The Mike New Technics Bearing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

Thought so! It had to be, simply because David Price would've largely been behind it.

Marco.

---

Educated guess ;)


Regards Neil

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

I do agree with your sentiments, but I have little interest in "ultra expensive audio", as in my experience, it's usually "ultra expensive" for all the wrong reasons!

Marco.

---

Some is and some isn't. I've just been reading about the super expensive TechDAS turntable. However, it isn't just expense for the sake of it it's a very elaborate construction - it's interesting to read about designs that are trying to push the envelope.

Of course there are products that are largely expensive because of the company's marketing department (dozens of cable 'manufacturers' for example).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YNWaN

Some is and some isn't. I've just been reading about the super expensive TechDAS turntable. However, it isn't just expense for the sake of it it's a very elaborate construction - it's interesting to read about designs that are trying to push the envelope.

---

Sure, I get that, but I just don't see the point if its only affordable to a handful of the super-rich. What useful purpose does that serve for the majority of audio enthusiasts? Quite simply, it's elitist, and I abhor elitism in audio or in any other aspect of life.

I'm far more interested in helping folk, on a limited budget, and showing them how to obtain maximum SPPV from their systems. *That* is of real benefit for lots of genuine enthusiasts, which is why that principle is at the core of the AoS ethos. The magazines should embrace it more, too! Let's try and keep things REAL.

:exactly:

Marco.

Hi Mike,

On pfm, chris@panteg has just written the following, in reference to the original Technics bearing (and ‘aftermarket’ ones), obviously having been supplied with the information by Richard Peachey, of Vantage Audio:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chris@panteg, on pfm

One of the key aspects of the original design was to keep friction and noise as low as possible, secondly the original bearing has a brass tapered sleeve which mates with the centre boss of the platter, this interface between the bearing and platter is critical, so I'm told and one the key aspects of the SL1200mk2 performance.

At the design stage of the SL1200mk2, Matsushita himself was given the option of opting for a simpler one piece shaft for the bearing, being cheaper and easier to manufacture but degrading performance, Matsushita opted for the brass tapered sleeve.

Some of the aftermarket bearings on offer appear to have overlooked the importance of this interface, I wonder why ?

---

Would you care to answer that question and explain the valid reasons behind your own bearing design, specifically in reference to the omission of the brass tapered sleeve and your choice instead of using a one-piece shaft? Cheers! :)

Marco.

Hi Marco,
In reference to C Panteg's remarks else where:
For one who does not own one of my bearings and enjoyed the sonic improvements; but rather has constantly denied they are any good at all, I find it sadly amusing. Now after nearly 5 years he has found a reason (from others no doubt) to try to justify his observations. The mind boggles!!!!
Machining a solid shaft with a precision taper within very tight tolerances across production runs of many thousands is not easy, and is costly when rejects occur. ( I can tell you!!) Producing a separate taper piece from easy to machine soft brass is by far the more economical way to go. If they fall out of tolerance they can be binned at little cost. This is not to say the SL1200 (and other models) are cheaply produced they are not. Rather they are produced to a controlled production cost, which provides sufficient profit margins on sales, within the price range and market they were working in.
I know of a manufacturer in Canada who provides a TT with a solid carbide shaft of over 1 inch in Dia. And precision fitted to the bearing housing.
What people do not seem to grasp is the fact that the shaft can be supported by the bloody Tower-of-London (no pun intended) for all the real difference it would make. It is not the problem of the shaft moving up and down. But that it can rock/tilt backwards and forwards on the bottom support due to loose fitting of the shaft in the bearing housing. The platter is 150mm in radius; far larger than the very thin bearing shaft of the OEM unit which is about 6mm.
The slightest movement of the shaft sideways will translate to measurable vertical movement of the platter.

This is why, when I designed my Bearing, I aimed for the maximum shaft diameter, which the volumetric constraints of the motor assembly would permit.
I achieved a Bearing which is 13.5mm in diameter and with a running fit measured in microns. The closely honed bearing/shaft fit eliminates any vertical movement or vibration of the platter driven by the resonances generated by the playing of the record.
My ETP Platter further improves on this.
If you could make the bearing shaft the same diameter as the platter and about a foot long the problem would be largely reduced.

Many people in my opinion, spout a load of crap when they talk about diamond or sapphire supports in oil costing billions of dollars per litre.
You see it is far easier and much cheaper to put a lump of sapphire or whatever at the bottom of the bearing which sounds exotic, and the audio enthusiasts will buy it. It is a lot cheaper to do this than to adopt the very high precision fitting and polishing of the shaft which my toolmakers do.
It’s really the gold plated bird cage syndrome.

If Mr. Panteg would really like one of my Bearings, but cannot justify the cost, then perhaps we can persuade David or Marco to give him one.

Great answer Mike and I too learned something here!! And yes, the MN bearing is an upgrate to further improve SQ. After new year I'll get the ETP Platter also:)

Hi Mike,

Thanks for taking time to reply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike_New

In reference to C Panteg's remarks else where: For one who does not own one of my bearings and enjoyed the sonic improvements; but rather has constantly denied they are any good at all, I find it sadly amusing. Now after nearly 5 years he has found a reason (from others no doubt) to try to justify his observations. The mind boggles!!!!

---

Indeed. One can only surmise why Chris insists on spouting this kind of stuff, and always from the relative ‘safety’ of pfm, where he knows that he won’t get any flack, simply because folk there either don’t care or have sufficient knowledge of the subject to challenge his ‘observations’! :doh:

Quote:

---

Machining a solid shaft with a precision taper within very tight tolerances across production runs of many thousands is not easy, and is costly when rejects occur. ( I can tell you!!) Producing a separate taper piece from easy to machine soft brass is by far the more economical way to go. If they fall out of tolerance they can be binned at little cost. This is not to say the SL1200 (and other models) are cheaply produced they are not. Rather they are produced to a controlled production cost, which provides sufficient profit margins on sales, within the price range and market they were working in.

---

There we have the actual facts of the matter. The stock Technics bearing is absolutely fine, but it was built to a price, the same as everything else was on the T/T, and therefore has inherent design flaws, as does every other piece of audio equipment that has ever been made! That means, however, that with the appropriate skills and know-how, it can be improved.

Therefore, when those cost constraints are removed and a new bearing is designed from the ground up to address those flaws, and be mechanically superior (as is the case with yours), the results it produces are consequently superior. It’s as simple as that - and it’s about time some folk absorbed and accepted those facts, instead of spouting ill-informed nonsense, prompted by a competitor with his own commercial interests.

Quote:

---

Many people in my opinion, spout a load of crap when they talk about diamond or sapphire supports in oil costing billions of dollars per litre.
You see it is far easier and much cheaper to put a lump of sapphire or whatever at the bottom of the bearing which sounds exotic, and the audio enthusiasts will buy it. It is a lot cheaper to do this than to adopt the very high precision fitting and polishing of the shaft which my toolmakers do.
It’s really the gold plated bird cage syndrome.

---

Indeed. The problem is that none of your competitors have the engineering skills and/or tooling necessary to produce their own bespoke bearings from scratch, so it stands to reason that all they can do is ‘tart up’ the original bearing and try and sell it to folk as the *only* way of upgrading it, or that their modifications are somehow ‘more sympathetic’ to the design of the original, when the reality is that they’re simply not in a position to fundamentally improve the design of the original bearing in the way that you can.

Therefore, some folk need to wake up and smell the coffee...!

Quote:

---

If Mr. Panteg would really like one of my Bearings, but cannot justify the cost, then perhaps we can persuade David or Marco to give him one.

---

He’s most welcome to bring his T/T here and compare it with mine, where he will clearly hear what your bearing does, along with all the other modifications I’ve carried out to my T/T, but somehow I don’t think that’s going to happen anytime soon, as it’s far easier simply swallowing the words of your ‘guru’, which appease your own sensibilities, than embracing reality……….. ;)

Marco.

For once I agree with Dave Cawley, on pfm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Cawley

Is the "third party" a manufacturer of SL-1200 mods ? And or, is this just hearsay designed to discredit an Australian manufacturer ?

---

Mmm….. :whistle:

Marco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

For once I agree with Dave Cawley, on pfm:



Mmm….. :whistle:

Marco.

---

Before I joined the family of AoS I use to read and comment on Dave Cawley's Timestep forum, now defunct. On that said forum Chris P was an early and constant contributor and more or less devoted to Dave C's way with the SL12xx oft stating that he, Chris P, totally agreed and supported DC's 'HOLISTIC APPROACH' (laughable termology isn't it?) towards the modification of the SL12xx. DC loss favour with alot of people, including me for awhile, and his guru then became Richard of Vantage Audio as we are aware. Okay, a man has the right to jump ship and embrace a different religion, but me thinks dear old Chris P is, or can be, heavily swayed in his beliefs by a guru he later befriends and adopts said person's ideolgy for himself, hope he doesn't embrace HiFi Jihad towards me;):eyebrows:

I am totally aware of the 'bad blood' that existed did exist between Dave Cawley and Mike New, and others, thats for them to sort out, but I personally use both their products, Cawley's big bugger psu and Mike's bearing, PLatter Al/Cu, base plate in happy co-existent and to my satisfaction, should I be ostracised for this... I don't give a Hippo's balls, I'm only interested in what I want and what I enjoy?

Many have adopted the upgrades supported by AoS and those who have saved, scrimped towards these upgrades have invariably been happy and glad of the change.

Amen to all :)

Ron

What's the story with Chris@panteg? He contributes here dosent he? How has he pissed so many people off? :scratch: