I posted these same comments on Albert Porter's system thread. I also thought it might be useful on this thread, since I touch on all three drive systems that are the subject of this thread (Direct drive vs belt vs rim vs idler arm).
My Technics SP10 MK2A has recently received the Krebs modifications and Bill Thalmann (Music Technology, Springfield, VA) overhaul of the electronics. I am using the MK2A in the stock Technics obsidian plinth, stock arm board, Graham Phantom Supreme 10 arm, Benz LPS cartridge, and Graham IC 70 phono cable connected to the Boulder 2008 phono stage. Please see my comments about the Technics SP10 MK3 posted earlier on Albert Porters system forum, the MK3 also having the Krebs modifications and Thalmann electronics overhaul.
In short, this MK2A is an outstanding turntable. Speed stability is excellent, measuring on par with the MK3 using the Feickert iPhone application and the Analogue Productions test record, and passes the Sutherland Timeline test. Unlike the MK3, the MK2A doesnt demand that you notice and praise its speed stability. Nonetheless, I never hear speed anomalies at all, and certainly not the hunting that direct drive critics levy against this breed.
But let me be clear, in spite of the measured similarities between the MK2A and the MK3, subjectively the MK3 reigns supreme in speed stability over all other turntables I have used. One can hear this in extreme resolution, purity of musical lines, and low level detail. Visually, the Feickert iPhone application shows occasional periods of a straight horizontal line with a 1000HZ test tone with the MK3, but not with the MK2A. I suppose the summarized results in this application somehow average the results, because the single figures for both tables are very similar. In summary, speed stability on the MK2A is superb, but the MK3 is more superb.
Sonically, the MK2A is excellent. As compared to the MK3, the MK2A presents musical images more forward in the soundstage with less defined outlines. Dynamics seem more spectacular than the MK3, although as noted in my comments on the Krebs modified MK3, dynamics with the MK3 are awesome and grow to staggering climaxes and subside with greater ease - more like the natural decay in live music. I have generally found these sonic attributes forward soundstage and spectacular dynamics - fairly typical with turntables having all-aluminum platters like the MK2A. I hear these same differences with the Thorens TD 124 using its aluminum platter as compared to any of these alternatives the Schopper platter (made with secret ingredients), the original cast iron platter, and the Mirko Djordjevic stainless steel platter. Otherwise, the MK2A is sonically opulent, rich and satisfying. Bass is powerful, mids are neutral and pellucid, and highs are excellent without sounding unnaturally extended. To my ears, the MK3 sounds more natural and true to the music in all of these areas, but this may be just a matter of taste. And could it be that the aftermarket copper, gunmetal mats and the like placed atop the MK2A platter diminish this difference? I dont know, but some recordings sound more appealing on one table than the other. Thats why I love them both and wont part with either one of them.
My goal in experimenting with these vintage direct drives is to see just how good they can sound. Direct drive technology intrigues me for achieving extreme speed stability, a particular obsession of mine. My extremely expensive belt drive turntable is truly wonderful sonically in all areas except speed stability. I will continue to experiment with various aspects of these direct drives. As all analog aficionados know, *everything* in analog matters: platter/mat/plinth/ armboard materials, footers, arms, cartridges, loading, cables, what the cables touch, VTA, azimuth, overhang, absolutely level surfaces, static electricity, quality of electricity, platform isolation, RFI, ad infinitum and ad nauseum and even looking at your turntable cross-eyed can make it sound bad on any given day. If analog didnt sound so good, who would put up with it? Next steps are to improve upon the plinths, using Albert Porters superb design. I am also working with a Denon DP 80 (although the vintage Denon DP 100 should be a killer turntable, but it is alas unobtainable) and someday would like to play around with the reputably awesome Kenwood L07D.
Here are some thoughts about value. The MK2A is by no means a shameful comparison to the MK3 quite the contrary. The MK3 is so rare and expensive nowadays, why not try out the plentiful MK2 with the Krebs modifications and Thalmann restoration? The result is a superb value in high end audio, since new turntables achieving this level of sonic excellence are far, far more expensive. By way of disclaimer, I have no financial ties to Bill Thalmann, Richard Krebs and Albert Porter. I am really grateful to these gentlemen for enabling me to hear what these engineering marvels can do.
My Technics SP10 MK2A has recently received the Krebs modifications and Bill Thalmann (Music Technology, Springfield, VA) overhaul of the electronics. I am using the MK2A in the stock Technics obsidian plinth, stock arm board, Graham Phantom Supreme 10 arm, Benz LPS cartridge, and Graham IC 70 phono cable connected to the Boulder 2008 phono stage. Please see my comments about the Technics SP10 MK3 posted earlier on Albert Porters system forum, the MK3 also having the Krebs modifications and Thalmann electronics overhaul.
In short, this MK2A is an outstanding turntable. Speed stability is excellent, measuring on par with the MK3 using the Feickert iPhone application and the Analogue Productions test record, and passes the Sutherland Timeline test. Unlike the MK3, the MK2A doesnt demand that you notice and praise its speed stability. Nonetheless, I never hear speed anomalies at all, and certainly not the hunting that direct drive critics levy against this breed.
But let me be clear, in spite of the measured similarities between the MK2A and the MK3, subjectively the MK3 reigns supreme in speed stability over all other turntables I have used. One can hear this in extreme resolution, purity of musical lines, and low level detail. Visually, the Feickert iPhone application shows occasional periods of a straight horizontal line with a 1000HZ test tone with the MK3, but not with the MK2A. I suppose the summarized results in this application somehow average the results, because the single figures for both tables are very similar. In summary, speed stability on the MK2A is superb, but the MK3 is more superb.
Sonically, the MK2A is excellent. As compared to the MK3, the MK2A presents musical images more forward in the soundstage with less defined outlines. Dynamics seem more spectacular than the MK3, although as noted in my comments on the Krebs modified MK3, dynamics with the MK3 are awesome and grow to staggering climaxes and subside with greater ease - more like the natural decay in live music. I have generally found these sonic attributes forward soundstage and spectacular dynamics - fairly typical with turntables having all-aluminum platters like the MK2A. I hear these same differences with the Thorens TD 124 using its aluminum platter as compared to any of these alternatives the Schopper platter (made with secret ingredients), the original cast iron platter, and the Mirko Djordjevic stainless steel platter. Otherwise, the MK2A is sonically opulent, rich and satisfying. Bass is powerful, mids are neutral and pellucid, and highs are excellent without sounding unnaturally extended. To my ears, the MK3 sounds more natural and true to the music in all of these areas, but this may be just a matter of taste. And could it be that the aftermarket copper, gunmetal mats and the like placed atop the MK2A platter diminish this difference? I dont know, but some recordings sound more appealing on one table than the other. Thats why I love them both and wont part with either one of them.
My goal in experimenting with these vintage direct drives is to see just how good they can sound. Direct drive technology intrigues me for achieving extreme speed stability, a particular obsession of mine. My extremely expensive belt drive turntable is truly wonderful sonically in all areas except speed stability. I will continue to experiment with various aspects of these direct drives. As all analog aficionados know, *everything* in analog matters: platter/mat/plinth/ armboard materials, footers, arms, cartridges, loading, cables, what the cables touch, VTA, azimuth, overhang, absolutely level surfaces, static electricity, quality of electricity, platform isolation, RFI, ad infinitum and ad nauseum and even looking at your turntable cross-eyed can make it sound bad on any given day. If analog didnt sound so good, who would put up with it? Next steps are to improve upon the plinths, using Albert Porters superb design. I am also working with a Denon DP 80 (although the vintage Denon DP 100 should be a killer turntable, but it is alas unobtainable) and someday would like to play around with the reputably awesome Kenwood L07D.
Here are some thoughts about value. The MK2A is by no means a shameful comparison to the MK3 quite the contrary. The MK3 is so rare and expensive nowadays, why not try out the plentiful MK2 with the Krebs modifications and Thalmann restoration? The result is a superb value in high end audio, since new turntables achieving this level of sonic excellence are far, far more expensive. By way of disclaimer, I have no financial ties to Bill Thalmann, Richard Krebs and Albert Porter. I am really grateful to these gentlemen for enabling me to hear what these engineering marvels can do.
