Ferrari: I feel like "time, expense and grief" are probably some things I'm avoiding by staying with this "aging design". But I'd switch anyway if I wasn't happy with the sound.
Review: Technics SL-1200Mk2 Turntable
Category: Analog
If you’re reading this, you’re likely wondering one of two things. Why would a lowly DJ deck be evaluated alongside “serious” analog gear? Or, number two: Is the recent positive buzz on Audiogon and the web about this venerable disk spinner merited?
The first question is easiest to answer. That’s because the Technics SL-1200Mk2 wasn’t originally intended as a DJ machine. It was unveiled in 1972, years before the arrival of hip-hop and disco. At that time, the Sugarhill Gang was still in junior high and Ian Schrager was selling steaks on Long Island. No, the original Wheel of Steel was billed as a premium turntable for home use that combined the performance of Technics’ pioneering (armless) SP-10 broadcast ‘table with the convenience of an integrated tonearm.
The second question – whether the SL-1200Mk2 deserves to stand alongside the likes of Rega, Pro-Ject, Music Hall and other ‘audiophile’ designs – is a bit trickier. But I’ll do my best.
WHERE’S THE BELT?
True…the SL-1200Mk2 is a direct drive design. For many people, that means it can’t possibly be any good. And those people would have a point. Most Japanese mass-market direct drive ‘tables were pretty lousy. But for the most part, the direct vs. belt drive argument is tiresome, mainly because there are good and bad examples of both designs. Technics, Kenwood and Denon produced a number of prized direct drive units that command respect to this day. Denon in particular continues to build highly competitive direct drive ‘tables – beautiful, gorgeous-sounding machines like the new DP-500M.
Also true is that direct drive ‘tables can sound a bit bright compared with belt drive models. Those who care to analyze the phenomenon attribute this to the fact that, in the case of Quartz-controlled models like the SL-1200Mk2, the circuit is constantly hunting for the perfect speed without success. The resulting jerky micro-variations in speed impart an edgy character to the sound. Then there are the motor vibrations that are inevitably transmitted through the spindle and to the platter.
Of course, belt drive on a budget has drawbacks of its own. Speed variations are sloooower, but manifest themselves as audible and annoying warbles in pitch. Also, critics claim certain ‘tables (Regas in particular) tend to run about 1% fast – enough to audibly alter timbre, if not pitch. And don’t forget, belts transmit variation too. There’s really no way to completely decouple a motor from the plinth and platter (unless you use an air drive or something) though clever design – as on the Music Hall MMF-7 – can help minimize any undesirable effects.
I suppose turntables are like cars: some people love rear wheel drive, others prefer front wheel. I wouldn’t choose a car based solely on which end the tranny is connected to. Likewise, I wouldn’t discount a turntable based on how it gets the platter spinning. So on to the next issue…
QUALITY
The Technics SL-1200Mk2 is built like a bank vault, weighing in at over 26 pounds. Heavy gear isn’t necessarily better sounding, and lightweight gear isn’t necessarily garbage. One thing’s for sure: the SL-1200Mk2 is the only $550 turntable on the market today that stands a chance of being handed down to my grandchildren. Mine may even outlast the format entirely. This is an heirloom product, the only one in its class as far as I’m concerned. Parts are widely available and affordable, so the SL-1200Mk2 could well be a lifetime investment.
The reason Technics can afford to offer such a well-constructed piece of gear for such a reasonable tariff is simple: the tooling is paid for. Just as Rega wouldn’t likely be able to create a cost-effective tonearm in the digital age, Technics surely couldn’t design and build the SL-1200Mk2 for $550 per copy in 2004. (You’ll find a more involved thesis on this at www.kabusa.com which, though laced with salesmanship, is mostly right on the money.)
The Music Hall MMF-2.1 (which I owned) and the MMF-5 (which I auditioned) can’t hold a candle to the SL-1200Mk2 in terms of quality. Neither can the lower-end Thorens turntables: the TD170, TD 185 (which I also owned) and TD190. My beloved Rega P2 is a higher-quality unit than any of the Music Hall or Thorens models, but next to the Technics, it feels like origami. Plus, the P2 arrived with a few minor quality control gaffes (broken dustcover hinges, etc.) that I had to correct or replace. The Technics, which is mostly hand built in Japan to this day, was 100% perfect out of the box save for a tiny scuff near the pitch slider. Impressive.
OPERATION
Here’s where the Technics stands head-and-shoulders above, well, everything else. Virtually every control has a positive, very expensive feel (except the pitch slider, which feels a little ‘scratchy’ as it moves). Tap the ‘start’ button and in 0.7 seconds, the platter is up to speed. Tap it again and it stops just as quickly. Adjustable electronic braking can bring the platter to an even quicker halt if for some reason one second isn’t fast enough.
The platter weighs five pounds and is damped with hard rubber on the bottom. Whack it with a baseball bat and it still won’t ring. (The rubber record mat adds another 17 ounces.) Give the platter a spin with your hand, and it whirls like a greased roulette wheel. I wondered if it would ever stop spinning! It has great flywheel action, and judging by the smoothness of rotation, the bearing must be pretty well machined.
Want to adjust VTA on the fly? Give the VTA adjustment ring a careful turn. Above the VTA ring is a cueing lever that feels fine, except the damping isn’t nearly as creamy as on the Rega RB250. About the only problem on the tonearm end of things is the lift itself. The part that contacts the arm is coated with a sticky, rubbery material. As such, when you move the arm towards the record it moves in bumpy steps, making it difficult to cue exactly. No big deal, as this corrects itself in a few weeks as the part wears in.
Being able to switch from 33 to 45 at the touch of a button is a joy. I sold most of my 45rpm LPs because it just didn’t seem worth the bother to play them with my previous turntables. Now, no more lifting the platter to change speeds. (Also, if you use a dry brush, you can really speed up your pre-play record dusting by simply tapping the 45 button!)
Finally, my favorite feature: the pop-up cueing lamp. At the touch of a button, a tiny bulb sheathed in swanky brushed aluminum glides skyward to light the way. If you like to listen to LPs late at night with the lights dimmed and don’t feel like clamping a reading lamp to your equipment rack, you’ll surely love this bonus extra.
TONEARM
If the SL-1200Mk2 has a weak point, at first glance this would seem to be it. The Rega RB250 feels like a surgical instrument; in contrast, the Technics tonearm feels precise but a bit less elegant. I’d say that, in use, it’s on par with the mid-end Pro-Ject arms, though it looks and feels more expensive. It’s not, though: a replacement tonearm assembly for the Technics costs about $70 sans cable – a fraction of the Rega RB250’s price.
Of course, the Technics arm offers flexibility the RB250 can’t match. As previously mentioned, VTA is fully adjustable. The removable headshell, though compromising the arm’s rigidity somewhat, makes installing/swapping cartridges a snap. It’s a boon for those who own both mono and stereo cartridges. Should you ever accidentally yank too hard on a wire or snap off a clip, simply replace the entire headshell for about $30 – much cheaper and easier than having your arm professionally rewired (or having to break out the miserable soldering iron.)
Speaking of wires, the Technics tonearm cabling is pitiful. Then again, it’s pitiful on most turntables in this price range, too. I’ve never been cable-crazy, but I’d like to see something a bit more substantial. A do-it-yourselfer might want to take a crack at rewiring it; after all, if you screw it up, a new arm costs just $70.
Technics provides a blast-from-the-past, Thorens-style overhang gauge that, if it actually worked, would be a treat to use: slide it over the headshell, align the stylus with the correct point, be sure the cartridge is parallel in the headshell, and you’re done. Or so you’d think, until you double-checked the geometry with a proper two-point gauge. The Technics device placed my Shure M97xE about a half-inch from where it should have been. My advice: throw the gauge in the garbage immediately.
Origin Live offers a slick-looking conversion kit for the SL-1200Mk2 that allows you to mount a Rega arm like the RB250 (or their modified DJ version of the RB250). The collar is just £39 (plus shipping and import duty), so adding an RB250 can be accomplished for around $300 provided you get a good deal on the arm. But before you go rewiring things or swapping arms, it’s probably best to listen to the stock SL-1200Mk2 first. So here we go…
THE DOCTOR IS IN
Stethoscopes are like tennis courts…if you have one, you use it. I never thought to give my turntables the “breathe deep and cough” treatment, but now that I own a stehoscope I find it’s actually pretty useful…especially if you like to experiment with damping materials. (You know who you are.)
My Rega P2 is mostly free from motor rumble where it counts: on the platter. The plinth is also relatively quiet. I couldn’t find a flat enough place on the tonearm to give that part a listen, but I’d guess it’s fairly well damped. Obviously, you’d like to hear nothing at all when examining your patient, but I don’t think that’s possible in this price range.
Surprisingly, the Technics is also commendably quiet, especially considering the powerful drive system. Chalk it up to the expensive brushless DC motor and top-flight bearing that there’s also little audible vibration on either the platter or the deck. I’m sure the 20 pounds of chassis don’t hurt, either. (Using the ExtremePhono None Felt mat in place of the standard Technics rubber mat reduced the noise even further, but in use, I preferred the static resistance of the stock rubber mat.)
LISTENING…TO OTHER TECHNICS OWNERS
The Technics SL-1200Mk2 is the first turntable I considered after getting back into vinyl. Of course, everyone said not to do this. That’s why I ended up buying a (used) Linn Axis, a Denon DP-47F and a Music Hall MMF-2.1 before finally settling on a Rega P2. (Oh, and a used Thorens TD115 and Luxman PD284 just for fun.)
The Rega P2 is a very musical ‘table. But after moving my music room the second floor, I needed something a little more immune to footfalls and vibration because my neighbors aren’t exactly light on their feet. The only table I could think of was the SL…if it can withstand the force of 2,000 spring breakers jumping up and down in a Cancun disco, then it can surely slough off any vibrations from my heavy-footed neighbors next door.
I also know that many audiophiles are enthusiastic about this table. Europeans seem particularly keen on it, even though it costs significantly more overseas ($650-$700 is the prevailing discount price range for the U.K.). So I contacted every owner I could locate for advice. What I learned is that some people use the SL-1200Mk2 as their only table and are perfectly content; others have multiple tables (one fellow has the classic Thorens TD125 with an SME arm; another has a Pro-Ject RM9). In every case, they described the SL-1200Mk2 as a musical, un-fussy and high-quality analog playback device. Most swore they’d never part with it, regardless of how sophisticated their main ‘audiophile’ rigs become.
Then there’s resale. A 20-year old SL-1200Mk2 sells for around $300. But a two-year-old SL-1200Mk2 sells for…well, around $300. Why? Because apparently you can’t kill these things. They maintain a high level of precision for an extended service life, so it really doesn’t matter much (for DJs at least) if you buy an old one or a new one. Thus, plenty of pros are always in the market for these decks. That said, I would never buy a used SL unless I was damn sure it was never used for mixing or scratching. But should you decide to sell yours, rest assured you’ll quickly find a buyer, particularly if the headshell and dustcover are intact.
LISTENING…TO THE SL-1200Mk2 (FINALLY)
An SL-1200 owner from Europe promised I’d “damn soon overcome any perceived sound quality issues [I might have], especially with the [Shure] M97xE.” So that’s the cartridge I chose. True to his word, and despite some initial skepticism, I quickly came to appreciate my SL. (It should be noted that I had to track the Shure at a higher force on the Technics arm than I did on the Rega – 1.45g vs. 1.35g – to clear the first three bias tracks on the HiFi News Test Record.)
I hate to keep comparing the SL-1200Mk2 to the Rega P2. Ideally, live music should be my reference. But most people know what a British belt drive ‘table sounds like, though very few are likely familiar with the 1200. Besides, if you’re comparison shopping in the $500 range, the P2 is probably high on your list. So with that in mind, here we go.
First up was Peter Gabriel’s “So.” (Geffen; GHS 24088) Filled with punchy dynamic shifts and toe-tapping hooks, it’s a great piece with which to evaluate the SL-1200Mk2’s pace, rhythm, attack and timing.
Pleasant surprise #1: the SL-1200Mk2 has tremendous attack and crackerjack (though not perfect) timing. In fact, it handles dynamic contrasts with greater aplomb than the Rega or, for that matter, any ‘table I’ve ever owned including my departed Linn Axis. No wonder this deck sounds so good in clubs – if it could, it would grab you by the scruff of your neck and toss you onto the dance floor. Turns out the British aren’t the only purveyors of PRAT.
Pleasant surprise #2: the Technics SL-1200Mk2 has the quietest backgrounds I’ve ever heard on any table under $1000. I was shocked by the utter silence between notes. (Don’t sell your Lingo’d LP12…I’m talking relative quiet here.) There’s a tradeoff, though, and it’s this: typical of direct drive turntables, the SL-1200Mk2 isn’t great at minimizing the intrusiveness of imperfections. Tics, pops and scratches are definitely in the foreground at all times, a tendency exacerbated by the Shure cartridge. It’s a compromise I can easily live with. (A good low-output MC might help matters, provided you think the Technics arm is up to the job.)
Pleasant surprise #3: the Technics tonearm is far better than you’d suppose. It coaxes out a satisfying amount of detail, though the Rega RB250 ultimately squeezed more performance from the Shure cartridge. Nothing is missing, though hard-to-resolve passages can sometimes get muddy, and delicate instruments (tinkling chimes, high hats, gently shaken maracas, top-octave woodwind notes) are often relegated to the far end of the mix. However, the Technics exhibits much greater soundstage depth than my Rega P2. Another fair tradeoff.
Pleasant surprise #4: stable pitch makes a dramatic difference. Fellow audiophiles and dealers often downplay the importance of spot-on speed control in budget decks. And it’s true, there’s a lot more to vinyl playback than this. But once you hear proper decay, you wonder how you ever lived without Quartz lock. Plus, the Technics’ tenacious motor refuses to be slowed by needle drag or for that matter, decelerated by a Decca brush pressed firmly to a dusty LP. All the while, the speed remains spot-on.
Where the SL-1200Mk2 falls short is in providing that extra bit of insight you get from a good British belt drive. Mostly that’s the fault of the tonearm. This is still a high-resolution playback system, however. You give up nothing significant by going with this deck over a Rega or Music Hall – and you gain additional soundstage depth, greater attack and blacker backgrounds.
One other area of concern is that some music lacks a bit of heft and presence on the SL-1200Mk2. It’s odd, because where it counts – particularly with large scale orchestral music – the SL-1200Mk2 has plenty of punch, slam and swagger. But overall, compared with the Rega P2, there’s something missing that’s hard to define. Unless, that is, the Rega is adding something that’s not supposed to be there – maybe some extra midbass? On this point, I have to concede that I can’t come to a definitive conclusion because it’s been nearly a year since I’ve been to a live indoor classical performance.
Generally speaking, bass is not quite as deep on the SL-1200Mk2 as it is on my P2, but it’s also tighter. The midrange sounds slightly recessed to me in comparison, and really high notes suffer a bit, too. That translates to a certain lack of air and space, but for $550, you can’t have everything. Overall, the SL-1200Mk2 strikes a pleasant balance.
Across a wide spectrum of music – from Muddy Waters’ “I’m Ready” (Blue Sky; PZ34928) to a direct to disc pressing of Prokofiev’s “Romeo and Juliet” (Sheffield Lab 8) to Talking Heads’ “Stop Making Sense” (Sire; WI-25186) – the Technics did far more right than wrong. Moreover, it always felt like an active participant in the music making process. Like a good German car, it demands that you get involved without getting pushy about it. It’s not in your face, but at the same time, it won’t let you settle for background music. This deck has power that others in its price range don’t. It’s addicting.
BUYING AN SL-1200
I chose the Mk2 version over the newer Mk5 because it’s oriented more toward home use (in a black finish, which technically makes it an SL-1200Mk2PK). The Mk5 differs from the Mk2 in that it features a pitch reset button and auxiliary headshell carrier, both of which I found superfluous for my purposes. More annoyingly, the Mk5 doesn’t include hinges for the dust cover. That means you’ll need to buy a hinge kit and disassemble the turntable to mount it, because the hinges install on the inside of the cabinet.
Be careful out there…many of the low prices you see on 1200s are actually for gray market units with no warranty coverage. These units also often require adapters for use in the U.S. power outlets. That’s why it’s worth the extra $50 to buy from a reputable dealer.
I can’t think of a better source than KAB Electro Acoustics. I didn’t order from KAB, but that’s only because I found a local dealer and thus felt obligated to patronize my neighbors. Though KAB doesn’t stock the Mk2 (apparently preferring the Mk5), they will be happy to special order it for you. Judging by the company’s website and a few e-mail exchanges, Kevin at KAB is probably the most knowledgeable man in America when it comes to Technics SL setup for audiophiles. You’ll get a good price and the added assurance of a personal pre-ship quality control check free of charge. Plus, he’ll even install the dustcover hinges for you if you buy a Mk5. That alone will save you at least an hour. And the company offers a range of custom performance-enhancing accessories (including an SME-style fluid damper and an outboard power supply) that’ll have tweakers’ mouths watering.
CONCLUSION
In terms of quality, you can’t buy a better-built turntable than the SL-1200Mk2 anywhere near its $550 retail price (let alone the $500 street price). Yes, the tonearm leaves a bit to be desired, and the cabling really sucks rocks. But the 1200’s speed stability, quiet backgrounds and ease of operation more than make up for its shortcomings. Plus, this turntable is a blast to use – the most rewarding I’ve ever experienced in terms of silky-smooth operation. If Acura made a record player, this might be it.
In purely technical terms, sound reproduction is impressive at this price point – and I’ve owned or heard nearly everything you can buy for around $500. But as with all things analog, the CHARACTER of the sound must be considered. That is, after all, what makes the difference between a series of musical notes and actual music. If the Rega P2 is a warm hug from your significant other, then the SL-1200Mk2 is a firm handshake from your boss for a job well done. That’s neither a good nor a bad thing.
Minor caveats aside, I like the SL-1200Mk2 very much. Paired with the Shure M97xE or similarly warm-sounding cartridge (I hear the V15VxMR makes for a sublime synergistic match), it’s highly listenable and non-fatiguing, yet very involving. Once set up, it makes vinyl nearly as hassle free as CD. It even brings digital-like image and pitch stability to analog while preserving the magic of vinyl. And it promises rock-solid reliability for decades to come.
I still love the Rega P2…but I also love the Technics SL-1200Mk2.
Associated gear
NAD Monitor Series 3400 integrated amplifier with MM/MC phono section
NAD C521i CD player
Technics SL-1200Mk2 turntable system
Shure M97xE phono cartridge
ProAc Tablette 2000 loudspeakers
MonsterCable Z-Series 10’ speaker cable
Audioquest Diamondback interconnect
MonsterPower HTS2500 Power Center
AudioQuest MC cartridge demagnetizer
Record Doctor II record cleaning machine
Sennheiser HD580 Precision headphones
Sony ProAudio MDR-7506 studio monitor headphones
StudioTech racks
Similar products
Denon DP-47F
Dual CS-505
Linn Axis/Basik Plus
Luxman PD284
Music Hall MMF-2.1
Music Hall MMF-5
Rega P2
Thorens TD-115
Thorens TD-185
If you’re reading this, you’re likely wondering one of two things. Why would a lowly DJ deck be evaluated alongside “serious” analog gear? Or, number two: Is the recent positive buzz on Audiogon and the web about this venerable disk spinner merited?
The first question is easiest to answer. That’s because the Technics SL-1200Mk2 wasn’t originally intended as a DJ machine. It was unveiled in 1972, years before the arrival of hip-hop and disco. At that time, the Sugarhill Gang was still in junior high and Ian Schrager was selling steaks on Long Island. No, the original Wheel of Steel was billed as a premium turntable for home use that combined the performance of Technics’ pioneering (armless) SP-10 broadcast ‘table with the convenience of an integrated tonearm.
The second question – whether the SL-1200Mk2 deserves to stand alongside the likes of Rega, Pro-Ject, Music Hall and other ‘audiophile’ designs – is a bit trickier. But I’ll do my best.
WHERE’S THE BELT?
True…the SL-1200Mk2 is a direct drive design. For many people, that means it can’t possibly be any good. And those people would have a point. Most Japanese mass-market direct drive ‘tables were pretty lousy. But for the most part, the direct vs. belt drive argument is tiresome, mainly because there are good and bad examples of both designs. Technics, Kenwood and Denon produced a number of prized direct drive units that command respect to this day. Denon in particular continues to build highly competitive direct drive ‘tables – beautiful, gorgeous-sounding machines like the new DP-500M.
Also true is that direct drive ‘tables can sound a bit bright compared with belt drive models. Those who care to analyze the phenomenon attribute this to the fact that, in the case of Quartz-controlled models like the SL-1200Mk2, the circuit is constantly hunting for the perfect speed without success. The resulting jerky micro-variations in speed impart an edgy character to the sound. Then there are the motor vibrations that are inevitably transmitted through the spindle and to the platter.
Of course, belt drive on a budget has drawbacks of its own. Speed variations are sloooower, but manifest themselves as audible and annoying warbles in pitch. Also, critics claim certain ‘tables (Regas in particular) tend to run about 1% fast – enough to audibly alter timbre, if not pitch. And don’t forget, belts transmit variation too. There’s really no way to completely decouple a motor from the plinth and platter (unless you use an air drive or something) though clever design – as on the Music Hall MMF-7 – can help minimize any undesirable effects.
I suppose turntables are like cars: some people love rear wheel drive, others prefer front wheel. I wouldn’t choose a car based solely on which end the tranny is connected to. Likewise, I wouldn’t discount a turntable based on how it gets the platter spinning. So on to the next issue…
QUALITY
The Technics SL-1200Mk2 is built like a bank vault, weighing in at over 26 pounds. Heavy gear isn’t necessarily better sounding, and lightweight gear isn’t necessarily garbage. One thing’s for sure: the SL-1200Mk2 is the only $550 turntable on the market today that stands a chance of being handed down to my grandchildren. Mine may even outlast the format entirely. This is an heirloom product, the only one in its class as far as I’m concerned. Parts are widely available and affordable, so the SL-1200Mk2 could well be a lifetime investment.
The reason Technics can afford to offer such a well-constructed piece of gear for such a reasonable tariff is simple: the tooling is paid for. Just as Rega wouldn’t likely be able to create a cost-effective tonearm in the digital age, Technics surely couldn’t design and build the SL-1200Mk2 for $550 per copy in 2004. (You’ll find a more involved thesis on this at www.kabusa.com which, though laced with salesmanship, is mostly right on the money.)
The Music Hall MMF-2.1 (which I owned) and the MMF-5 (which I auditioned) can’t hold a candle to the SL-1200Mk2 in terms of quality. Neither can the lower-end Thorens turntables: the TD170, TD 185 (which I also owned) and TD190. My beloved Rega P2 is a higher-quality unit than any of the Music Hall or Thorens models, but next to the Technics, it feels like origami. Plus, the P2 arrived with a few minor quality control gaffes (broken dustcover hinges, etc.) that I had to correct or replace. The Technics, which is mostly hand built in Japan to this day, was 100% perfect out of the box save for a tiny scuff near the pitch slider. Impressive.
OPERATION
Here’s where the Technics stands head-and-shoulders above, well, everything else. Virtually every control has a positive, very expensive feel (except the pitch slider, which feels a little ‘scratchy’ as it moves). Tap the ‘start’ button and in 0.7 seconds, the platter is up to speed. Tap it again and it stops just as quickly. Adjustable electronic braking can bring the platter to an even quicker halt if for some reason one second isn’t fast enough.
The platter weighs five pounds and is damped with hard rubber on the bottom. Whack it with a baseball bat and it still won’t ring. (The rubber record mat adds another 17 ounces.) Give the platter a spin with your hand, and it whirls like a greased roulette wheel. I wondered if it would ever stop spinning! It has great flywheel action, and judging by the smoothness of rotation, the bearing must be pretty well machined.
Want to adjust VTA on the fly? Give the VTA adjustment ring a careful turn. Above the VTA ring is a cueing lever that feels fine, except the damping isn’t nearly as creamy as on the Rega RB250. About the only problem on the tonearm end of things is the lift itself. The part that contacts the arm is coated with a sticky, rubbery material. As such, when you move the arm towards the record it moves in bumpy steps, making it difficult to cue exactly. No big deal, as this corrects itself in a few weeks as the part wears in.
Being able to switch from 33 to 45 at the touch of a button is a joy. I sold most of my 45rpm LPs because it just didn’t seem worth the bother to play them with my previous turntables. Now, no more lifting the platter to change speeds. (Also, if you use a dry brush, you can really speed up your pre-play record dusting by simply tapping the 45 button!)
Finally, my favorite feature: the pop-up cueing lamp. At the touch of a button, a tiny bulb sheathed in swanky brushed aluminum glides skyward to light the way. If you like to listen to LPs late at night with the lights dimmed and don’t feel like clamping a reading lamp to your equipment rack, you’ll surely love this bonus extra.
TONEARM
If the SL-1200Mk2 has a weak point, at first glance this would seem to be it. The Rega RB250 feels like a surgical instrument; in contrast, the Technics tonearm feels precise but a bit less elegant. I’d say that, in use, it’s on par with the mid-end Pro-Ject arms, though it looks and feels more expensive. It’s not, though: a replacement tonearm assembly for the Technics costs about $70 sans cable – a fraction of the Rega RB250’s price.
Of course, the Technics arm offers flexibility the RB250 can’t match. As previously mentioned, VTA is fully adjustable. The removable headshell, though compromising the arm’s rigidity somewhat, makes installing/swapping cartridges a snap. It’s a boon for those who own both mono and stereo cartridges. Should you ever accidentally yank too hard on a wire or snap off a clip, simply replace the entire headshell for about $30 – much cheaper and easier than having your arm professionally rewired (or having to break out the miserable soldering iron.)
Speaking of wires, the Technics tonearm cabling is pitiful. Then again, it’s pitiful on most turntables in this price range, too. I’ve never been cable-crazy, but I’d like to see something a bit more substantial. A do-it-yourselfer might want to take a crack at rewiring it; after all, if you screw it up, a new arm costs just $70.
Technics provides a blast-from-the-past, Thorens-style overhang gauge that, if it actually worked, would be a treat to use: slide it over the headshell, align the stylus with the correct point, be sure the cartridge is parallel in the headshell, and you’re done. Or so you’d think, until you double-checked the geometry with a proper two-point gauge. The Technics device placed my Shure M97xE about a half-inch from where it should have been. My advice: throw the gauge in the garbage immediately.
Origin Live offers a slick-looking conversion kit for the SL-1200Mk2 that allows you to mount a Rega arm like the RB250 (or their modified DJ version of the RB250). The collar is just £39 (plus shipping and import duty), so adding an RB250 can be accomplished for around $300 provided you get a good deal on the arm. But before you go rewiring things or swapping arms, it’s probably best to listen to the stock SL-1200Mk2 first. So here we go…
THE DOCTOR IS IN
Stethoscopes are like tennis courts…if you have one, you use it. I never thought to give my turntables the “breathe deep and cough” treatment, but now that I own a stehoscope I find it’s actually pretty useful…especially if you like to experiment with damping materials. (You know who you are.)
My Rega P2 is mostly free from motor rumble where it counts: on the platter. The plinth is also relatively quiet. I couldn’t find a flat enough place on the tonearm to give that part a listen, but I’d guess it’s fairly well damped. Obviously, you’d like to hear nothing at all when examining your patient, but I don’t think that’s possible in this price range.
Surprisingly, the Technics is also commendably quiet, especially considering the powerful drive system. Chalk it up to the expensive brushless DC motor and top-flight bearing that there’s also little audible vibration on either the platter or the deck. I’m sure the 20 pounds of chassis don’t hurt, either. (Using the ExtremePhono None Felt mat in place of the standard Technics rubber mat reduced the noise even further, but in use, I preferred the static resistance of the stock rubber mat.)
LISTENING…TO OTHER TECHNICS OWNERS
The Technics SL-1200Mk2 is the first turntable I considered after getting back into vinyl. Of course, everyone said not to do this. That’s why I ended up buying a (used) Linn Axis, a Denon DP-47F and a Music Hall MMF-2.1 before finally settling on a Rega P2. (Oh, and a used Thorens TD115 and Luxman PD284 just for fun.)
The Rega P2 is a very musical ‘table. But after moving my music room the second floor, I needed something a little more immune to footfalls and vibration because my neighbors aren’t exactly light on their feet. The only table I could think of was the SL…if it can withstand the force of 2,000 spring breakers jumping up and down in a Cancun disco, then it can surely slough off any vibrations from my heavy-footed neighbors next door.
I also know that many audiophiles are enthusiastic about this table. Europeans seem particularly keen on it, even though it costs significantly more overseas ($650-$700 is the prevailing discount price range for the U.K.). So I contacted every owner I could locate for advice. What I learned is that some people use the SL-1200Mk2 as their only table and are perfectly content; others have multiple tables (one fellow has the classic Thorens TD125 with an SME arm; another has a Pro-Ject RM9). In every case, they described the SL-1200Mk2 as a musical, un-fussy and high-quality analog playback device. Most swore they’d never part with it, regardless of how sophisticated their main ‘audiophile’ rigs become.
Then there’s resale. A 20-year old SL-1200Mk2 sells for around $300. But a two-year-old SL-1200Mk2 sells for…well, around $300. Why? Because apparently you can’t kill these things. They maintain a high level of precision for an extended service life, so it really doesn’t matter much (for DJs at least) if you buy an old one or a new one. Thus, plenty of pros are always in the market for these decks. That said, I would never buy a used SL unless I was damn sure it was never used for mixing or scratching. But should you decide to sell yours, rest assured you’ll quickly find a buyer, particularly if the headshell and dustcover are intact.
LISTENING…TO THE SL-1200Mk2 (FINALLY)
An SL-1200 owner from Europe promised I’d “damn soon overcome any perceived sound quality issues [I might have], especially with the [Shure] M97xE.” So that’s the cartridge I chose. True to his word, and despite some initial skepticism, I quickly came to appreciate my SL. (It should be noted that I had to track the Shure at a higher force on the Technics arm than I did on the Rega – 1.45g vs. 1.35g – to clear the first three bias tracks on the HiFi News Test Record.)
I hate to keep comparing the SL-1200Mk2 to the Rega P2. Ideally, live music should be my reference. But most people know what a British belt drive ‘table sounds like, though very few are likely familiar with the 1200. Besides, if you’re comparison shopping in the $500 range, the P2 is probably high on your list. So with that in mind, here we go.
First up was Peter Gabriel’s “So.” (Geffen; GHS 24088) Filled with punchy dynamic shifts and toe-tapping hooks, it’s a great piece with which to evaluate the SL-1200Mk2’s pace, rhythm, attack and timing.
Pleasant surprise #1: the SL-1200Mk2 has tremendous attack and crackerjack (though not perfect) timing. In fact, it handles dynamic contrasts with greater aplomb than the Rega or, for that matter, any ‘table I’ve ever owned including my departed Linn Axis. No wonder this deck sounds so good in clubs – if it could, it would grab you by the scruff of your neck and toss you onto the dance floor. Turns out the British aren’t the only purveyors of PRAT.
Pleasant surprise #2: the Technics SL-1200Mk2 has the quietest backgrounds I’ve ever heard on any table under $1000. I was shocked by the utter silence between notes. (Don’t sell your Lingo’d LP12…I’m talking relative quiet here.) There’s a tradeoff, though, and it’s this: typical of direct drive turntables, the SL-1200Mk2 isn’t great at minimizing the intrusiveness of imperfections. Tics, pops and scratches are definitely in the foreground at all times, a tendency exacerbated by the Shure cartridge. It’s a compromise I can easily live with. (A good low-output MC might help matters, provided you think the Technics arm is up to the job.)
Pleasant surprise #3: the Technics tonearm is far better than you’d suppose. It coaxes out a satisfying amount of detail, though the Rega RB250 ultimately squeezed more performance from the Shure cartridge. Nothing is missing, though hard-to-resolve passages can sometimes get muddy, and delicate instruments (tinkling chimes, high hats, gently shaken maracas, top-octave woodwind notes) are often relegated to the far end of the mix. However, the Technics exhibits much greater soundstage depth than my Rega P2. Another fair tradeoff.
Pleasant surprise #4: stable pitch makes a dramatic difference. Fellow audiophiles and dealers often downplay the importance of spot-on speed control in budget decks. And it’s true, there’s a lot more to vinyl playback than this. But once you hear proper decay, you wonder how you ever lived without Quartz lock. Plus, the Technics’ tenacious motor refuses to be slowed by needle drag or for that matter, decelerated by a Decca brush pressed firmly to a dusty LP. All the while, the speed remains spot-on.
Where the SL-1200Mk2 falls short is in providing that extra bit of insight you get from a good British belt drive. Mostly that’s the fault of the tonearm. This is still a high-resolution playback system, however. You give up nothing significant by going with this deck over a Rega or Music Hall – and you gain additional soundstage depth, greater attack and blacker backgrounds.
One other area of concern is that some music lacks a bit of heft and presence on the SL-1200Mk2. It’s odd, because where it counts – particularly with large scale orchestral music – the SL-1200Mk2 has plenty of punch, slam and swagger. But overall, compared with the Rega P2, there’s something missing that’s hard to define. Unless, that is, the Rega is adding something that’s not supposed to be there – maybe some extra midbass? On this point, I have to concede that I can’t come to a definitive conclusion because it’s been nearly a year since I’ve been to a live indoor classical performance.
Generally speaking, bass is not quite as deep on the SL-1200Mk2 as it is on my P2, but it’s also tighter. The midrange sounds slightly recessed to me in comparison, and really high notes suffer a bit, too. That translates to a certain lack of air and space, but for $550, you can’t have everything. Overall, the SL-1200Mk2 strikes a pleasant balance.
Across a wide spectrum of music – from Muddy Waters’ “I’m Ready” (Blue Sky; PZ34928) to a direct to disc pressing of Prokofiev’s “Romeo and Juliet” (Sheffield Lab 8) to Talking Heads’ “Stop Making Sense” (Sire; WI-25186) – the Technics did far more right than wrong. Moreover, it always felt like an active participant in the music making process. Like a good German car, it demands that you get involved without getting pushy about it. It’s not in your face, but at the same time, it won’t let you settle for background music. This deck has power that others in its price range don’t. It’s addicting.
BUYING AN SL-1200
I chose the Mk2 version over the newer Mk5 because it’s oriented more toward home use (in a black finish, which technically makes it an SL-1200Mk2PK). The Mk5 differs from the Mk2 in that it features a pitch reset button and auxiliary headshell carrier, both of which I found superfluous for my purposes. More annoyingly, the Mk5 doesn’t include hinges for the dust cover. That means you’ll need to buy a hinge kit and disassemble the turntable to mount it, because the hinges install on the inside of the cabinet.
Be careful out there…many of the low prices you see on 1200s are actually for gray market units with no warranty coverage. These units also often require adapters for use in the U.S. power outlets. That’s why it’s worth the extra $50 to buy from a reputable dealer.
I can’t think of a better source than KAB Electro Acoustics. I didn’t order from KAB, but that’s only because I found a local dealer and thus felt obligated to patronize my neighbors. Though KAB doesn’t stock the Mk2 (apparently preferring the Mk5), they will be happy to special order it for you. Judging by the company’s website and a few e-mail exchanges, Kevin at KAB is probably the most knowledgeable man in America when it comes to Technics SL setup for audiophiles. You’ll get a good price and the added assurance of a personal pre-ship quality control check free of charge. Plus, he’ll even install the dustcover hinges for you if you buy a Mk5. That alone will save you at least an hour. And the company offers a range of custom performance-enhancing accessories (including an SME-style fluid damper and an outboard power supply) that’ll have tweakers’ mouths watering.
CONCLUSION
In terms of quality, you can’t buy a better-built turntable than the SL-1200Mk2 anywhere near its $550 retail price (let alone the $500 street price). Yes, the tonearm leaves a bit to be desired, and the cabling really sucks rocks. But the 1200’s speed stability, quiet backgrounds and ease of operation more than make up for its shortcomings. Plus, this turntable is a blast to use – the most rewarding I’ve ever experienced in terms of silky-smooth operation. If Acura made a record player, this might be it.
In purely technical terms, sound reproduction is impressive at this price point – and I’ve owned or heard nearly everything you can buy for around $500. But as with all things analog, the CHARACTER of the sound must be considered. That is, after all, what makes the difference between a series of musical notes and actual music. If the Rega P2 is a warm hug from your significant other, then the SL-1200Mk2 is a firm handshake from your boss for a job well done. That’s neither a good nor a bad thing.
Minor caveats aside, I like the SL-1200Mk2 very much. Paired with the Shure M97xE or similarly warm-sounding cartridge (I hear the V15VxMR makes for a sublime synergistic match), it’s highly listenable and non-fatiguing, yet very involving. Once set up, it makes vinyl nearly as hassle free as CD. It even brings digital-like image and pitch stability to analog while preserving the magic of vinyl. And it promises rock-solid reliability for decades to come.
I still love the Rega P2…but I also love the Technics SL-1200Mk2.
Associated gear
NAD Monitor Series 3400 integrated amplifier with MM/MC phono section
NAD C521i CD player
Technics SL-1200Mk2 turntable system
Shure M97xE phono cartridge
ProAc Tablette 2000 loudspeakers
MonsterCable Z-Series 10’ speaker cable
Audioquest Diamondback interconnect
MonsterPower HTS2500 Power Center
AudioQuest MC cartridge demagnetizer
Record Doctor II record cleaning machine
Sennheiser HD580 Precision headphones
Sony ProAudio MDR-7506 studio monitor headphones
StudioTech racks
Similar products
Denon DP-47F
Dual CS-505
Linn Axis/Basik Plus
Luxman PD284
Music Hall MMF-2.1
Music Hall MMF-5
Rega P2
Thorens TD-115
Thorens TD-185
Showing 23 responses by zaikesman
Dan: Alex_yakovlev's thread is one place to check for info about using a Rega 'arm on a 1200, though I'm not sure if he used the Origin Live part. I'd imagine there must opinions about this on the web from Brit DJ's though... |
I meant to post to this thread some time ago and didn't, so I'm glad it's cropped up again. A lot of what I have to say I've already said on other threads before. To briefly recap: I've owned my 1200 for close to 23 years now -- buying it as soon as I could afford to upon first using an SP at my college's radio station -- and don't have in-home experience with other audiophile-worthy tables. While the rest of my system has been replaced at least three times over since I got the SL, I continue to be satisfied using the Technics table. But I sorely lack points of reference for making any claims about where the 1200 falls within the universe of audiophile belt-drivers, either around or above its price range. All I can say is that it's durable, swell to use, its sound doesn't suck or fall short in any obvious way, and is not lacking compared with my digital separates in a system that presently would retail for over $25K* -- not top-drawer, but not chump change. I generally feel that if I did replace my 1200, I'd have to begin looking at around five times its current price, and I'm not sure that the improvement -- if it was even comprehensive -- would necessarily be commensurate. I upgraded my unit a few years back with Kevin at KAB to include both the fluid damper and the outboard power supply (as well as the 78rpm mod). Both work basically as claimed, and the p.s. in particular is now to my mind a prerequisite for using this table in an audiophile context. I was Kevin's first customer for this accessory, and commissioned him to do a customized installation that provided a method for switching between the stock, onboard p.s. and KAB's outboard one, so I could perform A/B comparison tests. As far as I know, I am still the only owner with this capability, and I can assure those interested in buying the regular mod that its effect is entirely beneficial and worthwhile if you own a high-resolution cartridge and system. The changes are fairly subtle yet all-encompassing -- if you only play Black Sabbath through Cerwin-Vegas you may not hear (or need) them, but for well-recorded, more sensitive material and better systems, the only thing that might obscure the obviousness of the improvement could be the time lag needed to perform the installation and the lack of ability to easily revert to stock operation for comparisons, so making some good before-and-after recordings might be helpful as a reference. Although I was happy with the table before the p.s. was added, I would now hesitate to call it truly high end without this mod. Not going into flowery descriptives, the outboard p.s. addresses a couple of engineering limitations of the stock table by virtue of being both a stiffer supply and removed from the plinth physically. Providing an across-the-board increase in purity/transparency/resolution, this yields a richer tonality, more detailed harmonic structure, better attack and detail of transients and eludication of decays, an extended bandwidth, wider dynamic envelope both micro and macro, smoother textures, improved clarity, more palpable imaging and deeper and more authoritative soundstaging -- all of which translate into superior musical expression. I assume an improved power supply will do many of these things with any turntable, even belt-drivers not additionally saddled with having their stock p.s. onboard the plinth. The KAB unit is not extravagant, but it's effective and I feel justifies the expense; as the de facto beta-tester, I wouldn't have purchased the mod if I hadn't been able to prove its worth for myself. Someone above raised the question of platter mats. The 1200's most inherent weakness IMO is that its cast aluminum platter cannot be made to not ring. You can only minimize it. In my tests, all lightweight mats have been shown the door, they can't damp the ring well enough to use. The stock mat on the original 1200 Mk.II is thick, heavy rubber, which is what KAB retrofits to all their 1200's, though Technics has introduced a thinner rubber mat and slipmats for verions other than the Mk.II. The heavy rubber mat does a good job of damping the platter. I prefer the sound of an equivalently-thick Sorbothane-type mat (used with a clamp), which also damps the platter well, but ultimately have combined this with one of the Technics thin rubber mats underneath, and that double-mat arrangement, with different materials doing different jobs (the rubber mat damps the platter with help from the heavy Sorbothane above, the Sorbothane mat damps the vinyl record and is isolated from the platter by the rubber mat in between), works best out of all usable options tried, although the increased thickness can make clamping dicey with 180g or heavier pressings (you can run out of spindle to grip unless the felt clamping washer is removed; KAB's screw-down clamp/spindle may eliminate this difficulty). This is an inelegant and partial solution, and I believe Kevin has investigated various approaches to modifying the platter in order to eliminate the energy store-and-release at its source, but for the time being it's the best method I've found, and might well be no worse or possibly better than a glass-plattered Rega with their felt mat or the punningly-named Ringmat. About the arm, I feel it's more medium-mass at 12g than low-mass, and have had no problems using medium-compliance MC's from AQ, Benz and van den Hul (with and without the fluid damper, which I reviewed previously), as well as higher-compliance Ortofon and Shure MM's. The bearings have been excellent, with no friction detectable, and zero play apparent until just recently, not bad for over two decades of pretty heavy useage. (The only other items now wanting replacement are the cover hinges whose springs have become a little droopy.) I'll also want to upgrade the lead-out cabling and try KAB's strobe disabler. *[I'll restate the system context as it applies to vinyl: Benz Glider M2, vdH DDT-II, and Shure V15-III carts, Camelot Lancelot phono, Levinson 380S pre, VTL MB-185 amps, Thiel CS2.2's, ExactPower and Power Wedge Ultra PLC's, vdH carbon IC's, Audience Au24 SC's, Shunyata and HT PC's, Symposium Shelf on FoculPods for TT, Salamander Synergy rack] |
"Any comments on the sound effect or enhancements of using a regulated power supply on the Technics?"Did you see my post of 3/26 above? In my experience this was a more important improvement than my playing around with various platter mat arrangements. BTW, the cast aluminum platter of a 1200 has a slight, straight 'dish' to its profile (lowest toward the center, higher toward the perimeter -- this can be seen with the mat removed by laying a straight edge across its diameter), which works out well when a clamp is used. Mats (as well as LP's) are flexible and can follow this contour, but I'd imagine that a 3/8" acrylic flat, not machined to account for this deviation, would result in a loss of solid contact with the platter away from the edge and the formation of a resonant cavity in between. |
"In my mind, the acrylic mat opens up the sound while the rubber mat closes it or restrains it"That is quite possible -- I have not found that use of a damping soft-type mat in conjunction with a clamp makes the sound 'airier', but rather better focused and more solid. The "Ringmat" is often noted for producing an 'airy' sound, and by design it leaves most of the record's underside unsupported, and therefore undamped, with a cavity in between. My own suspicion (based not on auditioning the Ringmat, which isn't suitable for use with the 1200's platter, but various solid mats with and without clamping) is that this result, while maybe pleasing to some, is spurious and caused by undamped HF resonances. To get some idea of what contributes to the sound in this situation, you could experiment with turning off the volume and listening to the unamplified acoustic response of the stylus tracing the grooves on the acrylic vs. a mat -- the less 'needle-talk' you hear throught the air, the less resonance is developing. "I possibly will try later a weight clamp, as I have not much left to clamp on..."KAB's screw-clamp may be the best thing for this problem. At any rate, I'd be wary of adding too much weight to the platter with the acrylic plus a heavy clamp, because that could change the speed-control dynamics. (My own solution employs the thin Technics rubber mat under the Spectra Dynamics soft mat, which together weigh roughly in the same vicinity as the stock Technics heavy mat, plus the lightweight Michell clamp.) "As for the ring of the platter mentionned, I just wonder if those dots (used by another member on the tone arm & that I will try...) would do the tric...?"Marigo-type dots aren't enough to perceptibly damp the platter resonance, I wouldn't bother with this. "Also, an aggressive thing to do would be to spray the inside of the platter with foam in a can"I doubt this would do much either. The underside of the platter is already encased with 1/4" heavy rubber. As an experiment I once covered about 2/3 of this surface with strips of a proven effective, adhesive-backed triple-constrained-layer damping material about 1/8" thick and quite dense, but it did so little to change the platter ring I later removed it (so it couldn't disrupt the platter's rotational balance). My observations indicate the only way to further damp the platter is to address its undamped surfaces, meaning of course the playing surface through choice of mat. In another experiment I once treated the platter's undamped outer periphery-weight/strobe-area by wrapping it in a couple layers of duct tape, which although it did slightly (very slightly) decrease the ring, couldn't work in use due to lack of clearance with the plinth around the edge (and besides looked ugly as hell ;^) If you remove the mat and platter, and lightly hold the platter flat against your abdomen, you'll find it basically doesn't ring at all anymore; effective damping of the top surface is what's needed to kill the resonance. |
"It would be nice if they made an after market solid plinth to support and house the Technic 1200/1210 turntable mechanism (with the outboard KAB power supply) and tone arm! This would really be fantastic and could be made of layers of MDF and other heavy stuff....Not sure what you mean by "get rid of all the extra plastic"? The 1200 is made almost entirely of cast aluminum, internally encased with heavy rubber -- the only plastic (other than the removable dustcover of course) is a few small trim bits and the cover for the electronics (hidden under the platter). Much better construction than any amount of MDF. |
I treated my 1200 'arm with the Music Direct tonearm wrap, a very thin, lightweight, elastic, self-adhering (without glue -- an advantage, to me) black polymer tape that's wound spiral-fashion to give complete, intimate-contact damping coverage for almost the entire length of the armtube. I've had mine on for so long now, and never attempted to take it off again for comparisons, that I can't tell you exactly how it affects the sound, but the 'arm certainly seems non-resonant with it on when tapped with a finger, and it's stayed in place beautifully and doesn't look too funky. MD seems not to show this item in their catalogs recently, but it is still available for $20 online. |
I think the power supply will be worth it to you, judging from the other tweaking you've been undertaking. However, your description of a "trembling" symptom on some notes sounds like a much grosser effect than what the PS addresses in my experience. This wasn't something I heard either before the addition of my PS, or became aware of in retrospect afterward. I suppose it's possible that the on-board transformer in your example could be a worse vibrational contaminator than the one in mine, or maybe we just have a different conception of what the word "trembling" signifies. But as I heard it, shortcomings of the stock 1200 which the outboard PS reveals and remedies aren't nearly as blatant as quavering of pitches. |
Told ya! :-) It's not just a speed-control issue: the stock onboard PS has a transformer that contributes some micro-vibration to the chassis, and installing the outboard PS removes that source of vibration. How much of the improvement is due to that, and how much to the stiffer supply itself, is something even Kevin at KAB says he can't be sure of. But you've got the nature and the degree of the improvement pretty well pegged, and I sense you agree it was worth the upgrade cost. |
"...the isonoe feet that are made specialy for your 1200 stop the vibration before they enter the structure of the table..."I'm sure the Isonoes work well at isolating the table from external vibration. But Citation16 is talking about the resonant/self-damping qualities of the table structure itself. This has to do not just with such outside inputs as the sound coming from the speakers, but also with self-generated mechanical energy resulting from the needle riding in the groove (and, to a much lesser degree, the rotating motor bearing). Since vibration is a two way street what supports the table can have some mitigating effect on the behavior caused by all these factors, however isolation feet can't compensate for resonances inherent in the table (like the platter ring). |
Citation16: I haven't pried around inside my 1200 for quite a while, but I'm trying to envision what you're talking about. I thought the inner rubber casing of the cast-aluminum chassis was adhesively bonded to it, not mechanically fastened, and the internal plastic cover just serves as an additional protection for the electronics below when the platter is removed and is not a structural element? |
Well this was a useful education, I never knew the totality of what was in there because I never took it apart this far before. The hard plastic inner piece I was absolutely unaware of, and it's probably the single most massive part of the table. I'm not exactly sure what its function is though except to add mass, it seems like the TT could work fine without it. Maybe the damping is better with this in between the cast-aluminum and the rubber encasement to form a 3-layer sandwich of different materials. It certainly affects the mass distribution as well, but from what I can tell seemingly not in a way that would equalize it. I also didn't realize that the rubber encasing you can feel from above through the chassis cutouts beneath the platter was in fact the same piece as the bottom outer casing. I'd assumed most of the rubber encasing was internal and adhesively bonded, but that's where the hard plastic lives instead. I didn't realize all those screws underneath were actually holding on a massive piece of rubber -- I thought the external rubber was kind like a coating on top of an aluminum substrate and that these screws served some other internal purpose. Live and learn. You're right, none of this is adhesively bonded together in mine either, which is an '83. However, to me the bottom line is that chassis has always seemed extremely vibrationally inert -- including compared to the platter, and that piece *is* adhesively bonded to its rubber undercasing, yet rings anyway. But you seem to feel the platter is exemplary in its damping, so we appear to have opposite opinions about what part of the TT could use some damping help the most. Your approach to treating the chassis seems reasonable, I'm just not convinced it's necessary enough for me to try something like it. On the other hand, it probably can't hurt any. |
Citation16: Are you talking about the spindle per se, or the bearing? Personally I think both are fine, but wonder how you can add damping here. About the platter, adding any kind of hard topper will be very difficult due to the slight conical concavity of the platter's surface profile. From what I understand Kevin has investigated this possibility (proposed using Delrin) and been unsuccessful, either in getting a machinist to take it on, or to take it on at a price he could market. (I think part of the problem may lie in the engineering involved in arriving at the proper contour, for which I believe Panasonic will be of no help.) I suspect the result could be worthwhile if it can ever be done but am not optimistic about it happening. |
"I am sure the threaded spindle from KAB would most likely be a major improvement as your Michell clamp. I however use a brass puck that is almost one kilo and the results are stunning in deeper bass and image and timbre."I'm reluctant to add much mass to the platter, on the theory that the speed control/motor system is optimized for the existing platter mass (and in general, I'm not of the school which seems to feel the solution to most turntable design considerations is to keep adding mass). I chose the Delrin (black) Michell because it is lightweight and non-resonant, and also properly designed to clamp in conjunction with a soft mat without causing unwanted edge lift. I've held off trying the KAB screw clamp until I can get a look at it in person, I have some design questions concerning its smaller effective clamping diameter and its clamping surface profile. |
Mr. Harrison: Since nobody that you called out -- or anyone who posted previously suggesting the Technics alignment jig may be off -- has responded, I will try. The 1200 manual specifies an effective arm length (distance from tonearm pivot point to stylus tip) of 230mm, with an overhang (minimum distance between spindle center and stylus tip -- not actually measureable by the user in this as in most turntables due to the tonearm not traveling that far inward over the spindle) of 15mm. This implies a mounting length (distance from pivot point to spindle center) of 215mm, and the offset angle (the angle formed between an imaginary line from the pivot point to the stylus tip [the effective length] and a line congruent to the cartridge's cantilever [assumed to be parallel to the cartridge body sides if you're aligning without a mirror with which to view the cantilever]) is specified at 22 degrees. |
...Continued (sorry, I hit the wrong button by mistake!) Also specified is that the tracking error will be "within" 2'32' at the outermost groove and "within" 0'32' at the innermost groove of a 12" record. According to the data on the calculated table for the SL-1200 available at vinylengine.com, the two null points (radial distances from the center spindle at which the tracking error falls to zero) of this arrangement will be located at 58.5mm and 113.5mm. (vinylengine.com also states that tracking errors aren't worrisome until they cross the 2'50' threshold.) The upshot of all this is, if these null-point calculations are correct, that it seems to imply an overhang setting when using the jig which doesn't equal the most prevalent Baerwald standard (which I believe aims to equalize tracking error at the beginning, middle and end of the grooved area) but is closer to the Stevenson standard (which according to vinylengine.com aims to minimize tracking error and the end of the grooved area, on the thoery, if I understand it correctly, that this is where overall distortion is worst). Again judging by what's written on vinylengine.com, this alignment may be similar to what Rega apparently achieves when using their cartridges on their arms with their third mounting screw employed to positively define their preferred set geometry. But the assumption of a Stevenson-like alignment seems not to agree completely with what I can measure with a (non-mirrored) protractor using a couple of different cartridges, although I don't get an exact match either with the null points listed on vinylengine.com, or with the Technics innermost and outermost groove error specifications. So maybe the jig is either off a bit or just difficult to use, and/or ditto the protractor. In any case, from what I can guesstimate, if you wanted to achieve a Baerwald alignment it looks like you'd probably have to increase the overhang by around 3mm or so, and presumably also adjust the offset angle so that the cartridge body was no longer parallel with the headshell sides. (And again it would be different for a Loefgren alignment.) However, where the mentions of 1/2" (about 13mm) worth of overhang disagreement come from I don't know, I can't see that much variation myself. (In fact, with all four of my carts there's not even near 1/2" worth of travel adjustment available in the headshell slots, either forward or backward, from the settings defined by the jig, the slots themselves being only about 7/16" in length total.) But it sure is easier just to set the cartridge parallel to the headshell and use the jig, and from what I can tell this probably won't result in an alignment that exceeds the acceptable error range anywhere on the playing surface, although the null points may be somewhat farther apart than is typical and the inner one may actually lie a bit beyond the innermost groove. Anyone else care to weigh in? |
Well with the above post causing this most excellent review thread to pop up once again, I'm prompted (after re-reading all activity) to update my findings based on further modifications since I last posted. Three more significant mods have been installed since the ones I've reported on previously (which were the KAB fluid-damper and KAB external power supply). These include the KAB strobe-defeat and KAB Cardas tonearm rewire, plus replacing the stock feet with ttweights.com's SoundPoints adjustable cone feet. Strobe-defeat: Wonderful, no downside and a total no-brainer. Comes surprisingly close to being as important as the external PS, in some similar ways, yet is much less costly. KAB's slick mod (kit or installed) permits easy electronic switching of the strobe function via the regular power on/off switch with no cosmetic changes, but I suppose the same sonic improvement might be had for free by simply disconnecting the strobelight and foregoing switchability. (To me the main benefit of switchability isn't that I ever feel the need to sometimes use the strobe to confirm speed accuracy, but that it made performing extensive before/after sonic comparisons a snap.) Either way this is an essential mod, and kudos to Kevin Barrett (his original idea, based on his research). Arm rewire: According to the conventional wisdom of the Web, one of the most-mentioned alleged strikes against the SL-1200 has to be its tonearm, and in particular its tonearm wiring. This KAB mod replaces the interior tonearm wiring with Cardas and removes the stock external cables in favor of a custom jackplate (RCA or DIN, mounted to the tonearm-side cover hinge receptacle, which remains functional). This is a more expensive and difficult mod (not available as a user-installed kit I don't believe), which of course also entails investing in your preferred set of interconnects. For me the surprise here was how small of an improvement it made (with my reference interconnects that cost the better part of what the basic TT itself does, assessed in multiple real-time trials using before/after recordings made on my Alesis MasterLink -- I'm not a believer in the validity of single-trial comparisons dependent on arual memory over a weeks-long interregnum!). I found the midrange and treble texture was slightly more refined, as were transients, and the frequency extremes a little more extended, which overall led to a sound that was a little less concentated in the midrange and therefore smoother and more open and laid-back, but the differences were incremental, with preference subject to program material, and dynamics may actually have been a touch more impactful without the extra RCA connectors in the signal path. Probably the most consistent improvement was that voices sounded a little less nasal or gruff, a bit more natural. Naturally all this will be largely dependent on what interconnects you use, but apparently the stock Technics tonearm wiring and captive output cabling aren't nearly the handicap that all the talk (or humble appearance) would lead audiophiles to believe. Worthwhile in absolute terms but not a sonic bargain, though I don't doubt the price is fair (again excluding the need for interconnects). Do if you must to satisfy yourself, but prioritize this below all the other KAB mods -- in fact, don't do it at all if you're not also getting those other more significant mods first. ttweights.com SoundPoints feet: Very expensive, but very well made and probably the only product there is for this application that combines integral fine-adjustability and locking, for perfect 4-point height adjustment without play or chatter. As these are solid coupling cones, you'll also need to invest in a suitable isolation platform to act as a vibrational sink (I use a Symposium shelf, sitting on compliant-polymer FoculPods to decouple from my rack and external impulses). Fit the turntable perfectly (M6 studs, aluminum finish), although the added height took a while to get used to visually. With the SoundPoints' built-in adjustability, you use the studs only to screw their bases tight to the 1200's underside for maximum coupling, rather than for coarse, unlocked height-adjustment as with the stock feet (or any other replacement feet of which I'm aware). If your cartridge and the rest of your system justify it, a very effective method of revealing and improving upon the nontrivial limitations of the Technics feet (again assessed using controlled before-and-after recordings). In conjunction with the isolation platform, significantly decongests the soundstage, better defines images in (and in relation to) surrounding space, purifies textures and tonalities, reveals more fine detail, adds dynamic snap, solidifies the bass and lowers the noisefloor. |
Small report: Got my first digital VTF gauge the other day, one of those newly ubiquitous Chinese jobs made of metal with a readout to three decimal places, that sell for around $80 from many sources (mine came from Acoustic Sounds under their Acoustech label). I've never fussed or worried overly about my 1200's tracking force adjustment from an 'accuracy' perspective, just trusting that the VTF as indicated by the set-ring is roughly in the correct neighborhood and making my decisions based on sound and tracking performance when playing music. But my current cart does seem to track best and sound just as good at about .15g above the upper limit of its recommended range (1.65g vs. 1.5g), so I thought maybe I oughta get real and do a precision check, just in order to know whether it's the tonearm setting or this cartridge that deviates slightly from spec (to my ears). Short story shorter, as far the 1200 goes I needn't have worried. It's probably been 2-3 months of frequent playing since I last had occasion to zero-balance the tonearm and reset the VTF, but straight off the bat with no fiddling or double-checking the digital gauge told me that I was within a couple hundredths of my intended VTF as indicated on the set-ring. So now I know that my cart really does do better a bit above its recommended downforce (and also that my eyeballing of the zero-balance is fine). From what I can tell through multiple static trials (i.e., without making any changes), up to a couple hundredths variation is the intrinsic resolution limit of this digital gauge in any case (or at least in this application), so that much deviation can't bother me. I then tried different VTF settings in .5g increments above and below the normal range, down to 0.5g and up to 2.5g (not playing records of course, just setting and measuring), and with each setting, the actual force as measured by the digital gauge matched the tonearm's adjustment reading to within the same small margin of gauge error -- in the process confirming that my shiny new toy is basically irrelevent for my purposes. So for me at least -- with good eyesight to balance the 'arm and read the set-ring (knock on wood) -- any potential issue of the 1200's inherent VTF adjustment accuracy has been laid to rest, and that spanky digital gauge will probably sit in its box on the shelf or get sold off. |
Timlub: In addition to some other mods I probably mentioned above, among the items you list I have rewired my tonearm (Cardas/KAB) and wrapped it too (Music Direct Armwrap). I also tried adding extra damping material under the platter (adhesive-backed, constrained-layer polymer/metal-foil) but eventually chose to remove it, for making no noticable difference sonically while undoubtedly unbalancing it somewhat. But maybe I should try some kind of putty there instead if you found it effective. (In the meantime I deal with the platter ring via a combination of aftermarket mats.) However, I'm curious about your statement: "Use acoustical dampening putty around the motor, leave room for ventalation". My question is, what do you mean by the word "motor" in this application? The only moving part of the turntable's drive system is the platter itself; the 1200 doesn't use a self-contained motor assembly in the usual sense (its platter *is* the rotor, that is, it's the moving half of the motor, and there is no driveshaft). I don't see the point of adding damping putty around the fixed stator elements in the chassis which drive (electromagnetically induce rotation of) the platter, assuming that's what you did. To do so would be little different from adding damping material anywhere else on the chassis, inside or out, but frankly it doesn't need it -- unlike its platter, which as you know is prone to ringing, the 1200's chassis is highly vibrationally-inert as-is. Although it presumably couldn't hurt, I'm doubtful that adding putty to it would accomplish much. (As opposed to doing what I've done: Replace the stock feet -- like the platter, another weak point of the design for audiophile purposes, but easier to improve upon -- with solid coupling cones, then place the turntable on a vibration-absorbing isolation base that's compliantly decoupled from the supporting rack by self-damping footers.) |
"we used to pull the bottom and dampen the motor also for resonance transfer to the platter"For the mechanical reasons I outlined above (i.e, the platter *is* half of the motor, the rotor portion), I feel that as a definitional matter your description doesn't make sense in the context of the 1200. (And in any event, the stator portion of the motor -- i.e., its fixed coil array -- which is mounted to the top of the cast-aluminum upper deck beneath the platter, can only be accessed from above by lifting off the platter, not from the bottom. However, there is no room around this assembly to add caulking here, not that there's any need to.) IMO what you were actually doing is adding damping material to the chassis, plain and simple, I suppose in between the hard-resin middle layer and the underside of the aluminum top-deck and/or the heavy-rubber bottom encasing, wherever there was a gap you could fill with your goop. Although like I said, this presumably couldn't hurt, I take exception with the idea that what you were doing was "damp[ing] the motor also for resonance transfer to the platter". To me that description doesn't apply to the 1200, and I find it misleading. The reason I'm making a point of saying so is that there may be those reading this thread who are unfamiliar with the 1200, and could be given a misimpression from your statements about how the turntable works and is constructed. So I'll lay it out again: Any electric motor has two halves, a stationary half and a rotating half, and in this turntable the stationary half is the chassis and the rotating half is the platter -- there is no separate, self-contained motor/housing assembly, and no driveshaft. My take is that vibration from the touchless drive system is the last thing anyone should worry about with the 1200. (Remember, since the platter/bearing is the only moving part, therefore the motor rotates at a low 33.3rpm, or about half a hertz.) However, it's true that disabling the stock power supply in favor of an outboard supply does have a beneficial effect, and part of that may certainly be due to eliminating vibration from the onboard power transformer. |
Just an added note to make clear, as with any turntable, there is still the issue of dealing with signal-correlated resonance induced at the stylus/groove interface, as well as airborne and floorborne resonance induced by the output of the loudspeakers. It is for these reasons why I find it beneficial to replace the stock feet with coupling cones in order to 'ground' the turntable to a good vibration-absorbing isolation base, that is in turn decoupled from the suporting rack (and floor). The stock feet, simply and unsurprisingly, aren't the best thing available for this job, provided you're willing to expend the resources necessary to improve upon them. |
Hi Timlub: Like I said, I pass no judgement on whether adding caulking to the chassis is beneficial in any detectable way or not, presuming that it probably couldn't hurt. And also like I said, the platter certainly could use more damping than is provided by the stock mat. Whether adding caulking to the rubber-lined underside of the platter accomplishes this, or whether it is worth potentially creating some unbalance in the platter, is something I can't comment on. My only point of disagreement was your description of exactly what you were damping (the motor) and what it was accomplishing (the damping of resonance transfer from the motor to the platter). As I explained above, I feel this description is fundamentally not applicable or correct, in theory and in practice. I did question whether the chassis of the 1200 actually 'needs' added damping (unlike the platter, which definitely does). But adding damping is adding damping, and doing so will probably make some response change in any turntable. In any case, I find it interesting to learn that your shop had occasion to perform those mods on so many 1200s! |