Albert Porters after market panzerholz plinths


I would like to hear from anyone that has purchased a panzerholz plinth from Porter Audio or a panzerholz DIY project.
Reading through all that I could find on this subject it's obvious Mr. Porter did his home work on his design.
My question to those of you whom refurbished, replinth and rearmed some of these direct drives has it advanced analog playback for you?

David
dbcooper
08-17-10: Azjake

Perhaps Steve or Albert would care to discuss the why 's and how's of they're respective plinth applications and what they feel it has achieved for them?
Azjake

The original SP10 Technics was released late 1969 or early 1970 and it operated with feet (no plinth) as Raul describes. Matshusta engineers found lack of stability and solidity of performance and from that point on offered later versions with increasingly massive plinths.

As for design, materials make a big difference. Technics in an attempt to add mass with beauty, designed the obsidian (volcanic glass) plinth which had a nice shape and was beautifully polished.

However, when Hi-Fi Choice reviewed it, they reported that the bass frequencies were lacking and there was a shallowness overall in the mid and upper mid frequency region.

Cause was reported to be from amorphous "structure" of volcanic glass and that other solid glass plinths and / or platters exhibit similar characteristic.

I agree with this British review, it's an accurate description of what I heard in my experiments. Noteworthy too, SAEC Japan (the wonderful tonearm builder) designed a massive, ultimate plinth for SP10 that is still sought after today.

If you don’t believe material has an effect on the outcome of the plinth please consult data on density, sound propagation, stiffness and transfer. A good source to begin is:

“The practising Scientist's Handbook,” Alfred J. Moses.
(Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1978).

Anyone who wants to try their Technics or other high torque direct drive table with slender footers and no mass are welcome to do so and report back their findings.
Raul&Lewn,I hope I will be not crashed between two giants
of our forum. I have also no Solomons intentions. My interest is pure pragmatic.
Lew I think that your slate-plinths are beautiful but hope
that they are also affordable in contradistinction to Alberts and Dobbins 'alternative'.From this 'stuff'(aka slate) we in Europe make floor-covering and there is in Germany a speaker-producer who uses the same stuff as building material. So my assumption is that at least the stuff is affordable. My question is about the provision for
the tonearms. I noticed this 'black thing resting (and rusting?) on a spike' wich one can put everywhere but most of us are not so brave to put a cart in such a thing.I mean a provision such that one can use more then one tonearm.
Raul are other feets then the AT's also suitable for the purpose? Then ( this question is already asked) the armbase to put next to the TT. Those are not easy to get but I have seen a German producer who make them on request but for +/- 600 Euro. Can you suggest some cheaper solution?
Regards,
There is no cheap way out for an effective plinth. It took many hours to develop Albert's plinths and so far many, many months of listening. The first plinth made from Baltic birch was very good and in it the SP-10 MkII trounced the Walker, using identical cartridges. The first Panzerholz plinths were actually made for the Garrard 301 and made mincemeat of the $500 built-up plywood ones from Europe. The single arm Panzerholz plinth for the SP10 was a significant improvement over the layered plywood version and the new two arm version, with its higher mass offered even more improvement, especially in the midrange. Panzerholz is frighteningly expensive and Albert's plinths are very labor intensive to fabricate, so the prices are at a place where very little profit is made. There are very few audio products out there where the cost of the raw materials represent one third of the retail price. The opinions on the effectiveness of these plinths aren't Albert's alone. There are at least twenty longtime and highly critical analog fanatics in his group whose opinions helped shape the design over the last three years.

John
Dear Nikola, If my slate plinths are at all "beautiful" it is only because the company that cut the slate for me does a nice neat job. Once I got the slate slabs back here, I just sealed them with a mixture of oils, and that's all I did for beauty. (The sealer makes the gray-ish slate go more toward the black color.) I paid not much attention to beauty.

Dear Raul, I consider that we are friends, so this is a friendly discussion. To me the issue of mounting the tonearm on a separate base is a whole different can of worms. There are really good reasons to link the tonearm and turntable bearing solidly in space that have little to do with massive plinths. But I do admire your willingness to experiment with all sorts of unfashionable ideas. I HAVE heard an SP10 in a minimal, low-mass plinth, and it was quite unremarkable. I have not tried mounting any tonearm separate from the turntable chassis, because I just think that's not a good idea. Here is my thought experiment that leads me to this conclusion: Suppose you are in a small boat floating in a lake. Someone asks you to perform an intricate task by hand, like calligraphy for example. The paper on which you have to write can be either in a separate boat, so that you have to lean out of your boat and do calligraphy in an adjacent boat, OR you can have the paper and pen in your own boat. Obviously, the task is going to be easier when you, the paper on which you have to write, and your tools are in the same boat, because a second boat is going to bob up and down independently of yours, thereby increasing the difficulty of doing your job maximally well. That's how I think of the tonearm/cartridge vs the turntable; they should be in the same mechanical universe, not in two different universes. The tonearm/cartridge movements due to environmental influences should be identical to those seen at the platter bearing. If you mount the tonearm on a separate pod, there are no guarantees of that. You are introducing another source of error, needlessly. I know there are fancy, expensive turntables that feature separate tonearm pods; I think the idea is fundamentally flawed.
John, There are 'modest' people who are also satisfied with
the 'second best' and probable also able to buy some LP's. That is btw the reason that I am so kind to Lew.

Regards,