Albert Porters after market panzerholz plinths

i own 2 vintage tt's with Dobbin's plinths; a Garrard idler drive 301, and an Technics SP-10 Mk3 DD. i did also have a Dobbins plinth'd SP-10 Mk2.

so why do these plinths improve performance over the basic stock tt or OEM plinths?

my opinion, already touched on by others here, is that 60's, 70's and 80's 'even SOTA' tt's had their strengths and their 'areas of potential improvement'. obviously the strengths were that much more R&D could be directed to building motors since these companies were much more able to spend that money than the typical tt builder of today. OTOH their weaknesses were that the case work was an afterthought in comparison. system performace (cartridges, arms, phono stgaes) did not necessarily reveal limitations of the build quality back then.

it's not simply adding mass, or adding isolation. it's more a matter of engineering the precise plinth construction that will optimize the drive system. what is the best combination of materials put together in a particular way to allow the tt to have maximum livelyness, low noise, and drive which sounds the best.

i know that Steve Dobbins built many dozens of plinths before he sold his first plinth for the SP-10 Mk2. he did the same for the Garrard 301, and then again for the SP-10 Mk3. i know he experimented with many materials and ended up with a constrained layer design. eventually on the Mk3 he discovered that (in his opinion) mounting the Mk3 with the casework still in place compromised the performance due to the high torque of the Mk3 motor. the original casework allowed 'flex' and a slight smearing of the sound. eliminating the case and mounting the Mk3 'nude' inside the plinth performed better.

not every plinth designer necessarily agreed with Dobbins on that issue.

in any case; it should not be surprising that 30+ year old casework could be improved upon.

Dear Mikelavigne: We have to remember too that in the case of SP-10's or EMT these TT's were designed for Radio Stations/broadcasting more than to home audio systems.

Nice to hear that I'm not totally wrong about my thoughts on a nude ( non casework. ) SP-10 as a improvement.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Raul,

to be clear; my comment on the nude (original case-work removed) SP-10 Mk3 referred only in the context of installing the nude SP-10 Mk3 inside a custom plinth.

possibly that was inferred by your comment;

Nice to hear that I'm not totally wrong about my thoughts on a nude ( non casework. ) SP-10 as a improvement.

but that was unclear.

you could be referring to a nude SP-10 with no plinth. in that case, although i have not listened that way myself, i would be skeptical it would be optimal.

Dear Mike: No, I'm refering almost on what you posted about nude. This is what I posted in my firsat post in the thread:

++++ " Even seems to me that my SP-10s and Denon's could perform even better with out its metal bottom cover. I don't try it yet but maybe is time to make this test and see what happen. " +++++

Regards and enjoy the music,
raul.

Raul,

ok, i get it about what you were referring to.

OTOH it's clear we are not referring to the same thing at all.

you are mentioning about the stock SP-10 and removing the bottom-plate of the stock case-work in hopes of improving performance.

i am referring to completely removing the case-work and installing the motor and platter inside a custom plinth...and even that point is only related to the Mk3 due to it's considerable torque.

so my comment about a 'nude' SP-10 does not support your comments. they are related in a round about way but i don't share your viewpoint although it would not greatly surprise me if removing the bottom of the stock casework might be better. although i think it more likely that removing only the bottom plate would cause the remaining casework to resonate more.

i don't mean to be argurmentative; i'm simply trying to make sure that my intended meaning is clear.