SP10 Mk II vs Mk III

Dear Radical, I had the impression from your first description that your SP10 plinth was made of some kind of metal, which is why I suggested you try wood or slate, not because I thought the mass was too low. So, what is it made of, in fact?

Raul, you and Albert may have arrived at the same endpoint in different ways. In Albert's wood plinth (which can be seen on the Sound Fountain website), he employed a steel rod that is threaded so it can be tightened against the bottom of the SP10 chassis. That rod is also attached to a dense metal block at the base of the plinth, so as to drain energy from the SP10 chassis. In a way, that achieves the same end that you achieve by sitting your chassis right on the three feet. I am trying to figure out how to do something similar with a slate plinth.

Dear Hiho: This Sp-10 comes ( from original owner: not me. ) with a square 1" MDF attached to the SP-10 up square plate where ( right side ) the tonearm is mounted, not very orthodox but works fine.

Regards and enjoy the music.
raul.

Lewm, allow me to reiterate my understanding of both Albert's and Raul's designs, having communicated with them. This may stimulate their responses if I misunderstood either one.

Albert installed a brass rod that attaches to an iron block at the bottom of his plinth. The rubber plug on the bottom of the protective pan under the table has been removed to allow the rod to firmly contact the bottom of the spindle bearing housing, thus draining or sinking away vibrations.

Raul installed the three AT footers under the pan itself. Since the pan does not touch the spindle housing, his system provides an overall suspension.

Therefore, Albert's system is high mass, with a design to specifically sink motor/bearing vibrations. Raul's system is low mass, designed to firmly suspend (pneumatic) the entire tt system. So I think they defined very different endpoints.

Lewm, the plinth is made of a combination of solid birds-eye maple and brazilian rosewoods. I did not weigh it, but based on my gym workouts, ha-ha, I figure around the 40lb mark +/- 5. My japanese lead plinth for my TT-101 is about the same at 20Kg.

I have tried it with various cones, no cones, sorbathane and the sprung version just seems to have better clarity and defintion to my poor ears. In that sense the SP-10 plinth then is a combination of mass loaded and sprung isolated. Interestingly the japanese heavy leaded plinth was designed as far as I can tell from surfing Asian websites for either Sony, Denon or Victor direct drives and I have sen a Garrard 301 also on one. I used to live in Asia and still travel there now on business and if I have time look / shop for audio goodies.

My floor is carpet on ply on sub floor nailed to concrete in a purpose built H/T & Audio room in the basement. I don't particularly suffer from floor resonance but would also prefer to have the turntables isolated on shelving attached to the wall if I could - another project waiting to happen!

Steve

Pryso, Thanks for that input. I was unaware that the rod in Albert's plinth actually goes thru to the bearing housing. Very ingenious. So you're correct; that IS different from what Raul has done. You've given me some food for thought; a similar device could in fact be placed under a slate plinth.

Raul, As regards your remark that the SP10 MkII and III may not be the best of their contemporary Japanese brethren, that may or may not be correct, but the point is moot, since those tables are so rare and unavailable. In any case, I would bet that any of them would also benefit from re-thinking the plinths they came in. In many cases it was a big hollow wood box, a nice box, but still a box. Last time I visited my son in Tokyo, I saw a mint Yamaha GT2000 sitting on the floor in an audio salon. Sadly, it had been promised to another customer. The price was actually quite reasonable, about $1500, I think. Anyway, the subject of this thread is the SP10 and its variants.