+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: A better understanding of the base flaws in the mk2 etc

  1. #1
    Join Date: Mar 2015

    Location: Wiltshire

    Posts: 71
    I'm Julian.

    Default A better understanding of the base flaws in the mk2 etc

    Hi
    The forum has been a great read and I have certainly found what the elements of the Technics that need upgrading are.
    What is a little more intriguing and harder to completely understand is the background to these elements, and the engineering flaws that seem to exist in the mk2 etc. E.g. What is it about that arm that is criticised so much, and sparks the need for an upgrade? After all, Technics have not changed the fundamental design of the arm for the new 1200G....so what this just pure laziness on their part????

    So, starting with the arm - it's well specified but what are the flaws? is it the j shaped tube? Is it the material? Not sure what my mk2 arm is made from, the tube feels like plastic or very lightweight metal. Is it the headshell? Is it very susceptible to vibrations????

    The PSU I think I understand a bit more - I guess we are talking electrical interference making their way through to the cartridge, as the transformer is sited underneath the platter. But, why are the better external power supplies better than just putting the external one in a separate housing

    Yes, I agree that the platter can ring - again would love to know what negative impact it is having? Is it carrying vibrations that may be coming from the speakers or from people walking around in the room?

    Rubber mat - why is this mat criticised? It seems to be heavy and rubber and ideal to mitigate any platter induced vibration. What is the issue wit the stock mat - is it the thickness, the grade of rubber, the rubber itself?

    The feet and bearing upgrade are more easily understood as much have been written about them. I am just very intrigued on the items above, and why the suggested replacements are better and why they correct the issues the stock parts seem to be causing.

    My stock mk2 clearly does not sound as good as my mk2 with the rb250 arm, which in turn does not sound as good as my sp10/sh10b3 - so I appreciate the differences changes can make, I am just more interested in why these parts are causing the slightly thick and dense sound of the stock mk2. It's also a bit perplexing why technics didn't change the arm altogether on the new model, apart from the armtube material.

    Many thanks
    Julian

  2. #2
    Join Date: Dec 2011

    Location: Athens

    Posts: 268
    I'm Dimitris.

    Default

    Well they are in the business of selling entry level turntables and they had a specific budget to build one. As long as it does not have any functional issues and it is not behind the competition, it is a viable product (unless they can build something more profitable).

    About specifics, each issue you mention can start a big thread on its own, but the bottom-line would probably be something like "It was built good enough but could be further optimized". And the DD design with the strong motor drive does not make things any easier.

    About the PSU, again, as a product it was designed on a budget. Even if they knew better.
    And because of the nature of the direct drive, the PSU is more complex. It is not a single regulator or driver feeding a motor. There is a central psu, but the subsystems fed are many and can be separately optimized.
    And again, because of the DD, any imperfections in rotation or interference from the digital stuff are fed directly to the platter/needle, since there is no reducing pulley.
    This is probably why changes on the platter and chassis have such big impact as well (mass coupling/decoupling, flywheel effect etc).

    About the tonearm, my impression is that it is not that bad. But there are better designs obviously.
    The S shape should be irrelevant.
    My impression is that it is not only the tube. It also has to do with the base. The stock one floating on the less rigid VTA adjuster, containing much plastic and many moving parts, while aftermarket ones being plain solid metal directly and solidly attached to the chassis.

  3. #3
    Join Date: Mar 2015

    Location: Wiltshire

    Posts: 71
    I'm Julian.

    Default

    Hi All - just one reply? I thought that with all of the knowledge in this Technics camp, you would be chomping at the bit to discuss???!!!!! Anyone?? Marco??

  4. #4
    Join Date: Mar 2016

    Location: Brighton, UK.

    Posts: 3,100
    I'm Mike.

    Default

    I think they've reached peak 1210 upgrading/discussion.

  5. #5
    Join Date: Apr 2009

    Location: Ayrshire, Scotland

    Posts: 231
    I'm Ian.

    Default

    Julien
    Some of the issues you ask about are mentioned in my first post on the forum
    http://theartofsound.net/forum/showt...-bearing/page8
    Technics 1200 tweaked,Ianmac Bearing,DACT DIY Phono Pre, Belcanto CD-2, Engineered Switzerland DIY Renderer, Benchmark DAC2, Hypex NCore, ATC SCM40
    2nd system --Engineered Switzerland DIY streamer, Sony CDP11,Topping D50 DAC, Hypex NCore. Kef 1point2 speakers. Ianmac Filters

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •