View Full Version : Technics SL-1200mk2 vs Linn LP12
Guys, this thread is currently running on pfm, so I thought it might be interesting seeing what folks here thought. Download the files from the Hoffman forum, have a listen, and see what you think:
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/technics-sl-1200mk2-vs-linn-lp12-comparison-needle-drops.384955/
So which file do you think is the recording from which turntable?
I guessed it correctly, as soon as I listened (as the guy who produced the files has now said which is which), the reasons for why I came to that conclusion will be revealed later. However, if you don’t know, then just simply tell it as you heard it :)
Marco.
Not a lot in it listening on the lappy through the creative labs but I preferred no 2.
Stratmangler
03-10-2014, 23:35
It's a pity that the files have tags that tell you which is which.
At least it tells me using Foobar which file is which.
Another point is that the recording level is pitifully low.
I've Replaygain scanned and applied the tags - there's a +8 dB figure thrown up.
It would have been better being somewhere around the 0 dB mark.
I'll have a listen to it tomorrow afternoon using headphones and the A/B tester plugin that Foobar has - my crappy laptop speakers aren't good enough to make any judgement calls.
Without reading the tags, my first impression was to favour file 1 mainly due to the brightness of the slightly more prominent highs. By the end of listening the second time through, I preferred the overall balance of file 2, somehow a bit more solid and realistic particularly in the mids. I then cheated so I now know the truth but enough of that.:eyebrows:
What I do find amazing is that it's a comparison of a fairly well sorted LP12 with a stock Techy. How the comparison would be if the Techy recorded file represented my midway modified 1210 let alone a full house item, is fascinating to contemplate.;)
Stratmangler
04-10-2014, 01:08
Returning to the thread over on the Steve Hoffman forums (which I didn't read first time around) I can see that there are all kinds of ifs, buts and whys all through it.
I'm going to have a listen tomorrow through a setup I know pretty well, and make any decisions thereafter.
The ABX element of Foobar is a very useful tool to have for such moments!
Hi Lynton,
What I do find amazing is that it's a comparison of a fairly well sorted LP12 with a stock Techy. How the comparison would be if the Techy recorded file represented my midway modified 1210 let alone a full house item, is fascinating to contemplate.;)
Spot on - and *that* is exactly the point.
However, I was different from you and instantly preferred file 1. It is, fundamentally in my opinion, the better sounding recording, and not just because it’s a little louder - and that’s exactly how it should be, because a reasonably well-specified LP12 should considerably outperform a stock SL-1200/1210.
With file 2, now confirmed as being the Technics, I can clearly hear the limitations that from experience I’d associate with a stock SL-1200/1210 (rather opaque sound, lack of openness and high-frequency detail retrieval, tonally monochromatic presentation, etc), although I can also hear the effect of its superior speed stability over that of the LP12; in short just the type of differences I’d have expected to have heard between both T/Ts.
The fact that, despite that, the results were still reasonably close, just goes to show the nonsense that some folk spout about the Techy, and also the potential it has for upgrading/modifying the areas of weakness it possesses in stock form, which from experience I know can be done, and thus transform it into a genuinely top-class turntable, capable of competing with the best.
Marco.
It didn't show any tags with me. It didn't download either it just played them. I ran certain passages side by side several times in different windows but it did not run through any of the main players on the PC ie Foobar or jriver.
Has anyone else listened to the files? Come on folks, let’s have some more feedback! :)
Marco.
Spectral Morn
05-10-2014, 08:08
Just used laptop speakers but File 1 was superior more air, richer tonal palette, focus, weight and scale, even with the laptops limitations the difference was fairly obvious.
Regards Neil
Only crappy powered desktop speakers here but I preferred file 2.
Bassline more prominent, vocal is clearer, the whole thing is more 'together'. File 1 sounds a bit more plinky-plonk in the top with vague bass and muffled vocal.
Then I checked which was which. I'm not surprised. I'm surprised so many thought #1 was better.
Spectral Morn
05-10-2014, 09:06
Only crappy powered desktop speakers here but I preferred file 2.
Bassline more prominent, vocal is clearer, the whole thing is more 'together'. File 1 sounds a bit more plinky-plonk in the top with vague bass and muffled vocal.
Then I checked which was which. I'm not surprised. I'm surprised so many thought #1 was better.
Not what I heard at all :scratch: seems to be a lot of variables re laptop playback here. As your description matches how I heard File 2 though not to the same degree. Weird
Regards Neil
There seems to be a similar difference of opinions on this on Hoffman as well. Some folk reckoned they couldn't hear any difference. Very strange.
One thing it could be down to is that some folk prefer what I would call an exaggerated top end openness and seem prepared to sacrifice pretty much everything else (if they have to) in order to have that because that is what they perceive as the 'better' sound. Purely down to taste in presentation but then it goes on to explain my theory that some folk don't like the SL1200 because it is too neutral sounding. They tend to be not that keen on digital replay for the same reasons.
Hi Marco, I did say I initially preferred file 1 for all the reasons you say but in particular, the slightly cleaner and more forward highs but after a second and subsequent plays, I really began to appreciate the fuller mids and what I took to be better overall tonal balance and fullness of file 2.
What I didn't say in my previous post is that yes file 2 has some limitations so I was looking past those to other qualities. To me, file 2 was certainly a bit dark and wooly in the base and not as clean so i'd certainly rate it second best technically other than for speed control. Just goes to show that we probably all focus on slightly different things as being most important to our personal listening requirements.
Historically, when I first got my new 1210, I was very pleasantly surprised by how much better it sounded than I was expecting so perhaps that is where I was coming from in eventually preferring file 2. I judged the fundamentals as being extremely sound. No I didn't like the dark constrained stage or in particular, how flat and 2D the soundstage was - fine width wise but hopeless for depth. Can't really hear that limitation on file 2 but it's likely there. In fact the flat soundstage was my number 1 dislike of the stock TT and my primary reason for doing something about it. A combination of the MN bearing, rewired tone arm (van den Hul MCS 150M silver) and KAB damper transformed the stock item to make it the opposite of dark and constrained. Other subsequent mods have simply taken it further along this path.:D
Mr Kipling
05-10-2014, 11:26
Downloading the first file yesterday with my mobile was a bit of a faff, and it wouldn't play when I tried. Had another go today and got both files and a player that played them.
Initially I preferred the Linn as it was cleaner, clearer, had better leading edges sounding more plinky, rinky-dinky, and live. After a few listens I preferred the Technics which was more solid and stable, better resolved in the bass with the piano having more plonk. It did, however, sound more muddy and less open and transparent compared to the Linn file. Surprised some heard no differences.
But what does it say? The differences heard could be wiped out with a change of cartridge to one deck or altering loading or what was used for support and loads more…
Canetoad
05-10-2014, 13:18
It as obvious to me that file 2 was the Technics. I remember that sound very well from when I first bought mine. Just replacing the mat removes some of the ploddy bass and midrange in my opinion.
I thought file 1 sounded pretty good listening on the laptop with headphones. I've not heard an LP12 before so I'm no expert but it did sound quite good.
I'd like to hear a modified Techie against the LP12. That would be interesting. :)
stairpost
05-10-2014, 13:54
I thought they both sounded nice enough for me to enjoy listening to, although file1 did have a better sound around the high end.
I am very intrigued by the idea of how much variation there is in our individual hearing, we can't all hear, process and differentiate quality across the frequency range in the same way, can we?
I prefered file one and thought that was the Technics cause it sounds like my own deck, didn't like file two much, too closed in for me too veiled too much bass.
Tony
Stratmangler
05-10-2014, 19:15
I had a play with the ABX thing first, and got these results
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.3
2014/10/05 19:30:27
File A: C:\Users\Chris W7\Downloads\Chant of the Soil - 1.wav
File B: C:\Users\Chris W7\Downloads\Chant of the Soil - 2.wav
19:30:27 : Test started.
19:33:03 : 01/01 50.0%
19:33:44 : 02/02 25.0%
19:34:24 : 03/03 12.5%
19:34:51 : 04/04 6.3%
19:35:25 : 05/05 3.1%
19:36:02 : 06/06 1.6%
19:36:38 : 07/07 0.8%
19:37:37 : 08/08 0.4%
19:37:57 : 09/09 0.2%
19:38:38 : 09/10 1.1%
19:38:50 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 9/10 (1.1%)
The test results prove that I can successfully track which file is which in a blind test, but little else other than that.
My failure on the 10th attempt could be put down to losing the will to live :eyebrows:
So now I played the files right through, and on initial hearing I preferred file 1, as it had more air and space to the sound.
Subsequent listenings have me very definitely in the file 2 camp. The bass and piano have pitch stability that file 1 lacks. The drumming on track 2 has greater drive and direction, and the emphasis the drummer makes with pressed rolls comes to the fore.
Overall I'd say the Technics acquits itself very well, especially considering the fact that it's a stock deck, and the LP12 has had money thrown at it in upgrades.
Mr Kipling
05-10-2014, 20:20
Not having read the thread I wasn't aware different cartridges were used (Klyde & Troika rebuilt by Goldring). The individual who did the comparison was pretty confident there was no real difference in sound between them.
Pretty amazing the two sound so close given the differences in cost.
Hi Lynton,
To me, file 2 was certainly a bit dark and wooly in the base and not as clean so i'd certainly rate it second best technically other than for speed control.
I also agree - and that is *fundamentally* how a stock Techy sounds, although I can understand why some would prefer it to the recording of the LP12. At the end of the day, however, all this stuff is very subjective, and there are clearly audible limitations in both T/Ts.
For me, though, the LP12 in question gets more that’s fundamentally important right than the stock Technics does.
No I didn't like the dark constrained stage or in particular, how flat and 2D the soundstage was - fine width wise but hopeless for depth…. In fact the flat soundstage was my number 1 dislike of the stock TT and my primary reason for doing something about it.
Again spot on - that is precisely (and indisputably) the failings of a stock Technics SL-1200/1210.
A combination of the MN bearing, rewired tone arm (van den Hul MCS 150M silver) and KAB damper transformed the stock item to make it the opposite of dark and constrained.
Let’s not also forget the huge part removing that big lump of metal from underneath the platter (the stock PSU), and housing it inside an external box and/or fitting another high-quality item from an outside manufacturer (as well as losing the rubber mat and stock feet), plays in eradicating those "dark and constrained" sonic characteristics.
In any case, absolutely - mine too sounds the complete opposite of such, and excels in most important areas, although I’d still argue that something like a Michell Gyrodec shows up ANY SL-1200/1210, highly-modified or otherwise, in terms of filigree detailing/delicacy, ultimate high-frequency extension, along with soundstage width and depth.
One simply has to remember that everything in audio is a compromise, including T/Ts, and there’s no doubt that the best belt-drive T/Ts outperform their direct-drive counterparts in certain areas. However, a well-sorted D/D, in my experience, has the best balance of compromises, in order to make recorded music sound most like the real thing - and most of all fun :)
Marco.
I had a play with the ABX thing first, and got these results
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.3
2014/10/05 19:30:27
File A: C:\Users\Chris W7\Downloads\Chant of the Soil - 1.wav
File B: C:\Users\Chris W7\Downloads\Chant of the Soil - 2.wav
19:30:27 : Test started.
19:33:03 : 01/01 50.0%
19:33:44 : 02/02 25.0%
19:34:24 : 03/03 12.5%
19:34:51 : 04/04 6.3%
19:35:25 : 05/05 3.1%
19:36:02 : 06/06 1.6%
19:36:38 : 07/07 0.8%
19:37:37 : 08/08 0.4%
19:37:57 : 09/09 0.2%
19:38:38 : 09/10 1.1%
19:38:50 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 9/10 (1.1%)
The test results prove that I can successfully track which file is which in a blind test, but little else other than that.
My failure on the 10th attempt could be put down to losing the will to live :eyebrows:
So now I played the files right through, and on initial hearing I preferred file 1, as it had more air and space to the sound.
Subsequent listenings have me very definitely in the file 2 camp. The bass and piano have pitch stability that file 1 lacks. The drumming on track 2 has greater drive and direction, and the emphasis the drummer makes with pressed rolls comes to the fore.
Overall I'd say the Technics acquits itself very well, especially considering the fact that it's a stock deck, and the LP12 has had money thrown at it in upgrades.
That was my findings as well give or take...1st listen I was drawn to no1 but the more I did listen, I felt 2 was better for me anyways....Kinda thought 2 would be the lp 12
Mr Kipling
06-10-2014, 02:28
The other file set (Cat Stevens' Sad Lisa) hasn't been mentioned. The differences this time are less obvious. This time I preferred the Linn file because it had the greater clarity.
Someone has mentioned that the two cartridges don't have the same absolute phase.
Gordon Steadman
06-10-2014, 06:16
I prefer the second one. The piano sound is close but the bass is far more stable and clean. I found there was a plummy coloration on the LP12 that I couldn't live with. It is surprising how well some basic decks perform.
I have just played both tracks on iTunes (Apple lossless) and find both lack the air around them that I am used to. However the basic sound is so similar that I wonder why we spend all this dosh on front ends. It confirms my view that the speakers are the most important but thats another 'discussion' we have had before.:lol:
I had forgotten about this - will have an experiment tonight (perhaps Wednesday) :).
Try the comparison again, this time with a Rega Planar 2: http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/technics-sl-1200mk2-vs-rega-planar-2-comparison-needle-drops.385558/
This one’s a bit closer, and so harder to judge, however, I’d say that File 3 was the Techy, and the other, the Rega.
Marco.
Gordon Steadman
07-10-2014, 12:44
Even Stevens until the piano came in and then I preferred No 4. On the Mac system with the Diamonds I really couldn't hear any difference. Even on the phones it was close.
Mr Kipling
07-10-2014, 16:15
I'd say 3 was the Rega as the other sounds more coloured. 3 sounds cleaner and clearer like the previous Linn files. The drums especially sound a whole lot sharper and attacking with 3.
Glad I don't have a 1210!
You mean a stock 1210? ;)
A lightly tweaked (let alone a fully modified one, like others or mine) simply doesn’t have those limitations…
Marco.
Stratmangler
07-10-2014, 20:54
3 is the Technics.
4 is the Planar2, and not only is it running a touch slow, it's incapable of maintaining proper pitch. It's shite, and that's being nice about it :eek:
Whoever said the recordings sound a lot closer and more difficult to distinguish should stop listening to the speakers on their flash new MacBook whatever it is - it might be nicer to use than your last laptop, but the speakers are still rubbish.
These 2 recordings are chalk and cheese ;)
I'm of course open to being proved wrong, but I'd be surprised if 3 is the Technics, for the simple reason that its pitch is so far off - then again, John may have tweaked the pitch control to throw folk off the scent. :D
Regas are notorious for running slightly fast (my dad's Planar 3 which is at my place definitely is) hence why I thought that 4 is the Tecchy because it's a lot nearer to British Standard Pitch (A440). Saying that, even 4 is still slightly sharp though, but of course the master could've been running fast too - not unheard of.
Stratmangler
07-10-2014, 21:33
4 has no ability to hold pitch properly, hence my comments.
The notes literally swim around, and it's quite disorienting and nausea inducing.
As for pitch discepancy, there's a very famous recording by a little known trumpet player where the recorder was running a touch slow in the control room.
Kind Of Blue is the record I'm referring to.
The album went out with incorrect pitch for decades - played back at normal speed the playback was slightly sharp and had greater attack, which might well have been picked up by Miles, and he might well have liked the way it bopped harder.
One thing I have done with all the comparisons is listen through headphones for consistency.
No 4 was doing well till the complicated piano part which it did not quite manage (it did not do the early drum bit intro as well either), so overall I'll take 3 to be the better rendition.
pure sound
08-10-2014, 09:02
From an excellent article about the Plangent process which is being used to create the new Bruce Springsteen boxed set.
"In fact any higher frequency flutter screws up the imaging and affects the listener's ability to chase reverb tails to black, and to comprehend inner voicings in the music. Linn used to market the "tunefulness " of their heavy viscous bearing-damped turntables - which compared to a Technics SL direct drive sounded warmer, and more detailed... this was a paradox during the time that everybody was pushing more 15kHz to get brighter more detailed recordings. But the Technics sounded harsh and weird and the imaging was flat. That's because the high frequency flutter caused by the Technics' noisy servo jittering was massively higher in level than the heavily damped Linn, complicated by the weighting curve that made the percentage numbers look abnormally small as the frequency rate of the flutter increased."
http://audiophilereview.com/analog/plangent---a-better-way-to-transfer-analog-tape.html#sthash.aNh4JylW.dpuf
It might help account for why a heavier platter & a more viscously damped bearing might bring the improvements that many have experienced.
Ammonite Audio
08-10-2014, 09:13
From an excellent article about the Plangent process which is being used to create the new Bruce Springsteen boxed set.
"In fact any higher frequency flutter screws up the imaging and affects the listener's ability to chase reverb tails to black, and to comprehend inner voicings in the music. Linn used to market the "tunefulness " of their heavy viscous bearing-damped turntables - which compared to a Technics SL direct drive sounded warmer, and more detailed... this was a paradox during the time that everybody was pushing more 15kHz to get brighter more detailed recordings. But the Technics sounded harsh and weird and the imaging was flat. That's because the high frequency flutter caused by the Technics' noisy servo jittering was massively higher in level than the heavily damped Linn, complicated by the weighting curve that made the percentage numbers look abnormally small as the frequency rate of the flutter increased."
http://audiophilereview.com/analog/plangent---a-better-way-to-transfer-analog-tape.html#sthash.aNh4JylW.dpuf
It might help account for why a heavier platter & a more viscously damped bearing might bring the improvements that many have experienced.
Funnily enough, a project that I'm currently working on is motivated by very similar observations.
Mr Kipling
08-10-2014, 09:33
Funnily enough, as I lay in bed this morning, I wondered if a greased bearing on a belt drive would help with pitch stability.
Gordon Steadman
08-10-2014, 09:39
4 has no ability to hold pitch properly, hence my comments.
The notes literally swim around, and it's quite disorienting and nausea inducing.
One thing I have done with all the comparisons is listen through headphones for consistency.
Phones for me too and I find the opposite:ner:
TBH the pitch stability on both is quite ropey in places, no doubt down to possible slight de-centering of the lp. An nteresting exercise is to have a break of a few mins between each sample (preferably listening to something else on CD) then have a listen to the 2nd one. By listening to one, then going immediately to the 2nd one (especially going from sharp to flat), it takes a good 30 secs for my ear to adjust to the different pitch.
The slower one just seems - to my ears - to display the traits of a bog-stock Technics ie somewhat mushy and bland, constricted even. Would love to know which is which though - and I'd be happy to be proved wrong because sonically I'm not sure which I prefer, although differences are blatantly obvious. The speed issue bothers me more than anything else here.
Gordon Steadman
08-10-2014, 10:46
TBH the pitch stability on both is quite ropey in places, no doubt down to possible slight de-centering of the lp. An nteresting exercise is to have a break of a few mins between each sample (preferably listening to something else on CD) then have a listen to the 2nd one. By listening to one, then going immediately to the 2nd one (especially going from sharp to flat), it takes a good 30 secs for my ear to adjust to the different pitch.
The slower one just seems - to my ears - to display the traits of a bog-stock Technics ie somewhat mushy and bland, constricted even. Would love to know which is which though - and I'd be happy to be proved wrong because sonically I'm not sure which I prefer, although differences are blatantly obvious. The speed issue bothers me more than anything else here.
I suspect the average listener is better off for not having perfect pitch. I realise that neither are exactly perfect in stability but I still prefer the actual sound of the second one, it just felt more like a real piano to me.
None of it matters much of course but an interesting exercise nevertheless.
From an excellent article about the Plangent process which is being used to create the new Bruce Springsteen boxed set.
"In fact any higher frequency flutter screws up the imaging and affects the listener's ability to chase reverb tails to black, and to comprehend inner voicings in the music. Linn used to market the "tunefulness " of their heavy viscous bearing-damped turntables - which compared to a Technics SL direct drive sounded warmer, and more detailed... this was a paradox during the time that everybody was pushing more 15kHz to get brighter more detailed recordings. But the Technics sounded harsh and weird and the imaging was flat. That's because the high frequency flutter caused by the Technics' noisy servo jittering was massively higher in level than the heavily damped Linn, complicated by the weighting curve that made the percentage numbers look abnormally small as the frequency rate of the flutter increased."
http://audiophilereview.com/analog/plangent---a-better-way-to-transfer-analog-tape.html#sthash.aNh4JylW.dpuf
It might help account for why a heavier platter & a more viscously damped bearing might bring the improvements that many have experienced.
Makes no sense as the SL1200 has a lower flutter figure than an LP12. The bloke may know something about record mastering but obviously not a lot about the SL1200. Reads like he is just repeating something he heard.
pure sound
08-10-2014, 11:29
Makes no sense as the SL1200 has a lower flutter figure than an LP12. The bloke may know something about record mastering but obviously not a lot about the SL1200. Reads like he is just repeating something he heard.
Makes plenty of sense to me. I don't think the flutter component of the typical Wow & Flutter spec concerns itself too much with higher frequency speed variations. Yet they can be an issue even with tape recorders as the Plangent process described in the feature attempts to address. But the same phenomena occurs with turntable drive systems (belt or direct) and the benefits of, for example, applying damping via viscosity in the bearing are audibly and measurably very real.
Maybe I am missing something but flutter is a high speed frequency variation.
pure sound
08-10-2014, 11:34
Have a look into how high they actually measure it.
According to Wikipedia it is measured at 3.15 KHz
So I see what you are trying to say but given that no-one measures 'high frequency' flutter and there is no definition for what constitutes high frequency in this regard then it is just conjecture.
pure sound
08-10-2014, 12:42
3.15 kHz is the frequency of the tone that's generally used. Flutter is a measure of higher frequency deviations from that tone. Wow is a measure of lower frequency deviations from that tone. But the higher frequency deviations they are generally looking at when measuring flutter aren't actually that high. As a measurement it is of some use but doesn't convey the full story of how motor control circuitry, the mass of the platter and compliance in the drive system combine and have the potential to impact the reproduced sound.
Paul R was doing some interesting analysis of speed stability over on pfm & it was certainly possible to see the motor characteristics and indeed the effect of damping by drag at the bearing. A platter will try to follow any minute fluctuations in the pull of it's motor whether via direct drive or via a belt/idler.
Incidentally here's an interesting piece on measuring turntables (page 34 onwards)
https://www.mediafire.com/?p04qpj7u4pwme83
I'm a tad late to the party on this so no comments about flutter etc just the tunes I heard.
It was a tad annoying that I can't claim it was a blind test 'cos when I loaded the file into the XBMC player it gave the game away :doh:
Anyway, by a country mile I think file 2 is better. Far more balanced presentation throughout the full audio spectrum. File 1 was guilty of overemphasis on the high's - the "plinky" piano just drowned out everything else - it sounded brittle and thin but
grabbed attention away from the rest of the mix. While file 2 the bass and in particular snares were much better defined and presented.
I reckon it's that darned "ringy" Linn platter - bet it wasn't on a DC motor conversion either. I used to have a lightly modded LP12 and the OL DC motor kit was a huge improvement in this area.
I must say I was a tad surprised the majority of folk on Hoffman preferred 1.
Just my two penneth - going to find a copy of the album now - sweet :)
Steve
Makes plenty of sense to me. I don't think the flutter component of the typical Wow & Flutter spec concerns itself too much with higher frequency speed variations. Yet they can be an issue even with tape recorders as the Plangent process described in the feature attempts to address. But the same phenomena occurs with turntable drive systems (belt or direct) and the benefits of, for example, applying damping via viscosity in the bearing are audibly and measurably very real.
As you know, I've been doing just that with my own (belt drive) turntable for some time and, as you say, the benefits are clearly audible and measurable.
3.15 kHz is the frequency of the tone that's generally used. Flutter is a measure of higher frequency deviations from that tone. Wow is a measure of lower frequency deviations from that tone. But the higher frequency deviations they are generally looking at when measuring flutter aren't actually that high. As a measurement it is of some use but doesn't convey the full story of how motor control circuitry, the mass of the platter and compliance in the drive system combine and have the potential to impact the reproduced sound.
Paul R was doing some interesting analysis of speed stability over on pfm & it was certainly possible to see the motor characteristics and indeed the effect of damping by drag at the bearing. A platter will try to follow any minute fluctuations in the pull of it's motor whether via direct drive or via a belt/idler.
Incidentally here's an interesting piece on measuring turntables (page 34 onwards)
https://www.mediafire.com/?p04qpj7u4pwme83
I entirely agree.
Hi Guy,
From an excellent article about the Plangent process which is being used to create the new Bruce Springsteen boxed set.
"In fact any higher frequency flutter screws up the imaging and affects the listener's ability to chase reverb tails to black, and to comprehend inner voicings in the music. Linn used to market the "tunefulness " of their heavy viscous bearing-damped turntables - which compared to a Technics SL direct drive sounded warmer, and more detailed... this was a paradox during the time that everybody was pushing more 15kHz to get brighter more detailed recordings. But the Technics sounded harsh and weird and the imaging was flat. That's because the high frequency flutter caused by the Technics' noisy servo jittering was massively higher in level than the heavily damped Linn, complicated by the weighting curve that made the percentage numbers look abnormally small as the frequency rate of the flutter increased."
http://audiophilereview.com/analog/plangent---a-better-way-to-transfer-analog-tape.html#sthash.aNh4JylW.dpuf
It might help account for why a heavier platter & a more viscously damped bearing might bring the improvements that many have experienced.
Most interesting, so thanks for sharing that info.
With regard to the emboldened text above, I would tend to agree, as my own modified SL-1210 (along with many others I’ve heard of a similar standard) display none of the harshness or flat imaging which I agree is present with the T/T in stock form - and that is precisely why others and I, who modify the Technics, do what we do :)
In my experience, however, bearing and platter aside, those sonic characteristics are largely eradicated by a combination of removing the stock feet and rubber mat, and fitting higher quality items (more suitable for hi-fi purposes) in those areas, externalising and/or upgrading the PSU, and fitting a better tonearm. The stock tonearm is a peaky sounding, rather resonant thing, and despite what some may think, is really not best suited to using with more demanding (than the MM cartridges it was designed to partner) low-output MCs.
Do all of the above, along with fitting a cartridge with a sonic presentation that is the antithesis of sterility (i.e.‘musical sounding’), and the harshness and flat imaging/soundstaging disappears, although those are still not areas where the Techincs excels, modified or otherwise. There are many other T/Ts which trump it in that area.
However, if one values CD-like stability, a lack of euphonic coloration normally associated with vinyl replay, together with an essentially neutral tonal presentation, grin-inducing ‘PRaT’, and an ability to 'sync-lock' onto rhythms, driving them along with an élan and alacrity, which so far I’ve heard from no other T/T, and in the process imbuing music with an addictive ‘fun factor’, then a judiciously modified SL-1200/1210 has few peers.
No SP10 I’ve heard so far, for example, can match it in those areas, which of course kills dead the old (and rather stupid) argument, bandied around by cynics and the uninitiated, of ‘why not just buy a better T/T in the first place?’ The point is, no other turntable in existence sounds like a judiciously modified SL-1200 or 1210, so if that’s what you want, there’s only ONE way to get it!! :exactly:
It’s worth pointing out I’ve always recognised that a SL-1200/1210, in stock form, has some fundamental flaws as a genuine audiophile T/T, which is precisely why all those years ago I imported a fully KAB-modified one from the States, largely devoid of those flaws - and then took things forward from there, on the road to building a genuinely top-notch turntable, capable of competing with the best.
Yes folks, despite what the detractors think, it *can* be done. Furthermore, and most importantly, it can be done in affordable stages, and also at reasonable overall cost compared with what the best T/Ts cost new! ;)
Marco.
I'm not a fan of the LP12 but did prefer file 1 to file 2, I couldn't live with either of them though. I've heard a fairly well modded technics (jelco 750 arm, top end cartridge, feet and at done) and still prefer my NAS spacedeck with Spacearm. It has most, if not all, of the stability of the Technics but with an added fluidity and ability to image and soundstage beyond the caability of said Technics. It's not night and day, but at £2k plus retail I wouldn't expect there to be vast differences.
Hi Des,
The NAS is a nice deck, and undoubtedly will outperform ANY Techy in some areas :)
As ever, it’s about choosing your compromises.
Marco.
337alant
08-10-2014, 21:28
Yes I agree with you there Marco there are compromises with all turntables and I believe all these online comparisons are rigged in some way
I preferred the rawness of the first file but My SL1200 doesn't sound like file 2 so it doesent make me say the LP12 is better.
But I do own an LP12 and I have been intending on selling it for some time so I have spent most of today stripping and rebuilding it, I tried it tonight with my audiomods are and it sounded very good really and it does have a certain musicality about it so Im not knocking it the LP12 is a fine turntable
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5611/15480671122_1dd129aa02_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/pzYubN)
Im still a fan of Direct drive and Idler though as pitch and speed stability is an important factor to me, im keeping my SL1200, Pioneer PLC590 and Garrard 401.
Ive just sold my Michell Gyro as well, its a fabulous turntable but I just find I am not listening to the belt drives, the LP12 and my Rega P3 will up for sale shortly
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3929/15420466085_5277d4345c_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/puDVjV)
Alan
I never saw any tags saying which was which tbh and still unsure about it...with 1 &2 I went for 2 and for 3 & 4 I went for 3......anyone able to tell me what I picked?
Nice TT's by the way Alan
Hi Alan,
Yes I agree with you there Marco there are compromises with all turntables and I believe all these online comparisons are rigged in some way
I preferred the rawness of the first file but My SL1200 doesn't sound like file 2 so it doesent make me say the LP12 is better.
Yes I know where you’re coming from, but I don’t think they’re rigged, certainly not in this case, as I believe the guy who did the needle-drops (whom I’ve known for years, from the days of the old Mana forum) is genuinely curious about the differences between his two T/Ts, especially in terms of what others think, and is quite shocked at how good his stock Technics T/T performs in comparison with his (reasonably well-fettled) LP12.
As I’ve said, for me, the files essentially (and ably) showcase two things: the rather obvious audiophile limitations of a stock SL-1200/1210, and similarly, the inherent sonic limitations of an LP12, albeit that one T/T does certain things better than the other.
But I do own an LP12 and I have been intending on selling it for some time so I have spent most of today stripping and rebuilding it, I tried it tonight with my audiomods are and it sounded very good really and it does have a certain musicality about it so Im not knocking it the LP12 is a fine turntable
The key for me, in terms of determining which T/T is ‘best’ in your collection, as indeed you’ve alluded to, is the one you’re more inclined to play records on, i.e. that which provides you with the greater overall musical satisfaction… It’s as simple as that, and in that respect, your ears don’t lie! ;)
Marco.
Clive197
09-10-2014, 10:27
IMO the comparison is flawed. It is noted that 1. The Linn cartridges were similar, not identical. Linn cartridges are manufactured by different makers and as such sound different.
2. A Linn Ekos arm was used on the LP12, even in Mk1 form it is better than a stock Technics arm, even one with Ekos wiring.
3. Depending exactly which Linn MC cartridge was used, the stock Technics arm would not be working at its best with such a cartridge. As has been discussed many times the Technics arm works better with a MM cartridge. I'm NOT saying that the Technics arm won't work with a MC, just that it is not giving it its best shot.
Clive
Hi Clive,
IMO the comparison is flawed. It is noted that 1. The Linn cartridges were similar, not identical. Linn cartridges are manufactured by different makers and as such sound different.
Indeed, although in this instance both Linn cartridges were designed by Goldring, so although one was technically better than the other, there should've existed a familiar ‘house sound’, which I found was the case.
For me though, I could hear through/past what the cartridges (and even arms) were doing, and from experience of having owned both turntables, readily identify their inherent sonic characteristics/limitations.
Marco.
The Linn has changed steadily over the years and the one pictured higher up the page has an old plinth on it - it's fluted, which they stopped decades ago I think. This means the mounting blocks may not be as well attached and the hole too wide - possibly... Does this one have the motor 'corner bolt' fitted, or the Cirkus etc?
Don't mean to nit-pick here, but each major change to the old fruitbox totally altered perception of the music it delivered and the current article is a very different sounding animal to the early 80's model (and MY current article reference is 2004 issue - and it's been changed again since then !). In fact, the latest ones are possibly almost as good as a Thorens TD150 ;) - so they bloody should be as the RD11/LP12 was directly derived and blue-printed from the TD150, as so many parts can sort-of be interchanged, give or take a thou or two :lol:
Gordon Steadman
09-10-2014, 13:37
Its interesting that all the discussion here is about the technical aspects ie. the objective ones!!
In each case, although I could hear those differences, my opinions on which was best related to the way the music was portrayed and it seems I enjoyed the 'lesser' machine more - so a subjective view.
I remember someone writing to one of the mags once, complaining that hi-fi had got too smooth and sophisticated and he wanted to go back to something a bit rougher that conveyed more 'emotion'. Still not sure how that comes about but some equipment is much better at it somehow it seems.
In each case, although I could hear those differences, my opinions on which was best related to the way the music was portrayed and it seems I enjoyed the 'lesser' machine more - so a subjective view.
So you preferred the LP12? ;)
In objective terms it is clearly the lesser of the two machines; from a technological standpoint if not from a feduciary one.
Gordon Steadman
09-10-2014, 16:20
So you preferred the LP12? ;)
In objective terms it is clearly the lesser of the two machines; from a technological standpoint if not from a feduciary one.
Ho ho.....I preferred the Technics in each case. I found it more 'real' in spite of the other deck sounding clearer, especially on piano.
I am posting blind as I did not want to know which file was which beforehand. I prefer File 1 for it's livelier presentation and well nuanced double bass, as a whole No1 sounded more natural to me.
julesd68
09-10-2014, 18:41
I was really surprised I could still hear a difference on my small-ish computer speakers but this is what I heard - the Linn had great clarity but really pushed the piano to the fore, whereas the Technics gave a much more natural and balanced presentation where all the instruments sat nicely in the mix together.
Gordon Steadman
09-10-2014, 19:19
I was really surprised I could still hear a difference on my small-ish computer speakers but this is what I heard - the Linn had great clarity but really pushed the piano to the fore, whereas the Technics gave a much more natural and balanced presentation where all the instruments sat nicely in the mix together.
Indeed, this is what I meant by 'musical'. With balance / naturalness, the musical message comes across. All the hi-finess in the world won't help. I don't enjoy very many modern systems as they all seem to strive to impress rather than just tell me what is going on.
Gordon Steadman
09-10-2014, 19:19
So, which is which?
You liked the Linn
Mr Kipling
09-10-2014, 20:39
So, which is which?
1: Linn
2: Tech.
3: Unknown
4: Unknown
5: Tech.
6: Linn
Mr Kipling
10-10-2014, 21:17
EE! I was right! I was right! 3 is the Rega!
Still glad I don't have a 1210.
Stratmangler
10-10-2014, 21:22
EE! I was right! I was right! 3 is the Rega!
Still glad I don't have a 1210.
And I still stand by my comments about 4! :eek:
I don't know how the original poster managed to make the SL12xx recording sound so broken - it sounded truly awful :scratch:
The Rega recording certainly follows Gromit's account of his experience of the Planar turntables.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.