SME 20/3 or Oracle Delphi VI or Garrard 301


I am just about to buy a new table. I have happily owned an original oracle Delphi for 30 years! Choices are the new 20/3, Oracle Delphi VI or possibly a rebuilt Garrard 301. They all run about the same money.
The reviews and comments out there lead me to believe I will be better off using a non SME arm on the 20/3...I will probably go with a Graham Phantom. (I like the removable arm tube concept too) For now I will use my SME IV.
keep reading the SME detractors claim that the tables are lifeless. Not something you can accuse a Delphi of for sure. The HiFi News reviews of both tables are nothing short of glowing. As far as I can tell the Oracle is possibly more nimble and musical(?) while the SME is more "solid".
Your thoughts are welcom
mauidj
Actually, I think it was his single action (rather than any stated opinions) of preferring the Technics to the Walker in his home system that gained Albert a lot of notoriety here. I love my SP1 Mk3, but I do not assume that it would be superior to the Walker table in my own system. I would have to hear that to believe it. I have heard the Walker in other systems and it is remarkably good, too.
Oh OK. Thanks for the enlightenment. Yep I would not have an opinion on that. Never heard an SP10. But that is quite something if it can outperform a Walker. I would like to hear one if that's the case.
Just read some of the threads on the subject...interesting indeed.
Is the Mk3 much better than the 2 as I see those around for not much money?
I never heard either though read some. It appears that there are not many tables that can outperform correctly set-up Walker in any system. It would be fun to compare that Technics to it.
Albert is also a dealer for Purist Audio, if I am right.
cipher,

When you are ready to sell that Oracle IV, let me know. I have a nice home ready for it.
Mauidj, Well, you asked, so I will answer. The Mk2 and Mk3 are quite different from each other. I know it sounds like the Mk3 would be just a later version of the Mk2, but that is not so. Both tables were marketed at the same time, although the Mk3 came along last, at the end of the "vinyl era" and dawn of "perfect sound forever". To start with, the Mk3 has the highest torque motor ever used in a turntable sold to the public, with the possible exception of the Denon DP100, which was a Japan-only product for Denon. The Mk3 has more elaborate motor control than the Mk2 and a 22-lb platter, also very heavy for a direct-drive. It also has all its electronics housed in an outboard chassis; the main chassis supports only the huge motor and the platter.

The Mk2 has an 8-lb platter and a less powerful motor, notwithstanding the fact that it is also a great turntable when properly set up. The outboard Power Supply feeds three regulated voltages to the remainder of the electronics, which are onboard the main chassis along with the motor. The Mk2 is right up there with or ahead of any other vintage direct-drive of that day, was considered a high end product, got raves from HP, etc.

In their day, the Mk3 cost about twice as much as the Mk2 (about $2800 vs about $1500). Ergo, fewer Mk3s were sold, and they are quite a bit more rare than the Mk2. Also, those that own a Mk3 tend to keep it, which adds to the rarity of finding one for sale. Many Mk2s and Mk3s were used and abused by radio station DJ's because of their incredible rapid start and stop capabilities and their durability.