Albert Porters after market panzerholz plinths

My experiences with properly designed heavy plinths is all positive.

When well executed, I believe the primary function is to add enough mass to improve resonance control without killing dynamics. This is the tough part and art!

The net effect especially on turntables like the Garrard and Technics, which have so much torque, is to improve stability and reduce vibration enough allowing the front end of the system to function quietly and retain the drive and power of the original design.

This lowering of the noise floor while retaining the punch and drive of their original design, creates a rock solid foundation, which IMO was not understood in the original plinth designs. After you experience this improvement or upgrade, it is tough to go back. Also any comparison of the performance of a Garrard or Technics to another turntable without the proper base IMO is an invalid comparison. Of cource I am assuming either system is serviced and in top working condition.

Even the turntables I have owned with minimal or no plinths, the Kuzma XL, Verdiere and Walker understood the importance of mass.

The top Micro Seiki designs with minimal or no plinths had massive platters. One would think that if enough great designs have one thing in common-Mass- there must be something there.

My impression and experience in listening to light turntables is not positive. I have listened to both the Garrard and the Technics in minimal plinths and there is no contest. They don't perform!!

Dear friends: It is curios: all of you speak about the benefit of high mass and disagree with the non-plinth subject but; at least for what any of you posted here, no one of you already tested ( in the last three months ) a non-plinth version against the plinth fashion one in the same "" serviced system in top working condition "".

Btw, the platter mass in a BD TT design is a must and different on the DD needs. The Monaco is a today example of this.

The subject of plinth or no plinth, high mass or low mass, etc are important subjects that gives different quality perfromance but IMHO what really matters and makes " the difference " is the platter build material or the mat that is in " primary " touch with the LP: here it is the " secret " of different performance level.

Btw, mi position about Walker vs Technics is on the TT it self where IMHO and with all respect no one here can say that the Technics/Denon is better TT than the Walker.

I'm a DD oriented person but this does not means that we can make light statements about with out true validation.
A TT is an incomplete audio item that needs a tonearm/cartridge combination to shows its performance. The tonearm/cartridge combination IMHO and through many tests about makes a heavy difference in any comparison.

The same cartridge with the same tonearm in the same TT with the same wire/cable but in a different headshell performs different. Albert you can test it now that you finally own a headshell removable tonearm design.

No, I'm not talking with " passion " ( not even with the Allnic subject. ) but with objectivity through hundreds maybe thousands of TT/tonearm/cartridge tests. I can validate every single word I post here, usually I don't " speak " on subjects that I'm ignorant or that I can't validate or validated by first hand experiences.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

I don't see anything wrong with the statement that the Technics trounced the walker. The Walker is sold as a complete system/package (tonearm/table) and I am sure it is a fine table. There is no other choice for table/arm combo in this case so it had to be compared as it was. I am sure Albert put on his best cartridge and cables for both the Technics and Walker so in this case a fair comparison. Yes, not apples to apples but it could not be done in this case.

What the guy was trying to imply is that they (all of the people who were at the listening session)preferred the much cheaper technics table when compared to the "walker system" which cost a whole lot more hence it "trounced the Walker".

I guess "they" were speaking from "real" experience and there is nothing wrong conveying it t"the way they heard it". Ultimately, it is just an opinion and IMHO, and it is definitely VALID.

I have heard the Walker in a friend's system, and I think it is fantastic. I never heard it side by side with any direct-drive turntable, and frankly I would be surprised if an SP10 Mk2 could "trounce" a Walker, regardless of the plinth used, but I have no argument with what someone else heard. However, the finding spurred me to experiment with direct- and idler-drive turntables, because there is no way I am going to afford a Walker.

My completely empirical thoughts on the subject of plinths and platters is as follows: For belt-drive turntables, minimal or no plinth and a very massive platter correlate positively with performance. One can argue all day long about whether the motor for a BD table needs to be strong to control the platter or weak to allow platter mass to dominate. I don't know; both ways could work if designed well. Multiple motors for BD seems silly to me. For direct-drive turntables, a well-designed plinth seems to help. I will grant Raul's contention that I/we have not experimented with no or a minimal plinth, but I certainly have experimented with light weight bad plinths, and they do harm rather than good. I think platter mass is probably less important for DD than for BD. I think I am going to like core-less motors over other types (based on what owners say about the Exclusive P3, and what I hear from my Kenwood L07D), and I think there should be "enough" torque to control the platter, but massive or excessive torque may not be a dominant requirement. For DD, the motor control mechanism is very important (duh!).

Dear Genesis168: Everything can be VALID depend what we want to find out.

Many years ago I offered Albert to make a test on the SP-10 against the Walker with the same tonearm/cartridge combination: I offered to give two same tonearms and the Technics for the test and only that he has to find a stand alone arm mount device for the Walker.
For different " factors " that test never happen. The target was to know how these two different TTs performs one against the other.

I don't have any bias in favor of the Walker or Technics or any other TT I'm only trying to say that because I like more oranges than apples the apples are " trounced " because certainly there are other cartridges that could be a better match with the Walker tonearm and can " trounced " the Technics.

I remember very clear what I told Albert when I heard the Technics in his system instead the Walker: " Albert I prefer your system performance through the Walker ". He was gentle enough to explain me the circumstances around that I was not take it in count.

This is not what Albert wanted/liked to know or waited because their audio friends prefered the Technics except one of them that agree with me.

The Walker/Technics example seems to me that is not totally fair, it is like if some one with the Rockport TT ( with dedicated tonearm like the one M.L owns. ) made a comparison against a Garrad and then a group of persons likes the Garrad over the Rockport: " trounced " the Rockport.
Could this means that the Garrad really " trounced " the Rockport?, certainly not.

I read a lot of posts where the people said that the SP-10 is better than the Walker. The people speak on this " rumor " only because in a comparison some persons like more a Technics configuration that a Walker different configuration.

Seems to me that is really unfair for the Walker. IMHO the Walker TT is not inferior to the SP-10 and maybe even better than the Technics in similar " circumstances/environment/set-up ". I own three SP-10s and I'm not against Technics is only that IMHO is totally unfair that " rumor " with out validated true foundation.

Anyway, as you say it is only an opinion.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.