Questions Regarding Installing a Wheaton Triplanar On A SOTA Cosmos
As luck would have it I recently acquired a Wheaton Triplanar VII U2, and am waiting on it being shipped. So at this point I am trying to decide what the most favorable table to mount it on, and what arm gets replaced. I have a SOTA Cosmos Eclipse with a SME V on it, and that would be my preferred place to install it. The only thing is this Triplanar has the arm cable extending out the back of the arm pillar instead of routed out the bottom of it. I have to assume the cable is going to have to be routed on top of the arm board and then over the edge into the body of the Cosmos. Not wild about that but do not see any other options other than drilling a 1/4 hole and routing the cable through it. Anyone have any experiences to share if they have installed it on a SOTA table?
My second alternative is to put the arm on my Scheu in place of a Dynavector DV505 I have. That is certainly a straightforward option, with no issues to be solved. However, I have never been fond of the SME V on the SOTA, so this would be my first choice.
That is a very good question Jim. I have just a handful of cartridges I can work with. The second arm on the Scheu is a Schroder CB-1L in ebony and I will use either a Transfiguration Audio Proteus or an Ortofon Verismo. Both cartridges sound nice on that arm. I will probably leave the Proteus on it. My third cartridge is an Audio Tekne MC-6310, which might go on the SME V which is on the SOTA. So the Verismo goes on the Wheaton. I have a Kiseki Blackheart Gen 1 that I currently have on the SME V and it sounds quite nice there. It will go to the sidelines, as well as a restored Ortofon MC2000 I have. |
@lewm The problem with those turntables is they don't have a proper plinth, being designed for radio station use. What this means is you can't really hear what they are about unless you fix that problem. A proper plinth will be something that rigidly couples the base of the platter bearing to the base of the arm, that is also acoustically dead. To my mind that would take a bit of machining and a good solidworks drawing of the new plinth as it should all be the same material. If you have something like a panzerholz aftermarket base, it may well be more dead than the vestigial plinth of the machine itself. As a result if there is vibration in the platter, the tonearm will be able to pick it up as a coloration or signal. If the plinth was properly designed that would not happen. For this reason I think the SL1200G is a better bet as it has a proper plinth. Its also easy to mount a Triplanar to it with a proper arm board. |
Lots of SP10 Mk3 users have removed the motor assembly from the base chassis and re-installed the motor only in a plinth that permits the coupling you describe. I have nearly achieved the same thing without doing that in my home made plinth, but I do wish I had had the guts to just pull the motor. Steve Dobbins was the first to do it commercially and make a plinth to go with. But this is a sidebar to the question at hand. Albert Porter's Panzerholz re-plinth does not involve removing the motor assembly from the square chassis. So his plinth is certainly superior to the Technics plinths made for the SP10 Mk2 or Mk3 but is still subject to the issue of which you speak. He deals with that by installing a block of solid iron below the TT. There is a threaded rod (steel or whatever) that screws into the iron block and is adjusted to fit snugly up against the base of the bearing housing. The block is firmly coupled to the chassis, as is the tonearm. I've done the same thing in my home made slate and cherrywood plinth, but I used brass instead of iron; I did not like the idea of installing such a massive piece of iron so close to the permanent magnet that constitutes the rotor of the motor. |
There is not many I know apart from Five inclusive of myself, who have experienced in side by side comparisons, a Same TT, TA, Cart’ with same Sub -Mounting, where three TT were used, with one set in a Marine Plywood Plinth another in a Compressed Plywood Plinth and the other in a P’holz Plinth. My own evaluation was in keeping with others who experienced the Demo’s, which is P’holz has the most attractive influence, if one wants all the details to be laid out and easily detected. If one wants noticeable Colouration Marine Plywood is the choice to make, if one wants a tidied up sound over Plywood, a compressed plywood is quite suitable. P’holz is King and difficult to not use once experienced, especially following comparative experiences. Other options are seemingly firing on Three Cylinders only. Removal of Stator and Bearing assembly from it’s metal chassis and embedding it into a Panzerholz Chassis/Plinth is all the rage in my little world of SP10 Mk II’s. I have a box next to me now with a recently imported Stator/Motor contained, as gift to a friend. I’m also able to use the same design, but not yet set in to a P’holz Plinth. P’holz or Permali as the exchange material to the Aluminium Base on a Sota, will in my view transform it. The Bearing on a Sota can also be much improved, even beyond the later guises developed, that took care of the serious flaws discovered after short term usage of original designs. Bearings are at there best when rotating with an extremely true axis, ( think very low microns), extremely low coefficient of friction (think 0.03 - 0.08) and measures adopted to avoid a Metal on Metal contact within the bearing assembly. Such a bearing design can cost one multiple $0000’s or fortunately in many cases much less to attain, it depends on how one goes about getting to this level of performance., In relation to this thread, I am quite interested to see if this new TA, is one with the performance to show as a comparison how constraining the SME V is, as an influence on how a recording is perceived when being replayed. TT’s hey, either loved or loathed. |
