SP10 Mk II vs Mk III

Hi Lew, yes, I was referring to the EPA-100. My friend has used one for a while, only because he's not had the funds to replace it. He has one of those 'Mod Squad' versions, which was considerably better than the original, which he also has. So I've had a lot of exposure to both versions. I agree it is well-built, but it is also massive and the bearings are in the plane of the arm tube rather than the plane of the platter surface, which means that the arm has difficulty with warps and bass notes.

For clarity, the stock base I saw on eBay was what the MkII came with back in the 70s.

This thread was about to fall off the first page. Mike and Albert, any time you do have anything to say about the MkII vs MkIII comparison, please let us know. My MkII is almost ready to go in a slate plinth.

I'm on hold for testing until my preamp and phono return from Aesthetix.

I would be very interested what the MK2 does in a slate plinth.

I never saw a Kaneta mod up close but only in Japanese magazines. The Kaneta approach make sense to me. I will not get into the power supply modification and I doubt that it's necessary. It might work better for SP10 Mark 1 since its power supply is not as sophisticated as Mark 2. Anyway, I don't know if any of you have taken the motor out of the chassis and if you do you will see it's bolted on a thin layer of aluminum flange. The chassis is in essence a box and it resonates. The ultimate mod would be to take the motor out of the chassis, extend the cables, and mount the motor onto a solid block of whatever material you think is good for fighting vibration, slate, wood, metal, whatever. I just feel that audiophiles who are spending thousands of dollars on a plinth that cost way more than the turntable itself should look into the flaw of the actual mounting scheme of the original design. It is one of the problems I have with typical idler table is that all these loose parts dangling under the platter and the bearing is mounted on a flimpsy chassis and then the chassis is bolted to an overkill plinth; the whole idea just turns me off. I just wish the idler wheel can be placed outside of the platter so the platter bearing can be mounted on something more solid. Notice there's a school of belt-drive tables refuse to mount their bearings on a box and the plinth is as small as possible to avoid big vibrating surface, such as the Simon Yorke or Brinkmann. The Teres idler approach makes sense to me. The SP10 is able to be mounted in such way with no problem. I intend to do that one day. Sigh,... when I have the time, of course. :) This is an exciting thread and it's great to see an excellent direct drive table like the SP10 finally getting the attention it deserves. Its' time to think outside of the Linn box. Happy building and happy holidays!

Hiho, Go over to Lenco Lovers and take a look at the PTP3 top plate, made to conquer the very problems you cite as regards idlers. I'm working on that one, too. You can have a used Lenco and a PTP3 for under $500.

Do you think one could just remove the motor assembly from the existing SP10 mkII, extend the cables that go to the motor from the underslung part of the power supply, and then mount the motor in a plinth? All you'd need to do would be to craft a top cover for the tray of parts that lies underneath in the stock unit. Could conceivably be done without any fancy new electronics. Or could it? Albert, did you think of that?