PDA

View Full Version : SL-1200 Platters, bearings, mats and PSU's, cartridges, arms, and more...



DSJR
17-10-2010, 16:33
A post by Dave C on his Timestep site..

No poo stirring, but good words of caution I personally think.

"SL-1200 Platters, bearings, mats and PSU's, cartridges, arms, and more: the definitive thread

Since I pioneered the world's first SL-1200 PSU which overcame all the problems of the internal regulator, the mechanical hum and the electrical hum, the SL-1200 world has been spinning on its head! And here is a breakdown of that world so far:-

Bearings
I think everyone agrees the captive oil bath is the best. This is where the oil is retained in a bath rather than the standard open bearing where the oil can be both "flung" out and simply "dribble" away.

Timestep were the first to design a new bearing and just used the original Technics bearing housing but changed both the spindle and the sleeve, and at the same time made the bearing diameter, and hence the bearing surface, twice as big. A ceramic ball and PTFE thrust pad completed the design. The Timestep bearing does not apply any more stress to the turntable, motor or electronics. The oil can be changed easily and very interesting results have been observed in fine tuning the viscosity of the oil depending on the platter, mat and cartridge used. There are no downsides to the Timestep bearing.

The Mike New bearing is a very large, strong and heavy bearing. However we had so many of them returned to us that we were forced to discontinue them. In hotter countries than the UK they could seize at 45rpm. Also there is no way of checking the amount of oil in the bearing, if any. Reports surfaced of the lack of a proper oil seal and the oil simply dribbling away. Finally it has been found by most users, that it is impossible to change the oil. The additional friction of this bearing causes the motor to use twice as much power. I will have several Mike New bearings on eBay soon at a starting price of 99p, no guarantee/warranty given or implied.

Timestep were going to make a new bearing but have decided that evolution is better than revolution, and in reality the original Timestep bearing does the job quite properly, and especially with tuned oil. The Timestep bearing with standard oil takes no more power from the motor than the original bearing.

PSU
The original Timestep PSU was more than man enough for the standard platter. However, bowing to demand, we introduced the HE version with a measured peak output capacity of 60 amps. The HE is a great PSU, but really only necessary when third party modifications are made to the turntable. It is easy to measure the RMS, Peak and transient power consumption of the DD motor. It never ever exceeds 0.8A and is simply not capable of drawing any more. PSU's the size of breeze blocks provide nothing extra apart from "expectation bias" which quite simply means, if you expect it to sound better, then you will perceive that it does sound better. There is no magic about power supplies, except for their ability to provide power and quickly, no SL-1200 PSU so far seen or heard of can deliver as much instantaneous power as the HE. If you want a softer sound, slower and rounder, don't buy our HE! The HE tells it like it is!

Mat
No one has found a better "top mat" than our Audiophile mat, at least not reported to me. It was especially commissioned by us and now copied by quite a few. The big thing is that it provides damping for the record and it fits inside the rim of the SL-1200 platter. One very good solution shown at the 2010 Whittlebury show, is a copper mat with the audiophile mat on top. The copper giving extra mass and damping the platter and the audiophile damping the record. This works exceptionally well and is a recommended solution.

Then there is the new Japanese Oyaide platter/mat and weight solution. The first thing that strikes you is the extraordinary precision and attention to detail. One wonders where this came from, in an 'out of the blue' way? From nowhere we suddenly have a complete and professional solution. It achieves all the objectives, sounds great and looks a million dollars.

Platter
It was my idea to produce a solid aluminium platter like the ones used on the German Acoustic Solid turntables. I asked Mike New to make a prototype for testing and suggested that it would take until the end of 2010 to fully evaluate it. Having fully evaluated it, my conclusion is that it is not appropriate for the SL-1200 chassis at all, but against my advice is has been marketed, and already some users have experienced the predicted chassis problems. A stop-gap solution was to fit a strengthening plate, but fitting this is way beyond most users' ability and is not the real solution.

The requirement is to have a medium mass platter that does not ring. It has been said that if you take the audiophile mat off a standard platter it rings; of course it does, that's why you use the mat! However if you take the damping ring off a Mike New platter it also rings, but in a quite distressing way, but that's what the damping is for. Mat or ring, who cares?

In my opinion the SL-1200 chassis cannot take a heavy bearing and platter, period. Hence the best solution is the copper mat with the audiophile mat on top, or just the Oyaide mat which in itself is almost a solid aluminium platter. Either of these solutions gives you a completely ring free platter, higher mass and does not require chassis strengthening plates. And can of course be fitted with confidence by any owner.

Motor
Timestep were the first to realise that in standard form, without any additional mass, the motor control circuit was designed for DJ use. Hence our Motor Dynamics Mod. A ground breaking World First that showed our to dedication to the SL-1200, no "me too" games here! It was great at the time, but with the new Japanese Oyaide platter, copper mat and heavier platters, the mod is simply not appropriate at all.

Arm
For the Denon DL-103 and SPU then only the Jelco 750 and Dynavector is going to work properly, no arguments here! But in my opinion, for all other cartridges the SME 309 or SME V is clearly the best. Our best selling arm is the SME 309, we sell more of these than 'all' other arms put together. This is a no brainer! We have a Funk FXR here, and can supply them, we will be trying it soon, and initial expectations are favourable.

Cartridge
The DL-103 series and SPU's are great for that meaty vintage sound. We sell more DL-103's than any other UK dealer, we love them. However on my own system for classical, jazz, rock and 80's electro pop, I prefer the Audio Technica AT-OC9/III as demonstrated at the Whittlebury show and declared by many as the best sound of the show. Although I'm leaning towards the Audio Technica AT33EV right now as there is something even more magical about it.

Final solution
It seems there are two mainstream solutions:-

The Austin Healy 3000 / AC Cobra. DL-103/SPU, Jelco 750/Dynavector arm, very heavy platter, high friction bearing, huge PSU. Without a doubt this type of system seriously rocks, but not my boat.

The Mercedes CLS AMG / BMW M6. AT33EV, SME 309, Oyaide platter, Timestep bearing, Timestep HE PSU. This is my preferred solution for classical, jazz, rock and 80's electro pop and is available as a complete turnkey package.

Conclusion
Of course, we all have different tastes, different budgets and different aspirations, hence I'll build anything for anyone, and you can of course buy any bits from me and do your own thing. That is what is so great about the SL-1200 series, a turntable for everyone............

Regards

Dave "

Marco
17-10-2010, 18:18
Hi Dave,

Thanks for that. Most interesting...

I will move this to a separate thread of its own in Analogue Art, where I will (when I get a chance after completing Part 2 of my report on my visit to Martin's place) comment on the points Dave has made, many of which I agree with, but there are some observations, based on my own personal experience to the contrary, which I would certainly challenge.

After all, it's all about opinions! :)

In the meantime, of course, others can comment as they wish. I suspect that Mike New might ;)

Marco.

MartinT
17-10-2010, 19:11
Hi Dave, a few queries (I know that you have just reposted this thread so I am not directing these questions directly to you but rather to Dave C):


Also there is no way of checking the amount of oil in the bearing, if any. Reports surfaced of the lack of a proper oil seal and the oil simply dribbling away.

I haven't seen any sign of oil dribbling away. If I can see a meniscus of oil at the top of the bearing, isn't that sufficient sign that the MN bearing is full of oil?


It is easy to measure the RMS, Peak and transient power consumption of the DD motor. It never ever exceeds 0.8A and is simply not capable of drawing any more.

In order to get a handle on this, what is the peak current capability of the standard Timestep PSU?


PSU's the size of breeze blocks provide nothing extra apart from "expectation bias" which quite simply means, if you expect it to sound better, then you will perceive that it does sound better.

This is somewhat disingenuous. Several of us either own or have heard what the Paul Hynes SR5 (I presume this is the PSU you are referring to as a breeze block) can do, with either standard platter, platter+copper mat or MN platter. It is repeatable, i.e. we can hear the downshift when the standard Timestep PSU is returned. I don't think for a minute that we are experiencing 'expectation bias'.

There is also the question of other PSU criteria other than peak current, such as noise output. How do the Timestep, Timestep HE or breeze blocks measure here?

Finally, I have to say for the record that I asked Dave C several times (I have the documented e-mails) for price and availability of a Timestep HE upgrade. I even asked if I could place an order. I got silence and gave up in the end.


No one has found a better "top mat" than our Audiophile mat, at least not reported to me.

No disagreement there, I even bought a slightly larger Herbies mat to better suit the MN platter.


One very good solution shown at the 2010 Whittlebury show, is a copper mat with the audiophile mat on top. The copper giving extra mass and damping the platter and the audiophile damping the record. This works exceptionally well and is a recommended solution.

I ran this solution for a while. It is a good solution and is very easy to install, no disagreement there. However, when I upgraded to the MN platter the result was better tonal neutrality, greater dynamics and better sense of space to the soundstage over the platter+copper solution.


Having fully evaluated it, my conclusion is that it is not appropriate for the SL-1200 chassis at all, but against my advice is has been marketed, and already some users have experienced the predicted chassis problems.

I now have the base plate installed and it is not an easy upgrade, agreed. But what chassis problems have users reported?


Timestep were the first to realise that in standard form, without any additional mass, the motor control circuit was designed for DJ use. Hence our Motor Dynamics Mod. A ground breaking World First that showed our to dedication to the SL-1200, no "me too" games here! It was great at the time, but with the new Japanese Oyaide platter, copper mat and heavier platters, the mod is simply not appropriate at all.

My deck has the motor dynamics mod installed. Please could you tell me in what way it is not appropriate to the MN platter? Would you recommend that I reverse it?

Marco
17-10-2010, 20:45
Interesting questions, Martin...

Dave, any views on that before I add my own thoughts later? :)

One quick point I would make is that the Mike New bearing you fitted to my 1210 has given me no problems whatsoever, and (as you and I heard and agreed at your place), sonically, it gives a significant no-brainer improvement over the stock Technics bearing.

I remember exactly what we heard during that fairly lengthy session chez-toi in Dartmouth, not to mention what I've heard in my own system (and many others) since. Therefore based on that, there are some notable inconsistencies in what you've written over on your forum.....

Also, regarding this:


The Mike New bearing is a very large, strong and heavy bearing. However we had so many of them returned to us that we were forced to discontinue them. In hotter countries than the UK they could seize at 45rpm.

Well they're made in Australia, and it doesn't get much hotter anywhere else, so if that were a genuine problem I'm sure the kangaroos and koalas would've told us!! ;)

More seriously, it will be interesting to hear Mike's view on this situation when he no doubt comments later.

Marco.

cuddles
18-10-2010, 08:16
I wonder if this means that plans for the plinth modifications has been shelved?

chris@panteg
18-10-2010, 08:41
It looks that way ' also it appears Dave will not be bringing his uprated bearing and platter to market ? or i am i mistaken.

I always felt it might be a step too far ' if you factor in the extra cost and the possible new plinth ? i have to say i personally would go for a well sorted SP10 mk2 :).

chris@panteg
18-10-2010, 09:41
But and i need to add this ' i aplaud Martin for going this extra mile as it were.

Only a genuine passion for music and vinyl replay.

Mike_New
18-10-2010, 10:29
Hello all of you folks who are following this thread.

Poor old Dave Cawley must be feeling very upset, sad and pissed off to find that he now has egg all over his face!!!!!!

You say no POO stirring DSJR, maybe you have not read the contents very carefully as I have or perhaps have not understood them fully.

I tried to explain to Cawley that making a platter for the SL1200 was not as easy as he thinks and that I needed to liaise with the UK manufacturers as per our agreement in order ‘to make it work’.

“But that is not the way he works” I was informed.

The fitting and very accurate alignment of the pulse generator and the fitting of the center pivot boss were probably beyond the capabilities available and at his disposal.

Furthermore, he has obviously had trouble in having a bearing manufactured to the same very high standards as mine, and has given up. He now uses the unbelievable lame excuse that his own original half-baked effort is now much better after all!

Oh boy, Cawley, you really have shot yourself in the foot this time around. That you should publish the derogatory diatribe about my products on your forum (where I have no right of reply) and now repeated here; is a situation which I find to be very sad and at the same time amusing, in a quaint sort of way.

It is obvious to any intelligent observer, that Dave Cawley has discovered that he does not have the capability to manufacture either my Bearing or Platter to the required precision, and accordingly has embarked on the only course left to people like him.

He has commenced to rubbish my own products.

Which at one time he was selling with unabated enthusiasm!!

This unbelievable situation is fantastic for me, because I am now receiving a rush of enquiries for both my High Precision Bearing and Solid Aluminium Platter. Not to mention the stream of emails offering support. Keep up the good work Cawley!!!!

I am very honored however that Cawley still is using an image of my Platter on his web site. That has got to tell you something!!!!

The very sad thing is that some of those discipled people hanging on his every word, have now been left with nothing to grasp except a sudden about turn in the teachings of the wise one. All of a sudden the super duper bearing and platter he was rocking on about, no longer are real.

For my part, it reminds me of the used car salesman, who, after a hectic marriage feast trying to sell used cars to all the guests, when he got to the honeymoon suite, spent all night sitting on the side of the bed telling his new bride how good it was going to be, but never ever managed it!!!

Regarding my Platters, Cawley states that after evaluating it, his conclusion was that it was “not appropriate for the SL1200 chassis”.

For those interested, I can supply copies of email orders for the first batch of ten platters, complete with formal order number, to be followed by ten more, and his plaudits on my approach to the design!! This order fell through when Cawley declined to meet the conditions of our manufacturing agreement, which it is apparent he had no intension of doing when he signed it!!!

On the subject of bearings, Cawley talks of “tuned oil’ this must surely tell you something about the veracity of his statements and advice!!!!!!!!!!!!

As for the remainder of the diatribe, I am not going to personally reduce myself to the same level as Cawley by pursuing a detailed response to his somewhat libelous comments.

As would be obvious to all, I am now the sole supplier of High Precision Bearings and Platters to those SL1200 enthusiasts who really understand the sonic improvements that they offer, and who genuinely want to upgrade their SL1200s to take advantage of this. To wit, go back and read some of the reports by all the happy Cawley customers (and mine).

I have three bearings left from the last batch of 50 and two platters.

Cawley informed me that he had orders for about ten platters, so I will honor all of these orders if you care to contact me, and of course they will be a lot less expensive than previously quoted.

I will make one observation concerning the statement under the heading <MOTOR>, before we split commercially, I emailed Cawley about his so called “Motor Dynamics mod” His reply was and I quote: “The motor dynamics mod reduces the torque to make it sound more like a LP-12, I'll probably take it off soon!” He then goes on to say and I quote: “the maintaining current not being much more even with a heavy platter.”


He needs to make up his mind. Either the maintaining current is not adversely affected a heavy platter, and in which case the use of such a platter is perfectly acceptable, or, and I quote (Cawley): “In my opinion the SL-1200 chassis cannot take a heavy bearing and platter, period".

So which is it?

The level of contradiction here is surely obvious to all!

For those folks who subscribe to the Timestep forum, if you really believe all the stuff that is stated there, and there are obviously some who do; then good luck to you.

For all those lucky people who are attracted to the offer of Cawley, to put my bearings on Ebay for 99p. I will not help him get his money back by bidding against you. You see he purchased them from me for $400 or Stg280 so he will be making the big loss not me!!!

chris@panteg
18-10-2010, 10:57
Hi Mike

You make some very good points there ' and to be honest Dave has dug himself a hole .

One thing is blatantly obvious though Mike and that is the 1200 chassis was never designed to cope with a heavy bearing and platter ! that's what the SP10 is for.

You yourself have stated this and introduced the strengthening plate ' which requires some work and ability to fit.

I still feel that despite how good the 1200 can sound with these amazingly well engineered bearing's platter upgrades you offer ' the more one tweeks this deck the more there seem to be hidden pitfall's .

Dave's half baked bearing does actually work well and is cost effective .

Its just if i was to spend this sort of money ' i would consider an SP10mk2 or if i can find one ' a Voyd .5 like i used before is still in my opinion superior to a modded Techie but at a retail price of £4,000 (when new) it should be of course.

Mike_New
18-10-2010, 11:57
Chris,

Your point is well taken, it was never my intension to claim the extreme in regard to the abillities of the SL1200 chassis. What I have genuinely tried to do is to offer the best of both worlds, and to provide a phased upgrade path for those folks who beleive that the Direct Drive system is the way to go.

As has been said on this forum many times, including by Cawley; the SL1200 DD system is by far the superior method of driving a platter in rotary motion, if only it had a better chassis. I have attempted to address this with my upgrades.

Marco
18-10-2010, 12:43
I don't expect Dave C will reply, but I think it's important some of his statements/assertions below are challenged, as in some cases I feel what's written is both contradictory and rather misleading.....

Please note, Dave that none of the following is personal, but it's important that I am frank, honest and to the point.

You wrote on the Timestep forum:


And here is a breakdown of that world so far:-

Bearings
Timestep were the first to design a new bearing and just used the original Technics bearing housing but changed both the spindle and the sleeve, and at the same time made the bearing diameter, and hence the bearing surface, twice as big. A ceramic ball and PTFE thrust pad completed the design.


Yes, but as the metal used on the original Technics bearing (the 'donor' unit for the Timestep one) is not of exceptionally high quality (I believe largely chosen by Technics as the material is easy to mold into the necessary shape for mass production), and certainly not of the quality of construction of the bespoke solid brass one of Mike New's, it could be said that what you've done is, no offence intended, akin to polishing a turd.


The oil can be changed easily and very interesting results have been observed in fine tuning the viscosity of the oil depending on the platter, mat and cartridge used. There are no downsides to the Timestep bearing.

Other than of course the very obvious one which is that it's fundamentally (and fatally) flawed from the beginning by the relative poor quality of the 'donor' Technics bearing from which the Timestep one is produced.......!

Furthermore, I am reliably informed that there is no need whatsoever to change the oil in the Mike New bearing to maintain optimum performance, and that's why the unit is sealed.

Mike can of course supply the rationale on this if necessary.


The Mike New bearing is a very large, strong and heavy bearing.


Yes - that's precisely why it works so well!


However we had so many of them returned to us that we were forced to discontinue them.


Why exactly were they returned?

Is there any chance of inviting these people onto AoS, Dave, so people here can have a chat with them and we can be party to what the problems were?

I think it's important that potential customers of the Mike New bearing are made aware of any problematic issues regarding its design, but only from the people who've supposedly experienced these problems.

The bearings that Martin T and I are using seem to be fine - and indeed no-one else I know who uses one has expressed any problems....


In hotter countries than the UK they could seize at 45rpm.


I've tackled this already, but it's worth mentioning again.... If that were really a genuine problem then I'm quite sure Mike would've discovered it, as the bearings are made in Australia, where as you know, the temperature in most months is liable to be a 'tad warm'!


Also there is no way of checking the amount of oil in the bearing, if any.


That's because (due to its specific design) there is no need to check the amount of oil in the bearing, thus once it's been filled from the well at the top of the housing, with the specially selected oil, and it slowly trickles down inside, the bearing remains otherwise sealed to prevent people who don't know what they're doing adversely affecting how it has been designed to function (by using the wrong oil, for example).


Reports surfaced of the lack of a proper oil seal and the oil simply dribbling away.


How could this happen when the unit is most definitely properly sealed - "dribbling away" from where exactly??


Finally it has been found by most users, that it is impossible to change the oil.


That's true, and it's been designed that way because the oil won't require changing in the lifetime of you, me, or anyone else who buys a Mike New bearing.


The additional friction of this bearing causes the motor to use twice as much power.


I have been reliably informed that this is untrue. Could you please supply some measurements that confirm your assertion?

The MN bearing causes the motor to use a little more power, which is well within its handling capabilities, and certainly no more so than does the added extra mass of placing a heavy copper mat on the platter, which is a modification you currently recommend.


I will have several Mike New bearings on eBay soon at a starting price of 99p, no guarantee/warranty given or implied.


I think that's a rather snide and uncalled for remark, Dave. You've now given Mike the green light to respond in a similar vein, should he choose to do so, which I would now have no option but to allow, particularly as he has no right of reply on the Timestep forum, as you have banned him........

However, on a positive note, I would urge anyone wishing to own a truly superb quality bearing, and major upgrade for the SL-1200/1210, to snap one up for 99p!!

One thing you haven't considered is that when the people on the Timestep forum who've indicated, somewhat sheep-like, that they're going to remove the MN bearing and fit a Timestep one to their T/Ts, prompted in my opinion by your unjustified scaremongering, they will subsequently hear a significant deterioration in sound quality because the fact is they will be downgrading to an inferior bearing!

That's, incidentally, no reflection on the way you have modified the stock Technics bearing (you call the 'Timestep'), which I'm sure will improve matters, but rather that all you've done, because it's all you CAN do, is apply a bandage to what, as a result of cost constraints, is a relatively poor bearing. Thus the 'Timestep bearing' can in no way be regarded as a true fix.

It'll therefore be interesting finding out what people say when their bearings are changed, presuming of course that they're not just simply blinkered 'disciples' of your products without the gumption to be honest.....


Timestep were going to make a new bearing but have decided that evolution is better than revolution, and in reality the original Timestep bearing does the job quite properly, and especially with tuned oil.


Given the already mentioned limitations in the design of the 'donor' bearing for the Timestep, I think that assertion is highly unlikely.


PSU
The original Timestep PSU was more than man enough for the standard platter. However, bowing to demand, we introduced the HE version with a measured peak output capacity of 60 amps. The HE is a great PSU, but really only necessary when third party modifications are made to the turntable.


Such as the Mike New platter, the use of which you used to champion to the hilt?

If the HE PSU is only of benefit when third party modifications have been carried out to the SL-1200, then as you're no longer going to be producing a heavy platter, or promoting its use, then what's the point of having the HE?

Aside from that, I would contend that the HE would still outperform the stock Timestep PSU even when the SL-1200 is used with its standard platter, simply because the higher capacity of the HE gives the turntable a 'stiffer' and cleaner power supply. I've heard the sonic effect of this, for example, when comparing the Paul Hynes SR3 to the stock Timestep using the standard platter on my T/T.


PSU's the size of breeze blocks provide nothing extra apart from "expectation bias" which quite simply means, if you expect it to sound better, then you will perceive that it does sound better.


Lol! Is that the best you can come up with, Dave? I presume that by "PSU's the size of breeze blocks" you're referring to the Paul Hynes SR5?

Sorry, all I can do is chuckle at that and content myself with having significant knowledge to the contrary!!

And not that old chestnut again, simply trotted out at a convenient time? Yes, expectation bias exists in some circumstances, but that's most certainly NOT what's happened on this occasion. Such is the huge improvement the SR5 makes to the performance of the SL-1200, one would be able to discern it blindfolded! We should test this sometime.


There is no magic about power supplies, except for their ability to provide power and quickly, no SL-1200 PSU so far seen or heard of can deliver as much instantaneous power as the HE.


I don't doubt the HE is very good, but exactly how many different PSUs for the SL-1200 have you tested it against? And you certainly haven't heard an SR5. I'll bring one down and you can compare it to the HE, and see what you think. It only takes seconds to swap over between them :cool:


If you want a softer sound, slower and rounder, don't buy our HE! The HE tells it like it is!


No doubt, but then in my experience so does the SR5 - it certainly doesn't sound 'slow' or 'round'!


Mat
No one has found a better "top mat" than our Audiophile mat, at least not reported to me. It was especially commissioned by us and now copied by quite a few.


In terms of materials your mat is identical in design to the Herbies one, which has been in production for many years.


The big thing is that it provides damping for the record and it fits inside the rim of the SL-1200 platter. One very good solution shown at the 2010 Whittlebury show, is a copper mat with the audiophile mat on top. The copper giving extra mass and damping the platter and the audiophile damping the record. This works exceptionally well and is a recommended solution.


I agree; this seems like a good solution. It's one I'll be testing out very soon when I obtain a copper mat. I will then compare it to Mike's platter on its own when I receive a specially commissioned version from him in due course, and report the results here on AoS.

Look out for that.....


Then there is the new Japanese Oyaide platter/mat and weight solution. The first thing that strikes you is the extraordinary precision and attention to detail. One wonders where this came from, in an 'out of the blue' way? From nowhere we suddenly have a complete and professional solution. It achieves all the objectives, sounds great and looks a million dollars.


All I can say on that is watch this space! ;)


Platter
It was my idea to produce a solid aluminium platter like the ones used on the German Acoustic Solid turntables. I asked Mike New to make a prototype for testing and suggested that it would take until the end of 2010 to fully evaluate it. Having fully evaluated it, my conclusion is that it is not appropriate for the SL-1200 chassis at all...


Was this before or after, Dave, you discovered you didn't have the wherewithal to design one of your own? Be honest here.


...but against my advice is has been marketed, and already some users have experienced the predicted chassis problems.


I detected no such problems when the Mike New platter was fitted to my own T/T at Martin's, and it doesn't have the base strengthening plate mod done. When I receive my own platter, I will test its use over a significant period of time without the base plate mod and see what happens.

I'm not convinced there is a real problem there, certainly in a sonic sense, as when I was comparing my T/T to Martin's, fitted with the heavy platter, mine didn't sound in any way worse than his, even though the base plate wasn't fitted to my T/T.

But that's a comparison Martin and I can do again later when I have my own MN platter, and if I feel that the base plate offers a significant sonic upgrade then I will have it fitted to my own T/T.


The requirement is to have a medium mass platter that does not ring. It has been said that if you take the audiophile mat off a standard platter it rings; of course it does, that's why you use the mat!


I agree about the medium-mass platter, which is why the one I'm having made by Mike will be significantly lighter, but with still the improved sonic characteristics of his heavy platter design, due to its superior standard of material construction.

Incidentally, the stock platter still rings slightly even with one of your mats on top. It takes the further weight of a thick LP to fully dampen the platter, so in terms of ringing, there is obviously still some room for improvement, which of course is where the use of a copper mat underneath comes in.

However, I suspect (and testing this in due course will tell) that the MN platter I'm having made will still significantly outperform that particular solution.


However if you take the damping ring off a Mike New platter it also rings, but in a quite distressing way, but that's what the damping is for. Mat or ring, who cares?


No way, I've heard it. The Mike New platter doesn't ring anything like as much as the stock Technics platter does without a mat. The former is much heavier and so thus rings at an entirely different frequency!


In my opinion the SL-1200 chassis cannot take a heavy bearing and platter, period.


That's not what you said so vociferously before. You're contradicting what you've written so often in the past when you were in a position to offer a genuine solution through working with Mike. It is also contrary to the results of my own experience. I suggest you revise that statement if you're not to look a little silly.


Hence the best solution is the copper mat with the audiophile mat on top, or just the Oyaide mat which in itself is almost a solid aluminium platter. Either of these solutions gives you a completely ring free platter, higher mass and does not require chassis strengthening plates. And can of course be fitted with confidence by any owner.


When I've fully tested my own (specially commissioned) Mike New platter, which will be significantly lighter and have some other unique design features that at this stage I can't divulge, I will then obtain an Oyaide mat and compare the two solutions and report my findings here. The results of that should be most interesting.


Motor
Timestep were the first to realise that in standard form, without any additional mass, the motor control circuit was designed for DJ use. Hence our Motor Dynamics Mod. A ground breaking World First that showed our to dedication to the SL-1200, no "me too" games here! It was great at the time, but with the new Japanese Oyaide platter, copper mat and heavier platters, the mod is simply not appropriate at all.


I would agree.

Therefore since Martin's had the Motor Dynamics Mod done to his T/T, and now uses a heavier platter, will you reverse it?

Knowing the above, and that he was intending to buy an MN platter, you should've carried out that adjustment when you had his T/T at yours fitting the Dynavector arm........


Arm
For the Denon DL-103 and SPU then only the Jelco 750 and Dynavector is going to work properly, no arguments here! But in my opinion, for all other cartridges the SME 309 or SME V is clearly the best.


What, better than the Dynavector? Otherwise I agree completely with the above. There's no way, however, that an SME 309 is in the same league, sonically, as Martin's Dynavector, no matter what cartridge is used!

It would be a different argument with an SME V, of course, where the playing field would be levelled somewhat.


Our best selling arm is the SME 309, we sell more of these than 'all' other arms put together. This is a no brainer!


The 309 is an excellent arm, but could it also be your best seller because that's the one you push because you get the biggest profit margin on SME tomearms? ;)


We have a Funk FXR here, and can supply them, we will be trying it soon, and initial expectations are favourable.


Great arm - I'm looking forward to testing one myself.


Cartridge
The DL-103 series and SPU's are great for that meaty vintage sound.


"Meaty vintage sound"? Lol! I guess this is entirely subjective, but that's not how I would necessarily describe the sound of my own SPU, through the A23 SUT, using the Jelco 750, in my system or in Martin's...

Martin how would you describe the SPU, now you've heard it at length in your own system?


Final solution
It seems there are two mainstream solutions:-

The Austin Healy 3000 / AC Cobra. DL-103/SPU, Jelco 750/Dynavector arm, very heavy platter, high friction bearing, huge PSU. Without a doubt this type of system seriously rocks, but not my boat.


Well, Dave, you haven't heard the Mike New platter in conjunction with the SR5, nor I suspect how a modern SPU sounds through the purpose-built A23 SPU SUT, so in that respect, your boat hasn't set sail from the harbour!


Conclusion
Of course, we all have different tastes, different budgets and different aspirations, hence I'll build anything for anyone, and you can of course buy any bits from me and do your own thing. That is what is so great about the SL-1200 series, a turntable for everyone............


Indeed, and on that note we agree! :cool:

The bit in bold is good to know, too....

I would invite others now, if they wish, to reply to the comments that have been made.

Marco.

prestonchipfryer
18-10-2010, 13:16
Hi.

I don't post very often, but am following, with great interest, this ongoing argument about bearings.

Having used both (and still owning both) the Timestep bearing and the Mike New bearing in my Technics SL1200 I say that the Mike New bearing is sonically far superior. I swapped the bearings out a couple of days ago and was dismayed at the loss of focus with the Timestep bearing. On refitting the Mike New bearing there is a noticeable improvement in sound quality. As far as I am concerned it is a no brainer. This is with a SME V arm with a Denon 103r.

May I also add that I am now utterly confused as to which path to take with my Technics. Do I go for the MN platter? or stay as I am?

Regards

John:fence:

MartinT
18-10-2010, 13:33
Martin how would you describe the SPU, now you've heard it at length in your own system?

We fitted the SPU to my arm and rebalanced everything for the 4g tracking weight. We used Marco's purpose-built A23 SPU SUT into my Whest PS.30R phono preamp and thence the rest of my system.

The sound was simply staggering. HUGE soundstage width and depth, palpable atmosphere in live recordings and vivid presence in every type of music. Interestingly, despite its reputation as a warm lush device, it was tight, dynamic and had very well extended bass. In no way could I reconcile what I was hearing with a spherical stylus as the treble was sweet and extended and there was no hint of end of side distortion.

We were mesmerised and went on to play lots of music that night with this combo. It was certainly the most magnificent vinyl reproduction I have ever heard.

My AT33PTG is pretty good in the Dynavector, but the SPU was made for it. Very special indeed.

See here for a photo:
http://theartofsound.net/forum/showpost.php?p=157008&postcount=4

Mike_New
18-10-2010, 15:35
Hi John,

Your concern about whether to get one of my platters is exactly what D Cawley is trying to sow. Now that he has found that he can neither understand or reproduce the quality of bearing or platter that I have been able to achieve, he is now hell bent on decrying all who may wish to upgrade their SL1200 with my products or others!!! Paul Hynes, for instance.

At one time he was regarded as the all knowing guru of the SL1200 world, but has now demonstrably shown that the king has no clothes.

The very sad thing about this whole discussion is that I never set out to offer anything more than what I considered to be genuine improvement options to the components currently in use on the SL1200.

In a frantic attempt to justify his utter failure to manufacture either a decent bearing or a platter, he is now demolishing the walls of Rome on which he has stood for so long.

As Marco has pointed out he has repeatedly slagged off my products in particular my bearing for no other reason than that he has failed to produce his own versions and has now desperately tried to justify his failure by claiming that they are now not required!!! And that any attempt to upgrade the SL1200 is an exercise in futility.

As Chris observed, he has not only dug himself into a big hole, he has pulled the rocks in on top of himself!!!!

prestonchipfryer
18-10-2010, 16:23
Mike.

Well now I have made my mind up to go with the MN platter. I won't be making any posts as from Wednesday as I am away for a few weeks.

John ;)

Marco
18-10-2010, 17:23
Hi John,

Providing you're using either a Paul Hynes SR5-21 or Timestep HE PSU (either of which is essential), that is a smart move, trust me! ;)


Having used both (and still owning both) the Timestep bearing and the Mike New bearing in my Technics SL1200 I say that the Mike New bearing is sonically far superior. I swapped the bearings out a couple of days ago and was dismayed at the loss of focus with the Timestep bearing. On refitting the Mike New bearing there is a noticeable improvement in sound quality.


And others will discover the very same thing when they try it, which is when certain chickens will come home to roost............

Marco.

Mike_New
18-10-2010, 17:33
Hi folks,

Now that I've had the chance to re-read the self-indulgent diatribe from Dave Cawley, I must say that I am fascinated by his demonstration of complete ignorance of the fundamental principles of engineering physics.

He states that in hotter countries than the UK my bearing could seize at 45 rpm. (So much heat is generated at this speed!!!!) All those loyal users in Australia, New Zealand and Asia are going to find their platters spinning into outer space as their bearings disintegrate!!!

He obviously has no idea that copper based alloys such as brass and bronze (and many others) have a far greater co-efficient of expansion than steel, especially the chrome/nickel alloy tool steel that my bearing spindle is made from. This implies that at increased temperatures the bearing gap tolerance will increase (just for Dave’s sake, this means that the bearing becomes less stiff, old chap).

When I designed the bearing I discussed the mathematical tolerances with the metrology director of the tool making company who manufacture the spindle and hone the bearing sleeve to match. It was decided that a high quality fit should be targeted at approx 20 –25 deg C. It was assumed that even in the northern climes of Scandinavia (where there are some bearings alive and well, I believe) the turntables would not exactly be used outdoors!!! In the California summer the tolerance fit will be a few millionths of a mm larger, if you are using your SL1200 in a non air-conditioned room.

You had better watch out Pete and Mark and all the others, Dave Cawley will be offering to sell your bearings on Ebay!!!

Dave Cawley has had so many bearings returned to him that he has ‘several’ for sale on Ebay. The truth of the matter is that he was unable to have a bearing manufactured at his price, to the same very high quality of my High Precision Bearing. So now after three months of hollow promises he has decided to slag off my bearing.

However, I do like Dave Cawley’s turn of phrase: ‘evolution is better than revolution’, but does he know the difference??? He must be a reformed man. After all, he was all for revolution when he was selling my bearings.

Marco
18-10-2010, 18:00
Hi Martin,


We fitted the SPU to my arm and rebalanced everything for the 4g tracking weight. We used Marco's purpose-built A23 SPU SUT into my Whest PS.30R phono preamp and thence the rest of my system.

The sound was simply staggering. HUGE soundstage width and depth, palpable atmosphere in live recordings and vivid presence in every type of music. Interestingly, despite its reputation as a warm lush device, it was tight, dynamic and had very well extended bass. In no way could I reconcile what I was hearing with a spherical stylus as the treble was sweet and extended and there was no hint of end of side distortion.

We were mesmerised and went on to play lots of music that night with this combo. It was certainly the most magnificent vinyl reproduction I have ever heard.

My AT33PTG is pretty good in the Dynavector, but the SPU was made for it. Very special indeed.


Thanks for that. I think your account represents a rather more accurate version of the reality ;)

Marco.

Dave Hewitt
18-10-2010, 18:15
Hi
Can someone explain to me why it is necessary to have power supplies that could be used for welding and bearings better than those in my 1000cc V twin motorbike for playing records,also never heard as much bollocks as bearings seizing at 45 rpm,it beggars belief.In my opinion of course.
Dave.

Joe
18-10-2010, 18:34
Hi
Can someone explain to me why it is necessary to have power supplies that could be used for welding and bearings better than those in my 1000cc V twin motorbike for playing records,also never heard as much bollocks as bearings siezing at 45 rpm,it beggars belief.In my opinion of course.
Dave.

I dunno. That's why I use a Roksan; it just plays records!

Marco
18-10-2010, 18:40
Hi Dave,

Here's an explanation from Paul Hynes on the subject, which may be of help:


It’s not just about measuring RMS, Peak and transient power consumption of the DD motor. The electronics used to control the motor will have limited supply interference rejection that will vary with frequency, getting worse as frequency increases.

This means that the power supply should have good supply line interference rejection to reduce mains interference transfer to the load circuitry and it should have very low noise. The power supply should also maintain its output voltage as close to the required voltage as possible under dynamic load current swings, as any voltage error on the power supply output will be seen as noise/interference by the motor control circuitry.

“Off the shelf” mains transformers are built to a price in a very competitive market and corners are cut in material specifications and
construction, giving less than ideal performance.

One of the biggest problems with low cost transformers is rattling laminations, which vibrate in sympathy with the current flowing through the windings, giving rise to high levels of mechanical noise and unstable electrical power transfer. The smaller ones are not too bad in this respect, and the 60 VA Toroidal transformer I use in the lower cost SR3 is the best of the “off the shelf” variety I have found and it is pretty quiet.

Unfortunately the larger transformers in the range, like all the other ranges I have tried, get very noisy, which is unacceptable in an audio system. Another problem that is relevant to transformer electrical performance is that “off the shelf” transformers are built for highest
efficiency, which means they are designed to operate at high Flux densities.

This makes them very susceptible to any DC current flow in the windings, which can be caused by switch-on when the mains voltage
waveform is at a high potential and/or asymmetrical current draw from the transformer by the load, which can cause core saturation at
relatively low levels reducing the available VA rating dramatically.

The solution to this is to have a custom-made transformer that uses high quality materials and is carefully wound for low mechanical noise and for low flux density operation to avoid core saturation, which can cause a lot of interference on the supply line. This requires using a larger core than normal for a given VA rating. The custom transformer in the SR5 is rated at 160 VA and doesn’t suffer from appreciable VA loss due to core saturation. It is also very quiet.

The voltage regulator has the job of maintaining the DC supply rail at the specified DC voltage for any load current change. For this reason the voltage regulator is usually a DC coupled AC amplifier. Important parameters for this regulator in no particular order of merit are :-

1) The transient response and settling time should be fast enough to allow the regulator to track load current changes to maintain the
output voltage at the required level.

2) The output impedance should be as low as possible over the load operating bandwidth so any load current induced output voltage changes are minimised.

3) The regulator noise should be as low as possible so this does not interfere with the load circuitry because of the finite supply line
rejection abilities of the load circuits.

4) The regulator supply line rejection should be as high as possible across as wide a bandwidth as possible to reduce the effect of mains
line interference and rectification (conversion of AC current to pulsed DC current) interference.

The Technics motor requires a clean accurate drive signal to maintain accurate platter rotation. Essentially a clean stable supply will reduce signal corruption in the motor control circuitry leading to more stable platter drive and more accurate platter rotation.


A lot of that goes over the top of my head, but I understand the gist of it. You being a more technical chap than me, of course, should be able to make better sense of it :)

The bit in bold, is especially significant for me and confirms what I can hear when comparing Paul's SR5-21 (or SR3) to the stock Timestep PSU, when Mike New's heavy platter is used on the SL-1200/1210, not to mention why overrated/overspecified transformers can work very well in a given circuit, even when certain electrical parameters dictate that they are 'unnecessary'.

Paul has said that if anyone has specific questions they'd like to ask, he will come and answer them here :cool:

Marco.

Reid Malenfant
18-10-2010, 18:41
Can someone explain to me why it is necessary to have power supplies that could be used for welding and bearings better than those in my 1000cc V twin motorbike for playing records
I haven't got a 1200/10 but i hope this might help ;)

It's all about performance, you should know something about this having a 1L V twin :eyebrows: What you have with any PSU is an engine that supplies power, after all it is the power supply. Now you could have a PSU that's just big enough to power your turntable, much like a 50cc moped is good for 30MPH even if it takes it's time getting there :doh: However, the way to "performance" in virtually anything (including hifi & turntables) is to fit a massive PSU even if it's only going to be lightly used.

Witness what a massively overated power supply does for big solid state amps like the earlier Krells & Mark Levinsons, it frees them up to deliver massive dynamics that any lesser amp just couldn't get anywhere near delivering. If you are a sensible motorcycle rider you know you have more than enough performance (with that VT 1L) to do just about anything to get you out of trouble & into it if you care to. I know as i have a 1L sitting in my garage that has seen 170MPH.

It's all about being totally over-rated so as nothing will phase it, the consequence of this is improved fidelity :)

About the bearing :eyebrows: Have you tried spinning a record on your crankshaft? Ok, forgetting it's too fast i doubt very much that the vibration would help make any cartridge make the record sound very nice :rolleyes:

Precision leads to greater fidelity as well. What Mike New says makes perfect sense:-


He obviously has no idea that copper based alloys such as brass and bronze (and many others) have a far greater co-efficient of expansion than steel, especially the chrome/nickel alloy tool steel that my bearing spindle is made from. This implies that at increased temperatures the bearing gap tolerance will increase (just for Daveís sake, this means that the bearing becomes less stiff, old chap)
Even i know that tool steel expands less than brass, bronze etc as temperature inceases. The bearing will not sieze up unless it's run in a bloody cold freezer (when the brass/bronze will contract more than the tool steel shaft & increase friction) :lol:

Clive
18-10-2010, 19:00
I had a little trouble with speed stability on one of my decks last winter (not a Techie). The deck is in the cellar, the room is heated but it gets very cold at night. With night temps down to -12C the room must have been very cold. Bolting a power resistor in a TO220 package and running it at about 12W with a Maplin thermostatic controller sorted it. I'm sure this was a more extreme test than has been the case with the MN bearing and even so it wasn't a big problem. I expect the bearing had been running 20C cooler than intended.

MartinT
18-10-2010, 19:29
I dunno. That's why I use a Roksan; it just plays records!

I used to have a Roksan Xerxes and it played records. Until it stopped. Then Roksan withdrew support for it. I sold it in disgust.

Alex_UK
18-10-2010, 19:31
I'm staying out of this one, because I have no knowledge of either party's products. All I will say, though, is that as an impartial observer, the whole sorry state is very sad and I believe not good for the onward development of "race-tuned" products for the SL-12X0...

Joe
18-10-2010, 19:59
I used to have a Roksan Xerxes and it played records. Until it stopped. Then Roksan withdrew support for it. I sold it in disgust.

Ah well, you win some, you lose some. My orignal Xerxes ran trouble-free for 20 years, then I traded it in for a Xerxes X.

On the other hand, I had a Nytech 252 amp that was trouble from day one, and which (literally) went up in smoke once out of warranty. Some bloke on ANOther forum has been using one daily without a problem for 25 years!

DSJR
18-10-2010, 20:09
Well, you now have two main options in the UK. Stay with the original platter and lightly beef up the bearing, going with a "standard" external supply and putting the extra into mats of metal and spongy rubbery stuff, or significantly beefing up the bearing and platter, which call for a more powerful, extremely low noise and "fast" power supply, thus taking the whole motor design away from the one originally optimised for the lighter platter. It's to Technics' credit that the more-or-less standard driving electronics can run with the heavy-duty platter and bearing..

I'd still love to compare a fully beefed up and tricked out Techie with an NAS Heavy-Space plus Wave-Mechanic, which costs around the same. One day maybe.

Ammonite Acoustics
18-10-2010, 20:35
I'd still love to compare a fully beefed up and tricked out Techie with an NAS Heavy-Space plus Wave-Mechanic, which costs around the same. One day maybe.

Sometimes I wish that I had kept my Heavied and Waved Spacedeck. A beefed up Technics is a very different beast indeed.

MartinT
18-10-2010, 21:02
thus taking the whole motor design away from the one originally optimised for the lighter platter. It's to Technics' credit that the more-or-less standard driving electronics can run with the heavy-duty platter and bearing.

It's over-stating things to assume that a heavy platter creates so much more load on the motor. The friction in the MN bearing is perhaps a little more than the Technics one, and that is all the motor is driving against: friction. The sheer inertia of the platter is hardly of consequence since it is already spinning at the correct speed and just needs tiny corrections. Once the motor is up to speed it is hardly working any harder at all, so all the benefits of the brilliant Technics design remain.

Clive
18-10-2010, 21:04
If the motor can take disco antics then the heavier platter won't be of any consequence.

Marco
18-10-2010, 21:19
Hi Alex,


I'm staying out of this one, because I have no knowledge of either party's products. All I will say, though, is that as an impartial observer, the whole sorry state is very sad and I believe not good for the onward development of "race-tuned" products for the SL-12X0...

Thanks for your thoughts. I know where you're coming from, and there is undoubtedly some truth in what you say.

Since Dave C's return to AoS, which incidentally I saw as a good thing (and still do), after our disagreement over modified PSUs and platters for the Techie a few month's back, I was of course aware of the fallout between him and Mike, but had tried to remain neutral and deliberately stayed out of it in the public domain, as I believed that both of them had something to offer.

However, when Dave (DSJR) copied and pasted here what Dave C had written on the Timestep forum, basically rubbishing very good products (the sonic benefits of which I know all too well), as I use some of them myself, in order to protect his commercial interests and 'score points' against Mike, I couldn't believe what I was reading, and something had to be done.

You cannot make comments like Dave did and expect them not to be challenged, even from the relatively safe sanctuary of your own forum. The Internet is often a remarkably small place....! Dave has undoubtedly shot himself in the foot with some of his remarks - and with a blunderbuss rather than a shotgun.

I think it's very important to have as much factually correct information as possible written in the public domain about any products, in order that interested parties can use that information to arrive at an informed conclusion of their own, not one fatally influenced by commercial bias - and on AoS we will always strive to achieve that.

I sincerely hope that Dave and Mike can put their differences behind them and constructively move forward in their own separate ways, for the very reasons you mentioned.

As far as AOS is concerned, we will always support any products, whether Technics T/T related or otherwise, that are considered as excellent in a given application, and to that end both Dave and Mike are welcome to contribute to our community and advertise their products where necessary.

Marco.

Virak
18-10-2010, 21:39
If the motor can take disco antics then the heavier platter won't be of any consequence.

Keep in mind that DJ's use slipmats, so the platter can move freely while they manipulate the records. Most DJ's are very lighthanded.
If you look at the strobe dots on the SL-1200Mk2 in a turntablism (scratching) video, you'll see that they hardly move at all.

Alex_UK
18-10-2010, 21:39
I don't think you can say fairer than any of that Marco - I am an eternal optimist, but reconciliation seems unlikely (understatement of the day) so let's hope things move on more constructively, as you said.

Clive
18-10-2010, 21:42
Keep in mind that DJ's use slipmats, so the platter can move freely while they manipulate the records. Most DJ's are very lighthanded.
If you look at the strobe dots on the SL-1200Mk2 in a turntablism (scratching) video, you'll see that they hardly move at all.
I wasn't inferring they force the motor backwards! Any movement of the dots will require more force than is required to keep a heavy platter running at the correct speed.

colinB
18-10-2010, 22:04
One thing that attracted me to the forum as a technics owner was the fact that there was fellow techy users pushing the deck to its potential and having alot of fun doing it. Although their was commercial interests involved the engineering ideas seemed sincere and there was no bullshit.
Its sad that things are getting a bit confused and messy.
I hope further experimentation and testing of the Technics will continue by other forum members , people like Marco and Martin whose opinion i trust.

Virak
18-10-2010, 22:14
I wasn't inferring they force the motor backwards! Any movement of the dots will require more force than is required to keep a heavy platter running at the correct speed.

OK. Most audiophiles seem to have the misconception that DJ's force the platter itself, so I thought it would be appropriate to clarify a little.

More OT, I've been following posts regarding SL-1200Mk2 modifications for a couple of years on various forums, and it's the stuff that this thread is about that made me buy KAB products for my Technics'. I'm not saying KAB's products necessarily are the ultimate, but trusting the manufacturer/vendor is important to me. Enough said.

Mike_New
19-10-2010, 01:16
Hi Alex
Gee you are beautiful! Iím a red wino myself.

What this has done is to create a tsunami of opinions on the subject, which in a way can only be good for the likes of Paul Haynes and myself!! who will continue to offer our upgrades as before. For my part I will continue to research and develop further upgrades in order to facilitate the further sonic quality of the SL1200 range.

As a result of Cliveís observations concerning temperatures, I have just put my reference bearing into the freezer. I will report on the results later.
As I stated earlier it was not in my design calculations for the bearing to be used in the outer reaches of Mongolia in mid winter.
In fact no good quality audio equipment should be subjected to such sever temperature cycling, it does not do the components any good, especially valves!!

Martin is absolutely correct in his observations. In fact when you think about it, the bearing has zero side forces in a properly balanced and level situation.
The only force is downwards by virtue of gravity. The bearing housing and bush is there to stop the platter falling over.

The weight of my alluminium platter I do not think affects in any way, the performance of the DD motor. And with the Paul Haynes PS it becomes even less relevant.

Pete
19-10-2010, 01:44
One thought I had, is that even though the SL1200 chassis is carrying much more weight with the MN platter & bearing/plate, I do not believe it is 'overloaded' or that the drive system is overtaxed.
On the contrary, I am hearing the best vinyl playback ever out of this deck, and I would bet that it rivals super high end decks.
I also have the Hynes PR3HD power supply module in a DIY PSU I built (equivalent to the SR5)

I think if there is anything to be gained, the very last smidgen of improvement might be realized with a whole new plinth, which is vastly stiffer than the SL1200 chassis. But this is only speculation on my part.

Hey... someone ought to design one :) Please add provision for both 9" and 12" tonearms as well.

Mike_New
19-10-2010, 05:57
For all those that are still interested in my bearings seizing up.

I placed my reference bearing in my freezer at a temp of -5degC for 1 hour.
on taking it out, it was indeed stiffer to turn. It took about 2Ĺ hours to return to room temp. So you see my calculation was about correct, the bearing will work over the accepted SRT to about plus/minus 20degC although I do not believe anybody would want to play their SL1200 on a snowy winters day in the garden.
The reverse will obviously hold. That the bearing will free up (not seize) when placed in a warmer environment.

On another subject;
For all of you who have purchased one of my bearings would you please email me your name and address. If not your address then the country you live in.
The reason being, is that I would like to have a record of all my bearings sold, so that I can if needs be support all of you in the future.
Thanks Mike

MartinT
19-10-2010, 06:16
I hope further experimentation and testing of the Technics will continue by other forum members , people like Marco and Martin whose opinion i trust.

Thanks, Colin. I not only love the sound of my SL-1210 but am happy to help others achieve its potential, too. Also happy to have members around for a listen if you can get to Basingstoke.

colinB
19-10-2010, 07:58
One thought I had, is that even though the SL1200 chassis is carrying much more weight with the MN platter & bearing/plate, I do not believe it is 'overloaded' or that the drive system is overtaxed.
On the contrary, I am hearing the best vinyl playback ever out of this deck, and I would bet that it rivals super high end decks.
I also have the Hynes PR3HD power supply module in a DIY PSU I built (equivalent to the SR5)

I think if there is anything to be gained, the very last smidgen of improvement might be realized with a whole new plinth, which is vastly stiffer than the SL1200 chassis. But this is only speculation on my part.

Hey... someone ought to design one :) Please add provision for both 9" and 12" tonearms as well.

So the difference between the SR3 and the SR5 is the internals such as the transformer and not the regulator?
I really must stop being a wusse and order one from Paul. I seem to have lost my confidence with DIY electronics but it does look straight forward.
I think the deck could be improved with a good plinth that supports the chassis and not just the four corners.

pure sound
19-10-2010, 07:59
The friction in the MN bearing is perhaps a little more than the Technics one, and that is all the motor is driving against: friction.

Why does the friction need to be greater? If the fit really is closer then surely a less viscous lubricant could be used.

colinB
19-10-2010, 08:02
Thanks, Colin. I not only love the sound of my SL-1210 but am happy to help others achieve its potential, too. Also happy to have members around for a listen if you can get to Basingstoke.

I would love to hear your system one day Martin. Could do with the inspiration. I know my deck is only half finished and i would like to take it to the next level.

Mike_New
19-10-2010, 08:17
Pure Sound.
The clearance on my bearings is measured in microns so the oil has to be held in the bearing material. This is done by having a honed cintered bush which is vacuum impregnated with oil. The big secret is to obtain as tight a fit as possible and still allow the spindle to rotate with low viscosity oil of the highest grade. The ideal bearing would be a 6" shaft securely bolted to both the platter and the chassis, but I feel that it might not rotate very well.

Ammonite Acoustics
19-10-2010, 08:20
So the difference between the SR3 and the SR5 is the internals such as the transformer and not the regulator?
I really must stop being a wusse and order one from Paul. I seem to have lost my confidence with DIY electronics but it does look straight forward.
I think the deck could be improved with a good plinth that supports the chassis and not just the four corners.

Since I have both the SR3 and SR5, I can tell you that the differences include the transformer and the regulator circuit, both of which are much beefier in the SR5.

pure sound
19-10-2010, 08:24
Actually, the ideal bearing would have zero friction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOTWx69mghM

colinB
19-10-2010, 08:26
Since I have both the SR3 and SR5, I can tell you that the differences include the transformer and the regulator circuit, both of which are much beefier in the SR5.

With the standard platter do you think the SR3 would be sufficient ?

MartinT
19-10-2010, 08:27
I would love to hear your system one day Martin. Could do with the inspiration. I know my deck is only half finished and i would like to take it to the next level.

Just let me know when :)

Clive
19-10-2010, 08:27
Actually, the ideal bearing would have zero friction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOTWx69mghM
Thinking of just the bearing that is true. But as part of a drive system that's not necessarily the case. It can be that some resistance helps with motor control for instance.

pure sound
19-10-2010, 08:46
Given that a motor control system has already been designed for & fitted to the 1210 it'd seem sensible to keep the mechanical & dynamic characteristics of any retro-fittable parts close to those of the originals ie masses, friction etc.

Is it being asserted that using a bearing with greater friction and adding a heavier platter somehow makes better use of the 1210's motor control system than the original items? It'd be interesting to know if there's any actual measurements to support this. (Please note, I'm not doubting that the new platter & bearing change & possibly improve things, I'm just interested to learn how & why)

MartinT
19-10-2010, 08:53
As I said earlier, the friction of the MN bearing is close enough to the Technics bearing that it probably has little effect on the motor system. The mass of the platter is irrelevant once it is spinning.

Clive
19-10-2010, 09:01
Given that a motor control system has already been designed for & fitted to the 1210 it'd seem sensible to keep the mechanical & dynamic characteristics of any retro-fittable parts close to those of the originals ie masses, friction etc.

Is it being asserted that using a bearing with greater friction and adding a heavier platter somehow makes better use of the 1210's motor control system than the original items? It'd be interesting to know if there's any actual measurements to support this. (Please note, I'm not doubting that the new platter & bearing change & possibly improve things, I'm just interested to learn how & why)
My comment about friction and motor control wasn't directed at the Techie or Mike's bearing, it was a general comment. I'm just saying that with some TTs as part of an overall control and drive system there are situations when some friction can help.

Ammonite Acoustics
19-10-2010, 09:07
My comment about friction and motor control wasn't directed at the Techie or Mike's bearing, it was a general comment. I'm just saying that with some TTs as part of an overall control and drive system there are situations when some friction can help.

I think that's correct - my Kenwood KD-770D has a relatively high drag bearing, which is apparently designed so that the motor is always pushing gently against that drag. So, it is designed not to overshoot the set speed and then have to over compensate att the time. The end result is something that is much calmer in character than the Technics; in fact it's not a million miles from my old NA Spacedeck, which in my book is a compliment.

Ammonite Acoustics
19-10-2010, 09:11
With the standard platter do you think the SR3 would be sufficient ?

Yes, but if you have a chance to try the SR5 as well, you may find that the bigger PSU does yield further benefits - that was certainly the case with my Kenwood, which I do acknowledge is a different beast to the Techy. I know that the objectivists will state that the Techy's current requirement is bugger all, so the SR5 is just overkill, but it's worth a try if you can compare the two PSUs.

Edit: I see that you are in London, which is not far from me. My SR5 has an adjustable output that will provide the 21v that the Technics needs, and I'd be happy to let you try it.

chris@panteg
19-10-2010, 09:17
Hi Marco

Its a shame Mike and Dave have fallen out so badly ' and i think in the long term Dave may regret some of the things he has stated !.

Do you remember what Gordon Brown said after the election ' we can achieve more together than what we could alone ' very valid is it not ?

Can i correct you on one small point regarding the psu 's i believe KAB were 1st to market with there psu ' but what Dave was emphasising was the 1st to overcome the problems of the internal regulator.

Guy's point about understanding why is a good one but i would like to add ' why does it have to be High mass at all ! and why all alloy ? Dave has stated he thinks all metal is best for a platter , i'm not so sure ' why not Lexan which is far superior to acrylic IMHO .

colinB
19-10-2010, 09:22
Yes, but if you have a chance to try the SR5 as well, you may find that the bigger PSU does yield further benefits - that was certainly the case with my Kenwood, which I do acknowledge is a different beast to the Techy. I know that the objectivists will state that the Techy's current requirement is bugger all, so the SR5 is just overkill, but it's worth a try if you can compare the two PSUs.

Edit: I see that you are in London, which is not far from me. My SR5 has an adjustable output that will provide the 21v that the Technics needs, and I'd be happy to let you try it.

Thanks for the offer Shuggie. My only concern is according to Leo's schematic for the installation of his SR3, you have to rip out various resistors and the internal transformer before you can run the power supply.

MartinT
19-10-2010, 09:25
what Dave was emphasising was the 1st to overcome the problems of the internal regulator.

Yes, that's true as the KAB PSU retains the offboard regulator in the Technics whereas the Timestep bypasses it completely. I removed the regulator completely from mine rather than leave it there with cut cables.

Ammonite Acoustics
19-10-2010, 09:40
Thanks for the offer Shuggie. My only concern is according to Leo's schematic for the installation of his SR3, you have to rip out various resistors and the internal transformer before you can run the power supply.

Not necessarily so. You don't have to remove the transformer if you don't want to, at least in the first instance when you're just trying things out, although most people recommend it. If you wish I can send you (by e-mail) some details and photos on how to apply an external DC supply. The most basic installation involves disconnecting one component from the main PCB (easily reversible if you're sensible and careful), and two new DC wires to attach. It is very simples.

chris@panteg
19-10-2010, 09:42
Hi Martin

Yes quite right of course:)

One other thing its a little harsh on Dave's ' half baked bearing ' polishing a turd ' well don't forget we all bought these decks with original stock bearing's in place , if the actually very clever and cheap original was so 'shite ' there is no way the 1200 would have attracted me in the 1st place:scratch:

It is a cheap mass produced bearing built to a cost , but it remarkably achieves low friction and noise ' a guy in the US (Jim) is selling a modded version with some success and he backs it up with high quality rips and fair play to him:).

colinB
19-10-2010, 09:50
Not necessarily so. You don't have to remove the transformer if you don't want to, at least in the first instance when you're just trying things out, although most people recommend it. If you wish I can send you (by e-mail) some details and photos on how to apply an external DC supply. The most basic installation involves disconnecting one component from the main PCB (easily reversible if you're sensible and careful), and two new DC wires to attach. It is very simples.

Sounds good. I will send you a PM.

Paul Hynes
19-10-2010, 09:54
Hi ColinB,

Shuggie is right, there are more differences in the power supplies, not all of which I care to discuss as parts of the design are licensed to manufacturers, and consequently are the subject of non-disclosure agreements. I’m happy to discuss the general differences between the power supplies.

The SR3 was designed to fit into a small case with everything, including the 60 VA mains transformer, fitted to one printed circuit board. This makes it production friendly with the minimum of wirework but certain compromises were chosen to still allow a high level of performance at a reasonable price level. The transformer is an “off the shelf” transformer, which I selected from all the readily available ranges as the quietest and most robust electrically. The mosfet currently fitted to the output stage is a rugged device with a high current rating so it is capable providing whatever current the SL1200/1210 requires for start-up even with the heavy platter. It will give a good account of itself as an outboard power supply for the SL1200/1210. The equivalent regulator module from the DIY range is now designated the PR3iHD.

The SR5 is a more powerful power supply that uses the higher power custom 160 VA mains transformer, and the higher power output stage in essentially the same regulator topology as the SR3/PR3. This higher power transformer and output stage requires more space and better thermal management than the SR3, which results in a larger case. As Marco and Martin have reported in their recent tests, this level of engineering results in a nice improvement in the musical presentation of the SL1200/1210 when compared to the SR3. The equivalent regulator module from the DIY range is now designated the PR3iEHD.

Either power supply will drive the heavy platter, the SR5 just does everything better.

Sorry there is no information on the website yet. I am just too busy with consultancy work and building power supplies and regulator modules, to sit down and update the site at present.

I hope this helps and if I can be of further help let me know.

Regards
Paul

colinB
19-10-2010, 10:19
That clears things up Paul, thanks.
You sound like you could do with an assistant. If theres any cheap crofts up there i'd come up and help you out. Im happy with minimum wage.
Always fancied myself as a Teuchter:lol:

Marco
19-10-2010, 10:23
Hi Chris,


Its a shame Mike and Dave have fallen out so badly ' and i think in the long term Dave may regret some of the things he has stated !.


No doubt! I suppose though we're all human. All of us have our faults, me included, but unfortunately one of Dave's is that he doesn't see competition as a healthy thing and gets incredibly defensive of his designs. That's not a good trait when you're in business, IMO.

As a sole trader you cannot realistically expect to corner the market on any one product, or set of products, no matter how unique or special you believe your products to be. It's an ego thing, I guess.

Moreover, what you should never do is slag off your competitors. It's a total no-no in the industry, and does your reputation no good whatsoever. Apart from anything else, free-thinking people who don't succumb easily to brainwashing, or feel the need to be part of a 'club', will always view such actions with considerable suspicion. Dave also showcases himself as a 'guru', and that is a rather dangerous thing to do, IMO, as you're inevitably setting yourself up for a fall.

He is no doubt very knowledgeable on certain matters, especially regarding the modification of the SL-1200/1210, and anything to do with SP-10s (amongst other things), and I respect his knowledge, but the trouble is, there is always someone else out there who knows more than you do on certain subjects, and is thus liable to knock you off your perch......

The best thing to do in business, IMO, is to embrace healthy competition and let the quality of your products speak for itself, as word of mouth from satisfied customers will always have more impact on sales than any amount of concerted marketing, and very importantly, to remember that old (and very true) saying that 'people buy from people'.

Once you start seeing your customers as simply 'punters', rather than people, you're on the slippery road to failure.


Do you remember what Gordon Brown said after the election ' we can achieve more together than what we could alone ' very valid is it not ?


Indeed, which is why on AoS we're very focussed on harnessing the knowledge and experience of not only Dave Cawley, but of Paul Hynes, Anthony TD, Stan Beresford, Mark Bartlett (of Audiocom International), Mike New, and many others here, whose collective knowledge and technical abilities give AoS a unique broad base of expertise that no other audio forum has in the UK.

But it would be nice if people could work together for mutual gain, rather than against each other to achieve more pain than gain............


Can i correct you on one small point regarding the psu 's i believe KAB were 1st to market with there psu ' but what Dave was emphasising was the 1st to overcome the problems of the internal regulator.


That's my mistake then, and I will edit my post accordingly. I was unaware the KAB PSU didn't solve that problem. Remember I only listen to these things as an audio and music enthusiast. What happens 'underneath the hood', as it were, is for others to worry about! :cool:

Marco.

chris@panteg
19-10-2010, 10:41
Hi Marco

Yes and i think it is unfortunate , when you consider there are plenty of Troll's about the net just waiting for both Dave and Mike to fall apart as it were .

I feel there are 2 sides to the story here but alas Dave will only comment on his forum.

dale kid
19-10-2010, 10:44
If I may be permitted to make some comment on all this bravado and shameful behaviour from certain quarters. In my opinion there are two purveyors who should hang their heads in shame.

After spending nearly a life time involved with these direct drive motors and circuits I find unbelievable to read some of the nonsense spouted from certain quarters. To my mind all I see is confirmation that there is a great deal lacking in real understanding of the design and true function of the circuit.

In my senility I have attempted before now to allude to this lack of in-depth knowledge and understanding (this actually takes years to aquire) and provide some hints as to the thought and reasoning behind these motor circuits. The predictable response from certain quarters arrived in due course without recourse to well informed debate or rebuttal. It is easier to attack, delete, ignore or rebuff with barbed comments than face the truth and perhaps to actually learn something.

Huge resources and a great deal of man hours were put in to the design and development of the original motor and circuit. The final product represents the best value for money vs performance available for the design as a whole. I would also like to add that the orignal factory supplied parts such as the bearing and chassis are of a very high standard and not deserving of remarks that appear to class them as less than high quality (especially when compared to an proffered "improved" item as part of the sales pitch).

Speaking of component tolerances, we are told that oil is "flung" around, bearing shafts are sloppy or suchlike. Good heavens I have bought a pile of junk, what am I to do? My records sound terrible now that you mention all this "slop" and "flung dung".

Whilst it may be true that there is a smidgen of performance gain to be had by applying certain, shall we say tweaks, to the original design there is a ceiling that cannot be broken through. These tweaks do not need to cost a small fortune (and in fact I have seen and heard tweaked models of this turntable that perfom beyond their original design specifications, whilst still not in the league of models such as the SP-10MK2 for example, but at a very cost affordable level).

One may feel that handing over unnecessarily large sums of money for these modifications is providing the ultimate vinyl listening experience (to the one handing over these sums and of course that is your perogative) but is it not just possible that, more likely, the feelgood factor is providing a larger percentage of the perceived enhancement vs the percentage of measurable performance benefit?

Speaking of measurements, I have variously read that one purveyor claims to have a virtual warehouse of test and measurement equipment available to test and measure just about everything (would that include rumble I wonder?). I then read contradictatory remarks from the same purveyor when asked for example measurements that such are in effect meaningless and not necessary.

Just what are we to believe?

There are also contradictions concerning the raised lip on a certain turntable model platter. One the one hand we are told that this is bad and that only a certain platter mat wonder product will fit, work or whatever and allow the record to lay flat. Then we are told that a newly marketed platter disc is the next best thing to have on this platter.

Bear with me here as this contradiction gets interesting.

The cross section of an LP is designed to lay with a certain degree of curveature for correct playback. The designers of the platter in question knew all this and incorporated the miniscule raised lip to provide the correct presentation for the LP. The platter disc mentioned above has, guess what? Curvature of 1 degree to provide the correct presentation for the LP. So where does this leave us regarding the certain platter mat wonder product? Flat support or curved support?

I wish someone would explain all these contradictions to me.

There is no need for all this shameful behaviour as it lessens the enjoyment of those who are genuinely interested in maximising their listening experience. I suppose this happens when greed rears its ugly head.

May your days be long and PEACEFUL, Dale

Paul Hynes
19-10-2010, 10:57
Hi Colin,

You wouldnít like it up here. Itís the antithesis of London. Itís peaceful, thereís plenty of space with no crowds, some of the cleanest freshest air in the UK, crystal clear sea and plenty of clean white sand beaches with rarely anyone on them. The uplands are still a true wilderness where you can walk all day and see no one. The property is much, much cheaper here but the down side is you have to put up with all of the above obnoxious characteristics. Still someone has got to live here or it will end up depopulated like St Kilda, so I will sacrifice myself for the good of all.

Regards
Paul

colinB
19-10-2010, 11:13
Hi Colin,

You wouldnít like it up here. Itís the antithesis of London. Itís peaceful, thereís plenty of space with no crowds, some of the cleanest freshest air in the UK, crystal clear sea and plenty of clean white sand beaches with rarely anyone on them. The uplands are still a true wilderness where you can walk all day and see no one. The property is much, much cheaper here but the down side is you have to put up with all of the above obnoxious characteristics. Still someone has got to live here or it will end up depopulated like St Kilda, so I will sacrifice myself for the good of all.

Regards
Paul

What you mean it doesnt have a Starbucks. Having second thoughts already.

colinB
19-10-2010, 11:17
If I may be permitted to make some comment on all this bravado and shameful behaviour from certain quarters. In my opinion there are two purveyors who should hang their heads in shame.

After spending nearly a life time involved with these direct drive motors and circuits I find unbelievable to read some of the nonsense spouted from certain quarters. To my mind all I see is confirmation that there is a great deal lacking in real understanding of the design and true function of the circuit.

In my senility I have attempted before now to allude to this lack of in-depth knowledge and understanding (this actually takes years to aquire) and provide some hints as to the thought and reasoning behind these motor circuits. The predictable response from certain quarters arrived in due course without recourse to well informed debate or rebuttal. It is easier to attack, delete, ignore or rebuff with barbed comments than face the truth and perhaps to actually learn something.

Huge resources and a great deal of man hours were put in to the design and development of the original motor and circuit. The final product represents the best value for money vs performance available for the design as a whole. I would also like to add that the orignal factory supplied parts such as the bearing and chassis are of a very high standard and not deserving of remarks that appear to class them as less than high quality (especially when compared to an proffered "improved" item as part of the sales pitch).

Speaking of component tolerances, we are told that oil is "flung" around, bearing shafts are sloppy or suchlike. Good heavens I have bought a pile of junk, what am I to do? My records sound terrible now that you mention all this "slop" and "flung dung".

Whilst it may be true that there is a smidgen of performance gain to be had by applying certain, shall we say tweaks, to the original design there is a ceiling that cannot be broken through. These tweaks do not need to cost a small fortune (and in fact I have seen and heard tweaked models of this turntable that perfom beyond their original design specifications, whilst still not in the league of models such as the SP-10MK2 for example, but at a very cost affordable level).

One may feel that handing over unnecessarily large sums of money for these modifications is providing the ultimate vinyl listening experience (to the one handing over these sums and of course that is your perogative) but is it not just possible that, more likely, the feelgood factor is providing a larger percentage of the perceived enhancement vs the percentage of measurable performance benefit?

Speaking of measurements, I have variously read that one purveyor claims to have a virtual warehouse of test and measurement equipment available to test and measure just about everything (would that include rumble I wonder?). I then read contradictatory remarks from the same purveyor when asked for example measurements that such are in effect meaningless and not necessary.

Just what are we to believe?

There are also contradictions concerning the raised lip on a certain turntable model platter. One the one hand we are told that this is bad and that only a certain platter mat wonder product will fit, work or whatever and allow the record to lay flat. Then we are told that a newly marketed platter disc is the next best thing to have on this platter.

Bear with me here as this contradiction gets interesting.

The cross section of an LP is designed to lay with a certain degree of curveature for correct playback. The designers of the platter in question knew all this and incorporated the miniscule raised lip to provide the correct presentation for the LP. The platter disc mentioned above has, guess what? Curvature of 1 degree to provide the correct presentation for the LP. So where does this leave us regarding the certain platter mat wonder product? Flat support or curved support?

I wish someone would explain all these contradictions to me.

There is no need for all this shameful behaviour as it lessens the enjoyment of those who are genuinely interested in maximising their listening experience. I suppose this happens when greed rears its ugly head.

May your days be long and PEACEFUL, Dale

Interesting points and i dont doubt your authority on the Technics.
However, would you not agree the transformer underneath the platter must have been a compromise that effects the over all sound/

Paul Hynes
19-10-2010, 11:22
No Starbucks, but the Stepping Stones restaurant in Balivanich serves good coffee and great seafood. I import good coffee/tea/wine/luxury goods for personal use. See, the internet can be useful.

pure sound
19-10-2010, 11:40
The cross section of an LP is designed to lay with a certain degree of curveature for correct playback. The designers of the platter in question knew all this and incorporated the miniscule raised lip to provide the correct presentation for the LP. The platter disc mentioned above has, guess what? Curvature of 1 degree to provide the correct presentation for the LP. So where does this leave us regarding the certain platter mat wonder product? Flat support or curved support?



Hi Dale,

Do you have a reference for this information & the mechanical specification of vinyl records generally?

colinB
19-10-2010, 11:49
No Starbucks, but the Stepping Stones restaurant in Balivanich serves good coffee and great seafood. I import good coffee/tea/wine/luxury goods for personal use. See, the internet can be useful.

Balivanich. What a great name. You should open a distillery there, build it up as a luxury niche brand and then sell it to a Indian millionaire. Job done ,early retirement.

Marco
19-10-2010, 13:04
If I may be permitted to make some comment on all this bravado and shameful behaviour from certain quarters. In my opinion there are two purveyors who should hang their heads in shame.

After spending nearly a life time involved with these direct drive motors and circuits I find unbelievable to read some of the nonsense spouted from certain quarters. To my mind all I see is confirmation that there is a great deal lacking in real understanding of the design and true function of the circuit.

In my senility I have attempted before now to allude to this lack of in-depth knowledge and understanding (this actually takes years to aquire) and provide some hints as to the thought and reasoning behind these motor circuits. The predictable response from certain quarters arrived in due course without recourse to well informed debate or rebuttal. It is easier to attack, delete, ignore or rebuff with barbed comments than face the truth and perhaps to actually learn something.

Huge resources and a great deal of man hours were put in to the design and development of the original motor and circuit. The final product represents the best value for money vs performance available for the design as a whole. I would also like to add that the orignal factory supplied parts such as the bearing and chassis are of a very high standard and not deserving of remarks that appear to class them as less than high quality (especially when compared to an proffered "improved" item as part of the sales pitch).

Speaking of component tolerances, we are told that oil is "flung" around, bearing shafts are sloppy or suchlike. Good heavens I have bought a pile of junk, what am I to do? My records sound terrible now that you mention all this "slop" and "flung dung".

Whilst it may be true that there is a smidgen of performance gain to be had by applying certain, shall we say tweaks, to the original design there is a ceiling that cannot be broken through. These tweaks do not need to cost a small fortune (and in fact I have seen and heard tweaked models of this turntable that perfom beyond their original design specifications, whilst still not in the league of models such as the SP-10MK2 for example, but at a very cost affordable level).

One may feel that handing over unnecessarily large sums of money for these modifications is providing the ultimate vinyl listening experience (to the one handing over these sums and of course that is your perogative) but is it not just possible that, more likely, the feelgood factor is providing a larger percentage of the perceived enhancement vs the percentage of measurable performance benefit?

Speaking of measurements, I have variously read that one purveyor claims to have a virtual warehouse of test and measurement equipment available to test and measure just about everything (would that include rumble I wonder?). I then read contradictatory remarks from the same purveyor when asked for example measurements that such are in effect meaningless and not necessary.

Just what are we to believe?

There are also contradictions concerning the raised lip on a certain turntable model platter. One the one hand we are told that this is bad and that only a certain platter mat wonder product will fit, work or whatever and allow the record to lay flat. Then we are told that a newly marketed platter disc is the next best thing to have on this platter.

Bear with me here as this contradiction gets interesting.

The cross section of an LP is designed to lay with a certain degree of curveature for correct playback. The designers of the platter in question knew all this and incorporated the miniscule raised lip to provide the correct presentation for the LP. The platter disc mentioned above has, guess what? Curvature of 1 degree to provide the correct presentation for the LP. So where does this leave us regarding the certain platter mat wonder product? Flat support or curved support?

I wish someone would explain all these contradictions to me.

There is no need for all this shameful behaviour as it lessens the enjoyment of those who are genuinely interested in maximising their listening experience. I suppose this happens when greed rears its ugly head.

May your days be long and PEACEFUL, Dale

Hi Dale,

Excellent post with some interesting insight. I'll go through your points in detail later, as some things you've rasied are very important, once I'd done the million and one other things I have to do today! :rolleyes:

Anyway, until later.... :cool:

Marco.

DSJR
19-10-2010, 14:39
There are also contradictions concerning the raised lip on a certain turntable model platter. One the one hand we are told that this is bad and that only a certain platter mat wonder product will fit, work or whatever and allow the record to lay flat. Then we are told that a newly marketed platter disc is the next best thing to have on this platter.

Bear with me here as this contradiction gets interesting.

The cross section of an LP is designed to lay with a certain degree of curveature for correct playback. The designers of the platter in question knew all this and incorporated the miniscule raised lip to provide the correct presentation for the LP. The platter disc mentioned above has, guess what? Curvature of 1 degree to provide the correct presentation for the LP. So where does this leave us regarding the certain platter mat wonder product? Flat support or curved support?

I wish someone would explain all these contradictions to me.

There is no need for all this shameful behaviour as it lessens the enjoyment of those who are genuinely interested in maximising their listening experience. I suppose this happens when greed rears its ugly head.

May your days be long and PEACEFUL, Dale

Dale, you are CERTAINLY not senile in any shape or form, even if you may feel that way sometimes :respect:

The mat fitted to the SL150 I owned and recently sold to AlexUK had a tiny amount shaved from its thickness on its underside, corresponding to the tiny lip of the 150's platter. I believe though, that the current 12**'s have a slightly more pronounced lip on them.

Having said the above, I should add that the SL-150 mat may well have had differing height in its groups of "grooves" giving this 1 degree of dip (I never checked to be honest, but Alex could). The Herbies/Timestep mat is a two-layer design with a soft but loaded foam type under piece and a thinner rubber upper section. The feel of this mat is like the fluid filled mats Sony used on the PS-8750 IIRC.

My advice still is to look out for a good SP10 II. I love this deck and if I wasn't such a fan of NAS silcon-rubber driven units, I'd love to have had an SP10 instead - a beautiful thing IMO.

Clive
19-10-2010, 14:49
Garrards don't have flat platters for the same reason as the 1200 but I've I never seen an offical RIAA or whatever standard on this. It must be written down somewhere from the dim and distant past. Maybe on tabets of stone.

pure sound
19-10-2010, 15:56
I'm trying to understand what, if any, significance it might have if indeed it is true. I'm sure that records are pressed with the intention that they are flat. Many mats and platters have a mild indent to accomodate the label thickness. If records are really intended to be dished in use it suggests that the azimuth of the cantilever & diamond will be wrong at the outer edge and become more correct when closer to the centre.

I'm dubious tbh. Thats why I was hoping to see a mechanical spec for a record that suggests they should be supported in this way.

dale kid
19-10-2010, 16:28
Gentlemen, I hope questions about LP profiles may be aided by way of the folowing diagram (I also hope the link works or else I will have to call upon the good graces of my Grandchildern to assist and that will cost me).

http://i54.tinypic.com/kbvamq.jpg

pure sound
19-10-2010, 16:46
Thanks Dale.

I'm still not sure why that suggests that the platter should be dished but I'll keep thinking about it!

(I suppose it also depends on the diameter of the platter & mat used)

Marco
19-10-2010, 17:26
Just a quick one before I get to Dale's earlier post... I've just read Dave Cawley's latest response on his forum to a question Chris asked - you can read it here:

http://www.time-step.net/showthread.php?175-SL-1200-Platters-bearings-mats-and-PSU-s-cartridges-arms-and-more-the-thread&p=1087#post1087

I would join Dave's site and respond there, but I don't really have the time to contribute to protracted debates anywhere else. However I know that Dave will read this, and of course he's free to reply:

Hi Dave,

You have a very 'interesting' way of looking at things, I must say....


It was indeed not my intention to discredit Mike New, and I don't believe I have.


No you're right, you haven't, simply because your scaremongering has backfired and has shown up your worrying lack of understanding of basic engineering principles, as was ably demonstrated with the 'Mike New bearing heat seizing debacle', evidenced here yesterday! ;)

Sorry, but I have to be frank, as this is getting beyond a joke.

If you didn't know that the only way Mike's bearing could ever seize, at 45 RPM or otherwise, was if it was FROZEN, and not instead when used in HOT climates, then how can anyone have faith in the design of your Timestep products when your knowledge of basic engineering seems so painfully lacking??


But simply my intention to explain the reasoning behind my preferred product line. And that I think I did, clearly and unambiguously.


Yes you did, but the 'statement' you posted on your forum, which I replied to at length, was also quite clearly intended to discredit the designs of Paul Hynes and Mike New. This is patently obvious, Dave, to anyone who isn't one of your 'disciples'. A real man would've had the gumption to apologise, and be more than a little embarrassed, not create a further smoke screen to attempt to cover up your quite obvious lack of real technical knowledge.


However "others" have take this to be a criticism of their own system and without properly reading, and fully understanding what I actually said, have sought to discredit me! A bizarre situation.


Lol! I presume by "others" you're referring to me? All I did was challenge some of your ridiculous statements, politely in a very reasoned and methodical way, by reading precisely what was written in front of me. The only person who discredited you was yourself.


People have always jumped onto the band wagon and produced "me-too" systems, but in time they all fade away in a techno-babble fog.


There you go, you see, you can't help yourself... I presume you're referring to what Paul Hynes wrote about PSUs and transformers last night on AoS?

Now you're attempting to discredit what Paul wrote, which makes perfect sense to any knowledgeable engineer or equipment designer, by dismissing it as "techno-babble".....? :rolleyes:

I rest my case.

I see no further point in commenting on what you've written on your forum, as it is of little real consequence now. Anyone with half a brain who isn't a blinded disciple, Dave, can see exactly what you're about. You flatter to deceive, as you always have done, and always will do.

Good luck to those who are stupid enough to fall for it.

Marco.

Alex_UK
19-10-2010, 17:34
Having said the above, I should add that the SL-150 mat may well have had differing height in its groups of "grooves" giving this 1 degree of dip (I never checked to be honest, but Alex could)

Placing the mat on a glass table, and then placing a steel ruler across it, there is definitely more thickness on the outside edges - about 1.5mm to 2mm I would estimate. The Herbies mat is similar, with a smaller difference of 1mm to 1.5mm.

leo
19-10-2010, 22:50
Thanks for the offer Shuggie. My only concern is according to Leo's schematic for the installation of his SR3, you have to rip out various resistors and the internal transformer before you can run the power supply.

As Shuggie says you may not have to rip everything out just to try it, I would be tempted to disconnect the wire running from the stock internal regulators output though just incase. Its the wire which runs to the emitter leg of Q1. I'd ask Paul to be sure if its ok to try without removing anything first, I just tend to be over cautious :)

Its worth trying the upgraded psu though, I know I was very pleased with the improvement :eyebrows:

colinB
19-10-2010, 22:59
Hi Leo. Do you think the transformer you used would be suffice for the SR5 regulator ( i bought one for the PSU project but got a bit distracted by other toys) ?

Mike_New
20-10-2010, 03:32
Marco

On behalf of Paul and myself and referring to your most recent post concerning our beloved friend and former guru. I do not believe I could have put it more succinctly myself!!!! The King really does not have any clothes, in fact I think technically speaking, he took them all off a long time ago!!!!

John
20-10-2010, 07:56
Like Alex I think its sad that there been such a major falling out. I think what we have now is many different paths to how best to upgrade the 1210 and its meetings like Martin and Marco which will shed light on best pathway around the upgrades

Marco
20-10-2010, 12:52
Hi Dale,


If I may be permitted to make some comment on all this bravado and shameful behaviour from certain quarters. In my opinion there are two purveyors who should hang their heads in shame.


Aside from Dave Cawley, which other 'purveyor' do you feel should hang their head in shame, and why?


After spending nearly a life time involved with these direct drive motors and circuits I find unbelievable to read some of the nonsense spouted from certain quarters. To my mind all I see is confirmation that there is a great deal lacking in real understanding of the design and true function of the circuit.


In some cases, perhaps, but the proof of the pudding is always in the listening. Like others, I trust my ears, so if a modification I carry out unquestionably, after thorough testing, makes a significant sonic improvement to my SL-1210, then that's all that matters whether this is a result of a 'misunderstanding of the circuit' or not.

I am experienced enough now to know when an improvement made to my turntable is real or not.


In my senility I have attempted before now to allude to this lack of in-depth knowledge and understanding (this actually takes years to aquire) and provide some hints as to the thought and reasoning behind these motor circuits. The predictable response from certain quarters arrived in due course without recourse to well informed debate or rebuttal. It is easier to attack, delete, ignore or rebuff with barbed comments than face the truth and perhaps to actually learn something.


I completely agree with the bit in bold, although you won't see any of that on AoS.

It's patently obvious that you have considerable knowledge and experience of the design of Technics turntable in question, and therefore others and I will I'm sure learn from your erudite contributions.

However at the same time, no offence intended, I can't help but detect an agenda, as if you have something to gain by pooh-poohing all aftermarket modifications of the SL-1200/1210.

If I'm wrong, then I apologise, but when you visit us it's only ever to express your disdain at those who design (and use) such modifications on the Technics T/Ts, so until I know you better, I'm afraid that I can only view what you write with some suspicion.


Huge resources and a great deal of man hours were put in to the design and development of the original motor and circuit. The final product represents the best value for money vs performance available for the design as a whole.


No argument there, however the key bit is "money vs performance", which indicates of course that just like every other piece of audio equipment on the market, the SL-1200/1210 was built to a price, and so in turn can be improved, which is precisely what many of us here have done.


I would also like to add that the orignal factory supplied parts such as the bearing and chassis are of a very high standard and not deserving of remarks that appear to class them as less than high quality (especially when compared to an proffered "improved" item as part of the sales pitch).


I would say that for the relatively low cost of one new, the SL-1200/1210 is built to a very high standard. However, that doesn't mean that costs have indeed been cut in some key areas, where it simply would not have been profitable to have improved quality any further.

It's my view, based on considerable evidence, that in the 1970s when the SL-1200/1210 (or whatever model number it was referred to back then) moved from being an out-and-out hi-fi design instead to a 'DJ deck', that some corners were cut in terms of parts quality, as the manufacturer knew that, sonically, the turntable was now being used by a less discerning audience.

This is why early examples had more rigidly constructed plinths and were sold either with or without a tonearm (although the tonearm supplied was of higher quality than the one supplied now with current models), and I suspect that also applied to the quality of bearings used.

The stock bearing used in the SL-1200/1210 is of decent quality for the cost of the T/T (I've examined one up close), but is quite vastly inferior both in material construction and performance to the Mike New one - of that there absolutely no doubt.


Whilst it may be true that there is a smidgen of performance gain to be had by applying certain, shall we say tweaks, to the original design there is a ceiling that cannot be broken through.


I completely agree with the last bit in bold, as the sonic performance of the T/T will ultimately be governed by the limitations of the motor unit.

*However*, such is the extreme high quality of the motor unit (this is where the real talents of the engineers of Matsushita Electric were fully realised) it would take some considerable effort for the abilities of any modifications to override those of the motor, hence why so far all the modifications I've had carried out to my SL-1210 have been easily discernable as a significant sonic upgrade.

It's worth pointing out again, and I would ask that people try to remember this in future, that the whole point of audio enthusiasts buying an SL-1200 or 1210 to modify is SOLELY for the quality of the MOTOR UNIT, as everything else is pretty much disposible and can easily be upgraded. The plinth is next, and that'll be the final stage of the modification process.

It's the MOTOR UNIT that is the most valuable and expensive item to produce, and thus is the most desirable aspect of the design. That is why people will buy a good second-hand SL-1200/1210 for, say £150-200, and spend, say a further £2.5k in modifications, because the end result is a turntable that has cost under £3k, but that sonically, performs like one which costs £15k!!

Some folk, though, just don't seem to get that. All one has to do to discover this, however, is to compare said modified Technics, sonically, to an SME 20, using the same arm and cartridge on both T/Ts, and the penny will drop..............

Denon have just released a new direct-drive turntable to celebrate their 100th Anniversary, called the DP-A100, which comes fitted with their new 100th Anniversary MC cartridge, the DL-A100. It costs £2224.99.

I saw it at the Sevenoaks/Audio T hi-fi show in Manchester. Unfortunately it was on a static display, and so I didn't have the chance to listen to it, but I intend to book an appointment with my local Denon dealer, take along my Techie, and see how it compares.

Excluding the SPU, I've only spent about £250 more than that so far on modifying my Techie, so it'll be very interesting to see what happens! ;)

It certainly looks 'nice' enough, if you like bling (black plinth with a gold coloured tonearm and platter), but I have it on good authority that it's simply a tarted-up Stanton in a decent plinth. Having looked at it in detail, it's got a fairly cheapo looking arm fitted, not dissimilar to what's supplied with the SL-1200/1210. And the new cartridge is simply a stock DL-103 with a fancy 'see through' body-shell.

You may be wondering why I'm mentioning all this, of course... Well, my point is that if Denon can justify asking £2225 for what is to all intents and purposes a tarted-up Stanton, and feel that there is a market for it, then why wouldn't there be a market for a £3k SL-1200/1210, which has had £2.5k of modifications done to it?

Furthermore, I strongly suspect when I audition the DP-A100, and compare it to my modified SL-1210, that results will confirm it is sonically inferior, simply because the bearing, mat, tonearm and PSU is inferior to what is used on my own (only moderately more expensive) modified T/T.

Therefore, what would people rather do when they want to buy a quality direct-drive turntable? Spend £2225 on the Denon (basically a tarted-up Stanton with a cheap tonearm) or £3k on a (very likely VASTLY sonically superior) modified SL-1200/1210? I trust you can see my point!!

The ridiculously overpriced Denon is simply another product on the market designed to fleece the unknowing of their hard-earned cash. No doubt Dave Cawley will be stocking them soon, fitting an SME V, OC-9, Oyaide mat/platter and one of his power supplies to it, and promoting it as a 'world beater'! Oh dear, I seem to have pre-empted that one......... :eyebrows:


These tweaks do not need to cost a small fortune (and in fact I have seen and heard tweaked models of this turntable that perform beyond their original design specifications whilst still not in the league of models such as the SP-10MK2 for example, but at a very cost affordable level).


My experience now (and I'll be outlining this when I eventually get round to writing part 2 of the report on my visit to Martin's place) is that an SL-1200/1210 fitted with a Paul Hynes SR5-21 PSU, Isonoe feet, Sound Hi-fi mat and Mike New platter, and whatever arm and cartridge combination you care to choose, is sonically superior to ANY SP10 I've heard so far, and trust me, I've heard a few good ones!

The sonic effect of Mike New's platter in particular (used in conjunction with the SR5-21 PSU) is uniquely fundamental and, IMO, moves the audio performance of the SL-1200/1210 into an entirely new domain. I will, however, elucidate further on this in due course.


One may feel that handing over unnecessarily large sums of money for these modifications is providing the ultimate vinyl listening experience (to the one handing over these sums and of course that is your perogative)...


What do you mean by "unnecessarily large sums of money" - how do you quantify that?

How can you quantify how much it costs, for example, for Mike New to buy in the billets of solid brass with which he makes his bearings from, or the many man hours it takes to machine them into a fully-functioning high-quality bearing, or the 100s of of hours of time he's spent doing the technical calculations for it all???


...but is it not just possible that, more likely, the feelgood factor is providing a larger percentage of the perceived enhancement vs the percentage of measurable performance benefit?


The least said about that, the better!


Speaking of measurements, I have variously read that one purveyor claims to have a virtual warehouse of test and measurement equipment available to test and measure just about everything (would that include rumble I wonder?). I then read contradictatory remarks from the same purveyor when asked for example measurements that such are in effect meaningless and not necessary.


Indeed; that would Mr Dave Cawley (A.K.A 'The Naked Emperor'). He is and I quote him: "The world's leading SL-1200 expert". Surely you must have heard of the chap?

Apparently the test equipment he uses is so out of date that there's a winding mechanism on the back that operates it.


Just what are we to believe?


Our ears? I think that would be a reasonable place to start.


There are also contradictions concerning the raised lip on a certain turntable model platter. One the one hand we are told that this is bad and that only a certain platter mat wonder product will fit, work or whatever and allow the record to lay flat. Then we are told that a newly marketed platter disc is the next best thing to have on this platter.


Well, it's quite simply really... The Sound Hi-fi (or more realistically, Herbie's) mat for the SL-1200/1210 is designed to mimic the surface area of the 'raised lip' platter. Therefore, one simply places the mat onto the platter, a record on top, and Bob's yer granny!

If a Mike New platter is used instead, then one simply buys the same Herbie's mat designed for a normal (slightly bigger) 'flat' platter, and thus the same process applies as above.

Where's the problem?? :scratch:


There is no need for all this shameful behaviour as it lessens the enjoyment of those who are genuinely interested in maximising their listening experience. I suppose this happens when greed rears its ugly head.


Indeed. Greed for gold is sadly what drives people to do some very unfortunate things.... :(

Marco.

MartinT
20-10-2010, 13:09
but is it not just possible that, more likely, the feelgood factor is providing a larger percentage of the perceived enhancement vs the percentage of measurable performance benefit?

With the greatest of respect, no it isn't.

When we get together to compare mods and upgrades we are not trying to 'big up' the performances, compare their cost or anticipate what might happen. We use our ears and listen and critique what we hear. There is a great deal of concensus on what we detect and in no way are we suffering from group delusion. We have in several cases heard a reduction in quality and noted what changes we made in those cases too.

Beobloke
20-10-2010, 13:42
It's my view, based on considerable evidence, that in the 1970s when the SL-1200/1210 (or whatever model number it was referred to back then) moved from being an out-and-out hi-fi design instead to a 'DJ deck', that some corners were cut in terms of parts quality, as the manufacturer knew that, sonically, the turntable was now being used by a less discerning audience.

This is why early examples had more rigidly constructed plinths and were sold either with or without a tonearm (although the tonearm supplied was of higher quality than the one supplied now with current models), and I suspect that also applied to the quality of bearings used.


I'd much rather stay out of this thread, as I have no real interest in Technics modification despite being well aware of the changes that can be wrought by judicious tweaking.

However, Marco, I can assure you that the Mk1 SL1200 was an inferior beast to the SL1200Mk2 that we all know and love. The plinth was less solid and the arm, although most certainly passable by the standards of the day, was not up to the quality of that fitted to the current deck. Although I am someone that will defend the current arm as being not quite as bad as people seem keen to make out, I am aware of its limitations, but these certainly exceeded the performance of its predecessor fitted to the SL1100 and then SL1200.

As far as I am concerned, the only real backwards stpe Technics took in going from the Mk1 to the Mk2 was quickly discontinuing the armless variant. The SL120Mk2 was only produced for a limited time which is a great shame - I feel sure an SL120Mk5G would have a wide audience!

Mike_New
20-10-2010, 14:44
Referring to dale kid’s post concerning his thoughts on TurnTables and his subsequent cross-sectional diagram of a 331/3 (vynal) record. I would just like to make a couple of observations. As I understand it the ‘bead” on the periphery of the vynal was first introduced in order to protect the actual recorded surface from scratch’s when another record fell on top, as happens with auto players and some juke box’s which were then in vogue at the time the LP came into common usage about 1950.

I believe it was Columbia Inc in about 1947 who first released a LP format. This was then released for universal application by Peter Goldmark and William Bachman et al in about 1949. The standard that dale refers to, coming into common acceptance in about 1956 as indicated.

If you think about it, and studying the diagram supplied by dale; the record must be depressed downwards from the edged of the label area (nominally 100mm dia. ) to the edge of the record.(nominally 97mm distance) Now unfortunately this is not easy to achieve, because we are now looking at a three dimensional problem of deflection over a relatively short annular distance. Indeed I believe this is why some people who have purchased 200gm vynal, claim not to be impressed. ( it doesn’t bent as easily) This is why it is advantageous to have a mat or platter that is just less than the nominal 300mm dia. ie the 293mm shown on the specifications IEC98 (1956) This clears the thickened rib at the edge of the record and allows better contact with the platter or mat. Providing a label relieve is also advantageous as it then allows the recorded area to lie flat and in contact with the mat.

Unfortunately the standard profile format as used for many decades is not suitable for our current quality requirements, however the current producers are still glued to the old way of doing things since there are no longer any large organisation driving change in this area.

I have always been puzzled by the lip on the edge of the platter, however I do not subscribe to Dale’s claim that ‘designers new all about this and that it was included to provide the correct presentation for the LP”, I find this claim to be somewhat spurious.

The standard ribbed mat supplied is exactly 291mm in diameter, which causes it to sit on the very edge of the lip whose inner diameter is 288mm. The center of the mat has a very well defined recess to accommodate the label thickness. I still use one on my own SL1200 with a TTweights copper mat!!!

I have with some diligence studied the Techie platter and conclude that the lip may have been included to allow for production engineering tolerances in machining the platter..
In any lathe machining exercise allowance must be made for facing across the axis of the lathe in terms of the accuracy of trigonometric alignment, especially when traversing across 300mm. (something poor old Dave may have found out the hard way!!!) The lip is less than 0.2mm in depth as measured on two of my platters.

As for the mat, I have placed one on my grade “A” surface plate and could not find any deviation from level. In fact it is an excellent piece of moulding.

In conclusion and with humble reference to other comments, it would seem that dale would like to assume the mantle of an informed person however he never seems to be able to pro-actively contribute to a technical discussion..

For his own enlightenment, I have also worked with direct drive motors when working with Crossfield Electronics on the development of ultra high resolution optical scanners. for colour separation. Which endeavors first brought me out to the colonies as a senior systems engineering consultant in the early 60s.

dale kid
20-10-2010, 15:07
Gentlemen, I have no agenda or desire to assume any "mantle" and it is only due to my past life work experiences that I allow myself to stupidly respond on a subject close to my heart and pass an opinion. More fool me.

I also respect that everyone is entitled to follow their own choice of upgrade path and do hope that people will ignore this old fool and continue to enjoy their chosen path.

Now that you mention it I do agree my postings appear to have been travelling along a single minded path as regards certain modifications although I must state here that this was not a deliberate intention.

Tis better the technical experts are allowed their head so I shall now bow out of all future forum comment and return to my contemplations.

May you all enjoy peace and happiness and always remember it is the spirit of the music that matters more than the method, Dale

Marco
20-10-2010, 17:10
Hi Adam,


However, Marco, I can assure you that the Mk1 SL1200 was an inferior beast to the SL1200Mk2 that we all know and love. The plinth was less solid and the arm, although most certainly passable by the standards of the day, was not up to the quality of that fitted to the current deck. Although I am someone that will defend the current arm as being not quite as bad as people seem keen to make out, I am aware of its limitations, but these certainly exceeded the performance of its predecessor fitted to the SL1100 and then SL1200.

As far as I am concerned, the only real backwards stpe Technics took in going from the Mk1 to the Mk2 was quickly discontinuing the armless variant. The SL120Mk2 was only produced for a limited time which is a great shame - I feel sure an SL120Mk5G would have a wide audience!

Indeed, and that's fair enough. Let me rephrase it then and use the SL120Mk2 as the example....... Did the SL120Mk2 have a better quality, more solid plinth than a current SL-1200, and perhaps even a superior platter?

From the pictures I've seen of one (admittedly I haven't seen an example of one 'in the flesh'), it certainly looks that way to me.

And if that's the case, could the bearing used and other components also not be of superior quality?

This is what I meant when I said that the Techie, when it once an out-and-out hi-fi turntable (before it became a 'DJ deck' with a tonearm fitted), was overall built to a higher standard than the SL-1200/1210 produced today is in stock form :)

Marco.

DSJR
20-10-2010, 17:36
Bottom line - the standard current SL12** is a great and very well engineered deck as-is and the engineering in this standard article inspires great confidence in use and legendary reliability I think.

For around a hundred quid in UK terms, some better feet and a Herbies mat specified for the platter can take the deck up several notches, any variance in record thickness/taper across the "playing" surface being accommodated by the soft composition of the mat-base.

Now is where the vfm argument starts and is possibly where Dale would leave off.....

For a few hundred quid more, and only really necessary with mm style cartridges(?), one can obtain an external supply and if necessary, the regulator mod which Timestep suggest, which apparently cleans up the motor behaviour.

The huge jump is in the bearing and platter replacement, both of which will change the dynamics of the motor servo system. Trusted ears say it's much better, but those who wished to do their own version now say it isn't and all that's needed is a lubricant-captive and only slightly beefed up version of the original bearing, which itself has a ring inside from memory which should hold viscous oil (the opening is a remnant from the auto days I believe.

The plinth idea should remove the linkup with the 12** for good, as apart from the rotor and fixed coils, you will now have a totally different turntable using only a few parts from the original.

Hope I'm there with this.

DSJR
20-10-2010, 17:39
Hi Adam,



Indeed, and that's fair enough. Let me rephrase it then and use the SL120Mk2 as the example....... Did the SL120Mk2 have a better quality, more solid plinth than a current SL-1200, and perhaps even a superior platter?

From the pictures I've seen of one (admittedly I haven't seen an example of one 'in the flesh'), it certainly looks that way to me.

And if that's the case, could the bearing used and other components also not be of superior quality?

This is what I meant when I said that the Techie, when it once an out-and-out hi-fi turntable (before it became a 'DJ deck' with a tonearm fitted), was overall built to a higher standard than the SL-1200/1210 produced today is in stock form :)

Marco.

From experiences recently gained, I should say that the SL120 mk1 could easily be improved by removing the lid when playing, the mat upgrade and definitely replacing the useless feet. The mk1 version of the 110 and 120 had totally enclosed motors which could be removed as an assembly. The electronics were external to the motor unit as in current models.

colinB
20-10-2010, 17:54
As well as a captive bath bearing, Time step also recommend a new aluminium platter made by Oyaide.

leo
20-10-2010, 18:39
Hi Leo. Do you think the transformer you used would be suffice for the SR5 regulator ( i bought one for the PSU project but got a bit distracted by other toys) ?

The one I used is way overkill tbh so if yours is the same it'll be fine. I think the PSU I knocked up is closer to the SR5 than SR3, the regulator module uses the larger output mosfet for driving heavier loads too

YNWaN
20-10-2010, 18:43
rather than the standard open bearing where the oil can be both "flung" out and simply "dribble" away

I thought the above from the OP was rather amusing - the rotational speed of a TT bearing shaft is nothing like fast enough to achieve any kind of oil flinging :).

Dave Hewitt
20-10-2010, 18:51
Hi.
I hope we have not lost the contributions that Dale could bring to this forum.As they say you cant buy experience.
Dave.

Clive
20-10-2010, 18:52
Rotating at consideably less than once per second is so violent! How about those poor air molecules with your air bearing? They must be flattened, could be a risk of spitting an atom.

pure sound
20-10-2010, 19:18
I put a straight edge across an original SP10 mat today. That isn't dished either.

Marco
20-10-2010, 19:49
From experiences recently gained, I should say that the SL120 mk1 could easily be improved by removing the lid when playing, the mat upgrade and definitely replacing the useless feet. The mk1 version of the 110 and 120 had totally enclosed motors which could be removed as an assembly. The electronics were external to the motor unit as in current models.

Hi Dave,

Thanks for that, but it still doesn't answer my question!

Marco.

DSJR
20-10-2010, 20:55
Hi Dave,

Thanks for that, but it still doesn't answer my question!

Marco.

By the late seventies, I believe that Technics had all but disappeared from many HiFi shops until the early eighties amps re-invigorated the brand. I'm afraid I lost touch with the turntables apart from the occasional cartridge change on some of the older ones and then the KK review of the mk2 Gold one in HFN in the late nineties.. So no, i can't anser your question.

Marco
20-10-2010, 20:58
No worries - perhaps Adam can because I think it's relevant in terms of the point I made earlier :)

Marco.

Virak
20-10-2010, 21:27
Did the SL120Mk2 have a better quality, more solid plinth than a current SL-1200, and perhaps even a superior platter?

From the pictures I've seen of one (admittedly I haven't seen an example of one 'in the flesh'), it certainly looks that way to me.

I've got an SL-120Mk2 complete with the user manual, as well as several SL-1200Mk2's, and the SL-120Mk2 is nothing more than an armless SL-1200Mk2 from the same period.
The only difference is a grounding point (like on the SP-25), and a topmounted armboard. The SL-120Mk2's came stock with SME armboards (and the manual's example pictures are with SME's).

The plinths on early SL-120Mk2/SL1200Mk2's have no hidden layer of TNRC (pocan?) in the base, just solid rubber. The hole in the base under the arm is also larger than on newer models.

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/714/tomerik0246et.th.jpg (http://img261.imageshack.us/i/tomerik0246et.jpg/) http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/9049/tomerik0133vo.th.jpg http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/5539/sl120mk21fullwp9.th.jpg (http://img264.imageshack.us/i/sl120mk21fullwp9.jpg/) http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/2551/tomerik0237zx.th.jpg (http://img261.imageshack.us/i/tomerik0237zx.jpg/)

Marco
20-10-2010, 21:36
Hi Tom,

Thanks for that :)

The platter of the SL-120, though, looks quite different to me in pictures than the SL-1200.

It looks 'thicker' and more 'raised up' than the flatter, thinner, one of the SL-1200.... :scratch:

Marco.

Virak
20-10-2010, 21:58
Hi Tom,

Thanks for that :)

The platter of the SL-120, though, looks quite different to me in pictures than the SL-1200.

It looks 'thicker' and more 'raised up' than the flatter, thinner, one of the SL-1200.... :scratch:

Marco.

The platter is 100% identical on the SL-120Mk2 and SL-1200Mk2. Must be an optical illusion :) I've added a couple of pics from the side.

Marco
20-10-2010, 22:03
I've added a couple of pics from the side.

Cheers! Cool... There's definitely another vintage Technics T/T I've seen though that has a different, thicker and 'raised' platter on it than the SL-1200 (looks a bit like the Mike New platter), and it has a 'wooden' section near where the tonearm is, too.

I think I remember Andre saying it was the only Techie he rates. I'll see if I can find some pics of what I'm referring to :)

Marco.

MartinT
20-10-2010, 22:15
Technics SL-110 or 1100 series?

http://referenceaudio.co.nz/specials/analogue/technics_tt_sl110_l.jpg

Marco
20-10-2010, 22:21
That's the very boy, Martin! :)

It is indeed the SL-110 (I was getting mixed up between the 110 and 120):

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/7602/sl120.jpg (http://img27.imageshack.us/i/sl120.jpg/)

Now *that*, to me, looks like an altogether superior quality T/T than a stock SL-1200 (it has what looks like a much better platter, for starters), and was produced in the days before the 'SL Series' were sold by Technics as 'DJ decks', which in a round about way is what I was trying to explain earlier to Adam....

I bet the bearing in that one is better, too. It's even got a Bruil record weight on it! ;)

I wonder if that platter would fit on an SL-1200/1210.....................?

Marco.

DSJR
21-10-2010, 08:10
Having owned the SL110, I can assure you that the style is way better than the substance *in stock form.*

The SL110 rings like a bell and one can play tunes through the speakers on the top plate, so bad is the feedback into the stylus assembly and useless the good looking feet - same as the SL120 mk1. Easy for a fruitbox to outperform it at the time.

Now, having said that, I can't wait to get my paws on hifi dave's SL110 and spin it up with some modern thinking on mats and isolation.

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q8/DSJR_photos/DSCF0566-1.jpg

I suspect some rubberised filling inside the capacious internal voids would be a huge help too. It's a wonderful looking deck. A shame it didn't sound the business at the time it was a current model.

Marco
21-10-2010, 08:14
Hi Dave,

Fair enough, mate. I bow to your experience on this one, as I haven't seen an SL-110 in the flesh, let alone heard one. Shame, as like you say, it does look the biz! :)

I guess what it does prove though is that those who judge equipment mostly on looks are likely often to make some bad mistakes... :rolleyes:

I do wish though that Technics had used that thicker platter as the defacto standard for the SL-1200 series, instead of the thin flat one which was chosen, and kept the nice wood finsh around the tonearm area.

Given what you've said about the SL-110, I'm sure that in terms of their platter's respective negative sonic properties, in terms of resonance, there wouldn't have been a hill of beans in it, but the thicker one looks way sexier!

Marco.

DSJR
21-10-2010, 08:36
It was the plinth and feet that were the main problem area, the platter not as bad as one would think as the motor was self contained with the platter sitting on top of it - two piece platters seem to cancel self-resonances better I've found. If you look, the mat has nasty little raised rings on, which wouldn't have ternimated the record as well I reckon.

I like the idea of the deck sitting in a sand-box or similar, the "sand" wraping round the base and mass-loading the whole assembly. The platter isn't that heavy as I remember and offers a flat surface on top (no lip), but a decent mat would terminate it well I reckon. As per the SL150 that Alex now has, this deck would have kept perfect speed and all the strobe does (push the little silver button to illuminate it in orange/red) is show how the mains frequency varies.

Beobloke
21-10-2010, 09:37
Marco,

Sorry for the slow response but, yes, as has been said, the SL120 was just an SL1200Mk1 without the arm, and the SL120Mk2 was just an SL1200Mk2 (the same that you can still buy today) without the arm.

The SL110 (or SL1100 with arm, which was the same as the arm used on the MK1 SL1200) was an earlier variant with a different motor which has less torque than that of the 1200 and a horribly resonant plinth. As has been said, though, it is still capable of perfectly satisfactory results and I have one myself, complete with SME 3009II and Shure M75ED that I absolutely love purely for it's retro-ness. It sounds very sweet, if a bit vague at times but it's delightfully musical and I have no intention of doing anything to it - I like it just as it is!

Regarding the lip on the edge of the LP, I once heard that this was something else that stemmed from the autochanger era so that when the arm landed, the slope resulting from the lip would ensure that it slid inwards rather than falling off the edge - something which anyone who's ever serviced an old autochanger will undoubtedly have experienced during the final setup process!

DSJR
21-10-2010, 13:32
:cool: :lol: :D

:gig:

finchlean
24-01-2011, 13:07
<snip>I have also worked with direct drive motors when working with Crossfield Electronics on the development of ultra high resolution optical scanners. for colour separation. Which endeavors first brought me out to the colonies as a senior systems engineering consultant in the early 60s.

Me too - started at Hemel Hempstead in 1984 left in 1996! Jim Salmon was the big fish back then.

Great place to work, first in Lasergravure later on Studio 9500, those were the days :)

Finchlean

Mike_New
24-01-2011, 21:48
Yes they were, I travelled all over the world for them, and finished up here in OZ.

My days at JFC started in the early 60s with valves, (they were in Elthorne Road then) on a super machine called the Scanatron, which pioneered colour correction in the printing industry before the take-up of transistors and the developement of the drum scanners. I then moved into the cutting edge side of computerised typesetting, using compaction coded digitised fonts.