I think Mirko made or used to make a titanium idler wheel for the Lenco L75, and he probably makes space age parts for Garrard and Thorens as well. You are in good hands for a machinist, but I would STILL recommend an electrical overhaul, when time and money permit. I hope it all works out well for you. |
I don't know where you are located, but if you are in the US, I highly recommend that you contact Bill Thalmann of Music Technologies in Springfield, VA. Bill is as nice as people get, honest, and very smart about SP10 electronics, since he has by now repaired and refurbished many many Mk2s and Mk3s. I guarantee that Bill can make your Mk2 good as new for a very reasonable cost. As someone above said, the basic building blocks of a Mk2 should last essentially forever if properly maintained. Your symptom(s) are much too complex for anyone here to diagnose, and it is unlikely that the solution is merely to replace the electrolytic capacitors, which should have been done from the get-go, so seek professional help and gain peace of mind. |
Banquo, Don't sweat it. You did good. Actually, the only thing I don't like about the Mk2 and the Mk3 is that square escutcheon that surrounds the platter. The square shape t makes it quite difficult to mate the turntable with more than one tonearm and/or to use a standard 9-inch arm that is offset for a VTA tower, like the Triplanar, Talea, and Reed tonearms. 10.5- to 12-inch arms work much better. That's probably why those guys drilled the hole. Sounds like your tonearm is secured to the chassis, not free-standing. |
There is so much "urban legend" surrounding these turntables, that it is difficult to find the truth.
Thekong, In fact, I doubt Technics has ANY parts for ANY of these turntables, but the chip you need may be the same as that used in later Technics tts, such as the recently discontinued SL1200 series and the related turntables (SL1500, SL1600, etc), some of which are available quite cheaply on eBay. Also, I found a supposed NLA chip for my Denon DP80 by doing an internet search which led me to a company in Hong Kong that is an information depot for many other small electronic supply companies in the Far East. Through their auspices I found enough of the Denon chips to go back into DP80 production, if necessary, for as little as 35 cents each. See if the faulty chip has an alphanumerical code on it, and put that right into Google. You may be surprised, pleasantly.
Banquo, I will take a look at the site. Now that you describe your problem in more detail, I still say that you should not be taking advice at a distance from us amateurs. Your problems might all be solved by changing out your electrolytic caps, which, as I said above, should be done anyway if not already done. But regardless, you need Bruce Berdan or Bill Thalmann or someone of that ilk. A good machinist can probably repair the worn part that you are looking at, assuming even that it needs to be done. One bit of advice I do have: don't be running the motor without the platter. Without the platter, the servo mechanism will be very unhappy. By the way, if you are using a very heavy platter mat OR a very light one, in relation to the weight of the stock rubber mat, try going back to stock and see what happens.
Re plinth-lessness: You guys are really doing two non-standard things; you are running without a plinth, and you have your tonearms mounted on a separate pod. I have an open mind about the plinth issue, but IMO it really is better to fix the tonearm mount on the same mechanical linkage with the turntable bearing. However, I know very well that some disagree. |
Ct0517, So let me get this straight: You are running your Mk2 with no plinth, AND you have an ET2 tonearm mounted on a separate something that is completely disassociated from the Mk2. Is that correct? How do you assure that the ET2 is on the exact same plane with the Mk2 platter, so that the cartridge is not riding up or downhill as it traverses the LP, not to mention all the other crucial spatial orientations associated with use of a straight line tonearm? Anyway, if that is your set-up, and if it works, go for it.
To me, this might prove that we are all much too anal; the playback process apparently may tolerate all sorts of alignment and resonant inaccuracy before we start to hear the problems. One thing I definitely will agree with is that a "bad" plinth is quite likely to be inferior to proper implementation of the no-plinth idea. I would like to hear from someone who went from Albert Porter's Panzerholz plinth or a Dobbins plinth or the like, to no-plinth and preferred the no-plinth. |
Ct0517, I guess I come across as being more dogmatic about this than I actually am. Really, I am all in favor of doing whatever you like with your equipment. I enjoy the debate, and I can think of arguments on either side of almost any issue where the well-being of my fellow man is not at issue. It's really too bad that we each cannot hear the others' turntables in a controlled setting, to find out more about how these many different ideas work in practice.
In the context of your post above, you are reiterating what I wrote previously: There are two entirely separate issues: (i) plinth vs no-plinth (for direct-drive), and (ii) arm coupled to bearing or independent of bearing. On the plinth issue, you guys have stimulated me to give it a try (maybe) with my Denon DP80, which is very near identical in size and shape to the Victor that Halcro uses. Of one thing I am sure: how one seats the chassis on the shelf will still make a big difference, so one guy's no-plinth could sound a lot different from another guy's no-plinth. (I hope we agree that the chassis needs to sit on or in something that at least inhibits it from walking off the shelf. Newton's 3rd Law is not abrogated after start-up.) On issue #2, I think I will go my way for now. However, I was thinking that the most expensive Kuzma set-up features their straight line tonearm mounted separately from their top turntable, much as you have done, albeit both are on brass pedestals that look to be VERY heavy. I don't know anyone else who sells a system like that. All the other tts with pod-mounted tonearms are using pivoted types. |
Dear Halcro, Before we know it you will have your tonearm in New Zealand and your tt in Perth. Carry on. |
I think that would be classified by any sensible person as a straight line tonearm. But think of the effective mass. |
FWIW, My slate plinths are huge, and I could mount as many as 3 tonearms with much much less effort than it would take to de-plinthify my SP10, if I wished to do so. The DP80 is a better candidate for deplinthification. (George W Bush, where are you? Never mind. I don't want to know.) But I think I am guilty of going way off topic. On the other hand, Banquo seems happy and that's what counts.
Ct, Plinth for belt-drive is a whole other kettle of fish. I had come to prefer no plinth for belt-drive, when last I owned one. |
Hi Halcro, I am not arguing and never have argued that I know that a good direct-drive table sounds better in a good well-designed plinth than in a no-plinth. I have argued only that I like what I hear from my own tt's in a slate plinth of my own making. In other words, my experience is about as broad as yours on the other side of the coin, which is to say, not very broad.
Raul does not like it when I write this, but in my opinion (please note), marble and granite are not the best materials for a plinth, or at least their use is controversial. (Raul's plinth was made of marble.) So, while I respect Raul's observation that he likes his present set-up better than when he had a plinth, it does not tell me much about the relative merits when the plinth is a known high quality type. (As I wrote elsewhere, my SP10 came in an MDF plinth that sounded dreadful.) That's why I say I would like to hear from someone who has gone from an Albert Porter or a Dobbins plinth to a no-plinth. So, yes, I am saying that Raul's plinth was not "excellent" or at least I don't know that it was excellent. But I don't "insist" on anything. In fact, your experience has stimulated me to give it a try. I want the best sound reproduction possible (defined by my ears and brain), and I don't give a hang how I get there.
On the other side, it is tough also for you no-plinthers to argue on principle that your way is best. Why did the top engineers of Technics, Kenwood, Pioneer, etc, all develop elaborate plinths for their moon-shot efforts at a state of the art direct-drive turntable back in their heyday? (This is meant as a rhetorical question; no response is required. I'm just sayin'.) Kenwood even invented a new composite material to use as the basis for their multi-component plinth structure, which weighs 65 lbs in the L07D. �And they started with a coreless, slotless motor that has inherently less cogging than that of the SP10s. |
Dear Banquo, Bill will replace your caps as requested, but he will also assess the servo mechanism and hunt down and replace any transistors or other parts that are not performing up to snuff. He will also adjust the critical DC voltages and calibrate the speeds. I will predict that the cost can range from about $400 to $800, the latter near to what I paid for him to do my Mk3, (MK3 may require much more work and calibration than Mk2, so I expect closer to $400 for Mk2.)
Re the physics of the tonearm/cartridge. It's not so complicated. Ideally, you want the only motion in the system to be the motion of the stylus in the groove. Any other relative movement downstream from the stylus can either obscure detail or create spurious signals that the preamp will reproduce and amplify faithfully. Thus producing distortion. This is how I see it, anyway. |
Banquo, This is way out on the end of arguing the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, but suppose in your thought experiment that either the turntable or the tonearm pod is subjected to a vibration or resonance that is not simultaneously experienced by the other. There is NO such thing as perfect isolation. For example, the pod has to sit on some surface, probably the same surface that is also supporting the tt but in a geographically different place. The shelf itself is going to be subject to resonances that create standing waves with peaks and stationery nodes. Suppose the pod is sitting on a node and the chassis is sitting on a peak? Voila', the chassis moves, albeit at a micro level, while the arm pod does not. If the pod is coupled to the chassis, ideally not in contact with the surface of the shelf, then they both move identically in response to a standing wave of mechanical energy passing thru the shelf.
If you got an SP10 Mk2 and tonearm for less than $800, then you got a steal. I suppose the drill hole in the chassis played a role in that low price. But there is plenty of room there for you to spend some bucks on the electronics and still be within market value, not to mention you will know you are listening to the SP10 the way it ought to be heard. |
I agree with Tim. If Bruce Berdan is still working, then he is the guy closest to you who can help you the most. However, last I heard he was ill and/or retired or retiring. Anyway, it would pay to contact him.
When you say that the shaft is loose, can you amplify on that? Do you mean that the spindle can be "wiggled" when seated in the bearing well? If that's true, it is unlikely that this extensive level of wear occurred during your period of ownership. Is there any visible wobble when the platter spins? |
Dear Banquo, Your verbal description does not paint a picture I can remember from having been "inside" my own SP10 Mk2. Perhaps I will take a look to refresh my memory. In any case, it is a relief to know that you don't have any spindle or platter wobble.
Now you say you have no plinth, it is possible that the vibration you experience at start-up is normal, if it goes away within a few seconds. The high torque of the motor WILL cause the chassis to want to spin in the opposite direction from platter rotation. (Remember Newton's 3rd Law of Motion?) At turn-on, max torque is elicited until the platter moves off from rest. During that brief period, it is quite normal for the un-anchored chassis to vibrate irregularly. I don't know whether this is the complete explanation for your dilemma, but it certainly sounds like this normal phenomenon is playing a role. In my own case, my Mk2 acted like it could walk off the shelf, when I started it up prior to its installation into a plinth. I daresay the Mk3 might actually take off in that scenario. Try physically restraining the chassis, and tell us what happens then. |
Halcro, IMO, no one has proven anything until someone who has an excellent plinth can tell us that his dd tt sounds better without it. Even then, the result is subjective. Banquo has it right in that respect.
Banquo, I join in those who are glad you have found competent local help. Can you divulge the name of this person? Others in your area might benefit.
I have a local friend who owns a very successful machine shop. They actually make scientific instruments, but at his home he has every machine tool you can imagine, including a computer-operated mill. He has helped me already making odds and ends for my tts, and I am sure I can enlist him in making something to serve as a no-plinth. (He is basically retired, has hired someone else to run his business, just sits home and collects money.) I am thinking along the lines of the Grand Prix Monaco or the Micro-Seiki 1000DQX, basically a frame that holds the chassis firmly in place with three outward going "legs" upon which one can mount arm boards that are therefore coupled to the structure. Brass and alu in combination might be good structural elements. You can buy nice blank slabs and/or rods, etc, of either on-line for reasonable prices.
On coupling tonearm to bearing, perhaps I misspoke. It would be better to say that I think the tonearm should be coupled to the chassis. Do I need documentation for that idea? About 99% of all tts ever made provide that sort of coupling, some better and more emphatically than others. Oddly, all of Kuzma's lesser models do it that way; only the Airline system does the separate pod. Plus there are a few other high-price entries that also use pods to mount tonearms. I don't like the idea. Regardless of gross movements that could screw up alignment, if there is any chance that the arm pod will be subjected to vibration or resonance that is not also simultaneously experienced by the platter and bearing, then there will be motion of the structural center of the tonearm (the pivot) with respect to the LP. How can that be a good thing for a cartridge that is trying at the same time to trace a groove in an LP? I think the tonearm pivot (in the case of a pivoted arm, of course) and the platter/LP should move as one entity only. That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it. But this is theory we are arguing, not the idea that any one person's system that employs a separate arm pod could or could not be pleasing to the ear. |
