You should ask Albert about his Panzerholz, unfortunately I never heard it.
Had the MK3 with the Obsidian base and it was excellent and matched the SP10 well. Limitation was the length and no. of arms. I never liked the table in the wooden plinths that were available at the time in the Far East.
You should ask Albert about his Panzerholz, unfortunately I never heard it.
I've got an SP-10 MK II with the original obsidian plinth, dust cover, and EPA-100 tonearm. It is not yet set up. I'm toying with several options for an alternative plinth, but the answer may be as simple as keeping it stock except for filling the inside of the cast aluminum TT housing with epoxy mixed with brass powder. Some have stated that the obsidian base subtracts LF.
Chakster, I have been through your thread. Thanks for pointing out anyway.
I am not really a fan of 12" tonearms so it is not a priority for me. All I am trying to figure out is how good/bad is the Obsidian plinth compared to other good plinths made outside. If I decide to try a SP10, should I try to find one with an Obsidian base or just buy naked and find a plinth from one of the after market vendors ?
Hi Pani, I own the SL 1000,Mk2 . That is SP-10 mk2 with
Obsidian plinth. One should remove the original footers
which are worthless and substitute them for AT pneumatic
636 or the bigger one. Your last question looks to me more
relevant than the first. Those Obsidian plinth's are very
expensive so you should anyway buy the SP-10 Mk2 (or Mk 3)
naked. There are all kinds of plinths for the SP 10 with
ditto prices (see:ebay.uk).
In my direct experience, the factory Technics B3/B5/B7 Obsidian based plinths completely lack the inherent body, weight and tonal character required to allow the Technics Sp10Mk2 and Mk3 models to showcase their strengths. In my opinion, for these reasons, these complete Technics Sp10 models only received lukewarm industry press around the era of their introduction. Certain designers (ie. Artisan Fidelity, Porter, Dobbins) have invested years developing and improving Mk2 and Mk3 aftermarket plinths to maximize the potential of the platform, if it were as easy as coupling a factory Obsidian plinth to the drive, no one would have taken the time in the first place. If by chance you have the opportunity to personally hear a properly constructed hardwood/composite/Panzerholz constrained layer based plinth in comparison to the factory Obsidian plinth, you would literally be awe struck at the contrast.
Hi Chris, Your 'arguments':'lack the inherent body, weight
and tonal character' make no sense. To state whatever clear
one need to have some clear idea. You obviously have none
whatever. There is nothing wrong wit Obsidian plinth except
the footers. Try for example the AT 636 instead and even
a deaf person will hear the difference. So to speak.
Nothing really wrong with the Obsidian base. Many love it. BTW it is very heavy plastic composite not solid rock or glass. It is extremely dense, heavy, and well damped and has no obvious resonance--it feels more like rock than anything else. Many other companies experimented with weighted plastic composites, including Sony, Pioneer, and Kenwood. I have never seen anything from those companies better than the Obsidian base. Of course, if you worship your turntable, there is no limit to what you could spend on an Ultimate Plinth, and at some point with vast weight and technology you might make something better. But for the cost, you couldn't do significantly better than the Obsidian. I mean at the original price and current resale prices, which weren't outrageous when I got mine last year. The artisan designers of new super bases charge way more, of course, and I have not heard them. A simple birch plinth is not going to be better than the Obsidian unless the birch plinth is huger than huge.
The SL10 (SP10,Obsidian,EPA arm,dustcover) package got a bad name after a review in Hifi News claiming they had gotten feedback. Well, yes, they put speaker right next to turntable on the same table and cranked it to the max. The LP12 did better on this test. But it was unrealistic test, and with better feet or a suspension base for the SL10 it would likely have done better than the LP12 since virtually every part of the SL10 is well damped, except the little feet aren't very isolating for a big heavy table. For some reason, the reviewers thought the base was actual Obsidian, and they falsely blamed that, creating a meme that lasted through the 80's. However everyone now knows that if the SL10 has any serious problem, it's in the feet--which are fine if table is perched on an isolating stand.
Nandric, Typically, I shy away from such commentary but my friend, such naive and defensive comments to my post above literally bleed of inexperience. Posting emotional knee jerk reactions and defensive posturing ruins forums. Politely speaking, when an individual with direct experience shares their insights on a given topic, obviously you have every right to personally disagree with any sentiments expressed. However, before trying to discredit and blatantly claim this person has no idea, you may want to know who you are talking to first. In this case, your comments were directed towards someone who has owned and listened to more Sp10 based plinths than you can ever realize.
Hi Chris 74, well there are many 'things' that I can't
imagine. Say the number of particles or the speed of light.
Even some more to the earth things. Like, for example, why
should anyone buy a 4-5 K plinth for an $1000 SP-10 TT?
Not to mention the arguments like 'the inherent body,
weight', etc., which are as expressions inscrutable to me
in this context.
To recommend such plinths is of course your privilege but
to judge this recommendation as nonsense is my.
I recently got a TECHNICS SL-1000MK3D - SP10-MK3 SH-10B5 Plinth. and have just installed a Thales Simplicity II tonearm. Surperb sounding table on my diy compression spring platform.
I feel there is nothing wrong with the plinth as its very well damped. The feet however, I feel they might be able to be inproved?
How do you get the feet off the SH-10B5 plinth? I have tried unscrew the feet, however they will not budge and I don't want to break them.
Nandric, et al. If you want to take Raul’s testimony about the AT636, keep in mind that he recommended using them under the naked chassis of an SP10 MK2. No obsidian plinth; just set the chassis down on 3 or 4 AT636s. Raul and I went at each other over this practice; I still think it’s a bad idea, because of the fact that the chassis will want to twist in the opposite direction of platter rotation, and the feet are entirely insufficient to anchor the chassis. So, I must ask, Nandric. Are you using the AT636 under your obsidian plinth or under the naked chassis, a la Raul?
I used Stillpoint Ultra SS’s under the Technics mk3 plinth, by passing the feet. Results were poor.
Using the Mk3 feet was clearer sound, but a little bass heavy - more my rack than the Technics as when I transposed the technics onto the Granite/compressions spring stand - everything improved markedly.
Hi Downunder, if you are open for experimentation, you may want to find a Lead Console plinth from Japan. Many of the SP10’s users in Hong Kong have bypassed the original plinth and go with the Lead Console.
It was a very common combo in Hong Kong and Japan when the SP10’s were current. So, you can find a used Lead Console from Japan for 3 to 4 hundred dollars. But due to its weight, the shipping cost is often more than the buying price.
Yes, that is the Thales tonearm.
The tonearms are easily swapped as you just remove the entire armboard by removing the 4 screws.
many many different plinth options for the technics. I am happy with the Technics mk3 plinth, however I do need to find out how to remove the feet safely.
I bought teak wood plinth with several armboards for my SP-10mk2 a while back and still happy about it. For the difference in price between my teak wood plinth and hi-end plinths (from OMA, S.Dobbins, Chris or Albert) i bougth two Luxman PD-444 turntables with it's own original heavyweight "plinth" that need no replacement or upgrade and now i'm even more happy that i didn't bought expensive plinth for my SP-10mk2!
I have an SP10 MK II with the Obsidian plinth. I am using a Basis Vector arm with a Soundsmith Zyphyr MIMC. My audio room is on the second floor so I have always mounted my turntables on the large Target TTW1 wall mount rack. I replaced the cheap target shelf with a 3" maple platform.
I removed the crap feet that came with the obsidian plinth and have the original version of the stillpoints pointed up to the plinth. I had my SP10 rebuilt by Hans Lazuadi as well as he fabricated a brass mat that was screwed to and balanced with with SP10 platter. My system also has two Seaton Submersive subs that I use in both stereo and surround modes.
Using the subs in stereo mode I can drive the volume up pretty darn loud before I get any sort feedback issue from the turntable.
I too have wondered about other plinths but have been hesitant to invest big $ in a custom plinth not knowing if the incremental improvement would be significant.
I will also comment that recently I have been ripping my vinyl to DSD128 using the Korg DS-DAC-10R. I find the playback of ripped vinyl via my Lumin A1 to be at least equal to playing the vinyl and superior in the aspect that I can truly crank the volume with two subs well beyond reason without any feedback.
I guess here is where I pipe in to say that I commissioned the construction of a slate slab, 19x23x3 inches, to fit the Mk3 chassis. I had a hole cut right through the slate large enough to allow me to position just about any tonearm. Then I had the same company make me some slate tonearm mounting boards. The slate weighs about 70-80 lbs, so that was a good plinth. But after a while I added a cherry wood base, about 4 inches thick. Into the wooden base I incorporated the dampening mechanism that Albert Porter uses, a block of solid brass (Albert uses solid iron), into which I insert a threaded brass rod, about 5/8" in diameter. The brass block is firmly bolted to the wood and sits directly under the bearing. The brass rod contacts the underside of the Mk3 bearing well. That whole thing is bolted to the underside of the slate. Total weighs maybe 100 lbs. This sits on Stillpoints.
To Downunder: The two subs I am using in stereo mode are the Seaton Submersives. They are dual 15" subs with a 3400 watt amp each. They are flat to about 10-14 hz...So they can definitely excite the cartridge/tonearm/table system into feedback with a record with a lot
of low frequency info at high volume (think Donald Fagen - Morph the Cat)...It never happens with just my main speaker running full range (Green Mountain Audio Continuum 3) which have a -3db at 27Hz.
best-groove, you overlooked that not Lew but Nandric mentioned
AT 636 footers. I own 4 of those so even their plural exist. But
this does not imply that they are available on eBay or elsewhere.
BTW I need to clean the cover of my Obsidian each week. Those
particles are everywhere and like death unavoidable. So without
the cover the dust has choice between platter or records...
I worked directly with a quarry in Pennsylvania, Structural Slate in Bala Cynwyd, PA, I think. They cut a slab to my specifications: 23x19X3, and honed both sides, as I recall. I then contracted with a water jet company in York, PA, to cut the slate using a pdf file to program their water jet; I think that pdf was available for the Mk3 chassis from Soundfountain, on the internet. So that cost me total less than $500. I then contracted with an audiophile/carpenter in Houston to make me a base out of cherry wood and baltic birch with a cut-out for the mass of brass which acts to dampen the Mk3 bearing, a la Albert Porter's idea. Albert uses a piece of solid iron; I was leery of putting such a big hunk of iron so near to the magnetic rotor of the turntable, so I chose brass, etc, etc. I drilled the underside of the slate slab for female threaded bushings that I glued into the slate with liquid weld, and I then bolted the wood base to the underside of the slate. Total cost was probably around $800, even including the piece of brass (from On-line Metals) that I drilled and tapped so a threaded rod could pass through it and contact the base of the bearing housing, a la Albert. I am not going to pretend there was not a lot of physical labor involved.
In my opinion, the Obsidian plinths of Technics circa 1980's were a complete sonic disaster. Anemic, flat and homogenized sounding. My first Technics Sp10Mk3 had one, it was abhorrent and I thought at first it was just the turntable. After purchasing my first properly designed bespoke plinth ~ Panzerholz constrained layer based, it completely changed my mind about the potential of the Mk3 and what a direct drive can really sound like. After that, I tried a Slate OMA plinth, and although it was neutral, focused and slightly better in my system that the Obsidian, I completely lost the tonality of the Panzerholz and exotic wood based plinth I had owned prior.
There are people who claim to have talked with the Almighty.
Hearing is of course the necessary condition next to ''some
language'' ( among other conditions) for such occurrences.
The question is why most will refuse to believe that those
persons have heard what they claim to have heard but accept
all other kinds of hearing as a fact? Then there are contradictions
in what x and what y has heard. I, for example, enjoy my Obsidian
plinth with AT footers while others ''hear'' a complete ''sonic disaster''
from all plinths made by Technics . I ask myself sometime if any
comparison is possible without exaggeration? Not in this forum
Perhaps it has something to do with level one plays back music and the feedback generated? I recall Peter Aczel initially not caring for the sound of the SP10 until he mounted it in the Cotter base, realizing then that the sound pressure generated by his current Janis woofers excited the obsidian base to the point of negatively affecting the sound. So those using the obsidian at more moderate levels and better platforms may well experience no sonic deficiencies. Just sayin.. Our opinions of products are almost always based on our listening environment, which may be hugely different from someone with another opinion. I’ll never forget a friend coming over, listening to my Trenner & Friedl speakers and ordering a pair the next day. But in his room they absolutely sucked. No bass or body whatsoever. I realize speakers are totally room dependent, especially in the bass regions, but I think the principle holds for everything. Widely-varying listening environments make for widely-varying opinions. Peace.
I don't have my plinth anymore, this is how it looks "naked" on very special AT616 Pneumatic Suspension Insulators, 4 footers designed to hold the weight up to 60kg and turntable can be leveled perfectly. I saw smaller model of AT footers under your plinth.
As far as I know only Raul owns the biggest kind. I am not sure if those are your AT616.
They are, i have 8 of them in mint condition. The best AT footers ever made, same as Raul's, 4 of them supports up to 60kg. They are not for sale yet, but when you will get your kendood from Lew we can talk about it, but i think he will never sell his kenwood :)
Dear chakster, I begin to believe that either your dad or you belong
to the so called ''Putins friends''. Such expensive footers and than
twice. ''Lews Kenwood'' is a kind of speaking. This does not mean
his sample but this model in general. i have just seen one on A'gon
market for $5000. But transport and import duty in Holland (33%)
are the problem. I have the perfect tonearm for the second arm
place on this Kenwood: ''the arm'' or ''better Breuer'' (aka Sumiko
800). All good sellers compare prices all over the world. So I hope
that some German who understand English and own the Kenwood
has seen this Ad. on A'gon. I can then collect the precious in
Germany and hope to get credit for your footers thereafter (grin).
I will be happy to sell my Kendood to Nandric. But not the Kenwood. I had a copper platter made for the Kenwood on the premise that it would be a better EMI shield than the OEM stainless steel platter sheet or mat supplied by Kenwood. Maybe for that reason, the copper platter raises the performance level of the L07D by a considerable margin; it’s easy to hear. The L07D Owners group recommends installing some sort of EMI shield for best results, so I am guessing EMI is the crux of it. Also, I previously used an EMI shield of a different kind, with good results, but had been going without it for a year or two, because that shield became magnetized and nearly ruined an Orto MC2000. Big mistake to ditch the shield entirely. Copper looks fantastic on the L07D, too.
Ironically, I purchased the MC2000 from Nandric.
Dear Lew, Do you remember the first objections against DD TT's?
Exactly what nearly happened to ''our'' MC 2000. Considering this
danger I would not even dream to put a copper shield on my
''Kendood''. Copper conducts ...
Dear chakster, sorry to hear about your dad. The case is that I think
that you are much younger than I (and Lew) but i have no idea how
old you are. I am also sorry that you are not a friend of Putin. Poor
me I never had a rich friend. That is my ' fate''; I come from a poor
It’s your faulty memory, because i told you many times that i’m 41.
But i hope you can remember how each of your Kiseki sounds, otherwice you don’t need so many of them. As your "poor friend" i hope i can get some Kiseki next time from you for free :)
Dear chakster, One may think that my (meanwhile) 5 Kiseki's
are somehow connected with my musical preferences. But
the real explanation is Lew's ''argument'' : ''the price was such
that it was impossible to resist''. The other possible explanation
is the ''age'' we are talking about. Those Kiseki's are so old
that young people (like you) who get them for free by inheritance
have no idea what they are worth. ''Inheritance'', my dear , is
the so called ''easy money'' so no price research is done before
listing. You already got two of my carts for free so the third should
be based on some other ''principle''. Say exchange. Your footers
for one of my (3) Kiseki Goldspot; the latest version of this