Natural Sound

[Thaluza]

i think many turntables can sound good, but that's not the whole story. until you hear another 'better' turntable side by side with better flow. at one point i had the Dobbins Technics SP-10 Mk2 and also the Dobbins SP-10 Mk3, and the Dobbins the Beat and the NVS all together plus the Dobbins Garrard 301.

the Beat and the NVS were another level beyond the two Technics in terms of flow. and this was an early NVS, not my later build one. and those SP-10's were objectively very very good. i know there are Richard Krebs motors for the SP-10 that are said to be 'better', but never had the chance to compare one to anything else.

so liking a turntable and it having good performance is a different thing than how it 'flows' in the larger scheme of things.....especially for DD turntables.

the new Technics SP-10 is very very good and i'm not knocking it. i've not heard one other than at a show. and not heard one with an exotic plinth either. but unless it's directly compared to higher level turntables it's hard to assume anything. i did hear the SAT XD1 at Axpona last year which uses the SP-10 as a build component and heavily modifies it. that one sounded really good in the system i heard it in. fantastic.

I am not in the same league as Mike or Peter, but for “natural sound” below a $10k budget, my experience is that it is hard to beat the Dobbins SP10 MK3. Other tables that I have owned within this budget include the Sota Cosmos IV, Kuzma Stabi Reference, Classic Lenco, and VPI Aries 2.

 

[Thaluza]

The differences between my Dobbins SP10 MK3 and the one that Mike had:

1. Mine has a 3 layer slate plinth. Mike had a 4 layer slate plinth. Steve Dobbins told me he experimented after Mike had his table and concluded the 3 layer plinth sounds better.
2. I upgraded to a phenolic arm board. I believe Mike had one made of some kind of hard wood. I have both phenolic and hard wood boards. The phenolic board provides better micro detail, less smearing, better coherency. To use the words of this thread, I am experiencing better naturalism and flow.
3. I use an SAEC platter mat (pad?) that I got from Steve. This upgrade also improved microdetail retrieval, lowered the noise floor, but this is compared to a rubber mat that preceded it.
4. I use a Reed 3Q. Mike had a 3P. Probably not much of a difference sonically between the two.

For reference, I believe my MK3 was traded in for a Dobbins Beat turntable. I do not plan on upgrading, but if I do, it would be the Beat or perhaps I would follow the trail that Mike blazed and try one of the other tables that he has owned. I can’t fathom my analog setup sounding any better than it is in its current state, but you don’t know what you don’t know, as they say.

 

[Atmasphere]

My friends, SP10MK 3 was in a panzerholtz Albert Porter plinth and he was using some expensive copper platter pad. A few people had this combination and it was pretty highly regarded at the time.

From what you are telling us, Ralph, Technics developed and sold an incomplete design. If there are major issues with the factory plinth and platter pad, the design is incomplete, and it makes me wonder if the engineers even listened to the machine during its development or just went by speed measurements.

I would tend to stay away from designs that need to be heavily modified by the end user to sound good.

FWIW, the SP10s were designed for radio station use. In such conditions the arm is usually mounted differently from a home system. But people started buying the SP10s for home use and Technics wasn't trying to stop them. So here we are.

Technics made the SL1000 to sort of get around this issue but I think it was half-hearted. Albert's setup went a long ways towards solving some of the problems. I did talk to him about it years ago when he had that setup; I've known Albert about 35 years.

But from all that I've stated here so far, you should now know what the problem is using that panzerholz plinth. I've stated it already. But rather than have you review my earlier comments: Its likely that the panzerholz was actually better damped than the aluminum bit in which the Technics motor resides. The arm is mounted to the panzerholz. So what do you think will happen if the whole thing is subjected to vibration? The answer is the arm is mounted to something that is likely more stable than the platter. The result is the microscopic motion present can by interpreted by the pickup.

I should also point out that while I agree the SP10s are 'incomplete', there's a pretty long list of other turntables that are also 'incomplete' by that metric. Any turntable using an arm pod is going to have similar issues for example. FWIW, this is all just mechanical engineering. The issue is not unlike that of steering and suspension in a car. Audiophiles tend to tolerate things in turntable and tonearm operation that would never be tolerated in a car.

Why not buy a thick vinyl Taylor Swift record and glue it to a platter and then sand off the grooves (or not) and use that as a platter pad? That’ll be vinyl against vinyl. Only half joking.

Actually that's not that bad an idea. The pad I use has an aluminum disk inside which gives the pad rigidity. Lacquers used for LP mastering have a similar disk inside them as well. I've been thinking for some years now of getting a disk like that and having a platter pad made from LP vinyl with the disk embedded; probably something about 1/4" thick. Perhaps a second disk of stainless bonded to the aluminum so the dissimilar materials could rob energy from each other.

Ralph has since amended his statement to be about a highly modified Technics table.

This isn't entirely true. If you'll recall, I stated I prefer the SL1200G since it does not have the plinth problem. But like any audiophile I like to see how far I can push it. The SL1200G already has a damped platter and employs 4 damping techniques in its chassis. I run mine with that platter pad I mentioned- the weakest part of the SL1200G is, like all Technics machines, its platter pad. I designed an armboard for the SL1200G that allowed me to mount my Triplanar to it. I don't know if that qualifies as 'heavily modified' or not since all I was up to was replacing the arm.

STST Motus II is also low torque. Technics is the most digital of the DDs. Like Lagonda I am surprised Ralph can't hear that.

I 'can't hear that' because I use LPs I recorded and know how they are really supposed to sound; IOW it does not exist. Again, I recommend a decent set of microphones (I have a set of Neumann U67s) and a good recorder. Find something to record that you can stand to play over and over and get it mastered to LP. Only then will you have a proper reference.

I have now got a turntable known for its SOTA bearing - the Empire 598. (rumble -90dB, wow and flutter less than .01% )

The 208 uses the same bearing and its far easier to damp the platter with damping compounds so it doesn't ring. Also easier to mount a different arm to it. And that is why we machined our own plinth to mount the 208 parts. That made mounting an arm harder though since it has to be machined for many arms (the Triplanar merely required 3 holes drilled and tappped so most of our 208s built had Triplanar arms on them; it didn't hurt of course that the Triplanar is one of the best radial tracking arms made).

I am not saying I like it because it is low torque, just an observation I like it and it is low torque.
Maybe the suspension helps. It is adjustable so can change the sound.

FWIW, if you look at the vintage machines that are belt drive and idler drive, the most valued (Empire 208, Garrard 301, Lenco, Thorens TD124) all have fairly robust drives. The motor in my Scully mastering lathe was 1/8th horsepower!