SP10 Mk II vs Mk III

John P,

Thanks for a well-written description of the comparison. Can you tell what you (or others) think is responsible for the difference between the SP-10MkIII's substantially better sound when compared with the modified SP-10MkII?

Was the Mk3 modified as well? What was modified? Were the plinths the same or somewhat/substantially different?

Dear Johnp,
First of all, thank you so much for taking the time and energy to type out your report and post it here. It seems you took great pains to get valid data relevant to a comparison of these great turntables. But I must confess, there is so much information in your post that one essential element eludes me; were the MkII and the Mk III BOTH mounted in Steve Dobbins' plinths? Also, what platter mats did you use on the Technics tables? One conclusion that I have come to is that the stock rubber mats, supplied with the Technics tables and with my Denon DP80, and with most of the classic vintage Japanese tt's, are suboptimal at best. I found that an SAEC SS-300 metal mat makes both the DP80 and the Mk2A sound much better.

Also, in some respects your report is at odds with what others have told me, mostly in private, which is that the Mk III is better than the Mk II, as one might expect, but that the differences are subtle and of degree rather than of quality. For example, the Mk III was said by one person to have better bass reproduction, period. Another user who owned both tables told me not to bother with a MkIII if I have a MkII, because the upgrade was so subtle. I have also read and heard that the Mk II had a "dry" sound, as you suggest, but I never read a similar comment about a Garrard 301, with or without Steve's platter. The 301 is generally said to sound full and lush, as you say of your Dobbins-modified version. In an unsophisticated solid slate plinth and using the SS300 mat, my Mk2A definitely does not sound dry, but I can tell where that criticism comes from based on previous listening to a totally stock SL1000. None of this is to say that you are "wrong" in any way. It's just to point out how we each may experience the same thing in a different way. The fact that your panel of listeners reached a consensus is very convincing and makes me think my own judgements may be in error or that this is also dependent upon downstream components. Anyway, I now own a Mk III, so I will soon be able to listen for myself. (BTW, if anyone knows how to access the bearing of a Mk III so as to check and replenish the lubricant, please let me know here or in private.)

T-bone,

The MkIII was modified as well by Steve Dobbins. The plinths for each table used different materials to deal with the motor noise created by each table. Steve Dobbins described to me what he did with each of the three tables but I don't remember them all. Maybe Steve D. could weigh in here or maybe you could contact him directly for the information. The work he did on all of the tables was substantial.

John P.

Johnp,

great report on the shootout between the Dobbins tt's.

as i own(d) all three of those exact tt's (i sold the Mk2 last year and still have the Mk3 and 301) your report has interest to me.

first a comment; i never percieved my Mk2 with Schroeder Ref SQ arm as 'dry'. audiophile terms are not exact things and one man's dry is another man's 'detailed and transparent'....in any case, the Dobbins Technics SP-10 Mk2 was involving and natural sounding to me. OTOH i've not had a Strain Guage cartridge in my system.

a question; did the Dobbins Garrard 301 use the Loricraft UPS 301 AR power supply? i've only heard mine thru my Loricraft so i'm just wondering about how the presence or not of it might affect things.

one more thing......thanks for the report on the Dobbins 301 platter. Steve is supposed to be visiting me in a few weeks and he'll be bringing the 301 platter which i'm planning on purchasing.