Albert Porters after market panzerholz plinths

Thanks for all of your info. Well, we can ask the BKB to sand and cut into the size we want!

Dear Halcro, Have not laid eyes on a live GPM, let alone heard one. Maybe I will see one at the RMAF, if I get there.

Dear Dbcooper, I am constructing a combination baltic birch/slate plinth for my SP10 Mk3. Albert was kind enough to lend me his idea of an energy absorbing metal block and rod, built into the (wood part of the) plinth. It is taking forever, and little problems take me a long time to solve, because I have a profession and a family with more important problems that have to come first. But the end is in sight. (So too is mine.)

Hi Halcro

Our mutual friend Ian in Melb bought a GPM.

He has now sold his Basis Debut/Vector as it was getting no use. He has not compared it to any other DD tables.

cheers

Hi Halcro, I have a Grand Prix Monaco. Lewm's comment about it being in the "top tier" is a fair comment and difficult to dispute in my opinion. Anyway, it does have at least 1 owner in it's fanclub :).

It is significantly better than my previous table (SME 20/2) especialy in it's very low noise floor and speed stability. Like (most) anything it has it's strenghs and weaknesses.

Now if you're asking a candidate for the "best" table, I have heard Albert's mark 3 several times in his plinth. It's hard to dispute this being at or near the top. It combines the attributes of my Grand Prix, but adds a wonderful weight, power and wetness to the sound with no loss in resolution (maybe even increases rez over mine).

Jfrech, Do you recall or can Albert tell us what turntable mat he is using on his Mk3? Surely the factory stock rubber mat can be beaten. The choice of a mat makes a huge difference, once the other elements are optimized.

I like your choice of the word "wetness". If we are on the same wave length, this descriptor indicates that Albert's plinth is probably fully successful. IMO, the stock MK2 has only one major fault, and that is, or could be described as, "dryness" or a faint gray-ish coloration. (I have not heard a Mk3 yet, not even my own, so I don't know to what degree the Mk3 is inherently free of this character.) Raul might fairly say, and maybe I would also say, that the dry, gray coloration is a sign of an inadequate plinth that is adding its character to the sound. Perhaps this sonic character is mitigated BOTH by using "no plinth" AND by adding a well designed plinth. Pure speculation.

Lewm: I would like to add: and the right TT mat.

Raul.

Good point about mats. Perhaps combo of mat and plinth is most important?

Dear Jfrech: I'm not disputing the MK3 quality performance against your Monaco. I asume that your experience/comparison was not in your system with the same tonearm/cartridge.

So: don't you think that your statement about is not only unfair but almost useless? because IMHO you are comparing two totally different set ups, I mean that yours is totally different to the Albert one in almost any audio link. IMHO the only similarity is that both systems reproduce music recordings.

Maybe I'm wrong and you heard it with the same surrounded " environment ".

I heard twice the Monaco ( unfortunately not in my system ) and at least one of them in system I know very well. I like what I heard and I like its build quality too. IMHO the Monaco is a very fine piece of " music " and I think it is one TT that belongs to the top today TT designs along other ones.

regards and enjoy the music,
raul.

The Monaco is a very well designed and executed turntable. I've setup two of these tables in very familiar systems with same cart/arm/phonostage/pre/amp/speakers. The table's performance is consistent and predictable. Less than a year ago, I put an A90 on one of the tables and it performed very well while clearly displaying the differences between the two cartridges both strengths and weaknesses. I've met and discussed the table with the designer Alvin Lloyd as well as visited two rooms during RMAF accompanied by Alvin himself. I think the GPA Monaco is a fine table with excellent performance.

Of course this performance is dependent on the total system. As with all things audio, if everything (all equipment and the room) has synergy you are in for a great ride. If not then there is going to be something else out there that may fit the particular system better.

Lewm, hi I think Albert is using a finely machined copper mat (it's heavy and rigid not flexible -think of a dinner plate size piece of copper that's machined to tight tolerences). And you're on the right path regarding my use of the term "wetness"

Hi Raul,

No I have not compared it. So as you usually say a direct comparison with zero varibles is best. So that didn't happen. However, I'll stick by my assertation that Albert had a top table vs top tier. If that makes sense.

So I fully agree with you, I love my Grand Prix Monaco and have no intention to sell it anytime soon. It's my main source and careful system matching/setup can make it sing beautifully well. It is a top tier and a good buy. Stop by soon :) and listen !

i think Jfrech has it about right on the GP Monaco. i had one for about a year in my room. it's a really nice tt, fit and finish about perfect, great speed, low noise and neutral sounding in a good way. i 'prefer' my Dobbins SP-10 Mk3 for it's dynamics and foundation (wetness?) and my Dobbin's Garrard 301 for it's 'swerve' or whatever term you'd use. i seem to like tt's with a bit of 'mass' (Rockport).

but i could more than happily live with the Monaco for sure.

Dear Mapman: How about, combo of mat and tonearm/cartridge. Most important?

well IMHO the mat makes a difference and has a critical importance. Hard to say which TT link is more important but IMHO whatever you think the mat could be at the top.

regards and enjoy the music,
raul.

Raul ,is there any chance of seeing some pictures of your nude sp10?I just can't wrap my mind around exaclly what you done and I thank you.

Regarding TT mats I have a Micro cu180 my question, is this mat too heavy for the bearing of a sp10mkii?

The CU-180 is the perfect mat for an SP10mk2 and it is one of the best mats made. You're a lucky guy!

What is the weight of a CU-180? The stock MK2 mat weighs a bit more than half a pound. I would not use a mat that weighs much more than 1.5 lbs. It is not the bearing I would worry about; it is the servo action. The servo and motor were designed together for a specific total mass of platter + mat. But this is REALLY off-topic.

If it's the Micro Seiki CU-180, it weights 1.8kg / ~4 pounds.

Yes it is the Micro Seiki mat,what mats have you guys tried and liked with the sp10mkii?

I can definitely see where a copper or metal mat in general could liven things up assuming the table drive can handle the weight!

If the M-S mat weighs 4 lbs, consider that the platter + mat now weighs over 12 lbs. (If memory serves, the MK2 platter alone weighs about 8 lbs.) This represents a nearly 50% increase in mass over the stock platter + mat (8 to 9 lbs total). I'm just sayin'....
Maybe it's harmless; maybe not.

I can definitely see where a copper or metal mat in general could liven things up assuming the table drive can handle the weight!

i like copper too.

On the MkIII, the Cu-180 mat isn't a problem. It's a bit iffy on the MkII, however. It's not about the total mass of the platter but rather its moment of inertia. The amount of correction the MkII servo system makes in case of speed variance is related to a fixed value for moment of inertia. The total moment of inertia with the Cu-180 added is almost twice the stock value, so speed correction will be inaccurate, though possibly not audible.

John

I've seen some carbon fibre mats that might have similar properties but lower mass for tables that might not handle a 4 lb copper mat. They are not cheap but less than copper also I see.

Lewm and John what you say makes sense to me I'll pass on using the micro and try something close to the weight of the original mat when I get to that stage
Mikelavigne interesting line up of arms and tables I take it one or two in your line up plays large scale music better then other?

I use a SAEC SS300 metal mat on my Mk2 and Denon DP80. Weighs a bit over 1 lb and seems to be well tolerated in both cases.

Mike, I presume Steve Dobbins made your beautiful copper mats. (Well, he surely made the one on The Beat.) Does he sell them to the general public, or only to those who purchase a larger enchilada?

All I can say with all this talk about plinths etc, I sure am glad I bought a table from a company that actually spent time and $$ building an integrated table, plinth and tonearm that takes away all this stress and sounds absolutley world class to boot.
http://audio-database.com/PIONEER-EXCLUSIVE/player/p3-e.html

http://www.l-07d.com/

I am sure lewm will chime in here. Lew, how would you describe thye sound of your LD-07? I keep thinking dymanicel, but lacking in low level harmonics and tone - but I am probably wrong. How do you find the intergrated tonearm?

cheers

the copper-tops are platter surfaces, not mats. Steve sells a Garrard 301 copper-top platter that lowers the noise floor 4-5 db compared to a stock platter and sounds great. i don't think he makes any copper mats that i know of.

all three tt's do large scale music nicely; maybe the Rockport slightly more nicely as it can separate musical lines in a cresendo like no other tt's i've heard. low noise, amazingly stable soundstage, perfectly flat record.

I use the CU 180 on my Mk III and my Mk II. They are actually made of Gunmetal and sound slightly more alive than copper. The performance of the Mk II improves substantially with the CU 180 mat. Maybe I have been lucky but to date no sonic issues with the added weight.

I also have used a copper mat on my Garrard 301 beneath the stock rubber mat with good results. I believe this adds substantial mass to the platter in essence damping the chatter of the original aluminum platter and lowering the noise floor. I have listened to the Garrard without the stock rubber mat only the copper mat and prefer it with both. Once again no problem with the extra weight on the Garrard.

I would like to try a CU 180 on the Garrard, but have not to date tried one
because the CU 180 does not fit the spindle of the Garrard and needs modifying.

All the turntables are mounted in Porter panzerholst bases.

Logenn both your Technics tables and your Gerrard did you change over to panzerholz plinths from other custom plinths?

Yes, with the Garrard I built a baltic birch plinth with multiple layers anticipating big performance gains, but the performance was mediocre at best and very disappointing. It was a reasonably substantial plinth, but not until the Porter and Semrod designed panzerholst plinth did I realize the potential of the 301 turntable as a reference turntable. Their massive plints with numerous tweaks to enhance the resolution elevated this idler wheel turntable past some very formidable competition.

I am also using the Loricraft motor controller with the torque control, which recreates the original 50 Hz sine wave that the 301 was engineered for in the 1950s (courtesy Steve Dobbins). Presumably this improves the operating smoothness of the powerful 301 motor to reduce rumble and noise. The torque control allows you to reduce the torque and still maintain speed control with the net effect further reduction in vibrations.

The Technics Mk II arrived in their top of the line Obsidian base, which was not to bad, but certainly not in the same league as the Porter panzerholst bases. Transformation is amazing and moves these turntables
to the top levels of performance.

My mark III arrived with no base for any comparison.

What about the TTweights Copper Carbon Ultimat. Any good?

Thanks, Mike, for the info on your "copper tops". We've discussed this before, and I should have remembered that those surfaces belong to the respective platters, not to any mat.

Logenn, or anyone, as long as you have the correct adapter in place so that proper rotational speed is achieved (the name of the part escapse me), can you tell me a reason why a Garrard will sound any different with a 60Hz AC supply vs a 50Hz one? I've read endless arguments about the effects of high vs low voltage on the performance of that motor, but this is the first time I have seen anything about the effect of frequency.

If you go to Loricraft's website and read their explanation of the benefits of their motor controller, keeping the 301 motor operating at 50 Hz keeps the motor running at optimum efficiency.

The benefit is the motor is running smoother and quieter at 50 Hz vs 60 HZ, with less noise and vibration. Their tests show added noise when operating at 60 HZ.

Once again every attempt is being made to elevate the 301s ability to provide a quiet stable platform so that the tonearm/cartridge can retrieve as much micro detail as possible.

Hello Fellows, I am not trying to hi-jack this wonderful thread but I have a question about wall voltage and it's effect on not only tt motors but amps, pre-amp etc. Logenn's comments above caused me to think about my situation.
I live appx. 4 miles from a large hydro-electric power generating plant and the wall voltage in my home typically runs from 122 volts to 124 volts. What affect ,if any,does this have on the above mentioned components, particularly the tt motor?
Thanks,
Carter

Violin wrote;

I am not trying to hi-jack this wonderful thread but I have a question about wall voltage and it's effect on not only tt motors but amps, pre-amp etc. Logenn's comments above caused me to think about my situation.
I live appx. 4 miles from a large hydro-electric power generating plant and the wall voltage in my home typically runs from 122 volts to 124 volts. What affect ,if any,does this have on the above mentioned components, particularly the tt motor?

i have the same Loricraft PSU 301 AR power supply for my Garrard 301 as Logenn that regenerates the 50hz power. it sounds wonderful. unfortunately i have not heard it any other way so i cannot say how much it improves things.

i do have a hydro power about 8 miles from my home and my own transformer for my home in a newer subdivision of acreage lots. so my street power is pretty good (or at least i thought it was).

last week i installed a 'whole system' 10kva Equi=tech balanced isolation transformer; the 10WQ wall cabinet system. this has made huge performace improvements on every component in my system including my tt's. my viewpoint on 'good power' will never be the same.

Logenn thank you for your response Yes good a.c. when its bad everything suffers

Dbcooper and Mikelevine- good clean power is part and parcel to having great performance. Anything you can do to push the envelope is a net gain in micro detail and resolution. You can't have too much of a good thing. Unfortunately, the quality of our electricity is quite poor and to make matters worse communication signals are run by the power companies causing noise and intereference.

I have a dedicated transformer in my neighborhood just serving my home and it makes a difference. But when the grid is overloaded, I can hear a decline in quality and it makes me wonder, what things would sound like with a dedicated generator and power conditioner.

If you get the basics right, it seems to make everything else much easier.
Good resonance controll and clean power go a long way to lower the noise floor.

If I understand this thread correctly, neither Porter nor Dobbins actually remove the motor and platter of the SP10 from the chassis in their plinth designs, but instead remove the top of the SP10 chassis, and sink that into their plinths?

Mr Weiss lovely work you do. Your choosen plinth material Pennsyvinia soft slate did you select by scienctific methods or guessing this material maybe be good and simply trying it.

Jonathan,

i'll do my best to answer your question.

Albert does not do the 'nude' SP-10 Mk3 plinth. his Mk3 plinth design keeps the case-work on the Mk3. Steve Dobbins Mk3 plinth, which i own one of, does at least remove the top case-work. however; i do not know myself whether he removes anything else from the Mk3 before installing it in the plinth. my impression from my conversations with him is that the motor is secured directly to the plinth; but exactly what that might mean relative to your question i'm not 100% sure of.

A question about comparisons, based on the Walker-Technics comments posted here.

Many experienced hobbyists agree about the importance of component matching - speaker with room, amp with speaker, arm with cartridge. Raul was pretty specific when he suggested the importance of arm, headshell, and even platter mat for cartridge performance.

Why then would anyone argue that the only fair comparison of the Walker versus Albert's Technics should be made using the same or identical arms and cartridges? Who is to say the optimum arm for Albert's Technics would be the same as that used on the Walker? And even if the same (or identical) cartridge(s) was/were used in the comparison, what is the assurance it/they offer optimal performance when different arms are used.

This may not seem scientific but I believe music is an emotional experience. Therefore applying science-based tests may not always be most appropriate. For me a better test would be to optimize the Walker and it's arm with the best matching cartridge (obviously choices will vary but since the evaluation will be made on an individual basis I consider this OK). Then do the same with Albert's Technics, this time matching arm and cartridge. Then make the sonic comparison with EACH table optimized.

Your choices in optimizing each table may be different than mine and our respective conclusions may or may not agree. But each of us would have based our ratings on the best we felt each table could perform.

I trust this in not beating an old subject to death but in all my years in this hobby I've simply observed too many varying opinions about what is good and what is not so good to believe that rigorous "scientific" testing procedures (eliminate the variables) present any truth.

Pryso,

my guess, knowing the likelyhood that Albert tried quite a few of the pretender/contender cartridges while he owned the Walker, is that Albert had a pretty good idea of what cartridges worked the best on the Walker. and in any case; the Walker does not allow for an alternate arm, so you are stuck with comparing the Walker with it's fine linear tracking arm.

so Albert would have been in as good a position as anyone to make the comparison with the cartridges he knew at that time. he had way more experience with cartridges on the Walker than the Technics.

i have a Rockport Sirius III and sitting next to it is a Dobbins Technics SP-10 Mk3 with a Reed and Talea arm. i have multiple cartridges which have been switched back and forth. i have my opinions about this and that which is as close to 'a truth' as you are likely to have.

i respect Albert's perspective.

Mike, I may not have made my point clearly. I too respect Albert's experience and perspective. So based on that I can accept that he believes his custom Technics to be more satisfying (better?) than his (at the time) Walker.

My intended point was to challenge those who discredited his conclusion because of component variations - the arms in that case. Comparing different turntables by utilizing the same platform, arm, wire, and cartridge may not necessarily be a level playing field in my opinion.

Dear Pryso: What Albert decided and why he decided on the subject is only his privilege and no one else.
In the other side that I disagree with him as I stated/posted is my privilege and IMHO at least I put my " mouth " on what I believe, other prefer stay in silence: that's their privilege.

I totally disagree for many things ( between others ) that you take ( hipothetically )two different sources ( phono cartridges ) with two different tonearms with two diferent tonearm wire to make a two TT comparison: how can we do it? when both sources has its own " signature " that between other things can put in your " brain/mind " some kind of bias/preference, how can you be " neutral "/non-biased to one source or the other only by its " signature " sounds?.

Two different sources that not only has its own " signature sounds " , these " signature sounds " means IMHO: that handle different the audible frequency range because has different frequency response, different crosstalk/channel separation, different distortions, different frequency range at both frequency extremes, different tracking " hability ", different, different and different...., there are no two cartridges alike that I know even in same cartridge model could be tiny performance differences.

How could you compare two TT where the TT's are " surrounded for different: source/cartridge/, tonearm, wire/cable and the like? Please let me know how can you do it? Pryso think for a moment: when you test a Dynavector XV-1s ( or any cartridge. ) in two different tonearms ( everything the same. ) you always will have two " different " performances. Now imagine when you have all different ( not only the tonearms. ) as you propose.

I have to say that I can't imagine that comparison but if you explain to me I will try to understand it and maybe is time to change my overall point of view on the subject.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Addressing a couple of points:

I totally disagree for many things ( between others ) that you take ( hipothetically )two different sources ( phono cartridges ) with two different tonearms with two diferent tonearm wire to make a two TT comparison: how can we do it? when both sources has its own " signature "

I've stated this at Audiogon many times but want to post a response again since it keeps coming up. The two turntables were fitted with identical cartridges, one was obtained from Lloyd Walker himself for the comparison.

Tone arm wire was the same or in favor of the Walker (better quality on Walker for part of the test). Phono stage, power cables, cartridges and all electronics were identical. Perhaps even more important, the test was not an A-B comparison, but rather long term listening with multiple visitors over a period of many, many months on a wide variety of software with every conceivable adjustment to tweaking the variables.

Albert had a pretty good idea of what cartridges worked the best on the Walker. and in any case; the Walker does not allow for an alternate arm, so you are stuck with comparing the Walker with it's fine linear tracking arm.

Mike Lavigne is stating what I posted earlier in this thread. The Walker is manufactured with it's own arm and it's not removable.

Test was done the only way it could be. Every variable that could be equalized was done and the impossible was left as is.

Table/arm/cart function as a system. You can toss the plinth, mat, and anything else that is there for benefit of the table into that system also. You want to optimize each system and compare. Components that perform optimally in one system may not in another. That could be plinth, mat cart, whatever.

If done well, each optimized phono SYSTEM should perform well. Each better or worse perhaps in particular aspects of the resulting sound. Which is better will often be a matter of personal preference and also how that phono system fits into the larger system as a whole as well. Obviously, use of high quality components in the properly integrated system is an insurance policy of sorts towards better performance, but not necessarily an indicator of better sound.

Not sure what else can be said objectively. Each case is different. Unless you exactly replicate a system that sounds good, it is hard to predict how any particular component will sound when you use it in your system. It is a combo of art and science through trial and error over the long term that delivers the end results. Knowledge, time and money are necessary ingredients. Otherwise, all bets are off.

Dear Albert: As I stated/posted I'm not questioning your decision in any way: it was and is your decision.

What you quoted of my post was in reference on Pryso statement where he think that to matched different cartridges in two different tonearms makes " the work " for comparison on two different TTs where everything is different.

In your case ( and I mean your case because Pryso put your TT comparison as an example. ) we only have two variables: different tonearm and different tonearm internal wire and I don't know if you use the same mat in both TT if not then three variables ( I assume was used the same plattform to both TT's. ).

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

My whole point was raised to try to understand the position of those who believe that the only worthwhile (valid?) comparison is when just one component is changed - the turntable in this case. Mapman perhaps presented my perspective best when he focused on the table/arm/cart as a "system". It is comparing differences within systems that becomes tricky.

Raul, I hope you know I respect your experience and observations. Many times in your MM/MI thread you have commented on matching the best arm or headshell to optimize the performance of a given cartridge. You are unusual in owning such a large selection of tables, arms, headshells, etc. that you can really fine tune the set up for any cartridge to evaluate it, and report your impressions based upon the optimized system. I believe your reviews are better than any paper or on-line magazine for this reason.

To draw a parallel, you do not evaluate every cartridge in the same arm/table/headshell so far as I know. And even if you have a "preferred system" where you make your initial evaluations, you obviously do try other combinations to obtain the best performance of the cartridge under review.

So what I'm trying to understand is how you and all others who accept only a "single variable comparison" think it is fair to mount the same arm and cartridge on two different tables and then judge which table is best? Yes this may tell you which table you preferred within that particular "system". But in my mind it will not necessarily tell you that your choice will be preferred in all systems, i.e. that it is the best of the two tables. If one size fitted all, this would be a far simpler hobby.

Peace to all and happy listening.

So what I'm trying to understand is how you and all others who accept only a "single variable comparison" think it is fair to mount the same arm and cartridge on two different tables and then judge which table is best? Yes this may tell you which table you preferred within that particular "system". But in my mind it will not necessarily tell you that your choice will be preferred in all systems, i.e. that it is the best of the two tables. If one size fitted all, this would be a far simpler hobby.

after first acknowledging there is no real ultimate truth of 'what's best' when comparing tt's, i think one can form useful conclusions with reasonable efforts. particularly when you own 2 or 3 tt's over a period of time amd move arms and cartridges between them. characterisitics do emmerge. preferences get established. if that preference holds in multiple situations it gains in credibility.

it helps to have 2 of the same cartridges, or two of the same arms, or even a phono stage with 2 inputs. this allows speedy 'single varible comparison'.

but for me it's the months of listening to tt's side by side which allow a real sense of what is what. quick looks are useful but less valuable for me.

as far as 'system' synergy; i suppose there are amp/speaker/room combinations which may favor one vinyl front end over another. maybe tubes and horns may invite idlers and Koetsu's, as an example......but at the top of the vinyl food chain i don't see much of that approach. vinyl gear that aspires to be SOTA are typically all around performers and not limited to one system character.

at the end of the day colorations will always get in the way of the musical message.

Dear Albert, Now that you may be lurking here for a moment, can you say what mat you are using on the Mk3? Someone said "copper" but now which copper mat. As you know, there are several in the marketplace. Also, it would be interesting to know what other mats you may have tried and not liked. Thanks. Hope a response does not create a conflict of interest for you, as a dealer.

By the way, I think you and Raul are both correct. The best most scientifically "valid" comparison is the one performed as Raul suggests. But that was not possible in this case, and Albert's comparison must be the next best thing. I especially am swayed by the "months" of listening by Albert and many other skilled listeners, and the use of several different cartridges, that went into the decision process. But the conclusion is that the Walker table with its tonearm, etc. was not loved as much as the Mk3 with its tonearm, etc, where "etc." includes mostly the plinth materials, since other variables WERE held constant.

Initially Albert favoured a Technics MK2 model in a newly constructed plywood plinth then later moved onto panzerholz with much differant results
It was also pointed out over the course of time some of Alberts listening group involved also switched from their long standing turntable preference to a MK 2 or model 3 Technics.
Some of you here have multipal direct drive and prefer other brands over the Technics sp line

Common knowledge among us here simply points to personal preference's,and as Mike Lavigne points out,choose your colourations wisely