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 :)