This is a project that's been on going since the days of my Lenco experiments. My Lenco project is posted as a virtual system here at Audiogon too.
My Technics SP10 MK2 in custom African Wenge plinth is posted in my main system and this Technics SP10 MK3 in Panzerholz and Ebony Plinth was completed November 20th, 2008.
More images to follow, including the Ebony custom platform it will rest on. The platform is 9 layer construction including a layer of Texas Instruments shield with active ground plane.
I didnt notice if it was already mentioned, but did replacing the original Japanese chips in your MKIII do anything for sonic improvement?
By chips are you referring to the rectifiers and diodes? If yes, the parts swap is necessary due to age. When electronics get to be 25 years old most of the parts are no longer in spec. Caps are frequently bad or soon to fail. Caps and other parts such as new high speed rectifiers and Stealth Diodes are just plain better than what was available 25 years ago.
Also, Im considering a dual tonearm setup and wondering if theres additional tonearm/cartridge combinations you'd recommend.
Any good arm in the 10.5" to 12" range. These tables were designed for that length when new. Mounting a 9" arm winds up near the middle of the arm board rather than the upper corner as we expect to see.
I like the SME 312S and V-12. The Micro Seiki MAX is excellent and Technics arms that came on these tables are popular with a lot of people as well.
It comes down to how much you want to spend. For me, I would go for as good an arm and cartridge as I could afford and hold off on the second arm until funds permit.
My first MK2 was partially rebuilt here in Dallas, both myself and members of my audio group replaced whatever necessary to insure it ran.
At that time I had no concern for making it perfect, it was just a project that followed the (previous project) Lenco as an opportunity to see what these designs could do.
After placing the MK2 in our first plinth design along with SME 312S and Air Tight PC-1 we were floored at the listening experience. Later we experimented with various mats for the platter and raised the performance again.
I still think the Technics MK2 is astounding, money not withstanding. However, ALL the details must be in place to bring performance to where it's capable of going.
Today I send all my rebuild work to Bill Thalmann in Va. He was with Conrad Johnson and is a superb craftsman. Knowing the potential of the MK2 and MK3, we now scrape all the old parts and replace with modern version. This includes all the caps, diodes and rectifiers.
I am not connected to Bill in any way, just call him up and discuss with him what you want. The only thing I can offer is the plinth and it's typically way behind in availability due to the workmanship involved.
Contact me via Audiogon or my web site when and if you want a plinth. I have three coming up sometime soon.
Albert, Rolando from argentina, between Technics sp-10 mk3, garrard 301,garrard 401 and Lenco 75 what is the better?your apreciations please,thanks
Rolando,
I'm not sure I can answer correct beyond stating the Technics MK3 is the best.
The Lenco and Garrard have so many aftermarket bearings, idler wheel and top plate mods I doubt anyone has heard every concievable combination in a controlled environment.
That makes it pretty much impossible to conclusively state that a particular version Garrard or Lenco is above all else. Some of the mods I've heard are startling in their ability to improve.
The strength of the Technics MK3, Garrard and Lenco are their ability to deliver power to the platter. That power translates into superior dynamics, pitch and bass control. Those factors are what make those designs a winner.
The MK3 is more speed accurate than the others and has more torque. It also turns at (only) the speed necessary to drive the platter which means less movement and noise relative to necessary power to produce exact speed.
Today, i experimented a bit with cartridge bolt tightness,mats, the relationship between preamp, amp, cartridge loading, tonearm mounting bolt torques
There is an ideal cartridge bolt torque. Until recently I sold a precision torque wrench here at Audiogon (sold out now). It's setting was what is considered to be industry standard torque for cartridges.
Without the wrench I can only say the tightness is more than you might guess and you should use stainless hardware (non magnetic and tough).
My experience has been that their are about 9 failures for 1 success. Putting the Cardas cable into the mix was like putting in a brand new cartridge. Here comes the pessimist audiophile in me. I wonder if a used 1500 dollar cable would have done the same trick as the Cardas in this context? Maybe...maybe not. Sometimes [i think Im right when i say] synergy is $ sign blind.
If your standards are high, it's normal for most of your tests to end in failure or at least confusion. Not every combination can produce the "best sound". What's difficult is deciding about trade off.
Side questions: Is it bad for sound reproduction if my arm hum's slightly only when i touch it?
I would be nervous about that, would indicate something not quite right with grounding or tonearm connection.
The luxman compared to my systemdek and lenco... is very neutral , not romantic and more true. With some careful tweaking i can dial in the Luxman so it is very objective, clear, yet still musical and tonally neutral. Tonally neutral like Ive never heard it before! It is interestingly the first time i have been able to appreciate accuracy over a romantic sound.
Excellent description. When I first experienced top quality DD turntables I was surprised by what I was hearing, the experience was very different than what I was accustomed to.
I identified with your comment about "ghost imaging" even more so now that Ive listened to the Luxman for a couple weeks. Previous Luxman 444 owners have described its sound as coming eerily close to imitating master tape playback regarding its speed. I guess what i am hearing is just that quality. It sounds very close to "perfect" ...speedwise ...that it makes playback sound very interesting in this regard. It forces me to rethink what constitutes good playback.
What reinforces this even more is acquiring a top level tape machine and then comparing the same material on LP and then master dub.
I had the Ampex 351, modified Technics 1505 and Studer A810. Owning a tape machine and good software really forces one to re evaluate what your turntable (and digital) are doing and what might be improved.
I think a top line direct drive turntable comes close enough to master dubs that no one is angry when switching back and forth. My group does this frequently and it has helped us judge what's possible.
Now i want to try and dial in the tone of the table by experimenting possibly with Panzerholz armboards, different mat materials and different footers for my amps.
Each of those things matter and are clearly audible. The better you get your system is the more each tiny change becomes audible.
Don't get frustrated and don't have preconceived ideas about how something should sound. Don't condemn the "new" part right away, give it some thought. The problem may be something "exposed" in earlier change. Try hard to understand (not just hear) what each change is doing.
Most of all, ENJOY your software. Listen with your heart, not just your ears. At some point long term, relaxed listening will help you understand what each change is providing and that is the key to getting everything right.
On my turntable I've had at least six different mats and at least that many clamps (or weights). It amazes me that each one brings something different to the party. My latest is the Stillpoints Ultra LPI (record weight), another great product and variable to put into the mix.
Sorry to be slow responding I somehow missed your questions on this topic. I'll quote you first and then respond for clarity.
That's cool that you went and visited the designer himself. I am very much enjoying my time with his tonearm design, with my jan allaerts and lenco.
The Breuer is incredibly precise but like all tonearms has it's strengths and weaknesses. The sound is very lively as mass is minimal and bearing friction very low.
I heard/saw in person my first sp10 mk2 yesterday. It was in a birchply only plinth with a sme 312 arm and a denon 103. I lowered the arm onto the record without the platter spinning and tapped on the plinth. It was a ringy plinth and probably didn't do justice to what the sp10 is more capable of.
The plinth is important to the Technics MK2 and MK3 but honestly, any suspension-less table finger tapped while needle is in the groove would make sound through the speakers, especially if the volume is high.
I use a Vibraplane to remove room interaction and floor feed vibration and have absolutely no noise or feedback with my MK3.
With my lenco , in regard to speed accuracy ,as long as i don't detect something annoying or distracting, i never really think twice about its speed. I don't think twice about wether or not it is 0.001 or 0.02 accurate. Now i have a nice systemdek iX table that is belt driven that does suffer from audible problems. Like sax and piano decay sound unnatural, to the point that it detracts from the musical engagement.
The direct connection or "torque" of your Lenco is a great deal of the magic you enjoy. The Technics MK2 and MK3 are higher torque, greater speed accuracy and signal to noise ratio.
The MK3 is far beyond the MK2 on torque and has better speed accuracy and is why I favor it.
I have a question for anyone. I am trying to understand how replacing capacitors on a POWER SUPPLY can SUBSTANTIALLY improve what finally comes through the speakers. That is, if you test the speed with a stock power supply and it reads 100 percent accurate then upgrade the power supply caps, re test and it reads , still, 100 percent accurate how can miniscule electrical value changes equal profound sonic changes?
The reason for changing caps in Technics is due to age. These tables are more than 25 year old and cap technology back then was not only inferior to today's product but time has broken them down where they may no longer be correct value.
Can impeccable speed in a turntable effect its tonal colors? In my opinion very little. I would say that the materials the table is made of plays a large part in that.(and their quantities and qualities) and the table design approach. This will, in my opinion play a larger part on fundamentally whether or not you will like a table.
Your statement is correct and incorrect from my perspective. I totally agree that material the table is made of, plinth it rests in and (of course) the tonearm and cartridge choice make a huge part of the listening experience with any table.
Speed accuracy is important and I think until you live with something as accurate as the MK3 you don't realize what part that plays. Inaccuracy can be pleasant, even fooling the ear into thinking there is more "depth" or providing some ghost imaging within the music due to minute phase shift.
For example, the sonic difference between a sp10 2 and a 3 i would attribute to the 3's much heavier platter, its different materials, the mat, and power supply NOT so much to their differences in speed accuracy, which must be relatively miniscule. Their fundamental design approach is virtually identical so tonally it will sound very similar.
Again I agree and disagree. The MK2 is remarkably close to the MK3 if dollar difference is factored in. HOWEVER, the MK3 is far more powerful and the magic you love from your Lenco is there with the MK3 in a way that you can understand only by living with one for an extended time.
The design of the two tables while similar is like comparing two identical automobiles, except one fitted with four cylinder engine and the other with a V8 or V12. The driving experience and performance differences are enormous, to the extent it seems like two completely different cars.
Anything improved at the source, even small advances reap huge rewards. You cannot recover what's lost even if the remainder of the equipment is near the limit of technology.
Frank, perfectly spoken. I'm pleased you are experiencing world class performance.
The Pioneer P3, Technics SP10 MK2 and MK3 and Micro Seiki all reflect the mind set of an era when the brightest minds in Japan engineering were investing every resource on perfecting analog reproduction.
I offer the plinths on my web site and may run ads at Audiogon once I catch up. The Panzerholz for the original two plinths were left over from an Exxon project with an art director I do studio photography for.
The performance of the Technics MK2 and plinth caused me to sell my Walker and invest in my first MK3. The MK3 performance was the inspiration for the plinth featured here, I wanted a statement piece to replace the Walker in both performance and beauty.
The most difficult part was materials sourced from Europe. The factory has minimum orders, requires money up front and after completion comes the staggering freight bill for three quarters of a ton of LARGE sheets shipped from Germany.
The first run of plinths will be ready this month, I have several spoken for. I have three MK3 Technics, two go in my system, the third is sold and waiting for completion of power supply and bearing rebuild and finish on the Ebony plinth.
The $1000.00 price I quoted is not me, that was my cost including round trip shipping MK3 chassis, copper platter and power supply, all parts and labor with Bill. If you know someone who can perform equal quality for less money, I would go for it.
Just the caps replaced without bearing service, servo work new high speed diodes and rectifiers the price would be much less. My goal was to make my MK3 better than when it was new, I will own this forever and don't want problems.
Bill has the talent to build a MK3 power supply from scratch but the price would be extremely high. I can ask about that but it would probably be cheaper to buy a MK3 with supply and pay to have it put right and not reinvent the wheel.
I'm confused by your comments on the Garrard and Reed, are you saying you sold them and looking for something else or bought them to replace your Kuzma?
As for the Ortofon, I have one ordered but they are slow coming. I hope to have both MK3 and four tonearms and four cartridges running in weeks to come. This includes a new arm from Germany that I'm playing with and some experiments with a Vibraplane I just bought.
Don't you mean Imitation is the sincerest form of theft? :^).
Yes, I saw the plinth with Technics MK2 and it's absolutely a copy of my design.
Admittedly, I went out on the web and looked at dozens of designs for all kinds of turntables and each contributed to my idea. That being said, mine is not like any other. At least until this (cosmetic) copy showed up.
Yes to the plinth, unknown on the air pump. As for circuit boards, my tech can probably rebuild and improve but it would require the entire turntable in his hands for proper testing and evaluation.
I don't know about cost, my Technics MK3 outboard supply was a thousand dollars after all was done but that included over 50 caps, all new high speed rectifiers and stealth diodes. About all we left was the circuit boards, even some of the primary wire was replaced with Purist Anniversary conductor and the addition of an IEC connector allows for aftermarket AC cord.
The change was substantial, this Technics MK3 winds up being the best turntable I've ever heard.
Hello BN, Yes on upgrade. Here is my response of 7-2-09.
07-02-09: Albertporter Albert, did you hear difference in sonics after you had the "electronics" (e.g. caps, regulators, etc) replaced in your SP-10 Mk III?
Gshelly, there was a big difference in performance after the modifications. I wish it were not so because it costs about $1000.00 by the time it's all done. I think the work moved my MK3 more than the original difference between the MK2 and MK3.
It's possible the first MK3 had some issues and part of what I heard after the work was simply the fact it was now "correct." However, I bought a second MK3 and it's got the universal AC transformer and it's in my system now and I keep missing what the one with mods brought to the music.
I hope to get the better one back soon, it's now getting some of the original Japanese chips replaced. I'll report if that does anything more. At least at that point there is almost nothing left to change.
If there is something specific beyond that response, ask and I will respond.
I would not mind trying that method but my turntable is in the hands of an expert that I trust implicitly.
After I got my table back last time it was the most speed accurate, dynamic and musical correct presentation I've ever heard from LP. That has to count for something, I'm convinced he got it right.
My Studer arrives on Thursday, we need to talk about tape too :^).
I check with a KAB strobe but the guy that did the upgrades is the one that made everything right. Speed accuracy is a factor of all the original (or replacement) parts being exactly in specification so everything works as designed. There are literally dozens of check points in the circuit and everything has adjustments.
When parts are old there is no adjustment range and when parts exceed original performance the values can be set and the "headroom" of the super parts makes is more difficult for anything to get off value.
The tech that did my work said the original caps were "just' able to pull off accuracy even though they were the best available 24 (or so) years ago.
The newest caps, stealth diodes and rectifiers are many times more accurate, with less ESR and noise and help the original design sail through the tough places with ease.
I swear that after all the parts were replaced and everything calibrated to original specs with oscilloscope, it was performing better than new.
Albert, did you hear difference in sonics after you had the "electronics" (e.g. caps, regulators, etc) replaced in your SP-10 Mk III?
Gshelly, there was a big difference in performance after the modifications. I wish it were not so because it costs about $1000.00 by the time it's all done. I think the work moved my MK3 more than the original difference between the MK2 and MK3.
It's possible the first MK3 had some issues and part of what I heard after the work was simply the fact it was now "correct." However, I bought a second MK3 and it's got the universal AC transformer and it's in my system now and I keep missing what the one with mods brought to the music.
I hope to get the better one back soon, it's now getting some of the original Japanese chips replaced. I'll report if that does anything more. At least at that point there is almost nothing left to change.
The S/N with the P3 is 78db and the S/N of the P3a is incredible 95db. Regarding the asking price: the P3a was at its time double the costs of the SP-10 MK III
Frank, I would appreciate your posting back here on results of the P3a.
The FerriShield I choose is a Texas Instruments product that I obtained through Mike Percy. The item I use is listed in the middle of page 14 of his PDF download.
The problem is not getting the material, but punching a precision hole for the spindle and cutting it in a precise circle since it's 14 thousandths thick and multiple layer metal construction.
T_bone, thanks for the links. These older direct drive tables were at the top of the analog game about the time CD came in and took over. It's a shame that everyone stopped dead in their tracks thinking a new era was upon us.
I think it's funny that this many years later we are discussing the merits of these superb products. Truth is, it probably does not matter if a P3A or MK3 Technics as long as you get on board and choose the right arm and cartridge.
The only technical difference that could make a difference in RF and EMI, the P3a looks to be aluminum construction and the Technics MK3 is copper.
When I rebuilt my MK2 Technics I decided to build an underlay platter from Texas Instruments FerriShield. The night we added it to the MK2 (aluminum platter) was one that still is brought up in discussions by my audio group as an important improvement.
I've looked for those for about a year. I've always wondered how they would perform against the MK3.
The MK3 after power supply rebuild is incredible, bigger upgrade over MK2 than MK2 over Walker. The problem is EVERYTHING must be replaced inside, all caps, diodes, rectifiers and some chips. Cost is about $1000.00 by the time you get through and that does not include power cable and (if required) isolation transformer.
I've read the Pioneer and Onkyo both lack RF and EMI screening and can effect cartridge and wire going to phono stage. I would be very interested in feedback from you on this.
Frank, I replaced the Walker Black Diamond with my Wenge Plinth Technics MK2 before I even heard a MK3.
The MK2 started as a fun project, an evolution of my testing that began with the Lenco project in 2004.
After I completed the Wenge plinth MK2, my group of listeners and I went back and forth between it and the Walker for many months with a variety of cables and cartridges.
The final decision was with identical Air Tight PC-1 cartridges (one on loan to me from Lloyd Walker). Everyone agreed the MK2 was superior, so I sold the Walker and began my search for a MK3.
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.
I could do that, provided I could find MK3 Technics. I offer several plinth for Technics MK2 and MK3 and also for Garrard 301, 401 and Thorens TD 124. I'm working on a separate web site to display all of these so people can consider them if interested.
I'm always on the lookout for Technics but the MK3 comes up very seldom. It took me several years to acquire the two I own and I'm still getting them upgraded electrically to where they need to be.
The outboard electronics for the Technics, by themselves, cost as much as I have put into the C37 to date.
Exactly why mine is still stock. Technics is wonderful for the $800.00 I paid but the upgrade is brutal. I always factor in cost of equipment versus software. With over 6000 LPs I can justify several turntables but with maybe a couple of hundred tapes I have to weigh tape machine investment carefully.
The multi head A810 was quoted around $2500.00 if I remember correctly, but that was several years ago. It was a Canadian Ebay seller, a company that had a lot of them for sale back then.
Good data and intriguing, up to the place were you describe needing another tape deck for quarter track. My tape library is split between quarter and half track, actually a few more in quarter track. Many of my most important tapes are half track, making for a difficult situation.
I think there is a guy in Canada that does the Studer A810 with a multi head conversion, allowing it to perform like my Technics. The Technics is actually quite accurate in speed, including amazingly low flutter measurements but lacks the sophistication of best (pro) electronics.
Many people just choose the Technics and pay for outboard electronics to bring it up. I've also read the only pro tape machine with accurate bass is the Ampex ATR, but unfortunately I have not had the pleasure of hearing one.
What I wish for is a pro level machine, tube or transistor that accommodates quarter and half track at all speeds, regardless if it records or not.
I bought the 1520 because it plays quarter and half, records half, has both EQ's and runs all but 30 IPS. With it, I can grab hard to find prerecorded tapes at Ebay, play studio safety's and the tape project by just flipping switches.
If you know of something that would fill my need and perform better than what I have but also be reliable, I would like to learn about it.
Mike, I am very much pro clamp, I used one with the Walker and with both SP10 MK2 and MK3. Each clamp sounds different and unfortunately the mat +clamp is another sound all together.
So far my favorite is the Micro Seiki CU180 gunmetal mat plus Walker or TT weights mentioned above.
The Walker system of a thin lead washer on top of the mat to slightly elevate the LP makes his clamp more useful in flattening LP's. The TT Weight has a totally flat bottom (no cut out relief) meaning it does not do so well with the washer.
After you have everything broken in it's not a big deal to spend a day with each combination and over time you'll discover one is perfect for your rig. I have several mats, including the Boston, Funk Firm, Micro Seiki, two styles from Technics and Herbies.
As I said, so far the Micro Seiki is best but I have not heard the TT Weights mat which is similar, except it's pure copper rather than gunmetal.
For anyone needing a clamp for their Technics (or perhaps other table) the locking variety for sale here at Audiogon is excellent.
Typical ad reads
TTSuperClamp Dampened/Brass Body/Internal Media and an Aluminum Collet System, the ultimate clamp.
Housing/BRASS body is filed with a dampening media/BRASS and Silica Sand and sealed. Improved dampening and soundstage.
I played with this clamp at their booth at the Canada audio show and had to have one. During the weeks since I have compared with half a dozen others.
The other contender is the Walker multi piece clamp that comes with the Black Diamond turntable. The Walker is slightly better in deep bass and TT Super Clamp is slightly better in upper midrange. Both are EXCELLENT.
Other clamps include three other TT Weights, JA Mitchell, Walker, Alchemist and of course no clamp at all as begin point. I thought it worth mentioning since it's reasonably priced and works so well.
My Technics SP10 MK3 arrived yesterday, Music Technology replaced more than fifty capacitors, upgraded to Stealth diodes and an unknown quantity of modern high speed rectifiers.
The caps are beautiful, FC and FM series low ESR Panasonic. All voltages calibrated to original specs check for accuracy.
I hope to get help moving it onto my stand sometime this weekend and will report what I hear.
Mark, the aluminum is for resonance control and constrained layer damping, could have also used Corian. I don't know the adhesive my wood guy used when he built this for me.
I hope to have my rebuilt Technics SP10 MK3 in a few weeks, the chance to hear this unit in totally restored condition is exciting. I'll post results once I compare it.
I've been reading rather than posting. I agree with most of these comments, I've owned dozens of tables with and without vac and a number of linear track arms, some with and some without vac hold down at the same time.
Drajreynolds
At the end of the day each approach (direct drive vs belt drive, servo controlled/corrected motor versus obsessive engineering tolerances, linear tracking tonearm versus pivoted tonearm, unipivot versus gimbal bearings, air bearing versus mechanically grounded bearing, etc) has its own set of strengths and weaknesses which just goes to show that there are many paths to satisfaction.
No disagreement on that, every part of a turntable contributes to it's signature or sound. The material it's made from, speed accuracy and how that accuracy is obtained. The Rockport and Technics are accurate direct drives and the positive comments Mike Lavigne makes about Garrard 301 is because it shares the "drive personality" of the Rockport, Technics, EMT and other rim and direct drive systems.
If the Technics had been available with and without a vac hold down system, you can bet I would have tested it both ways by now. Since that is not possible, I have to choose performance of the table against all others I've heard, with and without vac.
No doubt there are LP's in every collection that are not flat and would benefit from vac hold down. The second option is a clamping system and obtaining at least partial success toward perfection. The way I clamp is successful and the combination of mat, clamp and spacers is providing the best LP playback I've ever had.
My comment about vac hold down being a spring is something I've been told by several designers. The problem is not only voids under the LP, it's the vac system itself and the pulsing motion the pump applies to the record to maintain vac.
Ideally the vac would be applied and no further action required and I suppose some system and some LP somewhere work in that perfect world. Meanwhile there are lots of systems that leak and the pump continues to pull at the bottom of the LP, creating microscopic motion that may or may not coincide with what the needle should be seeing.
Ken
Next week our audio group will be visiting "The Record Cutter" in northern VA. He has three Neumann lathes that all incorporate vacuum hold down via a tube that couples to the center spindle of the platter.
That's the same method used by Versa Dynamics and Basis, at least the models I owned. After you apply that science to your own project you can determine which is preferred. When I owned the Basis Debut (all three versions), no way would I consider it without the vac. Still, the Technics MK3 is my (current) favorite, so I have to accept the system as it is.
Fritz the cat, the Micro Seiki is so heavy, it is almost impossible to remove from the SP10 MK3, once it's in place. I had to use duct tape to get enough traction to raise the mat enough to even get a screwdriver under it, so I could work my fingers to lift it.
The metal mat is very heavy and the lip on the Technics is undercut, so the pad drops into no mans land, once lined up and let go.
I'm sure the vacuum system is good, I've had several. The problem comes from being obsessed with a detail that may or may not be important to the end performance. Turns out the drive system, tonearm, cartridge and set up outweigh the vacuum system.
I had two Basis Debut gold MK4 side by side, one with vacuum and one without. The addition of a Walker motor controller (yes that works on a Basis) turns out to be several times more performance than the vac.
By the way, T_bone is correct, once the vac is pulled the layer of air between the LP and platter becomes a "spring." That's why Lloyd Walker never put vac on the Walker Black Diamond turntable.
I have a room reserved at the Tucker Pavilion in Richmond for the mentally deficient. Your response will determine if I need to make a deposit!
Fritz the Cat, please reserve a room for me as well :^).
The vacuum hold down is a great idea, unfortunately the Technics does not have that feature. Then again, I owned a Versa Dynamics and two Basis Debut Gold tables that had vac hold down and the Technics is better than any of those.
Makes me wonder what the MK3 would sound like with vac.
Glad work is good for you, I and the rest of America are struggling to find enough work to keep bread (and Technics) on the table.
Kmccarty, I'll post results here once I see and hear the results. If I'm pleased I'll let everyone know and they can contact the guy for their own needs.
T_Bone, I ran across a web site that claims their aftermarket SP10 MK2 power supply is superior to the original, but I have not heard it.
I have my SP10 MK3 in the shop and should know in a few weeks what the expert I choose can do. I've ask him to rebuild the power supply completely, and tighten up the specs.
I think my memory is good enough to be able to relate here what the upgrade brings to the system. If in doubt, two other members of my group have stock original MK3 power supplies and we can do a shoot out.
I have not used the Micro Seiki mat for long enough to determine if it causes any of the problems you mention. Truth is, I have not determined if I prefer the Micro Seiki over the three or four other mats I own.
I finished the MK3 project, acquired two new phono cartridges, two new tonearm cables and upgraded my Aesthetix around the same time. I need a bit more time to figure it out but promise not to hold back the truth, whatever I find.
As for Slate, I like the Saskai system I saw at RMAF. I wish I had the cash to get one of those built for my MK3 and test it all.
I was told density is one of the prime descriptors of metals ability to absorb energy. Our first thought was Phosphorous Bronze or Tungsten but both were crazy expensive.
Here's a density scale in KG/m3 for various metals:
I have used the Einstein phono stage for about two years and have very similar feelings to those which Albert expressed.
For those that don't know, Fred and I are good friends. We spoke on the phone today and I bragged to him how impressed I was with the Einstein.
T_bone
Albert, could you elaborate on the thinking behind and design of the implementation of your rod+iron block 'drainage' system, drawing vibrational energy from the SP-10's bearing well to the iron block? What exactly is the connection between the bearing well and the rod? It appears as if the iron plate is fixed into the plinth, in which case it would not act as a pendulum? Does a certain material have to be used for the rod? Is there a sequence of hardness (or shall we perhaps say, of combination of material density and elasticity constant?) which has to be followed from the bearing well material to rod to iron block? I am quite curious on how this is supposed to work.
The design is simple, the iron block is fixed (recessed) into the plinth bottom with stainless steel screws and has a threaded hole, bored very offset from center.
A large brass rod with polished end threads through the iron block, passing through the plinth, coming to rest against the bearing well of the MK2 or MK3.
Not only does this stop any tendency of the turn table frame to flex vertically, it offers a direct connection-drain point for vibration to flow into the massive iron block. The iron block is probably 15 pounds, it's a lot thicker than you think.
Iron is near the top of the heap in it's ability to absorb energy, making it ideal other than it's magnetic properties. Those magnetic properties are why it's very offset, on the opposite side of where the phono cartridge traces the LP.
Thanks to you and aaron for the great compliment of the look and design of the plinth.
Interesting comments on the Einstein phono stage. Is it quieter in your system than the Aesthetix Io? Do you think that the balanced version of the Einstein would offer any sonic advantage above and beyond the SE version? I guess this depends on whether it slots into a truly balanced system.
The Einstein is maybe 2 or 3 DB quieter than the Io, not really noticeable but audible if you listen all evening. I'm told the balanced version of the Einstein is anywhere from 15% to 25% better (their numbers) than the SE version. Perhaps the variation is due to your observation that performance could differ if the system was not truly balanced.
In what ways does the Io hold a sonic edge over the Einstein in your system?
The Io delivers music with what seems like an unlimited force behind it. When things get loud or complicated the Io just pushes harder rather than compressing or fumbling. I did not hear any errors in the Einstein but there was a sense it was smaller both in imaging and power.
Other than that, the two seemed to have identical RIAA curve or EQ or whatever you want to call the overall balance and tone of the music. Of course the all tube Io sounded more textural and warmer than the solid state Einstein but I could easily live with this solid state piece, especially if I had not heard the Aesthetix.
Almost forgot, the Einstein is actually slightly better resolution on some things. During soft passages when things are mixed up by the producer of the record, the Einstein can often pull out a tiny bit more vocal, making it more intelligible.
It will be interesting to hear my new Io Eclipse, which I should have back in the system soon. The factory says the upgrade is substantial over my Io Signature version.
Tonight a new member of my group brought his phono for audition, it was the single ended version of the Einstein.
I was very surprised, this unit is quiet, neutral and detailed without adding anything unnatural to the high frequencies.
I had reservations as it is small and totally solid state. I've had at least six phono stages in my system in the last year and this is the best thing I've heard.
No, This won't go against the Io but at only $5400.00 retail, it's remarkable.
There's quite a bit of conversation about the Levinson at Tape Project forums, I found lots of interesting threads there. Good suggestion and something I did not know about.
That's a possible test, but then you have the electronics of the tape machine that alters the sound. A Technics sounds different than an Ampex ATR and both are different than the Studer.
Several of us were at Mike Lavigne's some weeks back, ask him how VERY different each of his pro tape machines are.
I have some master dubs and also Tape Project tapes and they are marvelous. The SP10 MK3 is the closest thing to tape I've heard in my system.
I sold my Ampex so I don't have it around for comparison but I'm buying an ATR when funds permit.
Last week at CES I had a short conversation with Alvin at GP Audio. He congratulated me for moving to direct drive and then began to explain how his DD design was superior to everything on the market.
It wound up with me saying that unless it was proven otherwise, my opinion was the Technics was the superior performer. He thought I was wrong and I thought he was wrong. Nothing will come of these discussion without listening tests.
My argument is the plinth is equally important to performance as the speed spec and although my session with GP was short, Tiguwagu (Dan's) comments are in line with what I heard.
Alvin is an excellent engineer and I don't doubt his statement that the Grand Prix measures better on speed. My comment on this topic was that a Yamaha receiver measures better on distortion than a VTL or CAT but clearly the sound does not reflect that
I cannot help but wonder what the GP would sound like in a heavy plinth but unless someone can fund their own experiment we'll probably never know.
Microstrip, I dont know much about the three phase motor controller for the SP10, I'm pretty sure it's only usable with the MK2, not MK3.
I'm working on tearing down my MK3 this weekend. I'm having the motor controller and table gone through and mods done. I think I've found the right guy for the job, will know for sure in a few weeks.
As for Grand Prix, I heard it for less than an hour as we were packing up after the photo shoot. I did the images used in the Stereophile review of the table.
What I will say it the sound of the MK2 and MK3 Technics are very similar and neither sound like my Walker or the Grand Prix.
Thsalmon, the plinths are available through me, are you interested in something other than a plinth?
I should warn you, the guy is a furniture builder, recently completed a custom document case that went for $47,000.00. His work is perfect with prices to match.
Rwwear, I have the power supply, it's the stock version these come with.
Maybe I should I include it in system images for those that have not seen one. Glad I came over to the "Dark Side" with you, wish I had done so earlier.
You mention that the Garrard done up properly with the Loricraft PS and all costs more than the MK3 ... Would you think it can sound better? Linnmaster
Both are excellent tables, one of the guys in my group has a Garrard with Triplanar and it's one of the finest tables I've ever heard. Whether the Garrard or MK3 is superior is likely in the eyes and ears of the beholder.
The Garrard is probably a bit warmer with a nice pitch to the bass and the Technics more speed accurate and quieter. I have no proof of either comment, just an estimation based on limited listening.
12-11-08: Linnmaster I second or third all the compliments that have been made about your SP10 MK3 plinth that you built. Really does look stunning.
Thank you very much
Do you know which product it actually is out of their range? They do some bulletproof stuff and some other products that are used solely in the music industry. And also, did you had any difficulties in working with the material using typical woodwoorking tools and techniques.
All is know is this is what ExxonMobil uses for drilling platforms. Yes to difficulties with working on it. Even with Carbide tools they had to be sharpened after each pass to maintain quality.
In your MK3 plinth, you have Panzerholz, Basswood, Panzerholz layers. What made you use Basswood rather than say maple or mahogany?
That was a judgement call based on the "feel" and resonance of the different layers.
Another point of interest is the incorporation of sheet aluminium (thickness?) that was used in your MK2 plinth. You've obviously ommitted this out of your MK3 plinth.
Not correct, the MK2 and MK3 both have a thick layer of 6061 aluminum in the construction, the brass rod passes though it.
Your brass rod/cast iron sink is a clever idea. Any reason for the cast iron chosen as opposed to a machined mild steel block?
Cast iron is better at absorbing energy than mild steel. It's cast because the block I choose is about 1 inch thick although it does not appear that way in the photos. It's very dense and heavy.
I think this idea can be used on the Garrard 301 to drain away any vibrations from the bearing spindle that will have come from the motor.
The main source of vibration with the Garrard is the motor and rim drive assembly. I don't think the design I choose to dampen the direct drive motor of a Technics would help a Garrard bearing, it could even transmit energy back in.
I have less experience with the Garrard and no plans to rebuild one. If done properly, including the Loricraft power supply they're more costly than the rare Technics MK3
congrats on the Mk3, it is a work of art.....and i'm sure it sounds better than it looks. i will await your Mk2-Mk3 comparison conclusion with much anticipation.
I wonder if the SME is as good a match for the Mk3 as you felt it was for the Mk2?
also; hopefully soon you can comment on the Coralstone and the Supreme......
thanks for doing all the work.....you will make my decisions much easier. i know with all the break-in issues it will be some time before there are any solid answers.
First, thanks again for having Steve, Larry and I in your home, so we could experience your wonderful system first hand.
This last Tuesday night we swapped head shells between my two identical SME 312S arms, allowing us to listen half the evening to Air Tight PC-1 and half to the Air Tight Supreme. A nice comparison with both the MK2 and the MK3.
It's too early to carve the results in stone, but our initial impression was the MK3 was quieter, more dynamic and slightly more grounded to the music. It's a subtle upgrade, but one I think will drive me to search for another MK3.
As for SME arm, I love the 312S, but I've not had other arms on the table to compare. I'm sure the Triplanar would be equally good (but different), just as the PC-1 and Dynavector XV1-S are wonderful but different.
At this point I would say the Supreme name is justified. It's much better than the PC-1 and Dynavector and it should be at $9K retail.
The Koetsu Coralstone is on it's way, they shipped to me two days ago via UPS air. I'll probably receive it as I'm packing up my Aesthetix for Eclipse upgrade. Hopefully it will return and be settled soon and I'll have all the tools on hand to make an informed decision.
Actually we sold the basic units to guys in my group for $1800.00 each and they are Panzerholz too. The additional $1400.00 for my MK3 plinth is due to filler panels inside, the Ebony lumber and fine finish work. I have no proof the Ebony sounds better than the basic unit, I just wanted something I could look at every day that would bring a smile to my face.
I can't tell either about the Birch layered plinth and the Panzerholz plinth. I will likely replace my MK2 with another MK3 when funds permit and since they have the same tonearm, I will have two identical rigs except for plinth.
At that time I think the comparison will be close enough to print comments.
We built a Panzerholz plinth for the Garrard 301 too, a guy in my group owns it and thinks it's wonderful. Of course the iron block will not work with the Garrard, it's designed to draw energy from the bearing well of the Technics direct drive. The Garrard is rim drive.
The Panzerholz came from a project with Exxon Mobil. My art director for Hunter Douglas (the window treatment people) is also the guy who does special projects for Exxon Mobil.
This particular Panzerholz is used in offshore drilling platforms due to it's strength. Exxon decided to have awards made from the material and ordered a pallet of it shipped in from Germany.
When all was done the left over wood was available and we got it. I don't know what we're going to do when the last of it is gone. The cost is about $1100.00 a sheet plus shipping, and it's very heavy.
Any DIY Audiogon members considering a plinth for their Technics, see link below. I shared my images with Rudolf Bruil because his site was a source and inspiration for my project.
11-23-08: Halcro Hi Albert, Beautiful job with the Technics. Are you able to compare for us the differences in sound with the Technics against the Walker?.......and why you think these might be?
This is part of the same thing going on with VPI rim drive, the new interest in Thorens TD 124, Garrard 301, Technics SP10 and EMT tables.
All these designs bring larger, more direct power to the platter and deliver what everyone calls PRaT.
Regardless of what you call it, the sound is more lively, accurate, powerful and notes are sustained regardless of the complexity of the passage.
I think belt drives brought one sound to the audio community and rim and direct drive bring another. It's odd to remember back when I owned a Thorens TD 124 and the model 125 belt drive came out. At that time I thought there was a loss in the connectivity of the music but told myself that I was wrong, too young to know better. Thorens was a master designer Swiss company and could not possible develop a product worse than their previous design.
Now I realize the 125 was in response to AR and other companies that were taking the belt drive path to isolation. Sure, belt drive works but it gives up energy and power in the process.
If I were in charge at Walker audio, I would keep the current system and also offer a direct drive with a platter mass matched to the motor. The present motor controller housing could hold the electronics for the direct drive and people could choose (Like Chris does at Teres).
The companies that offer choices are growing and I think more to come. The suspension of the Walker, air bearing arm and Lloyd's fierce determination make it a stunning product are what make it the huge success it is. If this were not true, no way would I have owned it for a decade.
If both drive systems were offered by Walker, it would only repeat what Andy Payor at Rockport did, that's in my opinion is not an embarrassment.
If you don't mind me asking when all was said and done how much did this project cost and who did the work. Unless of course it was you... Best- Gary
Quotes are retail, except for (used) MK3 table, (new) custom plinth and platform.
MK3 $6000.00 Plinth $3200.00. Platform (no photographs up yet) about $1600.00 SME 312S $2600.00 Purist DIN to RCA Proteus $4360. Koetsu Coralstone Platinum $15,000.00 Stillpoints, set of 4 with risers $625.00 Mods to power supply $175.00 Purist Dominus AC cord $1990.00 Hammond USA to Japan Isolation transformer $275.00 Micro Seiki Gunmetal turntable mat $600.00
It's my design, a guy in my audio group who builds one of a kind, high end furniture constructed plinth and platform in his shop and I put it all together.
During this period, about sixteen listeners joined me in the comparison with only one voting for the Walker. Knowing Technics would be my new direction, I searched and bought the MK3, designed a plinth that I hoped would be better than the previous.
The build quality and technical specifications of the MK3 are vastly better than the MK2, but I will take my time comparing before I post an opinion.
I think you would be surprised, I have better sound than I've ever had, and by a large margin. Our music group misses your input, I hope you can arrange a visit soon. Ideal time would be in a few weeks with my new Aesthetix Eclipse in the system.
Fred is coming in this next Tuesday, I pick him up a Love Field a few hours before dinner.
