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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by pure sound
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by colinB
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.
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 .
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuggie
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by chris@panteg
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by colinB
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:).
Sounds good. I will send you a PM.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuggie
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
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:
Hi Chris,
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.Quote:
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 !.
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.
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.Quote:
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 ?
But it would be nice if people could work together for mutual gain, rather than against each other to achieve more pain than gain............
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:Quote:
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.
Marco.
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.
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 Colin,
You wouldn’t like it up here. It’s the antithesis of London. It’s peaceful, there’s 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Hynes
Interesting points and i dont doubt your authority on the Technics.Quote:
Originally Posted by dale kid
However, would you not agree the transformer underneath the platter must have been a compromise that effects the over all sound/
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.
Hi Dale,Quote:
Originally Posted by dale kid
Do you have a reference for this information & the mechanical specification of vinyl records generally?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Hynes
Hi Dale,Quote:
Originally Posted by dale kid
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.
Dale, you are CERTAINLY not senile in any shape or form, even if you may feel that way sometimes :respect:Quote:
Originally Posted by dale kid
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.
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.
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.
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
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)
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....=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....
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! ;)Quote:
It was indeed not my intention to discredit Mike New, and I don't believe I have.
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??
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.Quote:
But simply my intention to explain the reasoning behind my preferred product line. And that I think I did, clearly and unambiguously.
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.Quote:
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.
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?Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by DSJR
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 :)Quote:
Originally Posted by colinB
Its worth trying the upgraded psu though, I know I was very pleased with the improvement :eyebrows:
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) ?
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!!!!
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
Hi Dale,
Aside from Dave Cawley, which other 'purveyor' do you feel should hang their head in shame, and why?Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
I am experienced enough now to know when an improvement made to my turntable is real or not.
I completely agree with the bit in bold, although you won't see any of that on AoS.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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 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.Quote:
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).
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.
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.Quote:
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.
*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:
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!Quote:
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).
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.
What do you mean by "unnecessarily large sums of money" - how do you quantify that?Quote:
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)...
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???
The least said about that, the better!Quote:
...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?
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?Quote:
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.
Apparently the test equipment he uses is so out of date that there's a winding mechanism on the back that operates it.
Our ears? I think that would be a reasonable place to start.Quote:
Just what are we to believe?
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!Quote:
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.
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:
Indeed. Greed for gold is sadly what drives people to do some very unfortunate things.... :(Quote:
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.
Marco.
With the greatest of respect, no it isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by dale kid
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
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!
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.
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
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?Quote:
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!
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
As well as a captive bath bearing, Time step also recommend a new aluminium platter made by Oyaide.
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 tooQuote:
Originally Posted by colinB
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 :).Quote:
rather than the standard open bearing where the oil can be both "flung" out and simply "dribble" away
Hi.
I hope we have not lost the contributions that Dale could bring to this forum.As they say you cant buy experience.
Dave.
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.
I put a straight edge across an original SP10 mat today. That isn't dished either.
Hi Dave,Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
No worries - perhaps Adam can because I think it's relevant in terms of the point I made earlier :)
Marco.