Technics SL1200 plinth damping

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mulane

Marco, fair enough but as I was already under the bonnet fitting my new armboard I could not help but notice the poorly fitted layers. And I love experimenting and tinkering with what I already have rather than lashing out on new stuff :). And if your Mana'd SL came within 95% of the slated SP10 then I have to wonder if an SL with an "optimised" plinth might get to 98% which would probably do me fine.

---

Hi Mulane,

Tinkering is cool, if you're so inclined. What prevents me from doing so with the 1210, in terms of the plinth, is that on the supports I use what’s being described here doesn't seem to be an issue.

Perhaps the combination of the Isonoes and 17 levels of isolation from Mana remove so much vibration from the equation that by the time whatever is left reaches the 1210 it’s as insignificant as to be almost irrelevant? I also get zero mechanical feedback from stylus to record as I can turn my preamp up to max, rap the top-plate of the deck with my knuckles, and hear zippo, nowt, niento, through the speakers.

Honestly, my deck sounds absolutely amazing as is without any ‘fancy’ plinth tweaking, and can easily compete with an SP10 in a high quality slate plinth. I’ve done the comparison, oh and that was without all the Mana supports I have at home!

Did you read my write-up of the 1210 versus a Slatedeck SP10 in Strokes of Genius? If not, you should have a read - and that was before I bought the Time Step and Jelco SA-750D!! ;)

Marco.

Yes I did read it - pretty impressive. That was before the timestep? Love to see another "shootout" now then. Any chance? Why the move to the SP10 in that case?

Marco, with all due respect, I have read most of your writings on the subject.
I have not tried your "knuckle test".
What I can say, in respect of the plain vanilla DL-103 on my stock 1200 Mk II with a Sumiko (or near as from lpgear) even with additional mass and thruno counterweight, SRM silicone mat topped with 3mm Achromat and various feet is that I have yet to hear the treble definition on symphonic works that I obtain from the same cartridge on a severely modded P2 with Michell Tecnoarm and extra mass loading.
Changing from the Denon AU300-LC SUT to the GSP Elevator Exp active stage with that cartridge on that deck removed most of the limitations in treble definition that originally led me to the DL-301.
At the time I made that upgrade, I was trialling the DL-103 on the Technics and had almost come to the conclusion that it did not work as I wished and was ready to go back to the Rega, the improvement with the Exp was sufficient to keep me listening to the 1200 for another month before returning to the P2.
Symphonic crescendos are the main shortcoming to me, since I understand you do not listen to much classical music our variance is, to me, understandable.
I have subsequently given the 1200 lengthy audition (a couple of months) with both the DL-103 and the AT-Mono 3/LP before drawing the conclusions outlined above.
I do believe that both my cartridge choices and musical preferences have a great bearing on my findings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mulane

What did you find was the best way to decouple the arm in your case then-a different type of wood in the armboard to the plinth? Would be intersted in your findings.

---

I started out with an aluminum armboard (from ebay), directly attached to the plinth the sound was totally dead. So I placed rubber grommets under the screw holes and fairly loosely secured the armboard with screws. Huge improvement, you'd have to have deaf not to hear the difference. I then made 4 wooden arm boards, 3 of these from guitar fretboard tonewood. Chestnut, Oak, 1 I can't remember and an African black hardwood, again I can't recall the name but is was VERY hard, cutting the holes was not easy.

Differences I heard were in dynamics, bass quality and treble extension. These were all best with the wooden boards, aluminum was not as good. In the end it was quite close between all the wooden boards. The rubber decoupling and relative looseness of the screws attaching the armboards was the main determining factor. It would be interesting to also try a Delrin armboard.

How this translates with a 1200 could only be ascertained by trying it.

Added comments:
The African wood was mpingo.

Also, when I went to a slate plinth I had a similar experience in that my slate armboard sucked all the life out of the music when it was tightly attached, just being slightly loose changed things dramatically. I wonder if Neal's SP10 issues could be related to this.

Hi Tony,

There’s a lot in your post that, in terms of clarification, requires breaking down into some detail.

Quote:

---

What I can say, in respect of the plain vanilla DL-103 on my stock 1200 Mk II with a Sumiko (or near as from lpgear) even with additional mass and thruno counterweight, SRM silicone mat topped with 3mm Achromat and various feet is that I have yet to hear the treble definition on symphonic works that I obtain from the same cartridge on a severely modded P2 with Michell Tecnoarm and extra mass loading.

---

First of all, what must be remembered is that any comments I’ve made about what my 1210 achieves sonically and musically is in the context of its current level of modification. I don’t have a stock 1210 (or arm), nor do I use a plain vanilla DL-103 as my main cartridge of choice, or the mat or SUT that you use. Therefore all of this, not to mention the difference in the rest of our systems, is responsible for why you’re hearing different things with your Techy than I am with mine.

Like I’ve said elsewhere, the stock tonearm, short of a complete rewire and fluid damping, is not really suitable for use with MC cartridges, so this is one of the reasons why your heavily-modded P2 and Tecnoarm are giving better results in certain areas. If you want the Techy to catch up (and overtake) in that respect you’ll need to invest in the likes of a Jelco or an SME, not to mention a KAB or Time Step PSU.

Quote:

---

Changing from the Denon AU300-LC SUT to the GSP Elevator Exp active stage with that cartridge on that deck removed most of the limitations in treble definition that originally led me to the DL-301.

---

I know the limitations of the AU300-LC only too well, as I used one for years with a bog standard 103, and it most definitely lends a 'softness' to the presentation. It’s a budget device, after all; only by upgrading to an A23, AU-S1 or an HA-500 will you truly hear the full potential of any 103. With the latter in use, the high frequency response of the 103 is much more extended, and conveyed with greater resolution and clarity.

The other thing is that the performance of the bog standard 103 is severely limited by its plastic body shell and poor quality internal wiring, which is why it performs as you’ve described even when mass-loaded, etc. The quite frankly huge difference gained by eradicating those issues, when the likes of a DL-103SA is used, only becomes obvious when you’ve heard the comparison first-hand.

Quote:

---

Symphonic crescendos are the main shortcoming to me, since I understand you do not listen to much classical music our variance is, to me, understandable.
I have subsequently given the 1200 lengthy audition (a couple of months) with both the DL-103 and the AT-Mono 3/LP before drawing the conclusions outlined above.

I do believe that both my cartridge choices and musical preferences have a great bearing on my findings.

---

I absolutely agree with your last point – that is a very significant factor.

The thing is though, and I really must stress this for anyone reading who’s considering buying a 103 and optimising its performance the way I’m on record as saying, it is definitely *not* a cartridge I would recommend for people who are predominantly into classical music and who 'get off' on such things as "symphonic crescendos" and "treble definition". That’s not what the bog standard 103 (or any 103) is about. In fact, if treble definition is a big thing then you need a cartridge with a fine-line stylus, not a spherical one such as is used on the 103.

The DL-103 is about funky bass lines, 'groove' and 'flow', syncopating foot-tapping rhythms; and a joie de vivre with beat-driven music (and jazz) that makes you want to get up and dance. It’s a cartridge which will always appeal to the heart more than the head. If you want to bask in the rendition of "symphonic crescendos", then the 103 is not for you. Your interests are better served by other cartridges on the market, namely the AT-33PTG, OC-9, or perhaps a Transfiguration or Lyra. Another viable option would be the Denon DL-S1, which I think would be an ideal choice for your needs, and right up your street.

I think, Tony, if you really want to maximise the performance of your SL-1200 with the type of music you listen to, then my advice would be to abandon the 103 and stock tonearm, and fit and SME or Jelco, along with one of the cartridges above, together with the Time Step or KAB PSU. It’s only way you’ll find what you’re looking for - or you’ll end up giving up on the SL-1200 and going back to an inferior lightweight belt-drive turntable (such as your P2 is, no matter how seriously modified) simply because you’ve taken the wrong path for the music you enjoy, and how you like it presented.

Marco.

Marco,
it may have seemed so, but it is not my intention to contradict you, rather to augment your observations with my own from a differing usage perspective.

You made reference to your "shootout" prior to fitting the Jelco 750 which was the point of my comments on the stock arm, the limitations of which I mentioned.

I am also aware of the shortcomings of the basic DL-103 that you draw attention to and also of the basic Denon SUT - my point in that reference was to draw attention to the significant improvement to be had from quality active step-up amplification, I have seen reference elsewhere to the idea that this is a cartridge that is better with active amplification than with a transformer, I cannot absolutely state that this is so, having not used a quality transformer.

I do not "get off" on symphonic crescendos, I love the body, weight, timbre and tone of the 103, its apparent power and enthusiasm - BUT - I do listen to a deal of classical music as the mood strikes and do not like to have my ears assaulted by climaxes turning to screeching caused by a lack of resolution, it rather spoils the choral finale of Beethovens 9th for example.

Classical is far from the only genre to which I listen, but is the one that gives me the best indication of tonal colour and resolution.

Most of the rest of your reply only reinforces my own conclusions as to the direction in which to take any further modification to the 1200.

As I said in opening, my intention was to augment what you have said previously, by outlining exactly the circumstances under which I was observing the things to which I have referred, particularly in the context of this thread on damping of the plinth.

Clive,
thanks for that extra info on your arm decoupling trials, sounds rather along the lines I would have expected and echoes what I found with the RB250 and the "O" ring.

Hi Tony,

Quote:

---

it may have seemed so, but it is not my intention to contradict you, rather to augment your observations with my own from a differing usage perspective.

---

No worries mate. AOS is about exchanging information and experiences, and then expressing our valid opinions based on that, not necessarily agreeing with me, so feel free to contradict at will (even though you weren't)! ;)

Quote:

---

I am also aware of the shortcomings of the basic DL-103 that you draw attention to and also of the basic Denon SUT - my point in that reference was to draw attention to the significant improvement to be had from quality active step-up amplification, I have seen reference elsewhere to the idea that this is a cartridge that is better with active amplification than with a transformer, I cannot absolutely state that this is so, having not used a quality transformer.

---

Mmmm... I would tend to dispute that, unless you're talking about Denon's own head amplifiers, such as the HA-500 that I use, which has been specifically matched for the 103. I'm not saying that there aren't any other active devices out there which suit the 103, but as yet I haven't heard any.

Experience suggests that transformers are the way to go with the 103, and here I'm talking about specifically the A23 or Denon AU-S1. Low-output MCs and SUTs must be designed in unison so that the specific transformer in question 100% matches the electrical requirements of the partnering cartridge. So far I haven't heard anything to touch the Haufe units used inside the A23, but I'm sure there's something out there that's as good if you look hard enough!

Quote:

---

I do not "get off" on symphonic crescendos, I love the body, weight, timbre and tone of the 103, its apparent power and enthusiasm - BUT - I do listen to a deal of classical music as the mood strikes and do not like to have my ears assaulted by climaxes turning to screeching caused by a lack of resolution, it rather spoils the choral finale of Beethovens 9th for example.

---

The reasons for the above occurring are mostly threefold:

1) The limitations of the stock Technics arm.

2) The resonant effect of the 103's plastic body shell and poor quality of the internal wiring.

3) Spherical tips aren't best for tracking 'difficult' passages in music, such as you describe.

This is why in order for the classical music you enjoy to be reproduced properly, you should upgrade your tonearm, change your cartridge to something along the lines of what I recommended earlier - or if you want to stick with the 103, go for a 'nuded' DL-103 Pro or a DL-103SA, both of which, stylus aside, address the issues of the bog standard 103. Furthermore, with the 103 Pro you have the added benefit of a more extended high frequency response, which would work well with the music you like.

However, that aside, the 103 is still not a cartridge that I would recommend for classical music listening. It was designed to play rock and pop music on heavyweight turntables in commercial radio stations, and that's what it does best. It just so happens that its qualities with tone and timbre also lends itself well to jazz and vocal/acoustic material. This, along with rock and pop, is the music I mostly listen to, so the 103's balance of sonic virtues suit me perfectly.

In your position though, I'd be going for a cartridge with a fine-line stylus. If you want to retain a proportion of the 103's 'magic' but obtain more delicacy and finesse at the top end (and better treble definition), then the DL-S1 is the one to go for:

http://www.audiocubes2.com/brand/Den...Cartridge.html

Use that with the AU-S1 SUT:

http://www.audiocubes2.com/brand/Den...ansformer.html

then fit, say, an SME IV and Time Step PSU, and you'll be in heaven, and probably sorted for life! :)

Quote:

---

Most of the rest of your reply only reinforces my own conclusions as to the direction in which to take any further modification to the 1200.

---

Trust me, Tony, when it comes to Denon cartridges and the 1200/1210 I know what I'm talking about ;)

Marco.

Quote:

---

Trust me, Tony, when it comes to Denon cartridges and the 1200/1210 I know what I'm talking about

---

.................................................. .................................................. ...........

Quote:

---

.......my intention was to augment what you have said previously, by outlining exactly the circumstances under which I was observing the things to which I have referred,particularly in the context of this thread on damping of the plinth.

---

Ah, I see... You just want to talk about plinth damping? In that case, I shall refer you to others here, as my expertise is not in that area (mainly because so far I have not considered it necessary to experiment there) :)

Marco.