Lewm et al,
If you look underneath your Kenwood L07D you will find the archilles heal of the Technics SP10mk3.
If you look underneath your Kenwood L07D you will find the archilles heal of the Technics SP10mk3.
Technics SP-10 mkII speed adjustment question
Dover, I think I know what you mean. The L07D represents a very different approach to direct-drive, compared to the Technics one. IMO, the L07D is vastly under-rated compared to the Mk3, which is not to say that the latter is not superb. BFalls, I responded to your Audiogon message. Evidently you did not receive it. Audiogon may not want us to talk privately. |
The Technics SP10mk3, Victor TT-101, Denon DP80 are all what I would call upside down turntables. That is they are designed to drop into plinths and the motor/mainbearing assembly hangs like dogs balls below the plinth - waving in the wind. The connection points to the "plinth" are on a flimsy exoskeleton/cover into which the motor/bearing are screwed. The resultant structure lacks rigidity and the path for energy dissipation from platter to ground is compromised. Its a labyrinth from the platter to the ground, and the unstable reference of the tonearm to platter is counterproductive in measuring the groove accurately. Compare this to the Kenwood L07D, where there is a massive cast foot underneath onto which BOTH the motor/bearing AND armpod are BOLTED. see http://www.l-07d.com/plinth.htm This is a far superior construction in my view in maintaining rigidity between the arm/platter and the platter/turntable/arm/cartridge loop. If you check out the Exclusive P3 this also has a motor/bearing/arm mounting system with a superior motor/bearing/arm platform that correctly references the arm to the bearing/platter. see http://audio-database.com/PIONEER-EXCLUSIVE/player/p3a-e.html The Denon's use a decoupled platter arrangement to keep motor energy way from the cartridge, but they do not address the lack of rigidity from the upside down design. In my view any serious attempt to replinth theSP10mk3 would include throwing away the exoskeleton and motor covers and bolt the motor, bearing & tonearm mounting base rigidly to a common subchassis to maximise rigidity and minimise any potential movement within the platter/turntable/arm/cartridge loop. I'm sure dropping the SP10mk3 into a slate or panzerholz "plinth" makes a difference but it is only a half pie solution in my view. |
In my view any serious attempt to replinth theSP10mk3 would include throwing away the exoskeleton and motor covers and bolt the motor, bearing & tonearm mounting base rigidly to a common sub chassis to maximise rigidity and minimise any potential movement within the platter/turntable/arm/cartridge loop. You have obviously not studied what was done with my version of the MK3 plinth, Panzerholz plus metal interior plate attached to the MK3 using stainless steel bolts. Underneath there is a large steel plate with stainless bolts through the chassis and metal plate, into the MK3 carriage. A large non magnetic threaded brass rod attaches to the bearing and undercarriage capturing the Technics from any vertical movement and provided a sync for vibration. The arm boards are attached with stainless steel plate, attached with stainless steel screws and fixed to the same plate as the chassis of the MK3. This is 90 pounds (+) of "cure' for what was originally supplied by Technics. The sorry "glass" plinth by Technics was a joke and none of the tables you list has a plinth with even a fraction the effort and material that was put into ours. Last, the top plate of the MK3 does not matter one whit once the other issues are resolved. In my opinion this is simply an easy way to purchase beater SP10 MK3 and not have to repair or restore the damages chassis parts to make it presentable. |