Upcoming Technics SP-10R (100th Anniversary Model)

Totem395:

I was surprised as well. I understand it for the G series as that table offer an incredible amount of technology and build quality for $4k, so I figure the SMPS was a way to save money in the building and the shipping of the units (weight). The SP 10R is a cost no object endeavor and it should have a linear supply. No matter who it is, no matter what tech, from Halcro to my former Acoustic Reality Ref amps (not the Thaumaturges, those have a linear supply) SMPS on supplies always seem to do a disservice to the quality of the sound.

Time will tell if Technics pulled it off with the SP 10 R because they sure didn't with the G series SMPS which is why I am replacing the SMPS with a custom regulated linear in that unit. Even with the upgrade it is still a flat out steal of a TT.

I now use it with a new phono stage. I was using the iPhono 2 which I preferred over the Pass XP25 (found it very thin sounding), ARC Ref 3, Sim Audio 610 or 810 (don't honestly recall now). It was far more fleshed out than the Pass, far quieter than the ARC and more rhythmically sound than the Sim (all while using an SBooster with an AMR MK 2 fuse for the iPhono 2). Then I came across something I hadn't heard of before, the SPL Phonos. Took me exactly one week to come to terms with how great this thing is, I purchased it. I use it exclusively with the GAE, it is phenomenal. I'll be writing a separate review soon.

I have a Devialet LE 120 amplifier which has an SMPS and it’s one of the best sounding amplifiers I’ve ever heard. On par with the best pure analogue amps such as Goldmund Mimesis 3. I’m sure Technics can and did build a state of the art SMPS for their statement piece turntables.

audiofun, Once upon a time I would have agreed with you about the superiority of a linear PS in all cases, but in recent years there have been big improvements in the design and execution of SMPSs.  And, like Invictus says, there are some pretty nice amplifiers and preamplifiers now sporting SMPSs. So, I would not assume that the SMPS incorporated into the 10R is necessarily a negative, compared to the Mk3.  (I too own a Mk3, and I love it, but I like to keep an open mind about new products.)  Also, the (slightly) greater weight of the Mk3 platter compared to that of the 10R is in part due to the massive circular magnet that is affixed to the bottom of the Mk3 platter.  The 10R platter would not need such a magnet, because it uses a coreless motor (because of the way that a coreless motor is implemented in a DD turntable).  Also, since the massive magnet on the Mk3 is not out at the circumference of the platter, it does not do as much for rotational inertia as one might think.  Thus we cannot be sure that the inertia of the 10R platter is much less than that of the Mk3; it could conceivably be as high as the Mk3, if the 10R platter has proportionately greater mass at its periphery.  With regard to differences in torque, it is difficult to build a coreless motor for purely high torque, because of heat and spatial limitations; I am quite confident that the Technics engineers gave the 10R motor "enough" torque to do its job of keeping speed constant in the face of groove friction, etc.  In fact, the coreless motor of the 10R might make it superior to the Mk3 in terms of cogging and speed constancy.  Based on my experience with the L07D and the TT101, a coreless motor is very desirable in a DD turntable. Albeit the Mk3 is king at my house, by a small margin over the L07D. You made another point about the spindle and bearings of the two turntables.  I don't doubt what you say, but I don't know where you got your info, because I have seen nothing on the internet about the innards of the 10R, including the dimensions of its bearing and spindle.

Lewis:

I have never seen a situation where a high frequency noisy SMPS was superior to a well implemented linear. Doesn't mean it's not possible but I have yet to experience a SMPS powered device that didn't degrade the sound. They always inject that high frequency hash into the wall and the circuit and it manifests as a reticent midrange with an overtly bleached character. The one exception may be Berning's resonant tube based supplies.

I have no beef with anything concerning the SP 10R except the SMPS and the strong possibility that it will do what every other SMPS I've been exposed to has done, mess up the overall presentation. 

I was not mentioning torque in a way to indicate more is better :) just illuminating one of the differences between the tables. My GAE has plenty of torque, more than it needs. That table has drive and finesse, and a nasty SMPS. 

The bearing info is from observation. I viewed my MK3 and the GAE bearings. The G/GAE motor is a template. The R motor is the same except for the added set of stators. Again I was just highlighting that the R is not the MK3 reimagined, more of a MK2.7.

SMPS's are cheap and low in weight and super efficient. Everything has a cost and for SMPS's it's the sound quality. I recall years ago the great Museatex Bidat was offered with a SMPS as an upgrade to the linear. Only a few were ever built and then it was pulled, with the reason being that the SMPS was killing the magic of the Bidat.

I have replaced enough SMPS's in various pieces of gear to know personally that as a whole, they don't work in high in audio FOR MY EARS :)

lewm: sorry about your name above, autocorrect butchered it and I didn't see it before posting.