ghosthouse,
I guess you and I are in the same boat except that your turntable is even older than mine.
However, it seems to me that, as time passed by, "barrier to entry" has gotten to be much higher than it should. The word remained the same, but the meaning evolved into full dedication to equipment and the price of equipment required to join the club seems quite high. Deep inside, I have a feeling that an overall "audiophile" as a person is someone who spends lots of money on equipment. Of course, "lots" is in the wallet of the observer. Maybe, time too. Eventually, to justify it all, smaller and smaller things start mattering. Cogging, color on top of capacitor, etc. Do not get me wrong, all of them may technically matter at some point, but I am willing to live with those imperfections. Does dismissing them as insufficiently important to me make me less of an audiophile?
In the end, I believe that SL 1200 does not qualify for an "audiophile" piece because of its, at this time in history, relatively humble origins and possibly technology (I am far from being capable and qualified to judge about that). Add millions produced which brought "coolness" factor further down and add the fact that they really ended up being so enthusiastically embraced by DJs who simply would not be allowed to have a clue about what "real fine music system" is. I think that all of those together sealed SL 1200's "audiophile" fate before anyone would even listen to them again. Wait, did I just come up with my own answer to the original thread question?
Sure, Thorens from 1950s, or whatever year they were, must be "audiophile". Maybe, some day I will give it a listen and hear for myself.
|
ghosthouse,
you made me run to Google to look up your acronym.
I agree with assessment but original poster's question remains only partially answered. If it has a complete answer at all.
In my mind, think young teenager in early 1980s, SL 1200 still remains as some high standard of what I cpould not afford. In short, it is a high-class product. I am aware that there are many products these days that would blow it away, but that hypothesis it is not "audiophile" puzzles me. That is why I wondered what would make any turntable "audiophile" in minds of the people who surely seem to invest more emotions, money, and time in these topics than I do. I am still plenty happy with my SL-Q2, as non-audiophile as it is. Together with its EPS 207 and Ortofon OM 10 cartridges from, the latest, 1990. It produces the sound that it produced when it mattered and when Rolling Stones released Emotional Rescue and that is the sound that makes me tick. I am tempted to buy this new 1200 for curiosity and nostalgia sake, but not because I am or am not an "audiophile" (which I do not think I would be considered on this forum). As you said, WGAS.
|
stevecham,
thanks for your post. It is nice to see that someone has had more references than most of us have and can look at it as objectively as it comes. I suspected that what you wrote about the Technics 1200 was just that way, but the list of the turntables I have had experience which is neither that broad, nor that recent.
I do not try to defend SL 1200 in any way, but am surprised that a number of people on this website seem to think it was designed as a DJ turntable (somewhere a little above this post is my earlier post throwing clarification of that matter) while it was not. For a dwindling number of us who remember those days, it is as clear as a day. yet, it still gets perpetuated as a "DJ turntable". Most of the Honda Civics were not racing cars by initial intention but you will see some racing on the street anyway.
Having said that, is there any way you could compare old 1200 with new 1200 GR? Even better, if you could briefly compare 1200GR with your other turntables. I am considering one because it is....direct drive. Cogging and jitter be damned, it is just much more convenient.
|
What makes a turntable "audiophile" and what makes it "hi-fi"? Is there any tangible, or maybe measurable, thing we should be looking/listening for? Some specification, feature, etc. I am not trying to argue, but the question came to me after reading the statement about "audiophile" and "hi-fi". Could it happen that "audiophile" of 1978 is merely "hi-fi" in 2018? Should it be judged on its merit for the time it was produced? I am sure that early SL 1200 does not fare that great when compared to current designs, but was it, at least, somewhat "audiophile" when it came out leaving SP 10 and similar ones to be "ultra high-end" or something like that?
In the end, they are all just machines trying to reproduce heavily modified and altered sound, frequently even electrically produced in the studio (think syntheseisers, electric guitars). Who knows what sound did Kraftwerk program their electronics to make in 1970s and here I am, buying yet another version of The Man Machine and different cartridge to make it sound "better".
In fact, what does the definition "audiophile" mean altogether? Maybe this is not the best website to ask that question.
|
oldschool1948,
The only thing I should change in your post to make it my post is turn Technics SL 1600 MK II into Technics SL Q2. I know that nobody would consider it an "audiophile" turntable but is, as you say, "audiophile" enough for me and has been for 37 years or so. It was expensive to me then, we saved money for a while to buy it, but for 37 years of use it seems quite cheap now. Every now and then I browse to check if there is anything else out there I could waste my money on and I am yet to find something that I would replace my Technics with. I got it when I was 15 or 16 and 37 years of memories no new arm or fine non-jittery highly-praised machine could touch. Perfect it is not, perfect for me it is. The only one that comes close is Dual 1225 with Shure cartridge. The most musical turntable that ever was.
Speaking of old machines that outlived their life expectations, why do true audiophiles not insist on playing music on "period equipment", but instead attempt to make everything "better"? There are performers of classical music that proudly advertise they play on "period instruments". Why is some Stradivari so well-respected a few hundred years from the moment it was produced? Couldn't it be replicated these days with all the technology and science that we have? I have no answers, just a few thoughts.
|
bdp24,
I suspected that holes on Audiomod arm were there for some purpose, but I have no real technical knowledge to even start speculating what the purpose could be. Before, I took it for granted that holes are there to make something better. Now, I know what the intention is. I do not doubt it is a fine arm and my comment about dust in the holes was more about being annoyed by the dust I could have a hard time getting out than it was about dust impacting the sound. However, I did stretch my imagination to the minuscle levels I sometimes read discussed in the audiophile press and, although I do not believe it matters, thought of someone some day for some reason saying that after two years of use the dust that collected in the deepest corner (are there corners in those holes?) changed some weight/resonance/another property of the arm and impacted the sound on the level previously unimagined. Again, I doubt it matters at all, but science of these things gets so finicky that it seems like anything could fly and be taken seriously. Audiomod arm got enough praises in this thread alone that, if I were looking for an arm and I did not dislike the overall look of it (in fact, I do not care about holes that much), I would seriously consider buying it. Regardless of if the person making it does it from pure enthusiasm or because his only intent is to make a lots of money. Is it done in garage, living room, or sterile environment of an operating room, would not influence my choice.
Thanks for your quick, but helpful, explanation of the arm and thinking behind it. I really appreciate it. |
I am not trying to take sides here (although I do have a Technics DD that is not even 1200), but is the jitter that theoretically or maybe even practically exist in these Technics turntables really that much worse than a stretching belt or some other reason (speed inaccuracy?) that made people invent direct drive in the first place?
Is the fact that DD usually reaches the speed, jittery or not, sooner than the belt drive important to anyone? It is to me, but I am curious what others feel.
To add a bit to arguments about the history, Technics 1200 was embraced by the DJing community because it made DJing possible. It was built fairly tough and it was direct drive. It was invented for everybody's music reproduction, but had advantages that DJs of the era liked. Initially, there was no conspiracy or a secret plot. Try scratching with your fancy non-jittery belt drive and see how far you will get.
It may be, I am quite sure it actually is, that SP 10 etc. is better than 1200, but buying one today for those mentioned $1200 gets you a motor with included platter. It is no problem for those who do not mind tweaks, combinations of parts, and so on. However, if you are not too keen on setting it by trial and error, Technics 1200 may give you simpler solution you will be able to live with from the moment you bring it home. Sound may be different, if everything said so far is true, but may be good enough to enjoy without waiting to achieve the right combination of parts involved.
Disco I went to in the 1980s had Thorens 126 Mk III, two of them. They were bulletproof according to the DJ who played them. Still, he never pushed the platter back and forth quickly.
Michael Fremer has established himself as some kind of a turntable guru of the world and, no doubt, he is deeper into it than most of us. He has his fans and I often read his writings despite being far from his fan. However, I wonder if an alternative guru would agree with him most of the time.
Beauty is in the eye of the buyer so some will find that Audiomods arm pretty. My first reaction was "how do you clean dust from all those holes?" It may not be important for the sound, or does it add something to compliance etc., but it would surely annoy me to oblivion.
|
