Technics SP-10 Tonearm Pod instead of Plinth/Base

There are megabuck turntables that do it either way, tonearm on outboard pod vs tonearm very firmly associated with the bearing/platter. Probably it works either way, if the design is done properly. As I stated several times, my main beef with a separate pod is the possibility that a careless bump will destroy the alignment. That's on the practical level. Then too on the theoretical level, I like the idea of rigidity of the connection between tonearm/platter via the arm mount and bearing.

Probably I should query Mark on the controller.

I agree with Lew regarding rigidity of connection between cartridge/tonearm and the platter/record. Considering the small margin for error in proper cartridge set up, I just don't see how any lack of absolute coupling between them could be beneficial. And inserting any sort of suspension between the cartridge and headshell seems it would be worse, but I know there are some who advocate this.

One friend has a Garrard 401 mounted in a massive (solid) maple plinth with the arm(s) mounted outboard on tall, massive brass pods. Possibly they are heavy enough not to move but there is still the issue of exact positioning. I will admit his set up sounds very good. But could it be better with a direct coupled mounting?

Just to end this idle discussion, try taking a SP10 motor and platter unit out of its housing and run it with no plinth, and no platter. It will not work at all. This is very close to the condition that Raul mentions, and is extremely ill advised.

OMA has a new system for the SP10, with the motor control boards located in a separate enclosure, and the motor and platter securely anchored to a 210 pound slate plinth. This is the right way to do it.

Disclosure- We are OMA.

Jonathan

To be fair, I don't think Raul ever advocated running the SP10 with no platter. As you suggest, the motor will go nuts with no platter. I agree with you on your solution; Raul has another way.

I believe there is much confusion about Raul's table, possibly due to his non-English native language, although I think he communicates quite well.

I attempted to include a link to a photo of his SP-10 but cannot figure out how to do so. It is a wood frame which surrounds the motor unit and extends to one side to provide a mounting area for the arm. In answer to the OP, this is a secured fixture between the mounting for the motor/platter casing and the arm base. It is NOT a separate arm pod so that is not what he is recommending as an alternative. His solution is only this minimal frame (possibly 3/4" thick) to hold and position the arm, plus three suspension feet underneath the motor pan, and not a more massive plinth as most others have constructed.

If I may be allowed to continue speaking for Raul, his position is that a high mass plinth is not necessary for good performance with an SP-10 Mk 2. I have been using a similar mounting for my Mk 2A for over a year with pleasing results. Whether this is inferior, as good as, or better than a more massive plinth I cannot say -- I haven't tried one yet.

But two discussions have developed within this thread: comments on separate arm pods as ask in the OP, and the question of desirable plinth mass, now with an even further diversion by Weisselk in suggesting the removal of the controls and electronics outboard with only the motor/platter attached to the plinth (whereby I assume he eliminates the cast mounting frame for the motor, electronics, and switches). Hopefully all this discussion may be useful to the OP and he/she is still reading after all this time. ;-)