticed it, it is hard to ignore and it gets fatiguing after a while.
The SME by contrast is more natural sounding, with the same or slightly less ultimate resolution but very smooth, relaxing and non aggressive. But it can be very dynamic and detailed with the right recording. Resolution with no aggression. It sounds more real. In a few days when I switch back, I will know if the SME has the same resolution or not. It might be like the VDH Colibri versus the AirTight. One has edge and excitement, but the other is more natural and real sounding.
I am left to wonder if the character I heard from the SP10 is specific to how it reacted to the rest of my system or if my system revealed an inherent character of the turntable which will remain and be heard in other systems. Perhaps those with more extensive experience with SP10s will share their views. Because this was such a direct comparison, the differences in sonics in this case could easily be attributed to the two turntables. On the other hand, having heard this SP10 in my friend David's system, what it contributes to his overall sound is not so clear because we have not compared the turntable to any other turntables in his system and there are just too many variables between his room and the rest of the system to fully understand what the SP10 is contributing to his overall system sound. In the case of the SME, I have also directly compared it to my previous SME Model 10 with the same 9" arm and Supreme cartridge, so I attribute certain traits to the Model 30/12.
Complicating matters is that various samples of SP10s are found in varying conditions. Some have modifications, some have none. Some have different kinds of modifications. Some have different plinth designs, platter mat materials, footers, record weights etc. not to mention arms and cartridges. I have learned to treat these comparisons more as specific data points about how one component sounds in one system and room and not to necessarily form generalizations about something like a turntable drive type based on such limited exposure.
It was a fun experience and I appreciate the opportunity to have done such a rare direct comparison of two large turntables in the same familiar system over a number of days.
