A Direct Comparison: Technics SP10 Mk3 and SME Model 30/12A

[PeterA]

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.

Well Marc, this is one of the questions I posed in the OP. What do such direct comparisons actually tell us? What do they not tell us? I posted my impressions about comparing these two tables because such comparisons are rarely done with turntables, and rarely so directly in one's own system. It is not my intention to reach specific conclusions about the SP10 in general, nor is this about the sound of that table in other systems. I am also not claiming greatness for the SME or presuming how it would compare to other tables, some very fancy like the Continuum. (Although I welcome any increased level of discussion about SME in these pages). It is simply about the sharing with fellow members my impressions of a fascinating five days with my friend's table in my system and the exercise of critical listening over that period. I am curious about what such an exercise can tell us. What conclusions can we actually reach? What limitations prevent us from extrapolating further?

I am fascinated by the comments that the SME is warm and thus balances my Pass/Magico combination. I would love to hear the SME in Madfloyd's system and compare it to his Kronos in his ultra revealing system. That would certainly tell me something more about this table. Moving it, and switching arms and cartridges is another matter. And I would want to take the Vibraplane and compressor too. Imagine the hassle, but it would make for a really interesting experiment and followup thread.

It is an incredible hobby with so many room, component and system complexities, that it is a wonder we every reach certitude about anything outside of the specific room/system and recording context in which we hear things.

 

[bonzo75]

Well Marc, this is one of the questions I posed in the OP. What do such direct comparisons actually tell us? What do they not tell us? I posted my impressions about comparing these two tables because such comparisons are rarely done with turntables, and rarely so directly in one's own system. It is not my intention to reach specific conclusions about the SP10 in general, nor is this about the sound of that table in other systems. I am also not claiming greatness for the SME or presuming how it would compare to other tables, some very fancy like the Continuum. (Although I welcome any increased level of discussion about SME in these pages). It is simply about the sharing with fellow members my impressions of a fascinating five days with my friend's table in my system and the exercise of critical listening over that period. I am curious about what such an exercise can tell us. What conclusions can we actually reach? What limitations prevent us from extrapolating further?

I am fascinated by the comments that the SME is warm and thus balances my Pass/Magico combination. I would love to hear the SME in Madfloyd's system and compare it to his Kronos in his ultra revealing system. That would certainly tell me something more about this table. Moving it, and switching arms and cartridges is another matter. And I would want to take the Vibraplane and compressor too. Imagine the hassle, but it would make for a really interesting experiment and followup thread.

It is an incredible hobby with so many room, component and system complexities, that it is a wonder we every reach certitude about anything outside of the specific room/system and recording context in which we hear things.

Hi Peter, this is a very good compare that serves as a great data point. So, as Steve suggested if this compare could be repeated at David's, or either the same compare at yours but a different arm on technics or a phono give same or different results, we can check fro consistence. As mentioned, guyser said that the SME V arm gave similar results on his Technics and he had to change it. Now, while Albert might not agree, I think if I got a Sp10, I would be careful of using an SME V and might try some other arm.

 

[PeterA]

That could be...there have been reports that the SME arms are not so compatible with all kinds of TTs.

I'm sure this is the case. However, in this particular instance, the SME V-12, with AirTight Supreme, was Albert Porter's reference for years on his panzerholtz plinth SP10 mk3. There are numerous reports from many people who have heard his system that this combination made for a very effective vinyl source. I have not heard his system, but others, included members here, think it is excellent.

Also, there are many different SME arms. I know from another direct comparison I made in my system that the 12" V-12 is considerably better than the 9" V. And ddk uses the multiple copies of the SME 3012R on each one of his tables different tables. I suspect like with most tonearms, they sound different on different arm boards and tables and with different cartridges. And this makes sense if their goal is to not impart too much of their own sound/character on the system.

 

[bonzo75]

I'm sure this is the case. However, in this particular instance, the SME V-12, with AirTight Supreme, was Albert Porter's reference for years on his panzerholtz plinth SP10 mk3. There are numerous reports from many people who have heard his system that this combination made for a very effective vinyl source. I have not heard his system, but others, included members here, think it is excellent.

Also, there are many different SME arms. I know from another direct comparison I made in my system that the 12" V-12 is considerably better than the 9" V. And ddk uses the multiple copies of the SME 3012R on each one of his tables different tables. I suspect like with most tonearms, they sound different on different arm boards and tables and with different cartridges. And this makes sense if their goal is to not impart too much of their own sound/character on the system.

There are those who swear by the series 1 3012 knife edge but don't like the modern ones. So I assume they must have different sound characteristics.

 

[bonzo75]

Btw, if anyone has negative experiences with any of the many after market mods or plinths, please PM

 

[PeterA]

There are those who swear by the series 1 3012 knife edge but don't like the modern ones. So I assume they must have different sound characteristics.

Yes, I would think they do. I have spoken to people who prefer the 3012 to the V, but I do not know of anyone who has directly compared the 3012 to the V-12 besides your friend Mik. I suppose the engineers at SME have their opinions too. My intent was to make this comparison as direct as possible so we used the same model tone arm. My friend also has a Durand Talea and a vintage arm, though I can't remember the brand. Perhaps one of those would sound better. Remember, David enjoys the sound of this combination in his system. My focus is on how these two turntables sound in my system.

 

[bonzo75]

Yes, I would think they do. I have spoken to people who prefer the 3012 to the V, but I do not know of anyone who has directly compared the 3012 to the V-12 besides your friend Mik. I suppose the engineers at SME have their opinions too. My intent was to make this comparison as direct as possible so we used the same model tone arm. My friend also has a Durand Talea and a vintage arm, though I can't remember the brand. Perhaps one of those would sound better. Remember, David enjoys the sound of this combination in his system. My focus is on how these two turntables sound in my system.

Yes I understand. My point was that comparison should be done with the same variables as you did, then by changing variables

 

[microstrip]

What does "non-audible" minimization of cogging mean to you? If we can hear down to picoseconds in jitter, what makes you think residual micro speed fluctuations in analog are not audible?

Don't start adding alternative definitions to something that is clearly defined. Yes, there are tricks that can be done with electrical commutation to minimize the effects but the reality is physics and attraction/repulsion from the poles of an iron core motor causes torque and speed variation. The physics is not exactly the same between a core and coreless motor.

Your motor example might have felt smooth but if it was a cored motor it still had cogging.

"Absence of cogging (torque ripple) is another benefit critical for many applications.* In a conventional cored motor the rotor has a tendency to assume a certain position due to the uneven reluctance of the slot wound laminated iron rotor. Because the ironless motors have no core, the torque is more evenly distributed during any position of the rotor. The rotor can be positioned more accurately and the motion at low speed is much smoother."

"These factors bring some distinct advantages over a conventional iron core motor.
No cogging torque and smooth rotation even at low speeds
Low vibration and low noise operation
Linear speed/torque characteristic’s so the motor speed and torque is easily controlled
Efficiency. The motors are highly efficient at 90%. The motor does not have to break down the magnetic fields. The winding can almost fill the air gap between the magnet and its magnetic return
As the motors don’t have an iron core, the coil and the magnetic field of the stator is not affected by saturation effects in the magnetic field. This means stronger, more powerful magnets can be used. Many of the ironless rotor motors are using rare earth magnets to maximise performance and size
The motor winding has a very low inertia as there is no iron core to accelerate. The motor can accelerate and decelerate to full speed in milliseconds, offering very high speed performance."

THese are from current news articles and motor vendors, which make both types of motor, and show clearly that the advantages of which I speak are not some fantasy imagined. Compensate all you want but to truly eliminate cogging and torque ripple the motor has to be coreless.

Impossible to debate such matters without going in the basic physics. Please go on quoting " When to choose an ironless DC motor" without any relation to what I said. But yes, I am out of arguments when people want to avoid the basics they ignore (in this case electromagnetism) calling it "alternative definitions" , preferring their audiophile dogmas. So I am out, and probably it is not an interesting debate.

Surely compensation never achieves zero, but when we reach a level comparable, for example, to variations due to bearing characteristics, IMHO we can consider it as "eliminated". FYI, compensation is achieved injecting currents in the coils.

Nice to know you can "truly eliminate" torque ripple - even the best manufacturers such as Thin Gap, that manufacture the SOTA coreless motors of the VPI and Continuum Audio modestly state "that torque ripple effects are significantly reduced by our unique ironless design".

 

[spiritofmusic]

Can we bring the subject around to what I consider the nub of the matter.
Is belt drive v DD or idler too simplistic a comparison? Does it totally depend on implementation? And if DD has any objective superiority re speed stability and accuracy, does this mean nothing if the method it achieves it introduces more variables than belt drive?
Another way of asking, is if Peter’s SME 30 is as accurate speed wise as a Kodo Beat or an SP10, why bother going DD at all?

 

[microstrip]

(...) Another way of asking, is if Peter’s SME 30 is as accurate speed wise as a Kodo Beat or an SP10, why bother going DD at all?

No belt drive can be as accurate as a DD with quartz lock, but IMHO it simply does not matter. Do not try to rationalize, follow your heart and enjoy!

 

[rockitman]

it is a wonder we ever reach certitude about anything outside of the specific room/system and recording context in which we hear things.

I think you hit it on the head Peter with this statement....

 

[Solypsa]

...People should remember the famous VMS66 and VMS70 Newmann lathes, that cut most of their precious Decca's recordings, used a Technics direct drive motor with large cores...

I owned a VMS70 and I can say that most ran wishing they had the Technics SP02 (JVC also made one) as they were very rare. Mine made do with the iron two man to move brick of a Lyrec (iirc) motor as did most.

 

[morricab]

Can we bring the subject around to what I consider the nub of the matter.
Is belt drive v DD or idler too simplistic a comparison? Does it totally depend on implementation? And if DD has any objective superiority re speed stability and accuracy, does this mean nothing if the method it achieves it introduces more variables than belt drive?
Another way of asking, is if Peter’s SME 30 is as accurate speed wise as a Kodo Beat or an SP10, why bother going DD at all?

The answer, as always, is complicated. On a macro level a DD with quartz lock is more accurate but on has to also look on the micro level. On that level the speed control details and motor choice matter for moment to moment speed changes. Early and/or cheap implementations with simplistic control and low inertia resulted in nervous hunting in addition to inadequate motors that had cogging.

Last gen high end implementation found tables with coreless and/or slotless (or motors with 140 or more slots like one from Teac) motors, sophisticated bi-directional speed control (no more hunting) AND high mass platters that allowed less of a death grip from the servo.

Belt drive as generally implemented is sloppier and rarely speed locked to a frequency generator. SMEs have only manually adjustable speed (just an example). However running a motor at higher speed is generally easier to get a smoother more stable output. However to get the very best from BD requires just as good a motor as a good DD. Ask the guys who made the Caliburn...I did and they told me the motor and controller cost them $8k!! Their cost. It was coreless and slotless I believe and sinusoidslly commutated. Very sophisticated.

 

[spiritofmusic]

I find it fascinating that a newer breed of DDs are not relying on high torque, but low/medium torque, maybe putting less challenging pressure on motor demands.
The Monaco is one.
There’s also a new DD, the Primary Control Kinea. It relies on a coreless, brushless motor that minimises clogging, gets up to speed at high torque, and settles into “cruise mode” at lower torque.
Bernd Hemmen the designer feels the need for high torque to maintain solid accurate speed (esp where combatting stylus drag is the aim) is not needed - bearing friction in tts is greater than any stylus drag that might be encountered.

 

[XV-1]

Interesting thread.

I have owned the Pioneer Exclusive P3 for quite a while and recently a SP10mk3 with mk3 plinth etc. I can't say I hear any hardness or mechanical haze with either of my vintage DD tables unless its in the recording. I am not disputing what Peter heard, as I am sure it is what he heard.

The first thing I noticed on Peter's photo of the SP10mk3 is that the Micro Seiki CU180 is on the platter upside down - that alone may been the root cause what Peter heard. The cu180 gun metal platter goes the other way and it makes is a perfect fit, like a glove that is just over the top of the platter. It is bloody hard to remove after you have set it down as it's such a snug fit.

The trouble is with anything as high end as Peter's system and the equipment, just plonking down a piece of equipment generally does not automatically give you the WOW moment - it takes quite a bit of work. Peter's system will have been painstakingly voiced around his SME table. yes, the Technics does have more detail, but it also has more leading edge attack and instruments don't hold onto the notes as long as BD tables.

Both DD and BD can both sound superb when tweaked in your system - you choose your flavour and enjoy

 

[guyser]

Here in the UK, I represent another German manufacturer, STST, who also manufactures a 'relatively' low torque DD design (Motus II) which also incorporates a full 3 point suspension system.
Personally I think it's an approach that has some merit. I also use a couple of SP10 Mk2s but have found that with those, the arm & cartridge choice has to be made very carefully to ameliorate (hide!) what I suspect are the audible side effects of Technics motor control.

 

[spiritofmusic]

In my semi fruitless search for a potential final tt, I’m up against a few fundamental issues in the UK.
First, there’s no way to audition an SME 30/12, and there are real problems getting a Kuzma Stabi M w 4 Point to demo.
Yes, the UK might as well be the Third World when it comes to demos.
I can’t stretch to the Kronos Pro or AF1, and I’m not going to settle on models down the line (no AF2 or 3, SME 20 etc).
The Monaco is only at dealers I’d rather not give my hard earned to.
And the Spec Corp Jp GMP-8000 is rare as hens’ teeth in Europe let alone non existent in the UK.
—
On the flip side, there are some fascinating DDs and idlers that I can hear in Europe at the home of their designers, and with my evolution away from belt drive, this really feels like my future direction may well be a fascinating DD from NL or a ground breaking idler from Italy.

 

[morricab]

I find it fascinating that a newer breed of DDs are not relying on high torque, but low/medium torque, maybe putting less challenging pressure on motor demands.
The Monaco is one.
There’s also a new DD, the Primary Control Kinea. It relies on a coreless, brushless motor that minimises clogging, gets up to speed at high torque, and settles into “cruise mode” at lower torque.
Bernd Hemmen the designer feels the need for high torque to maintain solid accurate speed (esp where combatting stylus drag is the aim) is not needed - bearing friction in tts is greater than any stylus drag that might be encountered.

I am wondering what they are using for the speed control; optical encoder? Tachiometer? something else? I still haven't found out how JVC executed their bi-directional servo but they seem to be the only ones who did it (a couple of other companies at that time like Yamaha and Kenwood adopted it as well). It seems to have taken the control to another level of precision.

 

[morricab]

Interesting thread.

I have owned the Pioneer Exclusive P3 for quite a while and recently a SP10mk3 with mk3 plinth etc. I can't say I hear any hardness or mechanical haze with either of my vintage DD tables unless its in the recording. I am not disputing what Peter heard, as I am sure it is what he heard.

The first thing I noticed on Peter's photo of the SP10mk3 is that the Micro Seiki CU180 is on the platter upside down - that alone may been the root cause what Peter heard. The cu180 gun metal platter goes the other way and it makes is a perfect fit, like a glove that is just over the top of the platter. It is bloody hard to remove after you have set it down as it's such a snug fit.

The trouble is with anything as high end as Peter's system and the equipment, just plonking down a piece of equipment generally does not automatically give you the WOW moment - it takes quite a bit of work. Peter's system will have been painstakingly voiced around his SME table. yes, the Technics does have more detail, but it also has more leading edge attack and instruments don't hold onto the notes as long as BD tables.

Both DD and BD can both sound superb when tweaked in your system - you choose your flavour and enjoy


View attachment 36756

Beautiful machines...

 

[morricab]

As to needle drag...I have seen this occurring with the Allnic Speednic on some TTs as you can watch the speed as you play a record.