SL-1200 Platters, bearings, mats and PSU's, cartridges, arms, and more...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

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/img261/7...k0246et.th.jpg http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/9...k0133vo.th.jpg http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/5...fullwp9.th.jpg http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/2...k0237zx.th.jpg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Technics SL-110 or 1100 series?

http://referenceaudio.co.nz/specials...tt_sl110_l.jpg

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

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.

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/q...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.

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.

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.

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!