SP10 Mk II vs Mk III

I have a Monaco Grand Prix Turntable, with a Graham Phantom, I have a Technics SP10MkII in an Oswalds Mill Audio slate plinth (by far the best plinth material for any DD or idler drive). Both tables with the same arm and cartridge display almost identical sonic characteristics. Black background, amazing speed control, fine detail retrival, strong bass. What they both do not do is speed and dynamics like an idler. My Stainless steel Garrard Inspiration, again in an Oswalds Mill Audio slate plinth eclipses both the superb DD's, by a margin. In terms of musicality, speeed, dynamics, soundstage, and bass, I have only heard Mr Fremers Continuum, compete. Mine has a touch more groove noise in between tracks, I think? I now use the Garrard 501 on a wall shelf with Symposium rollerblocs in between. My arm of choice now after trying almost all the major contenders, is the RS Labs A1!

I've listened to the MkII for close to 30 years now- one of my best friends bought his new. It is very nice, but at least in the case of his machine there is one flaw that both of us have noticed- the plinth does not include the mount for the arm, which is on a separate surface.

It happens to be a fact of good 'table engineering that the platter bearing and the base of the tone arm must be as rigidly coupled together as possible. The better the coupling (and overall deadness) in this area, the better, and its the sort of thing that you hear immediately.

IMO/IME, a plinth that was designed for the MkII with this in mind would yield huge results, assuming that it was in fact rigid enough and dead enough.

Thank you Atmasphere, one of the things i am mostly uncertain was if the arm base should be coupled to the motor or somehow decoupled (ie. arm base on its own, more or less, as you see in many differnt designs). I appreciate your point of view.

OMA slate plinth for your SP10 MK II/III is about as good as it gets!

Silverprint, I have not done the listening tests necessary to have a valid opinion myself, but the prevailing opinion is that some coupling between tonearm base and bearing/motor is preferable. IOW, those designs you may see with the tonearm mounted separately from the bearing/motor/platter or deliberately decoupled from it seem to get criticized by those who have heard it both ways. What Ralph is saying, I think, is a little more extreme in terms of advocating a specific rigid physical coupling between bearing and tonearm. I actually cannot imagine how to do that with an SP10 or most DDs, because the bearing is of necessity surrounded by the motor assembly. Ralph, please correct me if I'm misrepresenting your view.