Technics SP-10 Tonearm Pod instead of Plinth/Base

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. ;-)

Tim, Your description of Raul's table is exactly as I once envisioned it. I got the impression at the top of this thread that I was not quite correct. Anyway, it's water under the bridge, or a tonearm over a turntable, or something.

One "secret" of the success of Raul's approach may be that he has those Audio Technica feet placed under the chassis of the SP10 itself, not supporting the plywood per se.

Nice old thread, now a fantasy arround the new deck from technics is reallity. Not an sp 10 mk4 unfortunately, we will see...

I'm here to answer about this plinth option for SP-10:
http://www.acoustand.co.uk/pages/customers-acoustand-plinths-turntables
Anyone familiar with Acoustand's products?

The craziest thing is their custom SP-10 plinth ala Kenwood Plinth (pictures on their website) And they can do whatever customer dream plinth by request.