Kaneta and more extreme mods to Sp-10
For Jlsem and others,
Everyone seems to be using the stock Sp-10 mark II platter, motor, bearing and aluminium diecast chassis.
Does anyone have any experience with doing Kaneta style mods but taken further?
Ie: cut out the strobe from the platter and making your own heavier, higher quality platter (wood, constrained layer or other) with ERS cloth and mu metal shielding in between to shield cartridge from magnets of the direct drive (and having it in the middle of the constrained layer so the mu metal is far enough away from the cartridge.
Taking out all of the electronic boards (only some of which are in the separate controller). Replacing the aluminium diecast chassis and placing the whole thing in maybe a CLD plinth like Corian and MDF (which null each other out ala Trio L-07) and lead shot or other.
It seems to me that the best part of the SP-10 is the motor and the speed controller/ electronics.
If the SP-10 Jlsem has made for Albert Porter sounds this good and this close to a Walker Prescinium table with these mods, then how good could the SP-10 sound if mods are taken much further?
Couldn't you also as an aside maybe have a ring magnet at the bottom of the new platter and whatever base it is being attached too ala some of the other flagship Japanese direct drives, decreasing pressure on the bearing?
Top it off with a Boston carbon mat and you could have a world beating turntable.
For Jlsem and others,
Everyone seems to be using the stock Sp-10 mark II platter, motor, bearing and aluminium diecast chassis.
Does anyone have any experience with doing Kaneta style mods but taken further?
Ie: cut out the strobe from the platter and making your own heavier, higher quality platter (wood, constrained layer or other) with ERS cloth and mu metal shielding in between to shield cartridge from magnets of the direct drive (and having it in the middle of the constrained layer so the mu metal is far enough away from the cartridge.
Taking out all of the electronic boards (only some of which are in the separate controller). Replacing the aluminium diecast chassis and placing the whole thing in maybe a CLD plinth like Corian and MDF (which null each other out ala Trio L-07) and lead shot or other.
It seems to me that the best part of the SP-10 is the motor and the speed controller/ electronics.
If the SP-10 Jlsem has made for Albert Porter sounds this good and this close to a Walker Prescinium table with these mods, then how good could the SP-10 sound if mods are taken much further?
Couldn't you also as an aside maybe have a ring magnet at the bottom of the new platter and whatever base it is being attached too ala some of the other flagship Japanese direct drives, decreasing pressure on the bearing?
Top it off with a Boston carbon mat and you could have a world beating turntable.
What about a wooden platter? Shouldn't cost too much as an experiment and from what some other people have said of the Teres wood platter, it might add nice tone to the sound?
Would there be a benefit with a Direct Drive turntable like the sp-10 to have weights at the perimeter of the platter for that 'flywheel' effect? Could drill holes into the wood platter and fill it with lead or similar.
Which leads to another question. I know in adds there was a picture of a man standing on the platter of a sp-10 and it was still turning. What is a realisting maximum platter weight that the bearing and motor can sustain? 20kg or so??
To Jlsem - How did the sound of the sp-10 you made for Albert porter compare with the Walker? You mentioned low noise but what about dynamics, speed, bass, size of image etc?
I'm surprised the Boston mat didn't suit in your experiment. I've heard nothing but raves about this mat and had high hopes for it. Maybe with a different plinth and platter the boston mat may be a better match.
Thank you so much for a wonderful thread. Very interesting.
Would there be a benefit with a Direct Drive turntable like the sp-10 to have weights at the perimeter of the platter for that 'flywheel' effect? Could drill holes into the wood platter and fill it with lead or similar.
Which leads to another question. I know in adds there was a picture of a man standing on the platter of a sp-10 and it was still turning. What is a realisting maximum platter weight that the bearing and motor can sustain? 20kg or so??
To Jlsem - How did the sound of the sp-10 you made for Albert porter compare with the Walker? You mentioned low noise but what about dynamics, speed, bass, size of image etc?
I'm surprised the Boston mat didn't suit in your experiment. I've heard nothing but raves about this mat and had high hopes for it. Maybe with a different plinth and platter the boston mat may be a better match.
Thank you so much for a wonderful thread. Very interesting.
"he Technics write-up quite specifically says that the servo is optimised for the platter mass. Making it heavier will make it worse."
I thought that this was only so that the platter could be up to speed in half a revolution or .1 of a second or whatever it was.
I would have thought that it would (negatively) effect time gettting to speed and time slowing down, but since many recommend disabling the brake from the sp-10 mk II wouldn't have thought it was a problem.
Re the added platter mass. OK maybe 20kg was a littel optomistic. I have heard of people in Japan who have made larger heavier platters and given the overachieving size of the motor et i would have thought 5kg-10 kg would have been ok as a minimum instead of the 2.9kg of the technics oroginal.
for the SL-1200, SL-1300 and similar, some have filled the bottom of the platter with plaster of paris to stop the platter ringing and add mass.
Has anyone heard the Kaneta sp-10 or similar where all of the electronics have been removed from the plinth (Some of the circuit boards are in the separate box and some in the aluminium chassis in the sp-10 mk II).
What is the best sounding plinth you have heard a sp-10 mounted in?
I thought that this was only so that the platter could be up to speed in half a revolution or .1 of a second or whatever it was.
I would have thought that it would (negatively) effect time gettting to speed and time slowing down, but since many recommend disabling the brake from the sp-10 mk II wouldn't have thought it was a problem.
Re the added platter mass. OK maybe 20kg was a littel optomistic. I have heard of people in Japan who have made larger heavier platters and given the overachieving size of the motor et i would have thought 5kg-10 kg would have been ok as a minimum instead of the 2.9kg of the technics oroginal.
for the SL-1200, SL-1300 and similar, some have filled the bottom of the platter with plaster of paris to stop the platter ringing and add mass.
Has anyone heard the Kaneta sp-10 or similar where all of the electronics have been removed from the plinth (Some of the circuit boards are in the separate box and some in the aluminium chassis in the sp-10 mk II).
What is the best sounding plinth you have heard a sp-10 mounted in?
Would have been interesting to try, and I have the parts to do it...
But, it all seems like over-over-engineering, (and it's probably already over-engineered in stock form).
What you will achieve, would therefore (by my best guess), is an exercise in diy-"engineering", without a cause.(other than; it's possible).
I would rather spend time and cash on arm(s), arm-board, pick-up(s), RIAA....
Arne K
But, it all seems like over-over-engineering, (and it's probably already over-engineered in stock form).
What you will achieve, would therefore (by my best guess), is an exercise in diy-"engineering", without a cause.(other than; it's possible).
I would rather spend time and cash on arm(s), arm-board, pick-up(s), RIAA....
Arne K
You may be right.
But sometimes its the journey that is as interesting as the result.
Also a lot of the proposed mods would not have to be dear depending on materials used. The main cost would be time and since most diyer's spend lots of time on a continual never ending range of projects, i don't see that being too much of an issue.
Re over-engineering and the Technics maybe being over-engineered anyway.
Jlsem mentions the sp-10 with the great mods he did in the same breadth as the Walker so i wonder how much better you can make it doing all these things.
It seems to me that parts of the sp-10 mk II are over-engineered for sure (the motor and speed regulation/ control). With these being such incredible quality, why not go full on with other aspects of the turntable.
improving the quality of other aspects of the design could yield a pretty incredible turntable that may be able to compete with pretty close to anything available, regardless of cost.
The cost of the motor and control circuitry/ speed regulation to a small turntable manufacturer would make it totally prohibitive, wouldn't it?
My only concern is that you might end up with something that ends up being pretty stunning but not very musical as you increase platter and plinth mass, use CLD etc, which is what some say about the Kenwood/ Trio L-07.
Then again you may be able to make yourself a cheaper baby Rockport Sirius III type player.
But sometimes its the journey that is as interesting as the result.
Also a lot of the proposed mods would not have to be dear depending on materials used. The main cost would be time and since most diyer's spend lots of time on a continual never ending range of projects, i don't see that being too much of an issue.
Re over-engineering and the Technics maybe being over-engineered anyway.
Jlsem mentions the sp-10 with the great mods he did in the same breadth as the Walker so i wonder how much better you can make it doing all these things.
It seems to me that parts of the sp-10 mk II are over-engineered for sure (the motor and speed regulation/ control). With these being such incredible quality, why not go full on with other aspects of the turntable.
improving the quality of other aspects of the design could yield a pretty incredible turntable that may be able to compete with pretty close to anything available, regardless of cost.
The cost of the motor and control circuitry/ speed regulation to a small turntable manufacturer would make it totally prohibitive, wouldn't it?
My only concern is that you might end up with something that ends up being pretty stunning but not very musical as you increase platter and plinth mass, use CLD etc, which is what some say about the Kenwood/ Trio L-07.
Then again you may be able to make yourself a cheaper baby Rockport Sirius III type player.
It wasn't possible to make a true comparison of the sound between the two because the Walker had a Koetsu Jade cartridge and the SP-10 sported an Air Tight PC-1, which is a completely different sounding cartridge. But for the record, the SP-10/PC-1 combination had better dynamics, speed, bass and lower distortion. Later on we may try to get another Air Tight to try on the Walker but they are in short supply because they are selling like hotcakes (at $5500 a pop!!!).
John
The idea behind making the platter from a different material is that the stock platter has no intrinsic damping properties, i.e. it rings like a bell, and it depends on the stock rubber mat to damp any unwanted vibration. Making a platter from a piece of manganese bronze, which damps very well indeed, would give wider latitude for experimenting with different mats, even a copper mat. Replacing the stock rubber mat with the Boston graphite mat may have not worked because the Boston mat didn't have the ability to damp the aluminum platter. I may try a platter made from a ZA127 zinc alloy which self-damps fairly well and is more economical. Meanwhile, I'm in the process of making plinths for my Garrard 301, a friend of mine's 301, and another friend's Thorens TD-124. Thanks for the tip, EC8010!
John
John
Well, maybe "ring like a bell" was a bit of an exaggeration. But nevertheless, aluminum, even with the "rubber" coating doesn't come close to other materials in terms of damping unwanted vibration. Even if you can't hear it yourself, a sensitive moving-coil cartridge probably can.
As far as increasing the inertia of the platter is concerned, it isn't really necessary with the SP-10, since it makes up for a lack of mass with sophisticated electronics. And, as EC8010 points out, changing the rotational inertia of the platter will do more harm than good. What I was proposing was a platter of a high damping factor metal that would preserve the designed-in inertia of the original SP-10 platter/mat combination but would be usable with lighter weight mats such as the Boston graphite mat or the Funkfirm foamed vinyl mat.
None of this is to say that the original SP-10 is defective, but, like a lot of DIY audio efforts, these proposals are academic in nature.
John
But will substituting a heavier platter do more harm than good? And why would it damage the servo or other electronics in any way (assuming that the platter is not so heavy as to damage the bearing).
What is more desirable for a Direct Drive turntable; a light or a heavy platter?
It seems that most of the big dollar top of the range Japanese decks had heavier platters than they're cheaper siblings. Was this because they found they sounded better or.....?
Further, the Technics Sp-10 Mark III had a 10kg platter which those who have heard it say is better sounding than the Mark II.
It seems to me that the platter debate could be argues two ways;
You want the platter as light as possible (assuming it won't ring) so that it allows the speed controller to adjust as quickly as possible to maintain the correct player speed. The heavier the platter the longer it would take the servo to adjust down or up to find the correct speed with the byproduct being that it would probably place more strain on the servo electronics as a result.
Rationale 2, as i see it is that if you have a pretty heavy platter (lets say 10kg with more of the weight at the perimeter) Then once the platter is at speed its less likely to deviate from that speed because of the increased mass and the flywheel meaning that the servo will not be altering the speed as often and so placing less strain on the servo.
Why is it that the top of the range Japanese Direct Drives had uniformally it seems heavy platters?
Technics Sp-10 Mark II - 2.9kg platter
Technics Sp-10 Mark III - 10kg platter
Yamaha GT-2000 - 6kg?
Kenwood / Trio L-07D - 6.8kg. If outer stabiliser used add 1.4kg, inner disc stabiliser .5kg, Optional ceramic platter sheet 1.2kg or 9.9kg in total.
Also the top of the range Teres turntable which now sports direct drive has a pretty heavy wooden platter with lead inserts or some such around the perimeter doesn't it?
Would a ring magnet underneath the bottom of the platter and another opposing below be doable ala a couple of these machines. Advantage would be less strain and thus wear on the spindle bearing and maybe reduced friction. Disadvantage could be yet more magnetism to shield against or else it may react with the cartridge negatively.
What is more desirable for a Direct Drive turntable; a light or a heavy platter?
It seems that most of the big dollar top of the range Japanese decks had heavier platters than they're cheaper siblings. Was this because they found they sounded better or.....?
Further, the Technics Sp-10 Mark III had a 10kg platter which those who have heard it say is better sounding than the Mark II.
It seems to me that the platter debate could be argues two ways;
You want the platter as light as possible (assuming it won't ring) so that it allows the speed controller to adjust as quickly as possible to maintain the correct player speed. The heavier the platter the longer it would take the servo to adjust down or up to find the correct speed with the byproduct being that it would probably place more strain on the servo electronics as a result.
Rationale 2, as i see it is that if you have a pretty heavy platter (lets say 10kg with more of the weight at the perimeter) Then once the platter is at speed its less likely to deviate from that speed because of the increased mass and the flywheel meaning that the servo will not be altering the speed as often and so placing less strain on the servo.
Why is it that the top of the range Japanese Direct Drives had uniformally it seems heavy platters?
Technics Sp-10 Mark II - 2.9kg platter
Technics Sp-10 Mark III - 10kg platter
Yamaha GT-2000 - 6kg?
Kenwood / Trio L-07D - 6.8kg. If outer stabiliser used add 1.4kg, inner disc stabiliser .5kg, Optional ceramic platter sheet 1.2kg or 9.9kg in total.
Also the top of the range Teres turntable which now sports direct drive has a pretty heavy wooden platter with lead inserts or some such around the perimeter doesn't it?
Would a ring magnet underneath the bottom of the platter and another opposing below be doable ala a couple of these machines. Advantage would be less strain and thus wear on the spindle bearing and maybe reduced friction. Disadvantage could be yet more magnetism to shield against or else it may react with the cartridge negatively.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.