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!!

I use the CU 180 on my Mk III and my Mk II. They are actually made of Gunmetal and sound slightly more alive than copper. The performance of the Mk II improves substantially with the CU 180 mat. Maybe I have been lucky but to date no sonic issues with the added weight.

I also have used a copper mat on my Garrard 301 beneath the stock rubber mat with good results. I believe this adds substantial mass to the platter in essence damping the chatter of the original aluminum platter and lowering the noise floor. I have listened to the Garrard without the stock rubber mat only the copper mat and prefer it with both. Once again no problem with the extra weight on the Garrard.

I would like to try a CU 180 on the Garrard, but have not to date tried one
because the CU 180 does not fit the spindle of the Garrard and needs modifying.

All the turntables are mounted in Porter panzerholst bases.

Yes, with the Garrard I built a baltic birch plinth with multiple layers anticipating big performance gains, but the performance was mediocre at best and very disappointing. It was a reasonably substantial plinth, but not until the Porter and Semrod designed panzerholst plinth did I realize the potential of the 301 turntable as a reference turntable. Their massive plints with numerous tweaks to enhance the resolution elevated this idler wheel turntable past some very formidable competition.

I am also using the Loricraft motor controller with the torque control, which recreates the original 50 Hz sine wave that the 301 was engineered for in the 1950s (courtesy Steve Dobbins). Presumably this improves the operating smoothness of the powerful 301 motor to reduce rumble and noise. The torque control allows you to reduce the torque and still maintain speed control with the net effect further reduction in vibrations.

The Technics Mk II arrived in their top of the line Obsidian base, which was not to bad, but certainly not in the same league as the Porter panzerholst bases. Transformation is amazing and moves these turntables
to the top levels of performance.

My mark III arrived with no base for any comparison.

If you go to Loricraft's website and read their explanation of the benefits of their motor controller, keeping the 301 motor operating at 50 Hz keeps the motor running at optimum efficiency.

The benefit is the motor is running smoother and quieter at 50 Hz vs 60 HZ, with less noise and vibration. Their tests show added noise when operating at 60 HZ.

Once again every attempt is being made to elevate the 301s ability to provide a quiet stable platform so that the tonearm/cartridge can retrieve as much micro detail as possible.

Dbcooper and Mikelevine- good clean power is part and parcel to having great performance. Anything you can do to push the envelope is a net gain in micro detail and resolution. You can't have too much of a good thing. Unfortunately, the quality of our electricity is quite poor and to make matters worse communication signals are run by the power companies causing noise and intereference.

I have a dedicated transformer in my neighborhood just serving my home and it makes a difference. But when the grid is overloaded, I can hear a decline in quality and it makes me wonder, what things would sound like with a dedicated generator and power conditioner.

If you get the basics right, it seems to make everything else much easier.
Good resonance controll and clean power go a long way to lower the noise floor.

In_Shore's comments regarding the merits of a good and proper plinth are spot on.

The reason to build a solid plinth is to calm the excessive vibration from the SP 10's and the Garrard 301 or Lenco for that matter, since they generate a huge amount of torque that causes resonances. This torque is the curse and blessing of a DD or Idler design, because they sound so dynamic. If you can reduce the vibration, you are left with wonderful dynamics.

A well designed plinth stabilizes the operating platform by adding different types of mass to minimize the problem of different resonances.

Concurrently, a good power supply attacks the problem from a different direction by providing a good clean sine wave, that once again makes the powerful drive system behave more efficiently and smoother with less vibration.

The better the plinth design, the less the vibrations that cause resonance, which blur micro detail.The combination of a well engineered plinth and good power supply also lowers the noise floor enhancing the cartridges ability to dig out detail.

I currently use a Technics Sp 10 and a Garrard 301, both in panzerholst bases, that would not deliver the level of sound they do without the plinth. I not saying panzerholst is the only solution, slate is an elegant solution as well, but the common dominator is intelligently adding mass to damp resonant frequencies. I tried the Garrard with 2 different light weight plinths with disastrous results. It was only after I heard a Technics SP 10 in a Panzerholst plinth at Albert Porter's home, did I realize doing this on the cheap doesn't work!

Enough said. These are my experiences and I know others feel differently and I respect their opinions, but politely disagree.

In_Shore's comments regarding the merits of a good and proper plinth are spot on.

The reason to build a solid plinth is to calm the excessive vibration from the SP 10's and the Garrard 301 or Lenco for that matter, since they generate a huge amount of torque that causes resonances. This torque is the curse and blessing of a DD or Idler design, because they sound so dynamic. If you can reduce the vibration, you are left with wonderful dynamics.

A well designed plinth stabilizes the operating platform by adding different types of mass to minimize the problem of different resonances.

Concurrently, a good power supply attacks the problem from a different direction by providing a good clean sine wave, that once again makes the powerful drive system behave more efficiently and smoother with less vibration.

The better the plinth design, the less the vibrations that cause resonance, which blur micro detail.The combination of a well engineered plinth and good power supply also lowers the noise floor enhancing the cartridges ability to dig out detail.

I currently use a Technics Sp 10 and a Garrard 301, both in panzerholst bases, that would not deliver the level of sound they do without the plinth. I not saying panzerholst is the only solution, slate is an elegant solution as well, but the common dominator is intelligently adding mass to damp resonant frequencies. I tried the Garrard with 2 different light weight plinths with disastrous results. It was only after I heard a Technics SP 10 in a Panzerholst plinth at Albert Porter's home, did I realize doing this on the cheap doesn't work!

Enough said. These are my experiences and I know others feel differently and I respect their opinions, but politely disagree.

Vertigo-When I commissioned the Garrard 301, it was recently restored by Loricraft with a new 301 power supply provided by Steve Dobbins as well as an analogue tube ceramic bearing.

I had two tone arms at the time, a Schroder DPS and SME 3012, and both sounded very in 2 different multi layer baltic birch plinths.

The cartridges were an allaerts MC 2 Finnish, Dynavector xv 1s and Denon 103 and the tone arm cable was a Purist Venustas. Of the two arms the 3012 was musical, but rolled off and the DPS was beautiful but lacked dynamics. Neither one had any real magic.

I was ready to liquidate everything when I heard an Sp 10 at Porter's home and frankly was floored. Both Albert Porter and John Semrod designed a plinth with layers of Bass wood and Panzerholst addressing different resonances. They were building a pair of Garrard 301 plinths at the time and I bought the one, while John kept the other for his personal 301.

I decided the SME was not for me and tried the Schroder, which catapulted in performance, but it was not until I installed a Triplanar did I realize this was seriously good stuff. The Triplanar and Dynavector were simply wonderful in the 301 system. All the components complimented each other quite well. Later I added a Reed with an Ortofon A 90 with equally excellent results.

I have not listened to other top class designs, but his one was/is a keeper.