View Full Version : Inspire HiFi SL1210 Bearing
Wondering if anyone here has any experience of this @ £175:-
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/BRAND-NEW-UPGRADED-TECHNICS-1200-1210-BEARING-FROM-THE-DIRECT-DRIVE-SPECIALISTS-/291411061908?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_3&hash=item43d973ec94
Or for that matter how it compares with the Dave Cawley version @ £295 or the Mike New @ £365
The Inspire seems to be the cheapest offering on the 'pro' market but are any of these really very different in terms of real world performance?
Are they all fundamentally addressing the same weaknesses?
I'd rather this didn't turn into an argument but if anyone can offer any insight into the specific benefits I'd be genuinely interested as I'm sure would many others on this forum.
Have alook at the "Technics SL-1210 M3D Upgrade Project / Build "thread and its mention of the "improving the stock Technics bearing" thread
I am currently offering forum members a limited run of a bearing I have designed. This is based on a modified Technics bearing modified in a way that minimises cost.
In my book better Sound for your Pound.
cost is £85 + post + a donor bearing ie old or new bearing sent to me, or I can source new bearing.
If I can be of help drop me a pm.
Ian
prestonchipfryer
25-03-2015, 21:57
Wondering if anyone here has any experience of this @ £175:-
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/BRAND-NEW-UPGRADED-TECHNICS-1200-1210-BEARING-FROM-THE-DIRECT-DRIVE-SPECIALISTS-/291411061908?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_3&hash=item43d973ec94
Or for that matter how it compares with the Dave Cawley version @ £295 or the Mike New @ £365
The Inspire seems to be the cheapest offering on the 'pro' market but are any of these really very different in terms of real world performance?
Are they all fundamentally addressing the same weaknesses?
I'd rather this didn't turn into an argument but if anyone can offer any insight into the specific benefits I'd be genuinely interested as I'm sure would many others on this forum.
The Inspire looks similar to the DC Timestep modified bearing. Having not tried the Inspire I cannot comment on it. But I have owned the Timestep bearing and the Mike New (which I still use) and can say IME the MN betters the TS by a wide margin. I.e.: Lower noise floor, clearer vocals and firmer bass. All in all a massive upgrade for the SL1200/10 and one of the essential upgrdaes ASFAIC
IME the MN betters the TS by a wide margin. I.e.: Lower noise floor, clearer vocals and firmer bass.
Interesting; thanks for your input. So the logical question is what is fundamentally different about the MN that results in such a big difference?
prestonchipfryer
26-03-2015, 08:06
The MN is very well made and a solid piece of engineering. As opposed to the standard bearing which is, in my opinion, flimsy, but still no better/worse than many other turntables - current and past. So the solidness of the MN results in less vibration reaching the stylus. This is my take on it. I am not an engineer and the proof is in the listening in my system.
As a delighted, long-term Technics T/T and MN bearing user, I would agree with John. The structure of the WHOLE bearing, not just one part of it, has an impact on its performance, i.e. its ability to do the job it was designed to do.
The fact is, if through design, one bearing is overall more rigidly constructed than another, then it will be better equipped to deal with issues, such as resonance, which have a major impact in allowing (with minimal distortion) any turntable to accurately reproduce the musical information contained on records.
After all, if you were upgrading and modifying a tonearm, would you only address issues relating to the headshell, and ignore the armtube? ;)
Therefore, in terms of bearing design, maximum overall structural integrity is paramount - and Mike's superbly engineered bearing offers precisely that, exceeding in my opinion (as valid and as good as they are at their price point), that of any of the other upgraded bearing solutions currently on the market for the Technics.
As such, if Adam wants the best, he can buy a Mike New bearing with confidence :)
Marco.
As another happy MN bearing user, I would still like to understand the reason HiFi News(?) reported increased wow with the MN bearing. I am wondering if it was due to the close tolerance fit not having bedded in properly during their test.
Can anybody shed any light on it?
In general terms ,As you increase the diameter of a shaft in a bearing you are increasing the surface area in contact so likely to increase the friction in the bearing.
The servo in the Technics was designed to cope with the friction forces in the original technics bearing rotating parts with their platter.
With whatever was the issue in the Hi Fi News report there is a possibility that the servo was working towards its design limits and the first place one is likely to detect this is in the wow and flutter performance.
Hi Ian,
In general terms ,As you increase the diameter of a shaft in a bearing you are increasing the surface area in contact so likely to increase the friction in the bearing.
The servo in the Technics was designed to cope with the friction forces in the original technics bearing rotating parts with their platter.
You are probably quite correct, if that was indeed the reason for the reported W&F figures, and not something else completely unrelated, such as a set-up issue.
However, as ever, the most important consideration is sound quality, and whether or not any increased W&F, from fitting an MN bearing (if true), is actually audible. In my experience, and I've used one now for about four years, the answer is categorically no.
In reality, I think it's more likely that the significant (and easily audible) reduction in noise and distortion, when music is played, produced when the stock Technics bearing is replaced with a Mike New one, completely outweighs the effect of any dubious claims made about the reasons for the measured increased wow and flutter by HFW.
Marco.
I would still like to understand the reason HiFi News(?) reported increased wow with the MN bearing.
Possibly because MN wouldn't pay the HiFi News '5 star review' ransom...
Disclaimer:- I don't actually know if such a ransom exists and no malice is intended or implied :D
Possibly because MN wouldn't pay the HiFi News '5 star review' ransom...
Or because Noel Keywood (editor of HFW) is a friend of Dave Cawley's, who's company produces the rival Timestep bearing!!
Cynical, moi? Never........................
;)
Marco.
walpurgis
26-03-2015, 16:02
Or because Noel Keywood (editor of HFW) is a friend of Dave Cawley's, who's company produces the rival Timestep bearing!!
Cynical, moi? Never........................
;)
Marco.
I didn't know that.
Oh you wouldn't believe the half of what sometimes goes on, especially the 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' malarkey...
Marco.
prestonchipfryer
26-03-2015, 18:57
Oh you wouldn't believe the half of what sometimes goes on, especially the 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' malarkey...
Marco.
Naughty people eh! :spew:
prestonchipfryer
26-03-2015, 19:01
I may be mistaken but Mike New did not forward a bearing for the HFW review. I believe it came from another source.
http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?5135-The-Mike-New-Technics-Bearing/page103
See post 1023
Yeah, David Brooks (MCRU) sent it in for review to HFW.
Given DB's tendency not always to supply proper fitting instructions with Mike's bearings (or even some essential mounting hardware with base plates), and NK's friendship with DC, it doesn't exactly fill one with confidence that the MN bearing was, shall we say, 'optimally assessed'.
Marco.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.