I initiated my vinyl renaissance 4-1/2 years ago by purchasing an SL1210 M5G. I have done some similar tweaks to similar effect. I don't have the KAB power supply, but I have his fluid damper for the tonearm. I don't have a 454g weight but I have a KAB record grip. Instead of an acrylic/rubber mat sandwich I have a felt/sorbothane sandwich. Instead of stuffing the armtube with cotton and shrink wrapping it, I wrapped it with PFTE pipe thread tape, including the knurled collar for attaching the headshell. I also have a Sumiko headshell plus an LP Gear Zupreme one, which is very similar and both have the high quality cartridge leads and tags. Finally, instead of a chrome/steel plinth cover, I've platformed the turntable onto a very thick and heavy maple butcher block cutting board, with a Vibrapod assembly between the turntable and board, and gel pads between the board and the shelf it sits on. Every one of these tweaks has contributed significantly to more clarity, lower noise, better dynamics, and extended frequency range. Upgrading from a lightweight cutting board to the 30-lb. behemoth I have now was particularly significant.
Anyway, I agree that the Technics is a great fundamental platform and easy to improve with low cost tweaks and accessories. I can go to my local store and listen to turntable rigs up to around $7K and not feel like I'm missing anything, and may have an advantage in speed accuracy and the sensations of better pitch, rhythm, and propulsion that come with it. Only at the $12K DPS/Ayre rig do I begin to acknowledge an improvement. |
10-13-11: Audiofeil
I bought a 1210M5G a couple years ago...
However, the stock tonearm is the major drawback of this table. You can change the bearing, isolate the table with fancy devices, re-wire the arm but a lipsticked pig is still a pig.
If you fancy using this arm with any serious cartridge, you're already bottlenecked by the arm.
I'm not saying the Technics arm is better than an RB500 or 700, but when the drive mechanism and tonearm resonances are controlled and the noise drained out via a platform or plinth, the overall package is surprisingly satisfying. And when you hit that tonearm performance bottleneck, there are armboards available for mounting a Rega-compatible, a Jelco, or SME tonearm on an SL12x0 series. As much as I like my current rig, my next step would probably be to mount a Jelco or SME arm and still be ahead of the price/performance curve. The SL1200 was always meant to be a mid-level enthusiast's turntable. It was also available as the SL120, which had an SME armboard instead of a tonearm. I suspect that that's more the way the engineers intended it. |
11-07-11: Dklk
I owned a SL1200 for awhile and liked it alot sound wise. It just didn.t look audiophile to me.So I sold it and went throu several TT,s and landed on a Rega P25...
I'm one of those geeks who gets a perverse pleasure in getting killer sound out of unconventional sources. By the time I tweaked and platformed my SL1210 M5G, it no longer looks particularly DJ either. |
At some point, with the new power supplies, motor mods, modified or replaced plinths, etc, one wonders where the mod is and why not just build a new machine from scratch?
True enough. At some point you have to know when to quit, or plan ahead as to where the cost of mods hits the point of diminishing returns. However, when it was easy to get an SL1200 for $399 (from Musicians Friend), for another $1500 you could add a lightly used or demo SME 309 tonearm, and you would have a $2K turntable that had the tracking *and* the speed consistency and low noise of a more expensive 'table. Rather than put $5K into an SL12x0, however, your money would probably be better spent elsewhere. |
01-29-12: Tonywinsc
It is clear that the Technics tt is best in class for speed control. And that should be an indictment for all of the high end hifi turntable makers out there that seem to come in at a distant second for speed control with motors and/or drive systems at 5 or even 10 times the cost. But while we can give kudos' to the Technics engineers for their motor design, they failed to follow up on optimizing the other design parameters of a turntable. It is a valid question to ask: Why can't someone build a commercially viable turntable with a drive system like the Technics, but with the isolation and support structure for a decent tonearm that doesn't cost upwards of $12k?
I think that in the '70s the Technics DD turntables posed a threat to the emerging high end status quo. High end brands of the time represented USA and European efforts to beat back the onslaught of mass market audio from (primarily) Japan. When Ivor Tiefenbrun made his tours with his Linn turntables, he was discrediting the DD principle in favor of cottage industry belt drive turntables. To me, however, it was sleight of hand. The comparison tests created the widespread (and persistent to this day) conception that the DD principle was inherently flawed. What was not apparent is that the Linn suspended turntable was what was draining most of the noise. While the belt drive drained some of it, it also introduced speed fluctuation as the belt flops and wobbles. That's why these days people try to replace the stretchy belts with dental floss or mylar tape, and VPI finally came out with a rim drive. This created the high end dogma that BD=Good and DD=Bad. Truth is, the Technics DDs had it all over the cottage industry BD TTs regarding speed accuracy and inherent noise floor. What was not apparent is that the Linn had *other* features that drained vibrations and controlled resonances that the popular-priced DD tables didn't do well. If--rather than vilifying DD as a concept--the UK turntables had bought the Matsushita-sourced DD motors in bulk and then sued their engineering to drain vibration and control resonances, then the TT industry would have produced what you envision here--an affordable table with low noise floor and speed accuracy. You don't get the speed accuracy of a Technics SL12x0 'table on any belt drive table under $5500 Why Technics didn't continue to develop the table after 1981 is a matter of business model. The units became so affordable ($399 from Musicians Friend for awhile) because Technics had ceased any significant further development. After 1981 they knew they had to shift to CD and digital audio. The Technics turntables stayed in production for as long as they did because the bigger turntable market shifted from quality home audio to DJ use. If it hadn't been for that, Technics would have discontinued their DD turntables when everyone else (Denon, JVC, etc.) had. There was no motivation to improve it further except for DJ use. |
02-02-12: Tomjoe
I owned a Technics SL1200 and it was mediocre. It sounded electronic. Bass was not articulate and imaging was not very specific. I doubt your tweaked out Technics would impress me.
That's pretty consistent with how most of us perceive a Technics SL12x0 right out of the box. But if you never tried any enhancements such as a better mat, headshell, damping, or platforming, you have no frame of reference for what the rest of us are talking about. |
02-22-12: Vicdamone
"TT Weights 454 record weight" What does this mean?
I suspect it means the turntable weight weighs 454 grams, which is the metric equivalent of one pound. See TT Weights' website. |
02-23-12: Mapman
Its hard to discern that the original table is one of the best when so many custom tweaks are needed to deliver the bomb in performance.
Whenever a device is modded and a performance difference results, its now a different beast.
It depends on how you look at it. When they were still in production, you could get an SL12x0 TT for $400-500, a high precision transport with nearly unmeasurable wow and flutter, dead-on speed accuracy, and a S/N ratio you rarely see in "audiophile approved" turntables under $5K. Given such a low entry level and its naive lack of other vibration and resonance control features, it practically begs to be modded to bring out its best. Get an armboard from Origin Live or Sound Hi-Fi and swap in a Rega RB303, JA Michell, Jelco or SME tonearm and you'll have an astounding turntable for under $2K, possibly under $1K. I'd love to do the tonearm upgrade, but in the meantime, my tweaks cost me a grand total of $250 (fluid damper, Sumiko headshell, sorbothane mat, Vibrapod feet), plus a butcher block as an isolation platform. That $750 got me a turntable with speed accuracy you can't buy (new) otherwise. The customary price/performance ratio of turntables would be far different today if the British TT industry had embraced the Japan-sourced DD mechanism and built their turntables around it rather than foisting over-the-counter AC synchronous motors and rubber bands as a "superior" drive system. |
02-24-12: Mapman
FUnny, I used to sell many Japanese turntables back in their 70's heyday, both belt and direct drive.
Funny, so did I. I would say that the DDs didn't come in to blow away the belt drives, they blew away the idler drive turntables. Within a very few years, Garrard and BSR were gone and Dual had migrated to belt drive and direct drive. The idler drive 'table was DEAD. I worked at the oldest audio chain in SoCal in 1975-6. We carried Garrard, Dual, Rabco, Philips, & Beogram. I remember that on FM stations I could actually hear the rumble of their idler drive turntables. The DD turntables were much quieter than those (unless you know how to plinth them) while still having that strong torque which BDs lack. Some of the highly regarded BDs of the time were flaky. My sister bought two Philips BDs that didn't work right and took them back. She bought a Pioneer DD in frustration and it still works. And it's no doubt that when the Micro-Seiki's hit the market they were a force to be reckoned with. Still, I think the virtues of BDs and the vices of DD are mis-identified. Yes, the Linn and AR TTs were belt drive, but they were also suspended. When you plinth and/or platform a DD turntable, the noise attributed (wrongly IMO) to the drive mechanism disappears. On the Technics DD 'table, the upper midrange glare is (wrongly) attributed to the 3.5 Khz servo, whereas damping the hollow aluminum tonearm makes *that* resonance disappear. After 1985 or so, turntables didn't really fit into Panasonic's business model anymore, but they had to keep the 12x0 series in production because the dance club scene continued to keep them viable in the marketplace for another 25 years. Still, it marked the end of additional R&D expenditures related to audiophile playback. And that's all that's wrong with the SL12x0 series--other other audiophile turntables have 25 more years of development in noise, vibration, and resonance control, but they never improved on the torque or speed accuracy of the 12x0 series. |
Audiofeil mentioned that the most significant factor blocking the Technics SL12x0 series is its tonearm. Fair enough. After all, when first introduced in the mid-'70s, Panasonic also offered the SL-120, which was a turntable only with an armboard to accommodate a SME tonearm. For those who already have SL12x0 turntables, the most cost-effective and logical upgrade would be to get a Rega-compatible armboard from Origin Live or SME armboard from
Before the Technics SL12x0 series was discontinued, you could regularly get an SL1210 mkii for $399 from Musicians Friend. Add $100 for an Oracle/RB30x armboard and an RB250/251/300/301/303 and you could have a killer 'table for under $3K with speed accuracy you normally pay a lot more to get. |
