Printable View
Marco,Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
Although I am sure that Dave is more than capable of defending his opinions and will most probably do so, I have to say that the above comes across as harsh and, dare I say it, arrogant, IMHO.
You are constantly posting what a friendly place this forum is and how it encourages a 'broad church' of members and opinions - how does your statement fit into that ethos?
Having a bad day are we?
Cheers,
Nope, not at all, Dave :)
I just get a little tired of people posting stuff on forums which seem obviously based on hearsay rather than practical experience. David's remarks about the Technics appeared clearly to fall into that category. If he returns to the discussion and demonstrates differently, I will gladly retract my comments and apologise if necessary. David appeared to be on a 'piss take', as that's how his post read, so this is what set the tone of my reply.
My motto is only offer opinions on subjects you genuinely know something about (we've discussed this before if you remember), which is why you'll rarely see me involved in technical discussions about digital equipment or such of a similar nature in the D.I.Y section. I stick to what I know.
I expect others to observe the same 'protocol' :cool:
Marco.
Look, the SL1200 as we know it today is derived from a series of HIFI turntable models from the early seventies. Noone ever complained about the basic W&F or rumble qualities of these decks, merely that they were feedback prone in the early days and Technics themselves suspended them on cotton threads to test the rumble levels of the drive system.
As the seventies went on, technics developed all sorts of arrangements to improve the feedback issues - my SL150 has a plastic base with the slightly squidgey feet screwed to it, giving a form of double suspension. The interior of the deck is hollow though. The next models had a sprung sub-chassis in a tray form, the drive and arm connected to a suspended base, the feet connected to the top plate (if that makes any sense to you). By the time of the Quartz locked models with high torque (SL1400/1500/1600 mk2) they had reverted back to the solid construction as I recall, but the base and frame were further re-inforced. In the UK, at any rate, the 1200mk2 was all but ignored when it came along and I don't think many Technics hifi dealers sold them. The club circuit got hold of them and I think we owe DJ's worldwide our thanks for keeping this dear old deck going... The 1200mk2 has a thick rubbery filling inside and the electronics are now under the platter unlike mine..
I'd like to know if the mk5g that Marco has featured any real tonearm improvements. I understand the wires were upgraded and possibly the arm-pipe? maybe a cheap interim arm upgrade could be re-wiring and rubber (or similar) filling the pipe and making up a new counterweight to balance it?????
Peter, you're right. My bad. The 1200 is heavy duty. I've actually owned 2 because I was a DJ in a former life. What I meant to say is that the plastic is cheapish looking. It was quite heavy as you've reminded me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Stockwell
Even though I've gotten rid of the 1200s I still have 2 of the cheaper 1200 "knock-offs," The Gemini PT-1000s. Like the Technics, they are direct drive, with thick plastic base and a chromed tonearm.
I wonder if these mods that you all perform on the 1200s could be applied to the gemini? I was going to look for a budget belt drive system to record the remainder of my old vinyl to digital, and maybe modifying the Gemini's might be a better idea.
As you can see, I've been enlightened:)
Marco, you're a moderator, and your reaction to my post makes me wonder:scratch:Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
I wasn't "taking the piss."
I tried my best to chose my words carefully so as not to offend anyone, and was open to being enlightened. You made a lot of assumptions from my post
and reacted to those assumptions, rather than the post itself. Fact is, you were the only one who reacted so negatively to my posting.
I would surmrise that, being a moderator, that you've been dealing with several unruly people and automatically thought I was one of them simply because I had an opinion that didn't agree with yours. Or maybe just a bad day.
I bet you don't even realize that I was not the person who called the 1200 a crappy DJ turntable. Au contraire, I love and still hold a high regard for the 1200 as a DJ turntable. And the fact that with a few mods it can be made into a respectable audiophile turntable, I am enthused.
Hi David,
That was exactly it. I had you down as another Technics 'detractor'/belt-drive fanboy with a chip on his shoulder - there are plenty about. Sorry!Quote:
I would surmrise that, being a moderator, that you've been dealing with several unruly people and automatically thought I was one of them...
As I said earlier:
I of course apologise unreservedly :)Quote:
If he returns to the discussion and demonstrates differently, I will gladly retract my comments and apologise if necessary.
No hard feelings, I hope :cool:
Marco.
...and that demonstrates why this is such a great forum - Marco - good on you for "taking it on the chin" - nice to see that you're not always right ;)
No problem, dude. It's all good.:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
Sorry Marco but I'm with Dave on this one. I've re-read David's initial post, and while it may have been based on the knee-jerk reaction of surprise from discovering people dropping quite a lot of cash on a 'DJ deck' (and let's be fair, it's easy to understand why that view exists), there was nothing really controversial or offensive, and I agree that parts of your reply came across as a bit OTT.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveK
For me, David's closing line was the one which shows where his heart lies, and one which is surely worthy of a slightly less blunt response:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Codifus
Good stuff, dudes :)
Marco.
P.S Steve, we've 'kissed and made up now' (no tongues, either :eyebrows:). Have you not read the above, mate?