A Direct Comparison: Technics SP10 Mk3 and SME Model 30/12A
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
Yes, but this is because MikeL, to his credit, is not dogmatic; he makes decisions with his ears. And I think MikeL believes, as I do, that the implementation is at least as important as the theory of the design.
So looked at in that light a progression of turntable designs is not that surprising; MikeL always just aims for his perception of the best.
Ron, I’m probably a bit less dogmatic than I used to be.
Back in the day I think I used to drive Peter a little crazy declaring high torque and non belt drive as naturally superior based on my limited experience of top belt drives and my puppy like enthusiasm for my rim drive discovery, with the cherry on the cake being it’s affordability (10x cheaper than the first proper big hitter belt drive).
However I’ve gone on to hear a handful of belt drives I like a lot, and quite a few that really don’t communicate to me.
What I’m finding now is that there are certain implementations of both belt and non belt that I seem to value, and need to be in both drivetrains for me to be attracted.
And for me this is high torque and heavy platter.
So on the belt front I’m very much getting on w Kuzma Stabi M and 4XL, and I’m sure I’d have a lot of time for SME 30.
But I’m struggling w Linn LP12, AMG Viella, Nottingham Analog.
What this is telling me is that amongst belt drives it’s heavy platter, high torque motor and unsuspended design that’s appealing to me.
Interestingly it’s these facets that work on non belt drives, ie rim, idler, DD.
And this tentative conclusion is telling me something like the Spec GMP-8000 string drive would be up my street, as well as SME 30.
However, I still feel rim/idler offers some interesting different perspectives on music making in terms of potential advantages in rhythmic propulsion and energy, but maybe at the expense of increased noise flr.
That’s why I’m on the hunt for a particularly interesting idler drive that promises the fascinating combination of heavy platter/high moment of inertia, class leading torque, and interesting choice of platter/plinth materials to control noise to belt drive levels.
But I’m also really open to belt drives that get this heavy platter/high moment of inertia and high torque/driven, energetic package.
And these are all reasons why I’m confident my current rig, once I get it up and running (soon, soon) is still likely to talk to me.
Back in the day I think I used to drive Peter a little crazy declaring high torque and non belt drive as naturally superior based on my limited experience of top belt drives and my puppy like enthusiasm for my rim drive discovery, with the cherry on the cake being it’s affordability (10x cheaper than the first proper big hitter belt drive).
However I’ve gone on to hear a handful of belt drives I like a lot, and quite a few that really don’t communicate to me.
What I’m finding now is that there are certain implementations of both belt and non belt that I seem to value, and need to be in both drivetrains for me to be attracted.
And for me this is high torque and heavy platter.
So on the belt front I’m very much getting on w Kuzma Stabi M and 4XL, and I’m sure I’d have a lot of time for SME 30.
But I’m struggling w Linn LP12, AMG Viella, Nottingham Analog.
What this is telling me is that amongst belt drives it’s heavy platter, high torque motor and unsuspended design that’s appealing to me.
Interestingly it’s these facets that work on non belt drives, ie rim, idler, DD.
And this tentative conclusion is telling me something like the Spec GMP-8000 string drive would be up my street, as well as SME 30.
However, I still feel rim/idler offers some interesting different perspectives on music making in terms of potential advantages in rhythmic propulsion and energy, but maybe at the expense of increased noise flr.
That’s why I’m on the hunt for a particularly interesting idler drive that promises the fascinating combination of heavy platter/high moment of inertia, class leading torque, and interesting choice of platter/plinth materials to control noise to belt drive levels.
But I’m also really open to belt drives that get this heavy platter/high moment of inertia and high torque/driven, energetic package.
And these are all reasons why I’m confident my current rig, once I get it up and running (soon, soon) is still likely to talk to me.
Dear Spirit,
Your view on noise floor of an idler drive is quite contradicting to what I hear from my EMT 927. Even when I take out my grounding cable from the EMT, I find its noise floor surprising low..as low as the AF1 and the Kronos. Amazing actually, given it is 56 years old with just normal cheap cables.
Kind regards,
Tang
Tang, that’s what David tells me too.
The criticism of the old idlers was that they suffered rumble due to powerful motors and zero isoln.
Obv now we know better, and all the refurbs are maxxing isoln of idler noise.
As you’ve achieved in yr 927.
For my part, idler/rim drive just gives me that little bit more magic of performer intent, with music more tangible and driven.
But I fully realise the top belt drives like AF1, Kronos, SME 30 get there too as well.
Here’s the rub.
One has to maybe now go to these levels of superlative engineering and high prices to beat what excellently engineered idlers also achieve at lower cost.
And with my decision now to absolutely go for a superlative new tt/arm if my current rig when set up over time doesn’t fully cut it in my new room, I’m either investing in the best belt drive has to offer ie SME 30/12 not 20, Kronos, TW Black Knight etc, or more likely superbly engineered idler drive which can be had for half the price of these über belt drives.
The criticism of the old idlers was that they suffered rumble due to powerful motors and zero isoln.
Obv now we know better, and all the refurbs are maxxing isoln of idler noise.
As you’ve achieved in yr 927.
For my part, idler/rim drive just gives me that little bit more magic of performer intent, with music more tangible and driven.
But I fully realise the top belt drives like AF1, Kronos, SME 30 get there too as well.
Here’s the rub.
One has to maybe now go to these levels of superlative engineering and high prices to beat what excellently engineered idlers also achieve at lower cost.
And with my decision now to absolutely go for a superlative new tt/arm if my current rig when set up over time doesn’t fully cut it in my new room, I’m either investing in the best belt drive has to offer ie SME 30/12 not 20, Kronos, TW Black Knight etc, or more likely superbly engineered idler drive which can be had for half the price of these über belt drives.
It is one more think that puzzled me in your comparison - IMHO the SME's are not the champions of detail and nuance.
What type of phono unit has your friend? The standard controller of the SP10's is very noisy - could we admit that the glare you perceived was due to noise interaction with your SS XP25?
My SP10 had the original obsidian - it compromised the bass performance of the turntable, but had a full sound. A plinth should be mandatory in order to dissipate the energy created in the DD motor and bearing. You have a point on these custom plinths - they can sound very different and their characteristics can easily change the sound signature of the motor. Very recently I played around with a Garrard 401 and a few plinths and this was one of the reasons I moved away - I understood I risked entering a very time consuming never ending experience.
Tango, you give just one more example of why I do not think that we should rush to form generalizations about drive types when implementation seems so important. I recall some fascinating comments by the designer of the Saskia turntable, whose name I think is Win. I am paraphrasing now, but when he was asked about torque, he implied that knowing about torque is not enough. He wanted to know about platter mass, how the mass was distributed, bearing type and drag, low torque or high torque motor, the type of connection between motor and platter, etc., etc. We are discussing complex systems here and there are many different approaches to solving the same problem of maintaining accurate and consistent speed with low noise. Just claiming that high torque is the answer is not enough, it seems to me.
I really enjoyed Win's contributions to these discussions.
In Peter's system, the SME combo is.
This might explain the differences between the performance of the DD table in Peter's system vs. in David's system at its sonic best.
I recall that according to Steve Dobbins when he built my SP-10 Mk3 plinth, from a pristine Mk3 I found, the Mk3 had so much torque that it was important to remove the stock outer casing of the Mk3 prior to mounting it in the plinth (and mount it 'nude') so the frame and motor assembly would be firmly connected to the plinth mass. otherwise there was a degree of smearing and loss of focus and refinement relative to mounting it with the case. it appears in the photo's of the SP-10 Mk3 in Peter's post that the casework of the Mk3 is still there.
personally I never A/B'd the Mk3's with and without the case, but it could be an issue in a relative sense when you are dealing with a direct comparison. but any difference in solidity would matter with all that torque involved.
Last edited:
Micro, I respect your opinion and I do not know under what conditions you formed your views about the range of SME turntables. I will say, that after directly comparing my SME Model 10A with 9" V arm to my Model 30/12A with the same 9"arm and cartridge, there was quite an improvement in the areas of detail and nuance, particularly in the lower frequencies and in terms of extraction of information probably due to better isolation and vibration/noise management. Then again when I later added the 12" SME V-12 arm and once again when I improved cartridges. In my system, the conclusion I reached is that the 30/12 provides an exceptionally neutral platform and it excels at detail and nuance demonstrated by the degree of information which is extracted from the grooves at the source. That is one reason I take LPs well known to me to audition on other people's turntables and in their systems. This is probably also why Bruce B selected the SME Model 30 for his business. We just seem to have a difference of opinion and perhaps experience regarding SME. That is fine.
David has a full, all in one system from Aurum Acoustics of Canada. The heart of the system is an integrated CDP with preamp and built in phono stage. I am not ready to conclude that the glare that David, Al M. and I all heard from his SP10 in my system is due solely to the noise interaction with my SS XP25. It could very well be, but I would have to isolate that with further experiments and listening to reach that conclusion. Remember, the tonearm, its internal wire, the phono cable and cartridge signal were the same (or at least different samples of the same products) for both turntables going into the XP25. The Technics power supply was plugged into the same Transparent conditioner.
I did think that having the Technics power supply up on the steel ballast plate and thus on the same platform as the unsuspended SP10 might be an issue with vibrations/resonances and noise, so we also listened to the power supply on the rack and thus separated from the turntable by the Vibraplane. Here are photos of both configurations.
Your claim does have me thinking about compatibility though, so it might be worth taking my XP25 phono stage over to David's house to see if we hear the hardness/glare with that combination in his system. That would certainly be easier than my bringing my turntable over there. This is precisely why it is so difficult to reach definitive conclusions about components independent of the system contexts in which we here them.
I should add that David, Al M. and I have all heard the SP10 sound good in David's system with this same arm and cartridge, so that leads me to believe that there is not some issue with a faulty component but rather an inherent character of the SP10 as others have suggested or system compatibility or interaction.
IMHO your SME 30/12A is a really better turntable than my standard SME30/2A - mainly cleaner, showing more detail, and better bass articulation. I have said before the SME 30's are far ahead of the 20's or 10's - forget about the 80's% performance for half the price, they are in different leagues and should not be compared!
My direct comparison was the Continuum Audio Labs Caliburn turntable with the Cobra tonearm - IMHO the best turntable I have listened, I had no access to other super turntables, and I found it clearly more detailed and nuanced than the SME30 - the Continuum Audio Labs system had more air and the details flowed more naturally - a great analog system I would be pleased to own if it was not for the price ... I remember long years ago reading Albert Porter in audiogon stating that changing the power cable of the motor of his turntable - I think that time it was not an SP10 - for an expensive power cable completely changed the sound of his whole system. At that time I smiled and considered it was not possible. Not anymore! I have the same type of Transparent conditioners in my system - can I assume you connected both the phono preamplifier and the controller to the same PowerIsolator MM?
It would be a great experience.
So, from Albert Porter's audiogon page - he replaced his Walker Proscenium as you all must know. "After all the listening everyone in my group bought a Technics MK2 or MK3, replacing VPI TNT, Kuzma Stabi XL, and two Walker Proscenium Black Diamond rigs." So is there a big difference between these and SME 30/12, people on listeing to that system seem to be preferring DDs.
Separately, these are Mik's comments on SME 30/12, 30/2 and 20/12 http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...ICE-SME-20-12-OR-SME-30-2&p=437537#post437537
Separately, these are Mik's comments on SME 30/12, 30/2 and 20/12 http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...ICE-SME-20-12-OR-SME-30-2&p=437537#post437537
I think another thing to consider is the synergy with Peter's Magico/Pass system. The SME has a reputation to be a much more laid back, golden-sounding rig and the two designs couldn't be more different. This may also be why the same folks didn't hear this harshness in David's system.
I've heard Albert Porters system and can't say I noticed any glare or harshness on his SP10mk3 - he also uses tubes throughout the chain with his Focals, so a considerably different setup.
But its tough to do comparisons like this with TTs - so it was a fun read.
I've heard Albert Porters system and can't say I noticed any glare or harshness on his SP10mk3 - he also uses tubes throughout the chain with his Focals, so a considerably different setup.
But its tough to do comparisons like this with TTs - so it was a fun read.
Who else has all the SME, techdas, kodo, airtangent, so many Dalby, Mook, etc clamps which he seems to have posted about here
Keith, I’ve often thought about this.
We evolve our sound preferences in different ways, choose gear and gear directions that “speak” to us in a certain way.
And then fashion our system moulding to enhance or counterbalance those directions.
So Peter has gone for maybe a slightly warmer, more naturally fluid sound w his SME 30, that works well with a more revealing SS amp/neutral spkr.
Albert has gone for a more forensic, detail mining SP10 Mk3, that works well counterbalanced by a warmer, more forgiving tube amp chain.
I my case, I’ve got a very full blooded, tonally dense sound, and the last thing I need is a woolly sounding belt drive, or something overly romantic. I’m best off with my fast, dynamic, start/stop rim drive/air arm.
I’m not sure if Peter’s SP10 v SME comparisons will tell him much as a result.
We evolve our sound preferences in different ways, choose gear and gear directions that “speak” to us in a certain way.
And then fashion our system moulding to enhance or counterbalance those directions.
So Peter has gone for maybe a slightly warmer, more naturally fluid sound w his SME 30, that works well with a more revealing SS amp/neutral spkr.
Albert has gone for a more forensic, detail mining SP10 Mk3, that works well counterbalanced by a warmer, more forgiving tube amp chain.
I my case, I’ve got a very full blooded, tonally dense sound, and the last thing I need is a woolly sounding belt drive, or something overly romantic. I’m best off with my fast, dynamic, start/stop rim drive/air arm.
I’m not sure if Peter’s SP10 v SME comparisons will tell him much as a result.
I am not convinced that Technics had the best technology with regard to either motors or speed control from the classic Japanese decks. All of the issues that Peter describes with the SP10 simply are not there with my Yamaha GT-2000, which does three things differently from the Technics. 1) The motor is coreless and on the SP10mk3 I don't think it was, so you have potential cogging and torque ripple issues, 2) It uses a bi-directional servo, developed by JVC, that eliminated the hunting you are referring to and 3) They used a high mass platter (6Kg) to give rotational inertial stability in addition to the superior servo control. Kenwood had a similar approach (better motor even) with the L07-D.
I don't have any glare or etch and in fact a lot of people who have heard my analog cannot believe how clear and transparent and natural the sound is...particularly when you consider I use an inexpensive cartridge.
I have not heard the SP10 mK3 (only a MkI and various DJ SP-1200s) but in the lesser models from Technics I have heard similar sounds to what Peter describes.
If I was going to go with a vintage Japanese table I would look into the ones with the most advanced control systems and motors of that time:
Exclusive P3
Yamaha GT-2000 and 2000X
JVC- TT101 (replinthed into something better as it was a broadcast motor)
Kenwood L07-D (with Mu-metal bonded to the bottom of hte platter so that the magnetic levitation system doesn't interfere with the cartridge...slight mod to take it to the level it deserves)
Denon 308 broadcast TT, Also, DP75M and DP6000/5000 drives can be very good.
Nakamichi TX-1000 and Dragon (both were sophisticated in different ways and have good motors/arms)
Kenwood KP9010 and others with CLFS system (for low budget money)
Goldmund Studio (JVC motor, good , control system unknown...)
Actually all of these are low budget money compared to a lot of modern high end tables. I personally have always thought the Technics tables were somewhat overrated.
However, a friend of mine had a SME 20/2 (I think that was the model) with long arm (312 I think) and we noted that its speed was not particularly stable, it was running slow at first, we adjusted it then when a record was playing it visibly was fluctuating (with Allnic Speednic that I have).
Bottom line is that there were a lot of DD turntables made that are not really worthy but some are and some are hyped but turn out to be flawed...perhaps the SP10 Mk3 is one of those...it is claimed to be one of the best but I am not sure based on what. I know though that the Yamaha GT-2000 sounds dynamic, authortiative, flowing and utterly transparent. I hear maximum contrast in my recordings...without aggression or fatigue (I can listen hours and hours without feeling the least bit tired). Another friend has a Luxman DD (PD-444) that was engineered by Micro...it is not as good as the Yammy...he also had lesser technics and Denons...not the same planet really. The KP990 and 9010 are a really good value at < $1000 and I don't hear the problems with them that is described here about the SP10mK3. Coreless, slotless motors and advanced servo will help a lot there.
I am intrigued by Peters’s well written observation
As an owner of 4 DD I have not heard what he describes but I have a sp10 2 not 3
My plinths have been jarrah, and acrylic and aluminium
I was fascinated by Michael L comment about removing the casing as I myself have found the vibration of the casing is an issue
I chose to ground it, rather than remove it
The issue could be investigated by Chladni plate analysis, which is something I am considering currently
I agree with others the issue of finding the right plinth for your tastes is a reason to back off buying many after market plinths unless u can try at home
I am interested in the idea after Dohrmann of tuning plinths via Chladni plates
As an owner of 4 DD I have not heard what he describes but I have a sp10 2 not 3
My plinths have been jarrah, and acrylic and aluminium
I was fascinated by Michael L comment about removing the casing as I myself have found the vibration of the casing is an issue
I chose to ground it, rather than remove it
The issue could be investigated by Chladni plate analysis, which is something I am considering currently
I agree with others the issue of finding the right plinth for your tastes is a reason to back off buying many after market plinths unless u can try at home
I am interested in the idea after Dohrmann of tuning plinths via Chladni plates
