SP10 Mk II vs Mk III


A couple of guys here were planning to do listening comparisons of the Technics SP10 Mk II vs the Mk III, in their own homes and systems. Has anyone actually completed such a comparison? I am wondering whether the "upgrade" to the Mk III is actually worth it in terms of audible differences between the two tables. Possibly mounting either table in a well done wooden or slate plinth mitigates any sonic differences that would otherwise be heard. I am thinking of Albert Porter and Mike Lavigne in particular, who were going to do the comparison. Thanks for any response.
lewm
the plan for the Steve Dobbins plinth for my Mk3 will be to remove the motor/platter from the Technics case. according to Steve; who has done a few of these Mk3's 'nude'; is that it further separates the Mk3 beyond the Mk2. since the Mk3 has quite a bit more torque than the Mk2, the casework is under much more stress, and limits control of resonance. directly attaching the motor to Steve's plinth design pays definite benefits. i did briefly hear Steve's own Mk3 with this design back in September in his room and it did sound wonderful.....but it was a very brief listen and i had just driven 500 miles....

in any case i am taking Steve's word for this and going 'nude' (without the casework) on the Mk3.

i do like the look of the stock Technics casework and how it integrates into my Mk2 plinth and how other Mk2 and Mk3 designs look with the case; such as Albert's.....compared to the 'nude' look. Steve is reworking his design from an aesthetic perspective for his next round of 'nude' Mk3's.

on a related note; i have put my Mk2 up for sale as those funds will pay for Steve's work on the Mk3 (and keep SWMBO happy). so i will not have both the Mk2 and Mk3 at the same time. i can still 'guess' later about how they compare but that is the best i will be able to do.
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?

In theory removing the motor and installing in a more secure mounting is a good idea. Maybe I'll do that in the future. Right now I have the best sound I've ever had and with my preamp being upgraded and two new MC cartridges breaking in, I'm up to my neck in testing.

Any update on new plinth designs or set ups in this thread?

The idea of removing the motor and installing separately from the stock chassis makes sense to me and I am more and more tempted to do that by the day. Now, I just need a way to cut a slate...
Any update on new plinth designs or set ups in this thread?

Quite a few months have passed since my last comment and since then I've changed out my preamp, phono, cables and phono cartridges.

I have two MK3 Technics, a MK2 Technics and completing yet another MK3 plinth.

The plinth and electronics were equally stunning upgrades as already posted on my Technics MK3 system thread. I'll just say, you have not heard a MK3 until it's been electrically upgraded and rebuilt.

A member of my group has the Steve Dobbins MK3 "nude" and was so taken with my electrical improvements he sent his off to my tech to be rebuilt like mine.
I use the same tech as Albert, and I can confirm what he says. But Bill Thalmann would be the first to say that he is not the only man in the world who can restore the electronics of a MKII or III. The point is really that replacing the electrolytic caps throughout is a good idea when resurrecting any of these 30-year-old dd tables. Other upgrades to the parts, e.g., use of Schottky diodes, etc, are icing on the cake.

As regards the added benefits of removing the motor and platter totally from the brushed aluminum chassis to install the works alone in a plinth (be it wood or slate or whatever) is not something to be taken lightly. In the process, all the on-board electronics have to be moved outboard, of course. This makes the leads between the motor and its contol system commensurately much longer than the Technics engineers foresaw. I don't know whether this would have a negative effect on the servo system, but it might. The main weakness of the standard chassis is potentially the way the motor is bolted to it, which might allow movement or bending under stress at start up, but during play flexing should not be a problem. IMO, Albert's idea of supporting the bearing assembly with a steel rod imbedded in a heavy metal block probably mitigates any potential problem with flexing of the stock chassis. In sum, I decided against such a radical procedure. My SP10 Mk2A has been up and running in an 80-lb slate plinth for several months. Of course you know I am going to say it sounds great, and it does indeed.