2. analog
  3. 1318469649

TECHNICS SL1200 MKII.......THE REAL FACTS

I have been a very active participant in this hobby for many years (going on 30). I have owned amplifiers by B&K, Marantz, Forte, VanAlstine, Accuphase, GAS, Onkyo Grand Integra, Musical Fidelity.....Speakers by Thiel, Energy, Genesis, Vandersteen, PSB, Definitive Tech, KEF, Mission, B&W....Turntables by Sota, Rega, Linn, AR, Thorens, Dual, and yes; Technics. I have a Technics SL1200 MKII which I have had for a few years now. It has been modified in the following ways (all mods based on trial and error and final listening results):
-TT Weights 454 record weight
-XPM1 Acrylic mat with 1/4" heavy Technics rubber mat underneath
-Steel plinth cover (chrome finish). I cannot explain why, but the background is more quiet and micro dynamics are better with this in place.
-Armtube stuffed loosely with cotton.
-Heat shrink tubing on outside of arm tube.
-Stock headshell replaced with Sumiko with Sumiko headshell wires (do NOT underestimate what headshell quality can do with these things).
-Plugs on the stock cables replaced with better plugs: Vampire OFC RCA plugs.
-Bearings adjusted for minimal play with minimal friction.
-KAB Power Supply added

Now, this is the scoop. I do not want a Technics turntable. I am an audio snob. I want only salon approved brands; period. That is why this situation sucks dog. Out of all the turntables I have owned. This Technics with this combination of mods has the blackest background, the best dynamics, the most detail, the clearest stage, the most pace and timing and overall just simply plays the song in the least-confused manner of ANY turntable I have ever owned. In many ways it makes every other turntable I have ever owned sound like Amateur Night in sonic comparisons. Facts are facts. The Technics SL1200 MKII, when properly tweeked, is one serious LP playback unit. At least the chrome plated steel plinth cover covers up the name.
audiomaster1967
redglobe
223 posts
 
Lawrence, You sign with "Fidelity Forward" and have mentioned in another thread that you make audio equipment. I cannot find your site when I Google on Fidelity Forward. Can you provide a link or am I mistaken?
lharasim
130 posts
 
please contact me offline

Fidelity_Forward@mail2lawrence.com
hellenic_vanagon
3 posts
 
The correct SL-1200 is the SERVO ORIGINAL MK1.

Please have a look in this blind test vs Rega:

http://www.iavscanada.com/Articles/art_turntable.htm
57s4me
30 posts
 
Hellenic-vanagon,
Yes, this was a fun read to be sure - but it did omit a crucial control; the cartridges were not matched. This was a major flaw in attempting to compare the turntables themselves. Brent, in the last paragraph, does make mention of this, but more should be made of this point.

The facts have been known for a very long time: every cartridge and arm combination will produce resonances at various frequencies. These resonances will greatly alter the resultant sound, either to your preference or away from it.

Add to this the fact that the speakers in use will have had a specific 'voice', and the problems compound so much that it becomes impossible to know exactly what is being discovered. In fact the whole exercise might just have been an example of equipment matching and no more.

In any scientific comparison like the above it is simply essential to minimise the variables, otherwise the results are useless.

So my conclusion is there was no useful conclusion. This is in no way meant to criticize or praise any of the equipment under 'test'; no doubt they all had their attributes, but we're really none the wiser:-)
kiko65
279 posts
 
I owned a heavily modified SL1200 MKII:
Jelco SA-750d arm
Funk Achromat
Mapleshade threaded brass footers
KAB-PS outboard power supply
KAB-strobe disabler
Clearaudio headshell leads

Not bad at all and lived happily with it for a few years. The REAL FACT is that, to my ears, it didn't sound as satisfying as my current heavily modified Rega RP3. Extremely light and rigid with breathtaking reproduction of music with the right isolation.

The general rule is that a belt drive can be more stable and isolated than direct drive.

Belt drive should provide better isolation from the motor. It's also believed to filter out flutter by being elastic.

In theory, belt drive should have the lowest rumble of the two, with Direct having less wow and flutter.

Belt drive usually works with a rubber belt or band that drives the platter or sub-platter from the motor spindle. This method should have low rumble but a higher risk of wow (slow speed fluctuations) as the belt stretches and tensions. This can be effectively controlled with a decent power supply unit.

Direct drives should have little wow and rumble, but can exhibit flutter (high-speed fluctuations) if not correctly controlled. Some (like yours) have crystal-controlled speed generators and produce excellent results.

As to what is best... I don't think that will ever be answered.

It all boils down to taste and synergy.

Happy listening!
More to discover