Hi Dale,
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.
Aside from Dave Cawley, which other 'purveyor' do you feel should hang their head in shame, and why?
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.
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.
I am experienced enough now to know when an improvement made to my turntable is real or not.
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.
I completely agree with the bit in bold, although you won't see any of that on AoS.
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.
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.
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:
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
*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:
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).
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!
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.
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)...
What do you mean by "unnecessarily large sums of money" - how do you quantify that?
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???
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?
The least said about that, the better!
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.
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?
Apparently the test equipment he uses is so out of date that there's a winding mechanism on the back that operates it.
Quote:
Just what are we to believe?
Our ears? I think that would be a reasonable place to start.
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.
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!
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:
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.
Indeed. Greed for gold is sadly what drives people to do some very unfortunate things.... :(
Marco.
