Albert Porters after market panzerholz plinths

Dear Lewm: A debate can start on the subject but only if who want to debate already heard both alternatives.

When you already do it maybe you still like the plinth option and I'm sure no one " die " for your choice.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Dear David: An aluminum stand alone tower but you can use any material you want like: steel, brass, wood, acrilyc etc, etc.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Not to split hairs but what is a plinth?

Most of us would agree the solid platforms securing motor unit and arm such as Lew's basic slate or Albert's or Mr. Dobbins' more complex designs are plinths. And the standard hollow box platform sold with most tables is still a plinth.

But then what about those skeletal designs like Oracle, Michell, or David's modified Kenwood? They all include an armature to mount the tonearm with the motor unit. As I understand Raul's design, it is a single wood platform (3/4"?) which bolts to the motor unit and extends to the side to provide for arm mounting. Isn't that a plinth too, albeit a minimal one?

It seems a true plinthless table would be one where the motor unit is self contained and free standing from the tone arm, the latter secured to its own weighted base.

None of this may matter to the OP or other readers unless they interpret Raul's statements to mean he suggests a separate and free-standing arm and base. As I understand his table(s), that is not his approach.

Dear Pryso: What you refer on my SP-10 is right and that was its configuration.
Latter on I change for a true non-plinth and separate tonearm tower. This one is what I'm refering to.

IMHO we DD TT owners has a rare and unique opportunity ( that maybe never comeback. ) to test and enjoy a non-plinth TT with what for me is and has IMHO better quality performance against the same plinth TT.

What any one can lose if they try it?

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

08-17-10: Azjake

Perhaps Steve or Albert would care to discuss the why 's and how's of they're respective plinth applications and what they feel it has achieved for them?
Azjake

The original SP10 Technics was released late 1969 or early 1970 and it operated with feet (no plinth) as Raul describes. Matshusta engineers found lack of stability and solidity of performance and from that point on offered later versions with increasingly massive plinths.

As for design, materials make a big difference. Technics in an attempt to add mass with beauty, designed the obsidian (volcanic glass) plinth which had a nice shape and was beautifully polished.

However, when Hi-Fi Choice reviewed it, they reported that the bass frequencies were lacking and there was a shallowness overall in the mid and upper mid frequency region.

Cause was reported to be from amorphous "structure" of volcanic glass and that other solid glass plinths and / or platters exhibit similar characteristic.

I agree with this British review, it's an accurate description of what I heard in my experiments. Noteworthy too, SAEC Japan (the wonderful tonearm builder) designed a massive, ultimate plinth for SP10 that is still sought after today.

If you don’t believe material has an effect on the outcome of the plinth please consult data on density, sound propagation, stiffness and transfer. A good source to begin is:

“The practising Scientist's Handbook,” Alfred J. Moses.
(Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1978).

Anyone who wants to try their Technics or other high torque direct drive table with slender footers and no mass are welcome to do so and report back their findings.