Albert Porters after market panzerholz plinths

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

What about the TTweights Copper Carbon Ultimat. Any good?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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'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.

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 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.

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!

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

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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 !

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.

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.

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

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

Raul.

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.

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).

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

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.)

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

Lewm,
Apart from the OTT article on the Grand Prix Monaco in Hi Fi Plus by Roy Gregory a couple of years ago, there does not seem to be huge fan base for this turntable?
Have you heard one or compared one to other DD turntables?

Lewm being a wood base product I think using a waterjet cutter would adversely effect it. BKB did send me via email a product information form outlining specific use of carbide cutting tools,polyurathane adhesives only to be used and to seal the product against moisture, swings in temperature and humidity ect once all cutting is completed

I also thought about a constrained layer plinth using soft slate and panzerholz and yes I agree the panzerplywood would not be easy to obtain and in the end may prove too much for the typical DIY to work with, Mr.Porters plinths look to be a good alternative his pricing for material cost labour intensive job as such leaves little for making much profit. At first glance it looks like a simple thing to make but don't bet on it

Wonder if you can cut it with a waterjet, a la slate.
For comparison, a slab of Pennsylvania slate that is 12 inches square (one square foot) and one inch thick weighs 15 lbs. (Slate from other sources can be more or less dense. For example, Vermont slate, from northern VT, is more dense.) So, a slab of PA slate that is 7 ft long by 39" wide (lets say 3 ft, so I don't have to use a calculator) by one inch thick would weigh 315 lbs. By no means do I mean this (the fact that slate is more dense) to infer that slate is "better" than Panzerholz for plinth-building, because in fact I am coming to believe that a combination of these and/or similar materials might be optimal. And it's quite possible that Panzerholz is superior to slate; I haven't tried it. To be honest, the foregoing information about the difficulties of obtaining and working with Panzerholz just shows the wisdom of ordering a finished plinth from Albert.

Here is some info for you DIYers that are interested in trying panzerholz .First some back ground info
BKB Industries out of Ontario Canada imports this specialty ply direct from Germany by the skid/ship load
The applications which panzerholz is used mostly heavy industry to Formula 1 including armor car applications ect.

Specification example ,product code B15 @ 2130 mm x 1000 mm x 30 mm, density 87lb/3feet so thats just under 7 feet long by 39 inches wide by 1 inch thick, weight about 130 + pounds cost just under $600.00
Request for sanding @ tolerance of + - 0.3 mm is extra under &20.00

B25 many more laminated layers and weighs in more is $700.00 + a sheet

Now if you wanted or even could buy a single sheet you have to realize what something of this size and weight would cost to ship to your door if it was not feasible for pick up

Briefly speaking with BKB they tell me they have had inquires from individuals from the DIY audio hobby for single sheet purchases ranging in all available thickness all the way to 100mm thick sheets OK looking at the specs of that 30mm thick b15 sheet you need a fork lift for that 100mm thick one and then what.

BKB did indicate to me if there were a standard thickness and size wanted by individuals they would consider a package size and amount cut and sanded but then again size and thickness of b15 or b25 would have to be agreed upon among DIYers in this hobby, another dilemma?

I do have some woodworking skills picked up as a pass time hobby and I understand with further conversation with BKB this panzerholz is not easy to work with and its not just the weight im talking about
On Mr.Porters page here on Audiogon he did briefly mention the difficulty of cutting this plywood, it will dullen the best carbide cutting edges quickly
Another key fact when cutting is using a varible speed carbibed cutting tool used at low rpm,maybe a over head router if you happen to have one sitting around.

Something to think about before calling BKB

Dear Frogman, There is also great joy in discussion with
eloquent persons for the sake of argument. My problem with
the éssentilism in the context of 'composition' is that when you take the 'essential part'apart and remove the 'accidental' one you will have no composition. Ie a composition presupposes more parts then one. The musical works are creations of composers and they are called compositions. I don't believe that the composers will allow
any partitioninig of they work. Thy even have protection
from the law by copyright wich is a part of intellectual property law. So even in the law- matters we need ,uh, the
'composed' parts.Ie a single part regardless of importance or essence will not do.
Regards,

**** The notion of essence is from Aristotle. For him then a particular part
must be essencial while the other parts are 'only' accidental. This doctrine is called 'essencialism' but is untenable in logical, philosophical and scientific sence.****

Namdric, in one of your own posts in a different, previous thread you also wrote:

****I was wrong to suppose some kind of 'objective facts' behind our preferences****.

I disagree.

Aristotle was correct. The notion of "essence" is at the root of many of the discussions/arguments that we engage in, in our efforts to determine the superiority of one "part" over another similar part. It is usually a pointless argument because there is always that pesky issue of "preferences". But, the fact that we all have our preferences does not invalidate the existence of an indentifiable "essence". Or, to use a term dear to audiophiles, an "Absolute". The real issue, as I see it, is the normal and very human discomfort that we all feel at the notion that our own personal knowledge and understanding is incomplete; that there is room for further knowledge and understanding.

In that same previous thread you also correctly pointed out the "we all hear the same way". Putting aside the issue of the "interpretation" of what we are hearing, you are absolutely correct. As concerns music and sound, the "essence" of music is something that is most definitely identifiable and recognizable. Extensive exposure to the sound of live music is not the only way to gain a deeper understanding of the essence of music, but it is certainly the most effective. I say "not the only way", because the power of music is something that will always touch us; in spite of ourselves. But this "essence" that we talk about, as concerns the record/playback process, is something that is primarily at the mercy of those "parts" of the equipment "composition" that concern rhythm. There is where most of what determines the preservation of expressive nuance lies. I don't believe this is a matter of "preference", but in fact, an absolute.

Regards.

Google is your friend.

BKB Industrial in Ontario carries it. Couldn't find any sources in the states.

Frogman, The relation between the whole and the parts is called aggregate when the parts are 'similar' or composition when the parts are disimilar. A sentence or statement, for example, is a composition. The notion of essence is from Aristotle. For him then a particular part
must be essencial while the other parts are 'only' accidental. This doctrine is called 'essencialism' but is untenable in logical, philosophical and scientific sence. Why should ,say, word 'is' in 'S is P' (subject predicat)be
essential? BTW the 'is' in this 'S is P' composition has 4 different logical readings so as a consequence we need a new determination of the 'essence' among those 4 logical readings of ,seemingly, 'the same word'.
There are some 'parts' of a composition, say a symphony, that we may like more then the other parts. To me every person is free to choose his own 'beloved part'. While we
all have probable different inclinations or sensitivitys we
have this in common that we love music in general.
Regards,

Where can we buy the PanzerHolz wood? ... I really want to try.

Thanks

"Just some thoughts; fire away."

Frogman,

you've got the passion which is likely 98% of the battle in my mind! Most of the rest doesn't really matter.

Rhythm is the heart of music. It is more important than melody, harmony, tone color etc. Ask any musician, and he/she will tell you that the most beautiful tone, sounding the most beautiful melody, but with bad rhythm is meaningless. There is a truism among musicians that "no-one ever got fired for having a bad sound". An exaggeration perhaps, but the point is that without a great sense of rhythm, resulting in beautiful, controlled expressiveness, everything else becomes irrelevant. That sense of rhythm/expressiveness is also the most fragile element of music. The slightest deviation/distortion, and the "feeling" of the music is destroyed; to a much greater degree than by deviations from an "ideal tone", whatever that might be.

I often feel that we audiophiles are not respectful enough of the fragility of music. The recording/playback process, even under the best conditions, can only destroy some of the expressiveness. What is left, to be retrieved by the stylus tracing the grooves is even more fragile, by virtue of the fact that there is less of it there, as compared to the original performance. This is the reason for being intimately familiar with the sound of live music. We simply won't know what we are missing otherwise.

What does all this have to do with the subject of this thread? To me, everything. After years of trying to make my belt-drive tables (currently a VPI TNT6) sound right, and having owned some of the less exotic direct-drive tables, I am coming to the conclusion that direct-drive is the way to go. I have not heard every heavy-hitter in either camp, but have heard enough of them to feel comfortable with this conclusion, for myself. My TNT is adequate in the speed stability department, but only adequate; most of the time. Tonally, I think it is great. The DD tables I have lived with (not the heavy hitters), have had great speed stability, but not the expressiveness. I think this is due to their inferior tonal characteristics. This is the tricky part of all this. The sense of rhythm/expressivenes of a turntable, regardless of it's drive technology, is affected by it's tonal qualities; which are the result of the resonance properties of the materials employed. But, as with musicians, if you don't start out with rock-solid speed stability, nothing else matters. For this I am now convinced, you need direct drive, and high(ish) torque. The only tables I have heard that struck what I consider a really great balance of rhythm/expressiveness and tone were of the DD/heavy plinth types. These were a replinthed SP-10 MK2, and a lowly replinthed Luxman DD, that as much as I hate to admit, made more music than my TNT.

So how do we explain the sense of rhythm/PRAT of the Linn-type tables. I believe that with those designs, the balance of rhythm/expressiveness and tone has been tilted in favor of a tonal balance that psychoacoustically "lifts" the sense of expresiveness, without actually being as rock-solid (accurate) as the direct drives. Kind of like those "low-fat" potato chips that have twice as much salt as the regular ones, in an effort to make them as satisfying.

Just some thoughts; fire away.

"3000 views"

That's just Albert's drawing power.

Albert is like Kim Kardasian in that way except his drawing power is a byproduct of talents beyond just his good looks!

Lewm the topic in general has attracted over 3000 views thus far,impressive to me or is this pretty much the norm?
I think this thread may have the potential of some great information and learning,even if the topic has drifted off course
David