Supporting the SL-1210

this is certainly an interesting thread, it would seem as marco (sorta) says their are a lot of variables and different methods for suporting a techie with a veriety of different result..
im slightly worried i have to say, since my techie was sounding good last time it was on a different stand in a different house!
good to see you are now having success with a weight jerry, my one is in the post to you so you can see if that is any better still

Since it may be a while before a dedicated external plinth comes along, it loks like spiking the deck (or possibly blac-tacking) to a thick slate slab may be the best way to go. Perhaps the slate could be sat on sorbothane?

If there's ever going to be a dedicated plinth as well, then we really are at the point where only the motor is original(ish). I reckon that's pushing things too far and anyone would be better off with a Hyperspace!

But, I am pretty convinced that the SL-1210 needs some isolation, but not necessarily in or attached to its own plinth and of the soft and squishy or springy variety. Dave - think of your NA record player part of the way it works is to use a mass sink for isolation (the baseboard). What I am doing with the SL-1210 is little different from that, although my oak block board is perhaps too resonant to do the same job (layers of MDF might be better). By the same token, coupling the record player to the mass sink using blu-tak or anything else would probably not work, because you'd then get the fat sluggishness that mass often brings. What I am aiming for is the mass isolation, but as disconnected from the SL-1210 as possible.

Quote:

---

Perhaps the slate could be sat on sorbothane

---

Exactly!

Dave price mentions the Audiophile Base platform in conjunction with the technics. He found a noticeable difference. Ive also read Mike New mention the centre of the deck being as important a point of support as the four corners.
Dont know if that gives you any ideas as regards a plinth:scratch:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by colinB

Dave price mentions the Audiophile Base platform in conjunction with the technics. He found a noticeable difference. Ive also read Mike New mention the centre of the deck being as important a point of support as the four corners.
Dont know if that gives you any ideas as regards a plinth:scratch:

---

I also have an Audiophile Base platform, and it has a catastrophic effect on the Technics' sound, being horribly overdamped, to my ears at least. If David Price likes that effect I'd be very interested to hear his reference system! So, a straightforward, heavy but deadish platform, is what seems to work best for me, with the Stillpoints, of course;) Hence a cheap and harmless experiment with thick MDF platforms coming up.

Mike New may well be right. The alloy chassis is not ultimately very stiff, but is rather more so once the hard plastic middle layer is screwed to it. Any unintended movement is to be avoided, of course, but that's just one element of a patently complicated equation. Using three mounting points that sit around the periphery of the platter well is as close as I can get to the centre of the deck while still keeping it level. The corners are not necessarily the best places to support the deck, since you are then supporting it by the rubber base at its most flexible points - there is fresh air underneath the chassis at the corners, if you take a look (the screw inserts for the feet are just that - metal inserts set into the rubber).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shuggie

Hi Jerry

Thank you for being curious about my own musings on this subject:)

It looks like you have the RDC cones placed against the rubber base of the Technics - is that right;

Yes

also how many did you use (eg 3 or 4)?

3 - always 3 cones - that way it is guaranteed not to wobble!

The large circle of small screws underneath the Technics provides direct access to the alloy chassis, bypassing the rubber. I removed three of these to allow the Stillpoints to contact the exposed chassis points, and I do prefer the results.

Would you try the same with the RDC cones (I realise that they'd have to point the other way)?

Yep - I'll experiment later with putting the cones under the screws.


Regards etc

---

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shuggie

I also have an Audiophile Base platform, and it has a catastrophic effect on the Technics' sound, being horribly overdamped, to my ears at least. If David Price likes that effect I'd be very interested to hear his reference system! So, a straightforward, heavy but deadish platform, is what seems to work best for me, with the Stillpoints, of course;) Hence a cheap and harmless experiment with thick MDF platforms coming up.

Mike New may well be right. The alloy chassis is not ultimately very stiff, but is rather more so once the hard plastic middle layer is screwed to it. Any unintended movement is to be avoided, of course, but that's just one element of a patently complicated equation. Using three mounting points that sit around the periphery of the platter well is as close as I can get to the centre of the deck while still keeping it level. The corners are not necessarily the best places to support the deck, since you are then supporting it by the rubber base at its most flexible points - there is fresh air underneath the chassis at the corners, if you take a look (the screw inserts for the feet are just that - metal inserts set into the rubber).

---

Could it be one reason the Bearing works so well is that it takes the strain of the deck weight while its being supported at the ,not ideal , far most points?

I think the bearing works so well for a number of reasons, one of which is that it's structurally much stronger than the standard alloy Technics bearing housing (Mike New himself has mentioned this before), so it does probably add something to the overall alloy chassis structure's integrity. It's also better because the bearing shaft is so much better supported in the lateral sense, and finally the bearing bit at the bottom is a much better, quieter design.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shuggie

If there's ever going to be a dedicated plinth as well, then we really are at the point where only the motor is original(ish). I reckon that's pushing things too far and anyone would be better off with a Hyperspace!

But, I am pretty convinced that the SL-1210 needs some isolation, but not necessarily in or attached to its own plinth and of the soft and squishy or springy variety. Dave - think of your NA record player part of the way it works is to use a mass sink for isolation (the baseboard). What I am doing with the SL-1210 is little different from that, although my oak block board is perhaps too resonant to do the same job (layers of MDF might be better). By the same token, coupling the record player to the mass sink using blu-tak or anything else would probably not work, because you'd then get the fat sluggishness that mass often brings. What I am aiming for is the mass isolation, but as disconnected from the SL-1210 as possible.


Exactly!

---

When I said Blac-Tac, I mean a very thin squidge of it at each corner and possibly one in the middle..

A friend once had an Arcam 170 transport with the matching DAC. he got two 3/4" slate slabs and used just a touch of the stuff to hold them on the rather resonant case like an Arcam sandwich, the 170's feet having been removed. I'm sure the black stuff is stickier than the blue and it certainly did the trick, as the same stuff does for the holey SME S2 headshell.

Before l bought the isonoes, l had me Techie on an Audiophile Base with Soundcare Superspikes, and after taking the former away, then adding the Isonoes, the Isonoes totally destroyed the Audiophile Base/Soundcare combo, and to my eyes looked a lot better too:):cool: