SL-1200 Platters, bearings, mats and PSU's, cartridges, arms, and more...

[colinB]

Hi Leo. Do you think the transformer you used would be suffice for the SR5 regulator ( i bought one for the PSU project but got a bit distracted by other toys) ?

[Mike_New]

Marco

On behalf of Paul and myself and referring to your most recent post concerning our beloved friend and former guru. I do not believe I could have put it more succinctly myself!!!! The King really does not have any clothes, in fact I think technically speaking, he took them all off a long time ago!!!!

[John]

Like Alex I think its sad that there been such a major falling out. I think what we have now is many different paths to how best to upgrade the 1210 and its meetings like Martin and Marco which will shed light on best pathway around the upgrades

[Marco]

Hi Dale,

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.........

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.

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???

...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!

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.

Just what are we to believe?

Our ears? I think that would be a reasonable place to start.

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??

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.

[MartinT]

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?

With the greatest of respect, no it isn't.

When we get together to compare mods and upgrades we are not trying to 'big up' the performances, compare their cost or anticipate what might happen. We use our ears and listen and critique what we hear. There is a great deal of concensus on what we detect and in no way are we suffering from group delusion. We have in several cases heard a reduction in quality and noted what changes we made in those cases too.

[Beobloke]

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.

I'd much rather stay out of this thread, as I have no real interest in Technics modification despite being well aware of the changes that can be wrought by judicious tweaking.

However, Marco, I can assure you that the Mk1 SL1200 was an inferior beast to the SL1200Mk2 that we all know and love. The plinth was less solid and the arm, although most certainly passable by the standards of the day, was not up to the quality of that fitted to the current deck. Although I am someone that will defend the current arm as being not quite as bad as people seem keen to make out, I am aware of its limitations, but these certainly exceeded the performance of its predecessor fitted to the SL1100 and then SL1200.

As far as I am concerned, the only real backwards stpe Technics took in going from the Mk1 to the Mk2 was quickly discontinuing the armless variant. The SL120Mk2 was only produced for a limited time which is a great shame - I feel sure an SL120Mk5G would have a wide audience!

[Mike_New]

Referring to dale kid’s post concerning his thoughts on TurnTables and his subsequent cross-sectional diagram of a 331/3 (vynal) record. I would just like to make a couple of observations. As I understand it the ‘bead” on the periphery of the vynal was first introduced in order to protect the actual recorded surface from scratch’s when another record fell on top, as happens with auto players and some juke box’s which were then in vogue at the time the LP came into common usage about 1950.

I believe it was Columbia Inc in about 1947 who first released a LP format. This was then released for universal application by Peter Goldmark and William Bachman et al in about 1949. The standard that dale refers to, coming into common acceptance in about 1956 as indicated.

If you think about it, and studying the diagram supplied by dale; the record must be depressed downwards from the edged of the label area (nominally 100mm dia. ) to the edge of the record.(nominally 97mm distance) Now unfortunately this is not easy to achieve, because we are now looking at a three dimensional problem of deflection over a relatively short annular distance. Indeed I believe this is why some people who have purchased 200gm vynal, claim not to be impressed. ( it doesn’t bent as easily) This is why it is advantageous to have a mat or platter that is just less than the nominal 300mm dia. ie the 293mm shown on the specifications IEC98 (1956) This clears the thickened rib at the edge of the record and allows better contact with the platter or mat. Providing a label relieve is also advantageous as it then allows the recorded area to lie flat and in contact with the mat.

Unfortunately the standard profile format as used for many decades is not suitable for our current quality requirements, however the current producers are still glued to the old way of doing things since there are no longer any large organisation driving change in this area.

I have always been puzzled by the lip on the edge of the platter, however I do not subscribe to Dale’s claim that ‘designers new all about this and that it was included to provide the correct presentation for the LP”, I find this claim to be somewhat spurious.

The standard ribbed mat supplied is exactly 291mm in diameter, which causes it to sit on the very edge of the lip whose inner diameter is 288mm. The center of the mat has a very well defined recess to accommodate the label thickness. I still use one on my own SL1200 with a TTweights copper mat!!!

I have with some diligence studied the Techie platter and conclude that the lip may have been included to allow for production engineering tolerances in machining the platter..
In any lathe machining exercise allowance must be made for facing across the axis of the lathe in terms of the accuracy of trigonometric alignment, especially when traversing across 300mm. (something poor old Dave may have found out the hard way!!!) The lip is less than 0.2mm in depth as measured on two of my platters.

As for the mat, I have placed one on my grade “A” surface plate and could not find any deviation from level. In fact it is an excellent piece of moulding.

In conclusion and with humble reference to other comments, it would seem that dale would like to assume the mantle of an informed person however he never seems to be able to pro-actively contribute to a technical discussion..

For his own enlightenment, I have also worked with direct drive motors when working with Crossfield Electronics on the development of ultra high resolution optical scanners. for colour separation. Which endeavors first brought me out to the colonies as a senior systems engineering consultant in the early 60s.

[dale kid]

Gentlemen, I have no agenda or desire to assume any "mantle" and it is only due to my past life work experiences that I allow myself to stupidly respond on a subject close to my heart and pass an opinion. More fool me.

I also respect that everyone is entitled to follow their own choice of upgrade path and do hope that people will ignore this old fool and continue to enjoy their chosen path.

Now that you mention it I do agree my postings appear to have been travelling along a single minded path as regards certain modifications although I must state here that this was not a deliberate intention.

Tis better the technical experts are allowed their head so I shall now bow out of all future forum comment and return to my contemplations.

May you all enjoy peace and happiness and always remember it is the spirit of the music that matters more than the method, Dale

[Marco]

Hi Adam,

However, Marco, I can assure you that the Mk1 SL1200 was an inferior beast to the SL1200Mk2 that we all know and love. The plinth was less solid and the arm, although most certainly passable by the standards of the day, was not up to the quality of that fitted to the current deck. Although I am someone that will defend the current arm as being not quite as bad as people seem keen to make out, I am aware of its limitations, but these certainly exceeded the performance of its predecessor fitted to the SL1100 and then SL1200.

As far as I am concerned, the only real backwards stpe Technics took in going from the Mk1 to the Mk2 was quickly discontinuing the armless variant. The SL120Mk2 was only produced for a limited time which is a great shame - I feel sure an SL120Mk5G would have a wide audience!

Indeed, and that's fair enough. Let me rephrase it then and use the SL120Mk2 as the example....... Did the SL120Mk2 have a better quality, more solid plinth than a current SL-1200, and perhaps even a superior platter?

From the pictures I've seen of one (admittedly I haven't seen an example of one 'in the flesh'), it certainly looks that way to me.

And if that's the case, could the bearing used and other components also not be of superior quality?

This is what I meant when I said that the Techie, when it once an out-and-out hi-fi turntable (before it became a 'DJ deck' with a tonearm fitted), was overall built to a higher standard than the SL-1200/1210 produced today is in stock form

Marco.

[DSJR]

Bottom line - the standard current SL12** is a great and very well engineered deck as-is and the engineering in this standard article inspires great confidence in use and legendary reliability I think.

For around a hundred quid in UK terms, some better feet and a Herbies mat specified for the platter can take the deck up several notches, any variance in record thickness/taper across the "playing" surface being accommodated by the soft composition of the mat-base.

Now is where the vfm argument starts and is possibly where Dale would leave off.....

For a few hundred quid more, and only really necessary with mm style cartridges(?), one can obtain an external supply and if necessary, the regulator mod which Timestep suggest, which apparently cleans up the motor behaviour.

The huge jump is in the bearing and platter replacement, both of which will change the dynamics of the motor servo system. Trusted ears say it's much better, but those who wished to do their own version now say it isn't and all that's needed is a lubricant-captive and only slightly beefed up version of the original bearing, which itself has a ring inside from memory which should hold viscous oil (the opening is a remnant from the auto days I believe.

The plinth idea should remove the linkup with the 12** for good, as apart from the rotor and fixed coils, you will now have a totally different turntable using only a few parts from the original.

Hope I'm there with this.