The Mike New Technics Bearing

[Stratmangler]

Marco, I don't know why you don't just dump the old plinth altogether as I would expect that to give even greater benefit. Who is the member (awkward by design?) who did the veneered concrete plinth - he could probably make you one.

Is was Qwin.

[Stratmangler]

It really does make more sense to just trade up to a nicely fettled SP10 or something else as good.

What price are we talking Chris, and from whom?

[MikeMusic]

Thanks Marco

That is a bit substantial

[Marco]

It really does make more sense to just trade up to a nicely fettled SP10 or something else as good.

We've been here before, Chris. I guess it depends on what you mean by "nicely fettled", as every single stock SP10 (fitted to a high-quality plinth and partnered with a top-notch arm and cartridge) I've compared my modified Techy against has either sounded worse or no better than it.

Furthermore, as I've said before many times, I'm not big on using a direct-drive T/T containing 40-year old electronics.

More responses later, folks - it's lunch time!

Marco.

[YNWaN]

SP10 - eBay price depending on age and quality

[Stratmangler]

SP10 - eBay price depending on age and quality

So not exactly a ready supply then ...
The SL1210 and parts can still be easily obtained from eBay.

[Marco]

Marco,

I am just surprised that using such a light platter warrants use of a base plate. I can understand it for the heavyweight platters. When I look at the bearing mount, I don't think that it will move under the forces of a 1.4 kg platter revolving around it so for me, it's interesting to know that it makes a big difference, and not a subtle one. Having seen someone do a 360 hand-spin on a standard bearing without breaking the deck, I would hardly call it a weak point. The only issue for me is the increase of 6mm of the platter surface. That's a lot of VTA to take up, which I don't think the stock Technics base will account for.

Hi Kevin,

You're focussing on the wrong thing, mate. The efficacy of the BBP has got nothing to do with the weight of the platter; it's about addressing (and fundamentally solving) the ineffectiveness of the bearing/chassis interface, as exists as standard on an SL-1200/1210.

These are the most telling pictures of the BBP (and MN bearing) in situ, versus what exists with the stock arrangement:





Note, from the picture on the left, how effectively the bearing is being supported on the base plate, and how the whole assembly is securely coupled to the chassis.

Quite simply, without the BBP, that just doesn't happen, as the base of the bearing is left merely 'floating' on top of three threaded 'shafts' (as seen on the picture on the right). It does not/cannot couple flush to the chassis - hardly a recipe for ensuring ultimate rigidity!

Now ultimate rigidity matters, not because of the weight of the platter, but in order to ensure that the bearing itself functions optimally and reduces noise transferred onto the spindle, which is thus picked up by the stylus when a record is playing..... Essentially, it's all about coupling the bearing as rigidly as possible to the chassis - and that job is achieved much more effectively with the BBP.

Are you getting it now, daftee?

Marco.

P.S In terms of VTA adjustment, you're correct. However, with a 'low-riding' bespoke-made Speedy Steve armboard fitted, there is ample adjustment available in order to ensure that VTA is spot on (even when using a Resomat, which raises records themselves up higher). That certainly won't be the case, however, with most armboards.

[CageyH]

Marco,

I understand the whole concept of rigidity, and I understand that the BBP will help this, but you need to ensure that it is bonded squarely to the chassis. I am unsure of just how much more rigid you need the bearing. It's nicely engineered, and when supported at three points, it does not move a great deal when in normal use. if there was a bit of play evident without the BBP fitted, then sure, I understand why you would fit one. My bearing hardly moves (not evident to the human eye or to the touch), even when I apply a side load on the spindle. Sure, I could measure this with a DTI to see what extent it moves, but I think that you are worrying over nothing. I'm glad that you have perceived an improvement, but I think that a lower profile BBP should be possible without the need to raise the platter by 6mm if all you are after is a mounting flange.

I really don't see how the chassis/bearing interface flexes enough under normal use to warrant a bonded on structural upgrade - the key words being normal use. There are very minor forces acting on the bearing when playing vinyl. These forces are comfortably within the operating limits of the materials and fasteners used.

As for the armboard, I would need to talk to Speedy Steve about a version standard Technics arm, and then have the fun of stripping everything down to fit the board, and reassembling it, all for what is probably a subtle upgrade?
I'll chew it over for a while longer.

[CageyH]

Has it been fitted with Hylomar Blue?

[Marco]

Marco, I don't know why you don't just dump the old plinth altogether as I would expect that to give even greater benefit. Who is the member (awkward by design?) who did the veneered concrete plinth - he could probably make you one.

I admire what Qwin has done, and I'm sure it sounds great. However, for me, it's a 'bridge too far', particularly when I like the design principles (and sonic signature) of the stock plinth.

All I'm planning to do now is have the pitch control (and associated buttons) removed from the top-plate, and replace the top-plate itself with a black carbon-fibre one (like Floyddroid's), in order for the T/T to look 'cleaner', aesthetically.

After that it'll be FINITO! Then I'll be indulging my vintage idler T/T fetish, with the purchase of an Audio Grail, fully restored, grey hammerite Garrard 301 and/or fully Swissonor-modified Thorens TD124

Marco.