SP10 Mk II vs Mk III

Johnp,

great report on the shootout between the Dobbins tt's.

as i own(d) all three of those exact tt's (i sold the Mk2 last year and still have the Mk3 and 301) your report has interest to me.

first a comment; i never percieved my Mk2 with Schroeder Ref SQ arm as 'dry'. audiophile terms are not exact things and one man's dry is another man's 'detailed and transparent'....in any case, the Dobbins Technics SP-10 Mk2 was involving and natural sounding to me. OTOH i've not had a Strain Guage cartridge in my system.

a question; did the Dobbins Garrard 301 use the Loricraft UPS 301 AR power supply? i've only heard mine thru my Loricraft so i'm just wondering about how the presence or not of it might affect things.

one more thing......thanks for the report on the Dobbins 301 platter. Steve is supposed to be visiting me in a few weeks and he'll be bringing the 301 platter which i'm planning on purchasing.

Hi Lew,

"But I must confess, there is so much information in your post that one essential element eludes me; were the MkII and the Mk III BOTH mounted in Steve Dobbins' plinths?"

Yes, both were mounted in Steve Dobbins' plinths. However, all three plinths used different materials and construction. Each was designed to reduce noise transfer from the particular motor of each to the armboard and platter of each. Steve tried many combinations.

"Also, what platter mats did you use on the Technics tables?"

The MkIII had a SAEC SS-300 with a sorbathane "like" material on top of it. The MKII had the orignal rubber mat. Since getting my MkIII, I have tried two different mat combinations. First I compared the original rubber mat to a Saec SS-300 with a Herbie's Way Excellent Mat on top of the Saec. The Saec & Herbie combination sounded muffled and dull in comparison to the rubber mat. Next, I compared the rubber mat to the Saec mat alone. I couldn't hear any difference between these two mats. For each of these comparisons, I adjusted the VTA on my arm to get the best sound for each combination.

The 301's I heard previous to listening to Steve's 301 were uninvolving for me, no "juice". The plinths were different so maybe that would account for what I heard, I don't know for sure.
I don't remember all the modifications that Steve did to these three tables, but I know what I heard. In this situation, the MkIII was much better than the MkII but maybe in a situation with different plinths with different modificaitons the outcome may be different. I can only give you the conditions for this comparison and my opinion, for what it's worth, given these conditions.

Best,

John

Hi Mike,

I not sure what power supply Steve used during the shootout.

Best,

John

John,
You wrote, "The MkIII had a SAEC SS-300 with a sorbathane "like" material on top of it. The MKII had the orignal rubber mat." Perhaps that had something to do with the across the board superiority of the Mk3. But with quasi-sorbothane on top of SAEC, it would seem that the "sorbothane" would dominate the sound picture, as compared to the SAEC.

But then you wrote, "Next, I compared the rubber mat to the Saec mat alone. I couldn't hear any difference between these two mats." Wow! They sound quite different in my system. The SAEC seems to impart a lower noise floor compared to the stock factory mats on either the Denon DP80 or the Technics Mk2A; on both, I can hear inner detail better in all frequency ranges with the SAEC vs rubber.

I am not touting the SAEC in any way over all other possible substitutes, because it is the only one I have tried. I am curious to try others. Clearly, the mat makes a big difference. However, with the direct-drive tables one must be cautious about using a (metal) mat that is very much heavier (or very much lighter) than stock, for fear of upsetting the operation of the servo mechanism that maintains stable speed. That's how I glommed on to the SAEC. It is less than twice as heavy as the stock rubber mat.