Technics SL1000 MK3 (SP10 MK3) performance/value VS modern turntables?

Dover, Good to know you have actually had hands on experience with an SP10 Mk3. And yes, of course I realize that computer technology is now way ahead of anything available in 1980-ish.  You guessed correctly; I probably didn't even own a computer back then.  But I also don't think that running a motor at 33.33 rpm is in any way comparable to the complexity with which a modern home computer has to operate. The SP10 Mk3 using the JP Jones module in lieu of the original MN6042 and with the Krebs mod is a superb turntable to my ears. I was hoping that JP Jones would get in on this conversation, because he speaks with an authority I cannot muster when it comes to the electronics. I've often read about the Grand Prix Monaco and the precision of its speed controller out to at least six digits after the decimal point.  Yet the thing was never a big hit with the public.  That could be due to elements of its construction such as platter composition and mass and other factors having nothing to do with its apparently stringent speed control. Could it be that their latest "upgrade" besides being accurately reported (I am not implying fraud), is also a marketing tool meant to revive interest in the product?  Like the old days when one solid state amplifier would tout .01% HD until another would tout .001% HD and so on.  We ended up with the Phase Linear 700W amplifier with .0001% HD and an awful sound. (A red herring, I know.)  Seems to me in the world of servo design for turntables, different engineering groups have espoused different approaches.  Some have favored a "loose" control over a tight one. I believe NVS is one of those that minimize the frequency of corrections.  Among vintage turntables, the Kenwood L07D is in that latter camp.  The art of DD turntable design is as much one of taste and personal listening preferences as it is an absolute science; I think that is another way in which the analogy between modern computer design and operation, where speed and capacity are undeniable measures of performance, and DD turntable control breaks down. 

@dover Sutherland makes a wonderful little device called the Timeline of which I am sure you are familiar.

The SP10MkIII can keep the Timeline's dot on the wall all day long with repeated playing of the LP uncaring of multiple needle drops. Control theory being what it is, the precepts were well understood in the 1980s when the MkIII was designed and Technics had all the expertise needed to do the job right and they did. It is certainly true that computers can now be used as effectively since that is the big thing that has changed in the last 35 years and that is what Technics is now doing in their newer machines.


But their specs are no better, and FWIW this is because the original servo was properly designed and executed, which is also why the MkIII made an excellent platform for LP mastering. 


Unless you can show me that the servo in the older machine is actually hunting or some such, I'm not taking it on anecdote that what you are saying about the older Technics is real. The specs Technics publishes don't seem to agree with you as far as I can make out (but giving you some benefit of the doubt, its also obvious that the actual machines outperform the published specs by a fair degree, so its an unknown as to whether Technics has made any improvement with their new machine).


Now I get that you had a machine but if you are saying you heard something you like better I've no problem with that, but please keep in mind that is a nice anecdote. One variable you did not address is that the stock Technics platter pad, which is supposed to control resonance in the LP itself, does not do that very well. If you did not use the same platter pad on both machines used in a comparison, the results of the comparison are quite suspect!


The one concern I would have in all this (I don't really have a dog in the fight) is that the older machine is subject to the whims of age: electrolytic capacitors can fail, resistor values can drift and corrosion can attach rare semiconductors, compromising them or causing outright failure. But if the refurbished machine is kept in a controlled environment and if replacement semiconductors are around it should be fine.

As I mentioned somewhere above, JP Jones did a head to head comparison of the speed stability of his newly acquired SP10R compared to his own SP10 Mk3, no doubt being run by his module that replaces the MN6042 chip.  The curves were virtually super-imposeable.  Those data were published either here or on Vinyl Asylum, I think.

"…..I may wait on the Krebs for now"
congratulations Dover, you achieved your objective.

When I released my upgrade to the audio community, I did it because I was excited by the prospect of sharing with fellow SP10 owners what could be realized when the MECHANICAL architecture of the motor assembly was optimised. I wrestled with the SP10 MK3 sound for 15 years. chipping away at its, to me, obvious problems. And I felt that I had largely cured them.
What I did not expect was the vitriol and sheer nastiness in these fora over the years since its release, from people who seem to have a personal vendetta. 
Very early on, I built a substantial plinth (the black triangle TT shown on my site) using only the motor core chassis.  I could hear the improvements that this brought but the motor issues were now more apparent, hence my quest.
Exceptional engineering in plinths and electrical work is being done on these TTs It is heartening to see these people and companies put in the extreme effort and skill for the SP line, bringing their product to the market. That said, their work does not address the mechanical  problems in the heart of the TT....the motor itself. This should be self evident 

Yep, there are no measurements, but you would have to be deaf to not hear what it does. Just like there are no measurements when someone replaces the support shelf under a preamp from one material to another, we can hear the difference None of you say, show me the measurements. There are numerous companies selling aftermarket bearings, supports and other bits and pieces for legacy TTs. Most provide no "measurements" supporting the efficacy of their products. 

As to the cautionary notes on my site.
Gentlemen. these TTs are 40 plus years old, bad things can happen which cannot be sorted because parts are no longer available. I make no apology for warning about this risk, which applies to any type of work done by anyone, and prefer to be up front about it. Hey, just owning them is a risk.  The same goes with the irreversible comment. Would you rather I remain silent about this point?

I'm not getting rich selling this, I get a minor percentage of the fee,  it buys me some records now and then. If you can live with a MK3 au naturel, good for you. I find the performance distasteful, regardless of what plinth you surround the motor with or what juice you send into it.

Further, I prefer to pay attention to the comments from discerning listeners like Albert Porter, Lewm, or prestigious companies like Pass Labs and Triplanar who all use my upgrade in their TTs 

I am an infrequent poster here. The nastiness and pettiness of some spoil it for the many who just want to share the joy, fun and sheer beauty of listening to music at home. Giving the few oxygen only makes their flame grow brighter.

OK, I have said what I wanted to say. I will now leave you in peace.

 

Cheers,

 

RichardKrebs,
Let me clarify my statement that I may wait to do your upgrade until a later time is due to cost of doing both upgrades at the same time versus doing the electronic upgrades first and then yours when it is 'safer' financially.
Trying to keep the hobby as stress free as possible :)