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.
Thanks

Before I forget, let me add to the chorus saying this is a beautifully designed and built plinth, and I quite like the way the bevel on the top edge references the original plinth.

t_bone January 22, 2009 03:47

I have used the Einstein phonostage for about two years and have very similar feelings to those which Albert expressed. The active circuitry is very sensitive to hum, particularly if the outboard power supply is placed too close to it. Generally, the greater the separation, the better. The power supply is very sensitive to the power cord used and to the mechanical isolation. The single grounding point which Goldmund champions is very effective in this instance (two compliant feet and a third hard footer. It may also benefit from some weight on top as the power supply is pretty light. The balanced version does sound somewhat better than the unbalanced, somewhat more dynamic with a little better detail, but the basic cvharacter is the same.

fcrowder January 21, 2009 16:27

Hi Albert,

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.

In what ways does the Io hold a sonic edge over the Einstein in your system?

Lovely looking turntable you have there BTW, a true labour of love I'm sure.

Best Regards,
Aaron

drajreynolds January 21, 2009 10:23

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.

albertporter January 21, 2009 05:03

No doubt that Peter has most likely moved forward from that time. As for me been out of RTR for many years as the medium no longer holds my interest. When I was with Columbia we used 35mm RTR, although now some 35 years later I cannot remember the brand of the units. Certainly anyone that has a ML 5 by now has upgraded the circuit cards by now. Anyway if I ever find one at a decent price may buy it just for the icon it was. At the time I was more than impressed with its performance, but things do move on and hopefully better, though that is not always the case. How many times as audiophiles we have jumped on something only to find out that the vintage piece was indeed better. But that's what the hobby is about, the search for the elusive grail.

ferrari January 20, 2009 01:36

I am also a Peter McGrath fan and have spoken to him 5 or 6 times and listened to a few of his recordings; in 1980 the ML-5 was likely SOTA for solid state output RTR. no doubt the ML-5 made many fine recordings. i am also going to assume Peter has moved forward since then....solid state circut performance certainly has.

my info on the relative performance of the ML-5 came from a number of pro audio guys i spoke to when i seriously considered purchasing an ML-5 as an alternative to my Studer A-820. i wanted to buy the ML-5 but could not find anything/anyone telling me it would better more current output electronics. my conclusion was to keep going with the A-820 (a superior transport to the A-80) and pursue custom output electronics.

mikelavigne January 19, 2009 23:05

For further info on the ML 5 contact Peter McGrath, he is totally familiar with it as well as many other open reel machines. However with that being said be prepared to suffer the slings and arrows of his dialogue. He does not suffer fools easily. In other words be on top of your game with him. My last conversation with him was March 1980, that was enough for me. His intellect is razor sharp.

ferrari January 19, 2009 22:43

Ferrari; the ML-5 is a Studer A-80 with Mark Levinson early 80's output electronics. i have not personally heard one of these. the only one i have seen for sale they were asking a fortune for; and i think that a person could do quite a bit better in performance with adding the Aria (ATR Services), the Bottlehead Repro, or maybe even deParavincini output electronics to a high quality RTR deck. it's just that 20 year old solid state circutry (even Mark Levinson) has a 20 year old solid state sound. i would expect my deParavincini Technics RS-1700 to be a good deal better sounding. i would expect the ML-5 to better a stock output A-80.

the ML-5 is a special piece of audio history and nicely done; but there is no good reason to expect it's audio performance to be special in the context of today's best sounding output electronics.

mikelavigne January 19, 2009 22:14

Albert, I'm delighted to finally find this post and see pics of your Mk 3 project. It is even more beautiful than I expected.

In addition I would like to thank you for providing so many great details of your designs/construction and your willingness to share so much of what you have learned with others. I found a Mk 2 shortly before you began posting on your Mk 2 and it seemed there was not much information on quality DD plinths and set ups at that point. There was quite a bit on rim drive projects but I was skeptical that all those concepts would apply to DD.

Anyway, many of us owe you a big thanks.

pryso January 19, 2009 21:42

Ferrari,

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.

albertporter January 19, 2009 21:01

May want to try and find a Mark Levinson ML 5 open reel tape recorder. Produced from 1981 through 1986. Used the Studer transport, but thats the only outsourced part. The rest is pure Levinson. Hefty fellow at 117 pounds. Used by some of the finest Classical recording studios world wide. Seldom seen for re-sale. But if I was going for an open reel tape deck, thats the one I would search for. I have heard it back in the day and price wise way above my resources. But in my opinion nothing could touch it.

ferrari January 19, 2009 13:54

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.

albertporter January 19, 2009 05:39

I think that the only solution is comparing both with a master tape - it is one of the reasons why I recently subscribed the Tapeproject.
But maybe both will be so different from the master tape that no definitive answer will be found.

microstrip January 19, 2009 01:19

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.

albertporter January 18, 2009 05:58

I've heard the ~$16,000 direct drive Grand Prix Monaco with Triplanar arm + lyra cartridge many times on varies phono stage configuration. And although Manoco is equipped with all the plus(compact size, super accurate speed and low rumble noise) I felt Grand Prix Monaco sounded thin, lag emotional involvement and not particularly dynamic.

Even thought I own an expensive rim drive HRX, I'm very intrigued by Albert's findings on the modded SP10-MK3. I would also love to know Albert's experience with SP10 vs Monaco.

Best,
Dan

tiguwagu January 18, 2009 00:34

Microstrip, I don’t 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.

albertporter January 17, 2009 20:56

Albert,
Looking for information about the three phase motor controller of the SP10 I found the the Grand Prix Monaco turntable - also a direct drive, using several interesting approaches to deal with plinth resonances. Have you listened to it? It would be interesting to compare it to the SP10 in order to identify if they carry a "direct drive sound".

microstrip January 17, 2009 13:06

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.

albertporter December 28, 2008 20:30

Albert,

What an incredible turntable project! Can you share with me the contact info for you friend who built the plinth? I have a few thinkg I woud like to have built, and I also live in the DFW area.

thsalmon December 28, 2008 17:23

Gerry, I'm gushing with pride after that very flattering comment. Maybe my fine arts degree is helping design as well as my photography career.

albertporter December 20, 2008 21:22

Albert we come to expect wonderful results in everything you do, but this SP-10 MK III is museum quality execution. Wow, what a beauty! You should add Industrial Design capability to your Photo resume.

gerrym5 December 20, 2008 20:54

The power supply is impressive itself.

rwwear December 14, 2008 13:09

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.

albertporter December 14, 2008 04:28

Great job. I love my MKIII. Glad to see you come over to the Dark Side.

P.S. Where's the power supply?

rwwear December 14, 2008 04:16

Thank you Ferrari, coming from you that is a supreme compliment.

albertporter December 13, 2008 20:55