Vintage Japanese DD Consult and Suggestions Please

Ba know I. The day I had my choice of Technics or JVC tables and settled on the JVC QL-7. Hands down better tonearm, better motor technology. Also better looking. A Denon DP-80 seemed kina spendy, and there was no dealer within 300 miles. Lots of miles and turntables later, I've got a VPI Prime Scout. It's the only one I thought was the equal of that JVC. I'd buy another in heartbeat if I found one. The biggest difference was in the tonearms. The JVC was simply better in no small part because it was significantly longer and more adjustable. Rumor it was the table used to develop the Shibata stylus whose thin profile made it subject to 'chattering ' on inner groves from tracing error when mounted in the standard 9" (229 mm) tonearm. That geometry was true then, true today. 

PbN built DP-80 motors / incredible plinths for Lyra… as in Lyra Japan. Those are formidable.. I would say before i upgraded my Triplaner to the CF armwand , etc, especially silver wire the 505 was in many ways the equal… nits… 

Armboard with epoxy/bentonite will be too damped.. Frank Kuzma told me that even polycarnonate amboard would suck out LF from his arms.  You can try epoxy/steel balls mixture which would be easier to work with and you should be able to increase loading as balls have much lower surface area than bentonite.

I used polyester epoxy with 1% catalyst and 60/40 bentonite/epoxy  ratio. To get an optimal ratio you should cast small samples and watch for shrinkage, carcks and curing. Once you find  the otimal range it is very easy to cast. 

What do you use on your Technics? Ulike other Denon plinths Dk300 is made from engineerd wood and it is quite stiif. I've tryed to make an armboard  out of Al as that time I had only table saw and it did not make much difference to my ears. Carbon steel or bronze would be probably better options.

"why not buy a new Technics or comparable unit” ..because of x2/x3/x4 price vs well performing/built vintage? Also, some fellow audiophiles want to spend some time building systems, aka hobby. 

JVC (Victor) QL7 incorporates their TT71 motor/chassis, which is their third from the top of the Victor commercial line, which was the TT101. Yes, I think it does use a coreless motor, which I like too, but the DP80 was Denon's top of the line commercial TT (excluding the DP100, etc, which were for studio use).  Its iron core motor was optimized by Denon for smooth running and very stable speed. Further, the Denon has the split platter which isolates the LP from bearing noise. I would not dismiss the DP80 compared to the QL7/TT71 just based on the coreless motor in the latter. I also own a TT101, and I do like it also. I cannot compare the TT101 to the DP80, because the Victor drives my Beveridge system (alternating with Lenco) whereas the Denon drives my Sound Lab system (alternating with SP10 Mk3 and Kenwood L07D).

@laaudionut, "resembling DJ decks, which is not my preferred look, however. "

Yes, that is unfortunate and has caused lots of confusion for those looking at Technics products.  In fact the original SL-1200 was introduced in 1975 as a home audio product.  Through the years upgraded versions were introduced until the time where CDs severely impacted sales.  I've read Technics considered discontinuing that model, except sales suddenly increased because it was discovered by DJs which created a new market.  As a result the SL-1200 family became known informally as DJ tables due to their dominance in that field.  Now many consider it something designed for DJs rather than different purposed home audio applications.

So I considered it very unfortunate when Technics introduced the newly revised SL-1000/SP-10/SL-1200GAE a few years ago that they didn't redesign the overall appearance to differentiate it more from the older AL-1200 series.  That also seemed to drag along the DJ connotations, even while a much different design.

I overcame my own "look" prejudices more than a year ago and bought a SL-1200G.  I'm very pleased with the build and performance.

Dear @laaudionut   : I own/owned the Denon 80/75 several Technics SP10 and JVC.

You ask for better sound but TT per sé must has not any sound, it will be " dead silence ".

Now, the Today Technics motor design is a better design that any of its vintage brothers due that the motor drive is acoreless one that not even the SP10MK3 had.

I can't understand wwhy you are looking for vintage DD  where you don't have any warranty that be in perfect operation condition and where is really a " pain in the ass " fix any trouble on it when a new today Technics  IMHO is a way better option.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,

R.

I love my JVC QLY66F.  I bought it a few years ago.  At first, I thought it was horrible.  It howled like a banshee at higher volumes.  I replaced the feet and stuffed as much plasticlay as I could inside the plinth and now it sounds and looks beautiful.  It was my main table for some time and is what I've been using with a Denon DL-301 MK2 for the last two years or so to play grade all of my records.  I've probably played well over 2,000 records on it now and am on my second DL-301 MK2.  When it was in my main system I put some much better carts on it and it responded well to those.  It has great drive and dynamics.

Raul, I more or less agree with your sentiments, but the OP specifically asked about vintage Japanese DDs. Thus he’s receiving opinions about vintage Japanese DDs. As to the SP10 mk3 vs the SP10R, JP Jones owns both and conducted a meticulous comparison test, using measurements not “I like it”. He shared some data with me, showing no significant differences between the two.

@lewm +1 “JP Jones owns both and conducted a meticulous comparison test, using measurements not “I like it”. He shared some data with me, showing no significant differences between the two."

I hear very small, both direction, mostly record and cartridge driven difference, between: SL1200MK4/SL1200GAE/SL1000MK2/SP10R..

SP10R with EPA100MK2 arm wins clearly only on excellent quality records.. for so-so records, there is no difference! as of measurements, it’s the same story, precise/low-noise-dist test vinyls is hard to find, mostly I have are lower quality than best music vinyls..

@alexv Thanks for the starting formula.  i was an indentured servant in a pattern shop, i am fluent in adjusting for shrinkage…

The armboards on my dual arm plinth are 30 mm Aero grade hardened / anodized aluminum. in the well on the plinth i’ve added Kinetic sand. I’ve got a few wood armboard in work including Ebony root and purpleheart and Panzerholtz. i have a lot of respect for Franz as i run his imo lovely sounding CAR-40.

@lewm i believe a good deal of the magic of the big Denon are due the split platter and the magnetic pulse speed control system on the inside rim of the platter. Glad you mentioned platter. I should probably get an SP-10 of some ilk and muck about with that…

best to all in music

westcoast, JP Jones is a professional in the field of electronics. (I don't know exactly his degree level; he could be an EE or a physicist.) Until recently, he ran a business (Fidelis Analog) dedicated to the care and feeding of Technics DDs.  It was my good fortune that he agreed to look at my "broken" Victor TT101, where he found a trivial but near invisible problem (a crack across a tracing in a PCB hiding under a blob of solder and causing a maddening intermittent speed problem) that eluded several other smart guys, and he fixed it. As you may know, he designed and built a PCB using discrete parts that replicates the function of the unobtainable chip that governs speed of the SP10 and lower level series of vintage Technics tables, and yet is small enough to directly replace the chip in the power supply (MN8042 is the chip designation, going only on my memory of the alphanumberic code). Therefore, he was able to test performance of the tables to a level and using methods that I don't completely understand. I bought my SP10 Mk3 in NOS condition, and I did not need to replace the chip, but I did it anyway, because JPs PCB outperforms the OEM chip out at the 4th or 5th decimal place where it probably does not matter much. So I take his comparative analysis of the 10R vs the 10 Mk3 seriously.  He owns both.

Tomic, yes the platter is both a virtue and a potential Achilles heel of the Denon DDs. (If anything should happen to damage the tape glued to the inside rim of the platter, I think it's curtains for the TT.)

lewm, JP may substantiate this but I believe his chip replacement is for the SP-10 Mk 3 and the SP-15.  It is not a replacement for any of the SP-10 Mk 2 series.

Pryso, It was my impression that the MN6082 was used in the MK3 and in many if not all of the original 1200 series TTs, and probably the SP15, as you say, but I am not sure either way about the MK2. I would have thought it was also used there but could be wrong. I think JP has left the building but not on the irreversible path taken by Elvis, fortunately.

Aha! I just did a quick search.  Apparently the MN6082 was only used in Technics TTs that have variable pitch. That would not include the Mk2 but does include the others.

@laaudionut

I have a SP10 Mk 2, PD444, and LO7D and would add simply that all three are great choices.  Each will likely need to be re-capped if not already serviced.  All are satisfying in stock form, but will benefit with addition of modern footers and siting, re-lube, silicon nitride bearing, etc.

Overall the Luxman is probably the most satisfying in terms of reasonable cost, superb vintage esthetic, flexibility in adapting modern or vintage tonearms, and simplicity of maintenance/DIY speed adjustment as per factory service notes with a multimeter.  I found that its plinth design can be improved by substituting thick brass in place of the stock steel armboards.  For a further reduction in plinth resonance, I replaced the archaic stock RCA switch box attached to the bottom of the plinth with a solid wood subplinth that serves as a pedestal for a third arm base out front that accepts standard Micro Seiki cantilevered armboards.  All in all a great piece that is seldom discussed relative to other vintage DD.          

+1 for the Yamaha GT 2000 (L, X). HIFIDO in Japan has them available now and then. And they go through all of the electronics, motor, bearings to assure it is in top form, then double box with injection foam. I have A/B'd with a very well regarded JVC QL-A75 from that same highest Japanese R and D era and the GT is more transparent with finer micro/macro detail. Most all are Japan 100V. But the GT2000 has a DC port on the back to accept 24V dc. I had a power supply built to feed the 24V to avoid the internal power, but a simple step down works fine. It is not going to fit on every stand, and it weighs 61.73 pounds.

As Raul stated, the modern Technics are hard to beat. The SL-1300G is a very fine machine and it should fit the ascetics, but you will be hard pressed to find one for less than $3200. And based on the specs, I would be surprised if it could beat the GT2000.

Dave, Good to hear from you.  Lew

Dear @dgarretson  : I listened the Luxman  444 many years ago and not in my system so I don't have an opinion about other that Luxman was  not the realmanufacturer but only put together the parts sourced by Micro Seiki and Pioneer. I own the P350 and is avery fine TTand parts sourced by MS too.

Btw, the Yamaha GT was sourced by MS too.

Good that yo come back.

Regards,

R.

Lew, look forward to catching up with you personally in early 2026.  By that time I'll likely be in retirement someplace between Fredrick and Front Royal.

Raul, Always good to hear from you.  When listening to a TechDAS at shows I think of the Micro Seiki origin story that branches through some of the best analog.

Best,

Dave  

Still taking in all your comments and suggestions. I believe I have narrowed it down to the Denon DP80, or one several of the Technics models either mentioned in my original post, or that all of you have provided. Still have not ruled out a new Technics, but the DJ look still gives me pause. 

If that is your problem with the G series Technics, you ought to be able to get over it. It's just silly.

https://hifi-wiki.com/index.php/Technics_SL-1200MK4

MK4 was an adoption of verified by DJ's hard usage design for audiophiles, with adding very expensive titanium arm, RCA on bottom of arm, 78rpm option, and heavy mat. end of 90s that table was priced ~ 1200, which is approximately four grand today! Number of units released was very limited..

SL1200G/GAE is nice, but cost is x3 times of MK4..

The main issue in buying vintage electronics is reliability, aging major components in it, and expensive repairs.. there are not many techs left these day, who can help, unfortunately..

The G series is night and day better than any of the 1200 series and its numerical derivatives. This is opinion based on facts. Better (coreless) motor. Better more massive and damped plinth. Improved platter and tonearm. Much better electronic speed control. Technics “mistake” from a marketing point of view was making the early and later G series look so much alike. Yet I’d bet the G series sells very well for them.

So despite my reservations about the aesthetics of the newer Technics, The thought of performance coupled with a turnkey approach has its advantages. If I am able stretch what I believe will be my budget, there are new Technics SL 1200G's on several Japan based eBay sites. Obviously I would need to operate this through a step down transformer...are there any disadvantages to purchasing a unit from Japan and running it in this manner that I should be considerate of?

laaudionut, ls1200g power supply design covers 100..240V 50/60Hz AC, I haven’t found power board difference between diff markets targeted product, in service manual. 

Hello again. First, I would like to extend my most sincere gratitude for all who have read and replied to this thread...the information was instrumental(some pun intended) in my due diligence and selection process. For the last month or so, I have been enjoying my Denon DP80 with the DK300 plinth, DA402 12" tonearm, and the modest Denon DL103 FL cartridge. I was able to find the piece, said for the cart, on a Canadian listing site, but the transaction and experience was far from enjoyable, unfortunately.

I will state that I do greatly miss my Garrard 301, but I am more than pleased with the looks and performance of the Denon. I know the audio purist and someone with a more discerning ear than I have would easily hear the differences, what is important to me is that it sounds sublime for the modest price that I paid. At some time I will explore different cartridges, and welcome any suggestions, at the moment I have found solace in my turntable transition.

Again, my many kind thanks!

Brian

Well done. That is a great choice.

Yes, a discerning ear would hear differences between 301 and DP80. The 301 is noisier. The DP80 would likely measure better in every way.

I used to collect Japanese direct drive tables but sold them all off to a vintage collector a few years ago.

JVC QL-y66f great sounding table with a very nice tonearm/wand combo.

Mitsubishi LT-5V great table for show and tell but a pain to set and keep tracking force accurate.

Sony PS-x75 very good table once I changed out the electrolytic capacitor tied to speed stability,

Yamaha PX-2 "Guns of Navarone" turntable

Two I had my sights on acquiring before I gave up the Japanese DD fetish:

Nakamichi Dragon

Yamaha GT-5000

Isn’t “GT5000” a reference to Yamaha’s latest TT (not vintage) which is belt driven? With respect, none of the TTs on your list is top drawer among vintage Japanese DD TTs. Here’s my list of the best, all of which are still worth north of $4000:

Kenwood L07D

Technics SP10 mk3

Pioneer Exclusive P3 and P3a

Sony PS-X9

Yamaha GT2000X

Denon DP100

and probably one or two others.

Alex, the Pioneer Exclusive P3 is my great white whale. I’ve always wanted one. We visit Tokyo annually because our son lives there. I’ve never seen one in the flesh and for sale even in Tokyo. Even on Hifido. If you have an idea where I can find one, I’d appreciate it.
 

@lewm

in Italy there is a dealer who keeps the P3, usually he buys one at a time immediately after selling the previous one and buys only P3 that are aesthetically 9/10 or 10/10 in evaluation.
They are sold with revision and guarantee and updated to the mains voltage of 230V, too bad that every time there is one for sale in the store the price goes up frighteningly.

which is their third from the top of the Victor commercial line, which was the TT101.

it's the fourth if we add the leader TT801

TT801 adds vacuum clamping, which is a nice idea, but so far as I can tell, in order to maintain the bidirectional servo and speed adjustment of the TT101and fit the electronics, Victor had to use integrated circuits that were then available, and the 801 is even less reliable than 101, as a result.

@lewm    I wasn’t referring to the reliability that the 801 may or may not have but to the fact that to give a precise indication in the catalog it was the top model of that period so: TT 801, 101, 81, 71 and 61.
The 101 was the top model until the 801 arrived to take its place.

Anyway in my case I had more problems with the 101 forcing me to buy another one and use the broken 101 for any spare parts than with the 801 with which I live extremely happy   :)

Elliot knows the way. Luxman PD444 all the way. I have one. Along with the Victor TT101 restored to prestine condition. Vintage all the way. 

The Pioneer Exclusive P3 is a TT, I have looked at over the years, and see it when discovered for sale in Japan, priced as a model to share a similar asking price as the Yamaha GT 2000X.

The P3 has not crept up to the Value of the asking price for the DP 100 or SP 10 Mk 3, even though the R&D behind it, as a result of the Exclusive Department in Pioneer was really cutting edge for the advanced thought used.

The P3 and GT 2000 Models share a similarity in their design where the Motor / Stator / Bearing Housing are embedded into a Chassis / Plinth.

The P3 Isolates the electric circuits from mechanical influences by having them mounted on their own Sub Plinth that is separated by Spring Couplings from the Chassis / Plinth.

The GT 2000 design has the electric circuits off board, which does seem to be the most cost effective method to Isolate Electrics from mechanical influences.

The P3 and GT 2000 will benefit substantially from adopting materials becoming more common in their use and having the Mechanical Assembly embedded into a Resin Impregnated Densified Wood Board Material.

I am now in possession of a Kaneta Design SP 10 Mk II, which is mounted into a Phenolic Resin Impregnated Densified Wood Board known as Panzerholz. The Electrics are off board and there is something more attractive in the end sound, but difficult to nail down.

Does the electric circuits being isolated from mechanical influences really bring something to the forefront that is perceived as an improvement to the sonic, or is the perceived improvement in sound, solely due to creating a new environment for the mechanical assembly to function within?

Time constraints have not allowed for an evaluation to be extensively undertaken using the same TA>Cart' > Audio System with a Typical Design SP 10 Mk II incorporating Speed Control Upgrades and an improved Bearing design, mounted on a Panzerholz Plinth.

It would make sense to have the improved bearing design used on the owned Typical Design SP10 Mk II added to the Kaneta Design MkII, but the Kaneta Design allows for a whole new rethink on how a Bearing Design can look and be produced.

I suspect that some of the improvement I and others have found using versions of the outboard power supply for the GT 2000 is that transformer vibration is now removed from the plinth of the turntable. Conjecture on my part but feasible.

The GT 2000 series did not come standard with the external power supply but it was designed into the basic GT 2000 model to be purchased as one of the many available options. Any discussion about a GT 2000 needs to outline whether any of the options are being utilised because all of them will in some way affect the sound of the turntable.

The GT 2000 does not deserve to be omitted from the list of the multiple Japanese Uber Direct Drive turntables. Fully optioned the standard black GT 2000 had an external power supply, a 40 pound platter, vacuum hold down and spring suspension weighing a total of around 120 pounds. That really is the full fledged realisation of the GT 2000 series design concept. How anyone could leave it out of a list of the best Japanese Direct Drives boils down to lack of understanding/prejudice.

There is a misconception on the internet that the GT 2000 series utilised a ball in the bearing well. That is completley untrue. The contact point of the spindle was radiused (ala Linn Sondek). Also Liquid Audio reviewed a GT 2000 and reported it to have bearing play. Mike noted when he inspected the bearing closer that the thrust pad, (the contact patch for the spindle) had a crack which almost split the thrust pad in half. That ’bearing play/slack’ he found is in no way representative of a properly treated GT 2000 and is evidence that the turntable he was examining had been dropped with some force whilst the  removable platter was in situ. Thus his sonic assessment of that particular GT 2000 is dubious.

The P3 and GT 2000 Models share a similarity in their design where the Motor / Stator / Bearing Housing are embedded into a Chassis / Plinth.

The P3 Isolates the electric circuits from mechanical influences by having them mounted on their own Sub Plinth that is separated by Spring Couplings from the Chassis / Plinth.

No mate - they are nothing alike other than they are both DD.

P3 has motor/platter/tonearm mounted on a suspended sub-chassis.

P3 Electronics are mounted to the base.

GT2000 does not have a suspension other than rubber feet.

A significant difference also is that the P3 has an inverted bearing and stable platter with a low centre of gravity, the GT2000 has a conventional T ( for topple ) bearing.

Pioneer Exclusive P3/P3a and GT 2000 series nothing alike as Dover said. P3/P3a is an exceptional design.

GT 2000 optional accessory suspension:

https://www.hifido.co.jp/sold/23-39953-15768-00.html

My own observations remain, there are similarities, the statement that was made remains unchanged.

 "The P3 and GT 2000 Models share a similarity in their design where the Motor / Stator / Bearing Housing are embedded into a Chassis / Plinth."

I'm sure a list that is produced, that points out where there are differences between the Two Models will be quite long.

The Newest Design used for a TT, that I  have adopted also mimics the methodology for the mounting of the Mechanical Parts, which is also seen either on the P3 or the  GT 2000.

The earlier design and the methodology for the Mounting of the Mechanical Parts is quite changed. There is no longer in use, a Purpose Produced Chassis that has the mechanical parts attached, which is then seated upon a Purpose Produced Plinth, which over time become available in a variety of designs .

There is a merged Chassis / Plinth  design that has the Mechanical Parts embedded into the material used. 

In relation to Suspension Support, I use a Panzerholz Sub Plinth, which is separated from the Chassis / Plinth using Solid Tech 'Feet of Silence' which Superseded the usage of AT 616 Footers for TT Duties.   

As stated, there are assessments to be undertaken, but not to be rushed into, where the intention is to get an improved understanding of where the merits of the design are showing their strengths. 

Thank you LEWM

Isn’t “GT5000” a reference to Yamaha’s latest TT (not vintage) which is belt driven? With respect, none of the TTs on your list is top drawer among vintage Japanese DD TTs. Here’s my list of the best, all of which are still worth north of $4000:

When expressing an Interest in Vintage Japanese DD TT's, there are two ways to observe them, which are loosely described below:     

1, Is the observation through 'Rose Tinted Glasses' where the assembled product with a unknown hours of usage life of close on 50 Years is not considered.

An individual is somehow missing / avoiding what a 50ish Years in the real world can mean for a TT's Electronics and Mechanical Parts.

2, The Link will show an individual a good insight into what is being bought into, the Link is representative of most Vintage DD TT's to be seen on a Shortlist.

Mechanical Parts are limited and the Electronic Parts are quite substantial and quite complex. 

Mechanical Parts can have had way too many rotations where critical parts are functioning in a non ideal environment, where a minimum negative effect developed is that the axis of the Spindle may not run true, creating a eccentric rotation and speed fluctuation.

Furthering regular usage of a TT with an eccentric rotation in a non ideal environment can lead to excessive wear on a sacrificial part such as a Bush. The excessive wear of a Bush/Bushes can result with a scribing showing on other Sacrificial Parts or even worse, scribing can show on parts that should be a Polished Finish, where scribing that has developed is most likely caused by metal particulate from worn Bushes being encountered in a very dry shaft with all signs of Factory applied lubricant long long dried up or leached from the Bearing Housing the Bearing Housing many many years passed.

Good Luck with the Electronics being Top Drawer, I only know Specialists who can comment on this when they have the TT on their Workbench.

The reality for quite few TT owners of all types from this period is commonly as follows:

I bought a Vintage TT, I Powered on and it rotated, Eureka, I have a perfect TT.

I'm looking for the Perfect Tonearm for my TT, after a Hum and Ha, I've just bought a TA at £2K - £3K - 4K for my Perfectly Working Vintage TT.

I'm now looking for a Cartridge to mount on my TA to get the best out of my Perfect Vintage TT. I am now the proud owner of a £2K - £3K - £4K Cartridge.

My take is use others known for their knowledge on a particular TT, to inform if the Vintage TT is a Perfect TT. Once this is a done deal, spend however one wants on how the other ancillaries are chosen to be used with the TT.    

http://amp8.com/amp-etc/record/denon/dp-80-3.htm

For the record, all owned TT's are from a Vintage Period and ones Vintage DD ones used daily are brought to a fine fettle, by an individual who knows the Brands very very well and are reputed for their work undertaken. Both Bearing Condition and Overhaul and Electronics Function are addressed when on the Workbench.

The extra outlay for the TT's is a monies very very well spent.

@laaudionut I'm chiming in late here. Lots of good choices that you listed and others recommended. IMO any of the tables you listed will sound great and would probably be hard to distinguish given the same tonearm and setup properly. I'll add a few thoughts:

- if you don't require two tonearms you should consider the Luxman PD-441. Basically the same TT in a more manageable form factor. Can take most 9-10.5" tonearms - if you can find the appropriate arm boards. Also, the Luxman PD-121/131 is no slouch, although prices for these days seem to be more than I would  be willing to pay.

- I would add the Teac TN-400 to your list. IMO it's the best DD drive system ever made.

- Sony had a couple of Biotracer models that are great decks. They are semi-automatic decks but you can certainly use them manually. If you find one with the electronics still fully functional they are wonderful.

- If you want the look of a vintage Japanese DD turntable with improved features you should seriously consider one of the new Technics SL-1200 variants. They are significantly improved over the old models and they are available in a range of price points. I say that because I have owned all of the decks you mentioned at some point over the last 40 years and they are all good. But any vintage deck is either has a problem, even if minor, or will develop a problem at some point. No worries as long as you are willing to pay for repairs and have a good turntable guy on speed dial.

- Finally, the Music Hall Stealth is a seriously good turntable. Not Japanese, not classic but seriously good for the price (pre-tariff).

br3098, Can you enlighten me further on the Teac 400N?  I had never heard of it until you mention it here.  I found a blurb on Vinyl Engine that sounds like ad copy, not a sincere critique, but the description of the motor is impressive.  On the other hand, VE says the whole turntable weighs 8.5 Kg.  One can argue the case for light weight and stiffness in a Rega, but in my experience, DD TTs want high mass. Anyway, I would like to know more.

As to Sony Biotracer, I am sure those work fine, but their flagship was the PSX-9, as shown here http://www.thevintageknob.org/sony-PS-X9.html

I can't tell you much more than what you read. For some reason, Teac never really marketed these units, which were designed to compete in the same space as the SP-10. I bought one about 30 years ago from a company that had several new units in a warehouse. I played it for a while and then sold it, something I've regretted it ever since.

I doubt that you'll ever find a used PS-X9. I don't believe they they were ever plentiful nor were they imported to the U.S. I had a PS-X75 that I used a backup deck for years when my grandkids were around. As I recall I paid $400 for it and it was pretty bombproof. Sounded great too. But the arm locator sensor on many have gone belly up and I'm not sure how easily they can be repaired,

I have and use a Teac TN-400 that I bought 45 years ago or so.  The table was only on the market for a year or two as there was a patent dispute over the Magnefloat assembly which Teac lost.  Warehoused units were sold off pretty cheaply at that time and occasionally still show up for sale in NOS boxes, since most of them were sold as platter units only without plinths.

I have always liked this table and it has given me trouble-free performance.  That being said, I recently found a second unit in-box for sale and snapped it up but the new one, which appears to be unused, has a speed control issue and runs fast.  I have not yet looked into the problem but hope that it turns out to be relatively minor to repair.

I can't comment on the Teac relative to the other tables discussed in this thread, but mine has kept me from looking for anything else (dd) for a long time.

Bill

@pryso  Thank You for your contact, unfortunately I can't reply through the private mail as I can't access mails on this forum. 
Your mail sent was seen in my personal email account.

Making a contact through a private mail is fine, I assisted a selection of Gon Members over my period of membership through their contacting me privately.

A Plinth Design for a TT and a Structure Material used for a  TT Plinth are two different entities. 

A Plinth Design can incorporate a selection of materials, which might have different Intrinsic Properties that impact on a attractive coefficient of expansion (CTE) in heat or humidity being maintained.
Rate at which Shrinkage occurs to a material is also a consideration when moisture is absorbed.
A design can also be one where there is not too much thought in place, to show there is a discipline used to optimise the Critical Geometry.  
When the above design is encountered as an incorporation into the Structure for a TT. It is inevitable that optimised set up will be quite difficult to maintain and a sonic will become compromised as the interfaces become lesser in their optimisation.

Choosing a Material as a Structure to support a TT can speedily remove some of the above concerns, if the correct materials are selected and used that are with intrinsic properties that make them noticeably stable in a cross a selection of environmental conditions, the need to be overly concerned about optimised set up conditions being maintained is much lesser of a consideration over time.

The next to consider is what is the want from the individual for the selected Plinth Material:
1, Is it selected to function as a Massey Material ?
2, Is it selected to be a Light Weight ?
3, Is it selected using the Materials Intrinsic Properties, supported through data, that shows the materials has a very desirable Damping / Dissipation for managing Mechanical Energies being transferred or alternatively managing local environmental kinetic energies being transferred ?

Each material type that can be adopted from the sections above will have their own unique sonic, as a result of how energies transferred though the material are managed and how the material itself is isolated from the local ambient environment energies being transferred.

How does a individual discover which id their most attractive material to have maintained as a Structure to support a TT?
In my case trial through experiencing many different materials as a Plinth,  where a small selection of trials were carried out experiencing the same TT > Tonearm > Cart' in the same system on the same supporting structure for the system.

My selection for a Plinth Material and ongoing investigations into how to best attach a TT mechanical system to the Plinth, does not indicate I have discovered something that is ubiquitous to all tastes. I am very confident I have discovered a methodology that is the most transparent in use that I have been familiarised with, and that this is most favourable to my tastes for a sonic.

I can't inform an individual where their journey stops when it comes to getting on Bus and venturing into selecting a Colouration is most attractive to them, in this subject, most are very unique in what their preference is. 
Each individual has their own stop where they get of the Bus.

Linn as an example has produced the Bedroc using a material type that is becoming more and more popular in use from a Commercial Entity or a enthusiast DIY Builder.
This material used in a Linn TT Design be a step further in managing ambient energy transferal, Linn have remained on the Bus and are inquisitive, in my opinion, they found a material that has attractive qualities, even though they overlooked some of the most attractive properties in what a structure should be when selecting the material.  

My own experiences to date has lead me to using Resin Impregnated Densified Wood Board Material as the Plinth to support a TT, this material has excelled used with DD TT's, especially those from a Vintage Japanese era..  
 

The Link is a New Brand of Material to me, but in keeping with the design for a Densified Wood that I am adopting to use.

Call up the Brand, there is a vast range of Colour Finishes, making the end aesthetic a very attractive option.

0.7mm veneers with a Compression to 0.35mm makes a extremely nice board.

It can not be found in the info if the Structure selected for Board has the Plies/Veneers in Cross Grain orientation.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/395627466927