SP10 Mk II vs Mk III

Lew, I was talking about a Pioneer receiver, not the table. I remember some of the Pioneer tables were not too bad, but the arms left a lot to be desired, as did that heavy Technics arm that was often found on the SP10 and SL1100s.

I always wanted an SP10 back in the old days but had to settle for the SL1100. Then everyone was telling me that belt drive was the big thing. Now DD is back...

Ralph, sorry for my confusion. Could you be referring to the EPA-100, when you mention "that heavy Technics tonearm"? I have no opinion, but others say this is a really good unit.

Silverprint, I own a Boston Audio Mat I, which is made of graphite. Is that the material you have in mind? As Cpk says, it does seem a little fragile in the context of the mat, but maybe a thick block of it would be much stronger. I think that stuff would be great for absorbing and dissipating energy, but you might want to combine it with something denser, for the mass effect alone.

Ralph, your less than favorable comments on the "OEM plinths for the Technics" must have been intended for the Teak plinth. I first read it wrong, thinking you meant to reply to Lonestarsouth on the SAEC SBX-7 since that was an OEM plinth. That confused me further since the SAEC is so similar to your earlier description of a desirable plinth. To me the Teak looked like something anyone with basic woodworking skills could produce.

Like Lew, I'm also wondering about your possible reference to the EPA-100. I've read nothing but good reports on its construction and performance. If fact, with the adjustable damping feature, it could work with higher compliance cartridges than would otherwise be expected for an arm of that mass, as well as medium and low compliance, meaning it is very versatile.

Albert, when you re-capped your sp10 mkII did you do the drive and circuit boards or just the power supply?