Technics SP-10 Tonearm Pod instead of Plinth/Base

LEWM: thanks for the tip on the cutout. Thanks also for the explanation of the arm length issue. Weisselk has also suggested that removing the base of the SP-10 could be a good idea, especially sonically.

Raul and others seem to have had success with a plinthless setup. It's looking like slate for a plinth or semi-nothing. Reports coming in on the cement option are poor. I imagine that resonance is the problem (like granite).

Hello Pyrso: Yes, there is a plethora of info on plinths for the rim drives, and much less for DD crowd. The OMA plinths are expensive...but I starting to believe that a finely made slate plinth is the best (plinth) option. The OMA models look exceptionally well made.
Yes (and Lewn said this earlier too and details it again above)- I think Raul's no-plinth setup is more correctly a semi-detached armboard setup. However, dibs to Raul for the application of his clever thinking.
Plaster of Paris, eh? Any other takers on that idea? Making the mold could be a pain though. I have trouble laying carpet tiles to fit a room let alone making a mold!
Yes- there is a strong valid argument for keeping the tonearm connected to the turntable proper
I'm thinking it's like when there a two cars drive next to each other, trying match speed, and a passenger attempts to pass a egg out the window to the other car while both cars negotiate pot holes and speed bumps!
It might be good 'ol 3/4 chipboard for a standby plinth after-all.

Oh, but those OMA slate plinths...

I have an SL-1000 MK II. That's an SP-10 MK II in the original Technics obsidian base. What is wrong with it and what improvements would I be seeking by changing to slate or some other material? I have read threads like this often but have never yet been prompted to try something different. Part of this is a respect for the integrity of the original design and part is skepticism. If Technics was able to build one of the finest turntables ever made available, would they not have provided a very suitable base? Would they not have experimented with many materials and different masses? When this turntable was offered it was extremely well funded and very capably engineered from a cost no object perspective. What did Technics do wrong?

Dear Macrojack: Maybe nothing but today there are a different way to think or different solutions to the same " subject ".

IMHO there are no perfect products out there, vintage or today ones, and the original SP-10 is no exception.
Maybe your original unit performs better or maybe a little different than any other " solution " that you read through several SP-10 threads.

The only way to be sure if what we have is the right " road " is to test/try a different " road " and decide.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

I dont think it is a question of who is right and wrong, This is a wonderful Turntable exceptionally well engineered, it was designed for professional use mainly in a radio station, what you need there is precision and reliability, for a High End Turntable you need only good sound, In High end we dont care if your power supply is ready to explode or your cables can catch fire at any moment, or if your speakers barely fit in your room, we just care for sound. I dont think a separate Pod could be fit for a radio station.

Audi uses the same engine for a station wagon and for a sports car, the difference is on the application and what you need it for, you want to carry 3 kids or you want to go fast!

A lot of High end TT do have a separate Pod for the tonearm, and on the SP10 in my experience the comparison is not even close, plus it is very easy to implement, try it out and let us know your opinion.

Macrojack, which Technics plinth came with your table? Technics made four different plinths for the SP-10 series.

First was a standard box frame for the original SP-10. It was all wood and weighed 5.2 kg.

Next was the SH-10B3 introduced with the SP-10 Mk2. This was a combination of Obsidian and wood and weighed 12 kg.

The third plinth was the SH-10B5 that came out at the time of the SP-10 Mk3. It was all Obsidian and weighed 19 kg.

Their last model was the SH-10B7 and sold with both the Mk2(A) and 3. It too was all Obsidian and the listed weight was 17.3 kg.

So other than the slight mass reduction with the 10B7, each plinth was made heavier than it's predecessor. Trusting that Technics engineers knew something of what they were doing, I took all this as a clue that mass is important to performance. But as Raul reminds us, we may never know until someone tests a minimal mass structure against a 40-60 pound plinth.

I will say that I do not see or feel movement with start up, running, or stopping my table. But then my sense of touch is not quite equal to a stylus in the groove!