Sorry guys, but that ad is a scam. That turntable belongs to someone in Florida.
A Direct Comparison: Technics SP10 Mk3 and SME Model 30/12A
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
Sorry guys, but that ad is a scam. That turntable belongs to someone in Florida.
JT is dead right--do NOT deal with Audiomarkte.de I was scammed 1700€ on a Tonearm by a Crook and his Rogue Bank in Poland.
The scammer/ AudioMarkte/Local police/Interpol/ the Bank
All no replies or could'nt give a Rats-- Avoid
BruceD
Hi Peter,
Hello (in alphabetical order only) Bonzo 75, Scott Brown, Guyser, Microstrip, Morricab, SpiritofMusic and XV-1,
I am the co-conspirator with Peter in this endeavor, having provided the SP10 Mk3 TT discussed in this thread. Part of me wanted to weigh in earlier in this process, but I'm glad I didn't. First, the thread seems to have largely run its course, which affords me the opportunity to learn from 12 pages of responses. Second, from this vantage point in the discussion, I can see how the thread has been treated and perhaps opine usefully upon places where we may have diverged from Peter's well framed inquiry.
May I comment, first, upon Peter's unusual combination of dedication, intellectual integrity, passion, excellent writing skills, and effort to bring to this forum as scientifically balanced and methodologically transparent an approach as is practical under real world circumstances. Further validating Peter's efforts is the coincidental fact that real world circumstances are exactly those under which every one of us listens to music, whether at home or in concert. Wherever we listen, the variables of listening are at the affect of our surroundings, our psyches, ears, systems and personal preferences. Anyone discounting these factors cannot offer --in my not-so-humble opinion (on this matter in particular: I try harder on other aspects of audio-related discernment and discussion)-- cannot bring a balanced opinion to the table. That does not, however, mean their observations are not worthy to consider; it simply means to me that, as with audio and other arenas of inquiry, allowance(s) must be made for the poster's perspective. That the reader must deduce or infer a poster's bias for her- or himself is simply one of the skillsets requisite for an adept and productive use of the forum format. This, too, in my experience, is a milieu in which Peter excels: his questions are not only well thought out, his responses to this and other threads are exemplary for their even-handedness which derives from a genuine desire to learn as distinct from the need to be heard or to impress (to which I have fallen victim more than once).
If I may phrase it this way, our approach in setting ourselves this challenge was to create a real-world comparison between two turntables, the Technics Mk3, that is oft mentioned (and vaunted, rightfully or not) in audio forums, and the SME 30/12 that is neither as well known nor as frequently discussed.
Several things come to mind that I hope will add to this discussion. After reading the responses to date, I find some criticism of the method, but the questions surrounding these objections don't bring much useful insight to the inquiry. The best exception is XV-1's insightful catch that the Micro Seiki platter mat is installed upside down in the Mk3. Thank you very much for noting that. Few if any other readers questioned what specific differences might contribute to the different listening experiences experienced in the two systems mentioned. Part of this may well derive from the limited exposure people have had to the Aurum Acoustics system. That is, however, not as important as it might be, specifically because variables were quite limited. Nonetheless it is worthwhile to mention that while Peter uses a polished steel plate to pre-load his Vibraplane, I use a composite stone slab from a laboratory anti-vibration stand. These must, defacto, have different sound characteristics if you believe as I do that "everything matters" in a listening room, as Derrick Moss, designer of the Aurum gear asserts. Furthermore the Mk3 table is supported on four Stillpoints which may, or may not, interface differently with the aforementioned pre- loading materials. One thing Peter didn't recall is that the Mk3 is of Asian specification, which necessitates use of current modification to derive 100 volts from the US standard 110 volt linefeed. This is unavoidable, but the use of a voltage transformer introduces yet another variable to the equation. To address further the possible differences in just the front end of this comparison, I use a silver tonearm cable with the Mk3 in my home system while Peter's cable is high purity copper. Of course there are the other variables of listening room, room treatment, power supply, electronics and setup. Peter and I both have Vibraplanes under our amplifier(s), preamp and turntable, and our room treatment shares some of the same components.
It may be helpful to describe the reasons for which I selected my analog front end. After listening to Peter's system, and specifically his carefully implemented transition from the SME 10 to the 30/12, by way of first using the 9" SME arm from the smaller table on the 30/12, I determined to my own satisfaction the strong superiority of the 12" arm over the 9" SME. From this learning, I consulted with Albert Porter who was using equipment similar to mine: tube gear (VTL750s, now replaced with Allnic M5000 monoblocks) and full range unvented, cone driver speakers (since supplanted by Focal Utopias) with his Mk3, in the same plinth used in our comparison. Through heuristic experimentation, Albert had determined that the SME V-12 and AirTight PC1 Supreme were a complimentary choice for his gear at that time. This was confirmed by most if not all members of his weekly listening group. The similarity in typology of electronics and the complementarity of the SME arm/cartridge combination was certainly a factor in my selection of the Mk3 / SME combination. Of course Albert's system and mine are not comparable; it was their fundamental similarities that suggested the TT combination might be a good match.
One other way I might mention Peter's approach to system setup and mine are similar is that we each had Jim Smith perform a Room Play session on our rooms. I mention this only insofar as we each learned what a professional would do to draw the most from our individual room-gear interface. Unlike some audiofolk --another opinionated moment disclaimer-- I feel strongly that our systems are no better than their setup allows them to use the listening space to best advantage. Very few of the listeners I know pay what I consider sufficient attention to this option for optimizing system perform
Many of the responses to this thread have been helpful. Beyond XV-1's observing the incorrectly installed copper platter mat, which I greatly appreciate, I want to address others' comments.
Bonzo75, thank you for encouraging Peter to post this thread. Your suggestion that Alber Porter select another arm has been treated above. Interestingly, Albert has moved on from the SME, having determined that his new cartridges, the AirTight Opus and the Alnic Puritas are better served by a 14" arm. I feel that Peter's work has provided an uncommon, and exceptionally useful chance for a fairly scientific comparison of two different, well thought of turntables, one new and one vintage, in the same system. To the other posters who have, albeit complimentarily said "nice thread" or "interesting post", I feel that is not sufficient acknowledgment for the time and car Peter has brought to light in this comparison.
Guyser, though the armboard material was a constant, you might wish to know that Albert Porter uses the same material, Panzerholz, for the armboard as for the bulk of the plinth's body. I do not know what metal SME employs for their armboard.
Microstrip and Morriscab went back and forth about cogging: thank you for what clarity you brought to our understanding of this issue. I would simply say that Technics' engineers were clearly aware of cogging as a phenomenon when they specified the coreless design motor for the Mk3. This table was the culmination of thousands of hours of research development and feedback on industrial TT design and problem solving, the likes of which have seldom been matched. The Mk3 was their statement achievement, the best their experience and electronics of the era could create. I find it difficult to believe those engineers, with demonic dedication and few financial constraints, would select a motor without factoring in, and as effectively as possible defeating or working around, its shortcomings as an integral part of their design. My scientific background is limited to materials, rather than functional implementation: I'm not able to comment intelligently on methods to forestall cogging, but feel comfortable in my belief that Technics' engineers certainly knew of it, defined it to their satisfaction (the laws of physics pertinent to the Mk3's design haven't changed since that time), and did everything possible at the time to minimize its effect on the Mk3's sound using their prodigious resources of research, experience and experimentation. This is not to say cogging is not a factor in the Mk3's sound. It is, however, intended to encompass the speed stability tests we applied to the Mk3, in which Peter's digital speed measuring device, showed a rock-solid, unmoving mark on a wall a full (10) feet away (!) from the TT.
Spirit of Music queries, very much in the spirit of the intention of this thread, whether DD or DB typology is too coarse a distinction for our level of systems? Yes, in my opinion and experience it is, for exactly the reason implied in his second, perceptive question that mirrors Peter's thinking: does the sonic result depend more upon implementation than upon the type of design? Yes, again. This is where I believe this thread is at its most effective: the comparison Peter and I conducted has highlighted two things. First, you can't usefully compare air conditioners and dehumidifiers. The two tables are very different, and our systems were selected to some degree to showcase these tables to their best effect. When you think about it from that perspective, ie deductively instead of inductively, how could the outcome have been any different? Peter selected his Pass electronics with great deliberation over many years to maximize resolution and as close a similacrum to live music (which he hears often as a reference). I, by contrast, chose my gear with the intention of having what I consider "Musical" sound. Second, I greatly admire the way Peter's system sounds and how far he has brought it over the years. I also like the sound of my system, though it has shortcomings that I can't at present afford to address to my satisfaction, insofar as I am 'addicted to best' when it comes to more than audio (read c-a-r-s) and have limited spending resources.
Our test was flawed in another specific way that Steve Williams identified (the first response to the thread) and addressed immediately, namely whether we had evaluated Peter's SME table in my system. We didn't, and that would definitely have been both fun and informative as well as providing more scientific and more balanced 'data points'. Per the above, I couldn't afford to hear the 30/12 in my system and then have to sell off my Technics to purchase a 30/12, had we come to similar conclusions listening to my system as we did listening to his. Though taking the Mk3 to Peters was no cakewalk, it would have been even more of an undertaking to move the SME 30/12 to my listening room.
Each of the contributors above added greatly to our --or my-- learning from this experiment. In my humble opinion this represents the best that these forums offer, namely the opportunity to share experience and expertise. It is left to us to tease from the fabric of these discussions those strands that best illuminate the strengths and shortcomings of our hypotheses, and how those light the way to our next steps.
I thank each of you --mostly for wading through my unending twaddle-- but even more for bringing to the table your unique blend of experience, opinion and insight. I feel confident that my system will, sooner or later, greatly benefit from this discussion and from the comments each of you has shared so earnestly. Thank you.
Hello (in alphabetical order only) Bonzo 75, Scott Brown, Guyser, Microstrip, Morricab, SpiritofMusic and XV-1,
I am the co-conspirator with Peter in this endeavor, having provided the SP10 Mk3 TT discussed in this thread. Part of me wanted to weigh in earlier in this process, but I'm glad I didn't. First, the thread seems to have largely run its course, which affords me the opportunity to learn from 12 pages of responses. Second, from this vantage point in the discussion, I can see how the thread has been treated and perhaps opine usefully upon places where we may have diverged from Peter's well framed inquiry.
May I comment, first, upon Peter's unusual combination of dedication, intellectual integrity, passion, excellent writing skills, and effort to bring to this forum as scientifically balanced and methodologically transparent an approach as is practical under real world circumstances. Further validating Peter's efforts is the coincidental fact that real world circumstances are exactly those under which every one of us listens to music, whether at home or in concert. Wherever we listen, the variables of listening are at the affect of our surroundings, our psyches, ears, systems and personal preferences. Anyone discounting these factors cannot offer --in my not-so-humble opinion (on this matter in particular: I try harder on other aspects of audio-related discernment and discussion)-- cannot bring a balanced opinion to the table. That does not, however, mean their observations are not worthy to consider; it simply means to me that, as with audio and other arenas of inquiry, allowance(s) must be made for the poster's perspective. That the reader must deduce or infer a poster's bias for her- or himself is simply one of the skillsets requisite for an adept and productive use of the forum format. This, too, in my experience, is a milieu in which Peter excels: his questions are not only well thought out, his responses to this and other threads are exemplary for their even-handedness which derives from a genuine desire to learn as distinct from the need to be heard or to impress (to which I have fallen victim more than once).
If I may phrase it this way, our approach in setting ourselves this challenge was to create a real-world comparison between two turntables, the Technics Mk3, that is oft mentioned (and vaunted, rightfully or not) in audio forums, and the SME 30/12 that is neither as well known nor as frequently discussed.
Several things come to mind that I hope will add to this discussion. After reading the responses to date, I find some criticism of the method, but the questions surrounding these objections don't bring much useful insight to the inquiry. The best exception is XV-1's insightful catch that the Micro Seiki platter mat is installed upside down in the Mk3. Thank you very much for noting that. Few if any other readers questioned what specific differences might contribute to the different listening experiences experienced in the two systems mentioned. Part of this may well derive from the limited exposure people have had to the Aurum Acoustics system. That is, however, not as important as it might be, specifically because variables were quite limited. Nonetheless it is worthwhile to mention that while Peter uses a polished steel plate to pre-load his Vibraplane, I use a composite stone slab from a laboratory anti-vibration stand. These must, defacto, have different sound characteristics if you believe as I do that "everything matters" in a listening room, as Derrick Moss, designer of the Aurum gear asserts. Furthermore the Mk3 table is supported on four Stillpoints which may, or may not, interface differently with the aforementioned pre- loading materials. One thing Peter didn't recall is that the Mk3 is of Asian specification, which necessitates use of current modification to derive 100 volts from the US standard 110 volt linefeed. This is unavoidable, but the use of a voltage transformer introduces yet another variable to the equation. To address further the possible differences in just the front end of this comparison, I use a silver tonearm cable with the Mk3 in my home system while Peter's cable is high purity copper. Of course there are the other variables of listening room, room treatment, power supply, electronics and setup. Peter and I both have Vibraplanes under our amplifier(s), preamp and turntable, and our room treatment shares some of the same components.
It may be helpful to describe the reasons for which I selected my analog front end. After listening to Peter's system, and specifically his carefully implemented transition from the SME 10 to the 30/12, by way of first using the 9" SME arm from the smaller table on the 30/12, I determined to my own satisfaction the strong superiority of the 12" arm over the 9" SME. From this learning, I consulted with Albert Porter who was using equipment similar to mine: tube gear (VTL750s, now replaced with Allnic M5000 monoblocks) and full range unvented, cone driver speakers (since supplanted by Focal Utopias) with his Mk3, in the same plinth used in our comparison. Through heuristic experimentation, Albert had determined that the SME V-12 and AirTight PC1 Supreme were a complimentary choice for his gear at that time. This was confirmed by most if not all members of his weekly listening group. The similarity in typology of electronics and the complementarity of the SME arm/cartridge combination was certainly a factor in my selection of the Mk3 / SME combination. Of course Albert's system and mine are not comparable; it was their fundamental similarities that suggested the TT combination might be a good match.
One other way I might mention Peter's approach to system setup and mine are similar is that we each had Jim Smith perform a Room Play session on our rooms. I mention this only insofar as we each learned what a professional would do to draw the most from our individual room-gear interface. Unlike some audiofolk --another opinionated moment disclaimer-- I feel strongly that our systems are no better than their setup allows them to use the listening space to best advantage. Very few of the listeners I know pay what I consider sufficient attention to this option for optimizing system perform
Many of the responses to this thread have been helpful. Beyond XV-1's observing the incorrectly installed copper platter mat, which I greatly appreciate, I want to address others' comments.
Bonzo75, thank you for encouraging Peter to post this thread. Your suggestion that Alber Porter select another arm has been treated above. Interestingly, Albert has moved on from the SME, having determined that his new cartridges, the AirTight Opus and the Alnic Puritas are better served by a 14" arm. I feel that Peter's work has provided an uncommon, and exceptionally useful chance for a fairly scientific comparison of two different, well thought of turntables, one new and one vintage, in the same system. To the other posters who have, albeit complimentarily said "nice thread" or "interesting post", I feel that is not sufficient acknowledgment for the time and car Peter has brought to light in this comparison.
Guyser, though the armboard material was a constant, you might wish to know that Albert Porter uses the same material, Panzerholz, for the armboard as for the bulk of the plinth's body. I do not know what metal SME employs for their armboard.
Microstrip and Morriscab went back and forth about cogging: thank you for what clarity you brought to our understanding of this issue. I would simply say that Technics' engineers were clearly aware of cogging as a phenomenon when they specified the coreless design motor for the Mk3. This table was the culmination of thousands of hours of research development and feedback on industrial TT design and problem solving, the likes of which have seldom been matched. The Mk3 was their statement achievement, the best their experience and electronics of the era could create. I find it difficult to believe those engineers, with demonic dedication and few financial constraints, would select a motor without factoring in, and as effectively as possible defeating or working around, its shortcomings as an integral part of their design. My scientific background is limited to materials, rather than functional implementation: I'm not able to comment intelligently on methods to forestall cogging, but feel comfortable in my belief that Technics' engineers certainly knew of it, defined it to their satisfaction (the laws of physics pertinent to the Mk3's design haven't changed since that time), and did everything possible at the time to minimize its effect on the Mk3's sound using their prodigious resources of research, experience and experimentation. This is not to say cogging is not a factor in the Mk3's sound. It is, however, intended to encompass the speed stability tests we applied to the Mk3, in which Peter's digital speed measuring device, showed a rock-solid, unmoving mark on a wall a full (10) feet away (!) from the TT.
Spirit of Music queries, very much in the spirit of the intention of this thread, whether DD or DB typology is too coarse a distinction for our level of systems? Yes, in my opinion and experience it is, for exactly the reason implied in his second, perceptive question that mirrors Peter's thinking: does the sonic result depend more upon implementation than upon the type of design? Yes, again. This is where I believe this thread is at its most effective: the comparison Peter and I conducted has highlighted two things. First, you can't usefully compare air conditioners and dehumidifiers. The two tables are very different, and our systems were selected to some degree to showcase these tables to their best effect. When you think about it from that perspective, ie deductively instead of inductively, how could the outcome have been any different? Peter selected his Pass electronics with great deliberation over many years to maximize resolution and as close a similacrum to live music (which he hears often as a reference). I, by contrast, chose my gear with the intention of having what I consider "Musical" sound. Second, I greatly admire the way Peter's system sounds and how far he has brought it over the years. I also like the sound of my system, though it has shortcomings that I can't at present afford to address to my satisfaction, insofar as I am 'addicted to best' when it comes to more than audio (read c-a-r-s) and have limited spending resources.
Our test was flawed in another specific way that Steve Williams identified (the first response to the thread) and addressed immediately, namely whether we had evaluated Peter's SME table in my system. We didn't, and that would definitely have been both fun and informative as well as providing more scientific and more balanced 'data points'. Per the above, I couldn't afford to hear the 30/12 in my system and then have to sell off my Technics to purchase a 30/12, had we come to similar conclusions listening to my system as we did listening to his. Though taking the Mk3 to Peters was no cakewalk, it would have been even more of an undertaking to move the SME 30/12 to my listening room.
Each of the contributors above added greatly to our --or my-- learning from this experiment. In my humble opinion this represents the best that these forums offer, namely the opportunity to share experience and expertise. It is left to us to tease from the fabric of these discussions those strands that best illuminate the strengths and shortcomings of our hypotheses, and how those light the way to our next steps.
I thank each of you --mostly for wading through my unending twaddle-- but even more for bringing to the table your unique blend of experience, opinion and insight. I feel confident that my system will, sooner or later, greatly benefit from this discussion and from the comments each of you has shared so earnestly. Thank you.
Last edited:
Hey, good to hear from the other side in all this.
I’m convinced we evolve our sound, and evolve it some more, finesse it, finagle it, then change it again, all the while tuning into it as a listener in a very subjective way.
So to perform what seems like a “simple” a/b of DD v BD is anything but simple.
In my case, ten years ago I felt my analog was falling behind my digital, changed my spkrs to more tone dense transducers from my previous matter of fact transducers, went partially to tubes in the preamp from all SS, and went for a wholesale change in analog, to direct rim drive/linear tracking air arm. I then found a cdp that nicely complemented this analog presentation, and for nearly 5 years have felt totally at ease with both. Going fully to tubes has only cemented the reasons for my change.
For me the move to rim drive/air arm counteracted the growing feeling my low torque BD tt was not that neutral and revealing, to be illustrated further when a TW Acustic AC-3 BD couldn’t comprehensively beat my 5x cheaper rim drive.
And to this day, I remain convinced that my move to rim/idler will not be reversed because of what I’m getting w the new drivetrain, and how it complements my much warmer, denser sound from my amps and spkrs. I need speed, start/stop bass, precision and stable imaging in a particular package I’m dubious I can get from BD unless I spend stupid money. I’m tracking a fascinating class leading new idler drive design that promises a massive performance envelope for a cost at the low end of top tts, and critically a balance of attributes that suits my preferences and current system signature.
I’m convinced we evolve our sound, and evolve it some more, finesse it, finagle it, then change it again, all the while tuning into it as a listener in a very subjective way.
So to perform what seems like a “simple” a/b of DD v BD is anything but simple.
In my case, ten years ago I felt my analog was falling behind my digital, changed my spkrs to more tone dense transducers from my previous matter of fact transducers, went partially to tubes in the preamp from all SS, and went for a wholesale change in analog, to direct rim drive/linear tracking air arm. I then found a cdp that nicely complemented this analog presentation, and for nearly 5 years have felt totally at ease with both. Going fully to tubes has only cemented the reasons for my change.
For me the move to rim drive/air arm counteracted the growing feeling my low torque BD tt was not that neutral and revealing, to be illustrated further when a TW Acustic AC-3 BD couldn’t comprehensively beat my 5x cheaper rim drive.
And to this day, I remain convinced that my move to rim/idler will not be reversed because of what I’m getting w the new drivetrain, and how it complements my much warmer, denser sound from my amps and spkrs. I need speed, start/stop bass, precision and stable imaging in a particular package I’m dubious I can get from BD unless I spend stupid money. I’m tracking a fascinating class leading new idler drive design that promises a massive performance envelope for a cost at the low end of top tts, and critically a balance of attributes that suits my preferences and current system signature.
Hi David
looks like you and Peter share similar balanced methodology and excellent writing skills.
As you know with the SP10mk3, everything you do makes a difference - some better, some not so. Have you flipped the CU180 on the platter? I trust it sounds a bit better now? I assume you have the motor controller not on the same platform as the table - in my system it sounded worse. I also use Stillpoints.
continue to enjoy the SP10mk3 as its a super table
cheers
Thank you David for joining the discussion and for adding some details that I had either forgotten or of which I was unaware. Do you recall how the power conversion for your controller and supply was handled in my system? Perhaps you brought your voltage converter and plugged it into a non dedicated room outlet which means that your table was not in fact plugged into the same Transparent Audio conditioner as was my SME. Another factor forgotten! We speak of this comparison as if we just did it, but I keep reminding myself that it was done in March of 2016. I look forward to hearing your system again one day and the effects of flipping the CU180 platter mat.
One omission from your well written post is how you would describe the sound of your SP10 in the context of your system and room. I have not heard it in a long enough time that my recollection would not give the readers a fair or accurate understanding of its sound. Perhaps you or Al M. could write to this. Also, do you remember some of the specific LPs that we listened to during this comparison?
One omission from your well written post is how you would describe the sound of your SP10 in the context of your system and room. I have not heard it in a long enough time that my recollection would not give the readers a fair or accurate understanding of its sound. Perhaps you or Al M. could write to this. Also, do you remember some of the specific LPs that we listened to during this comparison?
Hi David,
I hate to be picky but based on the searches I have done it seems that the Mk3 motor is not coreless (according to VinylEngine it is brushless)
http://www.psaudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Technics-SP-10-Mk-III-motor.jpg
As you can see it has iron poles.
Interestingly, "However, the SL1200/SL1210 Mk II used a new motor design similar to that of the SP10 Mk III."
Kenwood L07-D motor http://i44.tinypic.com/nzm8h1.jpg
Note the lack of iron for windings.
JT is dead right--do NOT deal with Audiomarkte.de I was scammed 1700€ on a Tonearm by a Crook and his Rogue Bank in Poland.
The scammer/ AudioMarkte/Local police/Interpol/ the Bank
All no replies or could'nt give a Rats-- Avoid
BruceD
I have carried successful deals, both as a seller and as buyer at audiomarkt.de. Most sellers are serious people, however there are also scams.
1st rule - if it is too good to be true, it is not true ; 2nd rule - do your homework and research the seller before sending funds. If you have doubts do not go on.
Sometimes I sell unwanted audio goods at really low values at audiomarkt.de - they are taking space and I will never use them again. Some buyers inquire but do not go on feeling the too low price is suspicious!
I’m coming around to the idea that each drivetrain ie belt drive BD, idler drive ID, and direct drive DD, is a series of pros and cons, balances and compromises, and each implemented optimally has an awful lot to offer, and should maybe converge in character more than they differ.
It looks like Peter’s BD SME30 v DD SP10 demo may have been optimal on the SME side, but variable on the SP10 side (platter on wrong way around, motor controller not isolated fully etc), and maybe these needed to be corrected for the DD to give of its best.
To this end, my final shortlist of final final tt that I may buy will comprise a DD, BD (actually string/thread drive more like), and ID. All excellent examples of their type with no compromise engineering, fascinating choices of tech and materials, company flagship designs, and affordable compared to so many SOTA offerings from the usual suspects I can’t begin to contemplate financially.
It looks like Peter’s BD SME30 v DD SP10 demo may have been optimal on the SME side, but variable on the SP10 side (platter on wrong way around, motor controller not isolated fully etc), and maybe these needed to be corrected for the DD to give of its best.
To this end, my final shortlist of final final tt that I may buy will comprise a DD, BD (actually string/thread drive more like), and ID. All excellent examples of their type with no compromise engineering, fascinating choices of tech and materials, company flagship designs, and affordable compared to so many SOTA offerings from the usual suspects I can’t begin to contemplate financially.
Marc, the motor controller was tried both on the Vibraplane so that it was isolated from ground borne vibrations, and off the Vibraplane so that it was isolated from the turntable. If you are referring to the voltage converter, that is something else. I can't remember if it was plugged into my Transparent conditioner or into the wall. If the latter, this is the condition at David's house. If the former, then it matches the condition of my gear. Remember too, regarding the copper platter mat, it was flipped for listening to David's system too, and Al M. and David both do not hear the glare/mechanical sound in his system, so it may be the issue, or it may not be. It is very hard to reach these conclusions without more experimentation.
Well Peter, there are 3 conclusions to draw that I can see.
1- despite a lot of people’s love of DD, that sound difference you heard isn’t for you.
What people are loving as increased jump factor, or more leading edge excitement, you’re picking up on as a colouration that’s homogenising the sound
2- something in the setup/comparison wasn’t right/sub optimal on the SP10 side, meaning this detrimental attribute you commented on was introduced or exacerbated at the session (imagine if speed was out on yr SME and a listener detected it)
3- there are sound signatures that apparently many of us hear and find we like or dislike, even if others are blissfully unaware. Maybe Peter, you find the grippy torque/uber speed control/servo feedback of the SP10 has a trace signature that just doesn’t push your audio endorphin buttons.
1- despite a lot of people’s love of DD, that sound difference you heard isn’t for you.
What people are loving as increased jump factor, or more leading edge excitement, you’re picking up on as a colouration that’s homogenising the sound
2- something in the setup/comparison wasn’t right/sub optimal on the SP10 side, meaning this detrimental attribute you commented on was introduced or exacerbated at the session (imagine if speed was out on yr SME and a listener detected it)
3- there are sound signatures that apparently many of us hear and find we like or dislike, even if others are blissfully unaware. Maybe Peter, you find the grippy torque/uber speed control/servo feedback of the SP10 has a trace signature that just doesn’t push your audio endorphin buttons.
Marc, It may be a bit of all of this. First you were making the case that there was optimal set up for my SME but suboptimal set up for the SP10 blaming the platter mat flip and lack of isolation for the controller. When I responded to those concerns saying that we tried various isolation and non isolation for the controller and that the flipped platter mat does not seem to produce a problematic sound for those who have heard it in David's system recently, you now seem to argue that it all may simply be a matter of what is noticed by and bothers the listener and the role that personal preference plays in one's perception of sound.
This report of our five day experiment is one data point. Perhaps in time I will get back over to David's house to do some more critical listening with the platter mat reversed, the rubber platter mat in place, as it was at my house, and various other configurations. For now, David seems happy with the sound of his system.
Hello again All,
Thank you for the responses to my entry, intended to compliment and complement Peter's original post.
Peter rightly observes that I have not written in sufficient detail a description of the sound produced by the Technics Mk3 in my own system.
Two things came to bear: first, I felt I lost readers after the 53rd paragraph of my response, and second, I needed to return to daily life for a brief respite.
When I have more time, as I haven't today, I will write further on my listening impressions of the Mk3 in my system, and reference the differences between its sound there and chez Peter.
Thank you for the responses to my entry, intended to compliment and complement Peter's original post.
Peter rightly observes that I have not written in sufficient detail a description of the sound produced by the Technics Mk3 in my own system.
Two things came to bear: first, I felt I lost readers after the 53rd paragraph of my response, and second, I needed to return to daily life for a brief respite.
When I have more time, as I haven't today, I will write further on my listening impressions of the Mk3 in my system, and reference the differences between its sound there and chez Peter.
Peter, maybe the gist of it is: you like the SME more, and like the SP10 less, both familiarity with yr 30, and what you feel in your bones.
The interesting course would not be to go back to a return match, but compare your 30 afmgainst a current day production DD, that is potentially class leading and as well engineered as your SME ie the new Monaco 2.0.
It’s gathering absolutely stellar reviews, a couple of writers claiming it rewrites what’s possible from analog.
So maybe get the 2.0 over, replicate trial btwn it and your 30 by swapping the arm and cart over.
I suspect this will be a really interesting test of your preferences.
The interesting course would not be to go back to a return match, but compare your 30 afmgainst a current day production DD, that is potentially class leading and as well engineered as your SME ie the new Monaco 2.0.
It’s gathering absolutely stellar reviews, a couple of writers claiming it rewrites what’s possible from analog.
So maybe get the 2.0 over, replicate trial btwn it and your 30 by swapping the arm and cart over.
I suspect this will be a really interesting test of your preferences.
Yes, that would be very interesting. Unfortunately, these kinds of comparisons are very difficult to set up and stellar reviews are now commonplace all over the web. Just look at your own excitement describing the various turntables that have caught your fancy just in the past couple of weeks. I tend to be very deliberate and cautious about changes to my system. It is just my approach and others feel very differently.
I am also not in the market to change turntables right now. I bought that table for myself as a 50th birthday present and plan to keep it long term. I don't want to spend the money to replace it and I love the sound of my SME in my system. Sure, there are better tables out there, but replacement involves cost and much effort. I'd invest the money elsewhere in my system first.
I encourage everyone to do direct comparisons if they can set them up.
Peter, I 100% support your policy to stick w the 30.
It’s a stellar design, w amazing longevity and steady evolution, looking down wryly amused at new pretenders to the throne.
There’s a lot to be said re hanging onto a true heirloom product like the 30 and not moving onto a new flavour of the month, that likely won’t even be any cheaper.
For me, I’m reasonably certain I’m going to really dig my analog when it finally (FINALLY!) gets set up, but I’m also philosophical enough to know more over engineered tts out there will be more sophisticated rigs offering significantly impvd sound.
However, I can’t stretch to the new price of a 30/12, or Monaco 2.0, Kronos/Pro, AF2, top Spiral Groove.
My sweet spot belt drive, the Kuzma Stabi M isn’t on dem in the UK, and I remain less than fully impressed w TW, Brinkmann and AMG.
My experience of the SME 20 wasn’t fully convincing, so my mind wanders to more one man band designer led options like the Audiosilente Blackstone idler and Primary Control Kinea DD, and the fascinating Spec Corp Jp GMP-8000 string drive (big in Japan, invisible in Europe), that do marry amazing innovation and engineering/materials prowess, but obviously none of the SME bulletproof overengineered total package or cache/lineage.
It’s a stellar design, w amazing longevity and steady evolution, looking down wryly amused at new pretenders to the throne.
There’s a lot to be said re hanging onto a true heirloom product like the 30 and not moving onto a new flavour of the month, that likely won’t even be any cheaper.
For me, I’m reasonably certain I’m going to really dig my analog when it finally (FINALLY!) gets set up, but I’m also philosophical enough to know more over engineered tts out there will be more sophisticated rigs offering significantly impvd sound.
However, I can’t stretch to the new price of a 30/12, or Monaco 2.0, Kronos/Pro, AF2, top Spiral Groove.
My sweet spot belt drive, the Kuzma Stabi M isn’t on dem in the UK, and I remain less than fully impressed w TW, Brinkmann and AMG.
My experience of the SME 20 wasn’t fully convincing, so my mind wanders to more one man band designer led options like the Audiosilente Blackstone idler and Primary Control Kinea DD, and the fascinating Spec Corp Jp GMP-8000 string drive (big in Japan, invisible in Europe), that do marry amazing innovation and engineering/materials prowess, but obviously none of the SME bulletproof overengineered total package or cache/lineage.
I think I’ve taken this well OT.
I’ll muse on my non SME thoughts elsewhere.
Just to say to Peter that his fantastic prose in favour of the 30/12 has got me seriously reconsidering this tt as my big extravagant present to myself.
Peter, you got yours at 50, so I’m definitely behind you there having already turned 53 LOL!
I’ll muse on my non SME thoughts elsewhere.
Just to say to Peter that his fantastic prose in favour of the 30/12 has got me seriously reconsidering this tt as my big extravagant present to myself.
Peter, you got yours at 50, so I’m definitely behind you there having already turned 53 LOL!
I would like to add a wee bit again, in part to describe more clearly the process by which Peter arrived at the performance level of his system, which makes it as revealing as it is:
Unlike some audio folk --another opinionated moment disclaimer-- I feel strongly that our systems are no better than their listening room-component interface allows them to use that space to peak advantage.
Very few of the listeners I know pay what I consider sufficient attention to this indispensable option for optimizing system performance. The result is that most of these people don’t know either the full capability of their equipment, nor what the system reveals when a new component is introduced to the mix.
This is not the case with Peter’s system for three reasons:
First, Peter knows it intimately because he listens daily (I do not). Others might listen as frequently, but with Peter, this commitment and passion for both music and its reproduction *to his intended standard, namely live music* results in a continuous, searching reevaluation of each step of the playback chain. As an example, Peter was deservedly satisfied with the performance of his system with the cables he had used since before upgrading components, until he pushed his listening acumen to a new level, in part afforded by the new gear. Using the forums, Peter read others' posts, consulted with those he felt well informed or whose opinions were well reasoned, and compared his cables to another maker's, with the outcome that he made a considerable financial sacrifice for a full suite of new wire. Having listened to the system before, during and after the selection, I feel the choice was spot on.
Second, the Room Tune session with Jim Smith years ago has assured the optimum room interface of the components on hand. Whenever Peter has a chance, he auditions upstream components from his chosen manufacturer in a medium term A-B-A evaluation format. This, too, has refined Peter’s knowledge of the complimentarity of the components within his system. This aggregate knowledge, combined with listening often to live music —Peter’s intended goal for sound reproduction— gives the best chance possible for his system to reveal the vagaries, both similar and divergent, of a new component when it is introduced into his listening room. Many of my audio friends chase ‘better sound’ by either auditioning or even less helpfully, purchasing new gear, bringing it into their listening room, and expecting/hoping the change will be an improvement. Without a solidly ‘coupled’ room-system interface, I would again opinionatedly posit that no system will reveal the options offered for improved sound by a new / different component. If you don’t have the system working optimally within the room’s inevitable sonic constraints, it won’t give up the secrets that a variation in electronics holds.
Finally, because Peter has selected his gear with an uncommonly logical and consistent methodology guided by that unwavering goal of live music's sound, which he continually compares to his system's electronic version. Again, his commitment goes beyond just comparing. Some of you have commented on Peter's prose, and that is as well deserved as the sound quality of system. For Peter, putting his listening impressions into words further hones his understanding of audio in general, but also of his own system. By earning this clarity, sometimes extending to a personal re-definition of terms used loosely in our hobby, Peter has assembled a toolchest of terms that have allowed him to pry open the ideas that allow him to set new, more refined goals for what he hears and how to draw it from his system or at least see a deficit if one exists. Few audiofiles have this level of commitment And success. I attribute this to the rigor and consistency of Peter's approach, and to the unswerving goal of emulating live music as closely as it is possible.
I hope this adds to a useful understanding of the importance of methodology in the success Peter has achieved in bringing his system so far into the sometimes dark realm of creating a high quality listening experience in one's home.
Unlike some audio folk --another opinionated moment disclaimer-- I feel strongly that our systems are no better than their listening room-component interface allows them to use that space to peak advantage.
Very few of the listeners I know pay what I consider sufficient attention to this indispensable option for optimizing system performance. The result is that most of these people don’t know either the full capability of their equipment, nor what the system reveals when a new component is introduced to the mix.
This is not the case with Peter’s system for three reasons:
First, Peter knows it intimately because he listens daily (I do not). Others might listen as frequently, but with Peter, this commitment and passion for both music and its reproduction *to his intended standard, namely live music* results in a continuous, searching reevaluation of each step of the playback chain. As an example, Peter was deservedly satisfied with the performance of his system with the cables he had used since before upgrading components, until he pushed his listening acumen to a new level, in part afforded by the new gear. Using the forums, Peter read others' posts, consulted with those he felt well informed or whose opinions were well reasoned, and compared his cables to another maker's, with the outcome that he made a considerable financial sacrifice for a full suite of new wire. Having listened to the system before, during and after the selection, I feel the choice was spot on.
Second, the Room Tune session with Jim Smith years ago has assured the optimum room interface of the components on hand. Whenever Peter has a chance, he auditions upstream components from his chosen manufacturer in a medium term A-B-A evaluation format. This, too, has refined Peter’s knowledge of the complimentarity of the components within his system. This aggregate knowledge, combined with listening often to live music —Peter’s intended goal for sound reproduction— gives the best chance possible for his system to reveal the vagaries, both similar and divergent, of a new component when it is introduced into his listening room. Many of my audio friends chase ‘better sound’ by either auditioning or even less helpfully, purchasing new gear, bringing it into their listening room, and expecting/hoping the change will be an improvement. Without a solidly ‘coupled’ room-system interface, I would again opinionatedly posit that no system will reveal the options offered for improved sound by a new / different component. If you don’t have the system working optimally within the room’s inevitable sonic constraints, it won’t give up the secrets that a variation in electronics holds.
Finally, because Peter has selected his gear with an uncommonly logical and consistent methodology guided by that unwavering goal of live music's sound, which he continually compares to his system's electronic version. Again, his commitment goes beyond just comparing. Some of you have commented on Peter's prose, and that is as well deserved as the sound quality of system. For Peter, putting his listening impressions into words further hones his understanding of audio in general, but also of his own system. By earning this clarity, sometimes extending to a personal re-definition of terms used loosely in our hobby, Peter has assembled a toolchest of terms that have allowed him to pry open the ideas that allow him to set new, more refined goals for what he hears and how to draw it from his system or at least see a deficit if one exists. Few audiofiles have this level of commitment And success. I attribute this to the rigor and consistency of Peter's approach, and to the unswerving goal of emulating live music as closely as it is possible.
I hope this adds to a useful understanding of the importance of methodology in the success Peter has achieved in bringing his system so far into the sometimes dark realm of creating a high quality listening experience in one's home.
