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

"TT Weights 454 record weight" What does this mean?

How much does your SL weigh?

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.

Hey Ralph, (Atmasphere), I was surprised to see your statement, "they are built for the expedience of semi-pro DJ work, which is the market to which the product is aimed." I would expect something different with your product knowledge.

The SL-1200 was introduced in 1975 as a consumer product. In the 1980s as CDs impacted development and sales of all turntables, it was the discovery and adoption by dance club/party DJs that created demand which kept the 1200 series in production. Unfortunately I think the common current false perception of the Technics 1200 models as "DJ tables" gets in the way of many audiophiles admitting to any credibility for their performance.

I do agree with Audiofeil and others who identify the 1200 series as good performers and a great value, but not necessarily the best tables available. And I must offer credit of another sort. About four years ago I started reading reports on the performance of the 1200 series and how that could be improved even more with a few basic mods. That led me back to consideration of a DD table and after further research, finding a decent Technics SP-10 Mk2.

Thus my appreciation for the Technics 1200 tables was to open my mind to a DD after decades of belt drive brain-washing. ;-)

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.

PErhaps these old DD tables are just good fodder for mods in that they are old and relatively inexpensive these days in their stock form.

If I were brave enough, I could probably come up with custom tweaks to many modern SOTA tables to make them better, or at least meet my expectations better also, however I would have to be quite brave or rich to do that given the economics involved with these things.

I am not so brave in general. Any tweak I do is generally easily reversible if needed. THings like aligning or changing/better matching carts, adjusting settings, etc. These are my kind of (easy) tweaks that usually pays dividends.

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.

FUnny, I used to sell many Japanese turntables back in their 70's heyday, both belt and direct drive.

For whatever reason, I was never swerved to actually buy or own a DD model myself. I think because they tended to be more expensive and I did not hear a difference in general. ALso the stroboscope devices on many of these never seemed to indicate DD had better speed control than belt and I was not convinced that DD tables isolated against motor noise well.

In the mid 80's, as vinyl was dying and CDs the rage, I bought my Linn Axis that I use to this day. Its British and belt drive. It blew away the Japanese tables for the most part back then, at least that was my impression. With the right setup and cart (I am sold on the Denon DL103R), it still sounds spot on to me and I feel no compulsion to tweak or change.

I do notice that to get good quality turntables new these days that seem to be built well enough to compete with the better ones from days yore, the cost is probably at least 3-5X what it used to be, probably more.

There is always something to be said about buying a cheap fixer upper and doing it right your way compared to something all ready to rock and roll at the gate. Only for those who have the means and knowledge to do it right though I would say.

Well, I say leave well enough alone. How much improvement do these tweaks really give you in performance?

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.

Yes, back then I recall both belt and DD tables that cost more outperforming less expensive BSR and Garrard idlers. Those became mostly "entry level". Belt drive tables sans carts started typically at about $120 or so. DD usually carried a premium above that. You bought a BSR or Garrard idler if the newer options stretched your budget.

Spme of my favorite tables to look at back then were the Philips, but these tended to also have a lot of reliability problems compared to the Japanese BDs and DDs. BIC was another line that seemed to have a lot of quality issues.

In the days of the LP and top of the chart radio much of what you heard was recorded onto single play quarter inch cassettes. Some stations ran reel to reel tapes of Thursday or Friday shows or produced them prior to the weekend or holiday.

The SP-10 and 15 were the de facto decks because of their phenomenal start up torque, the shape of the platers edge made track cueing easy, and the remote power supply was quiet. I don't recall ever seeing a Panasonic tone arm in a studio. I never understood Panasonic's decision to make the SL 1200 arm captive and no 78rpm.

Mine is relegated to 78rpm play with the KAB mod and a Grado 78E.

The Thorens 124 is a three speed idler deck that, if maintained and equipped with a good arm, will still out preform many of todays high end players.

How many of the super expensive belt drive TT's need a speed controler to be accurate?

Audiofeil said.."And believe me, audiophiles with great systems aren't using Technics 1200 tables as their vinyl sources. Read some of the threads here; it's that simple."

I'm an audiophile with a fairly decent system and guess what..I use a highly modified 1210 for my vinyl source...
I ditched a $5000.00 VPI rig and have never looked back.
I suspect there are many more 1200 users who consider themselves audiophiles...but are silent due to snobbery and dismissive attitudes expressed by some.

Audiofeil forgot to add, that there are Audiophiles out there who have no idea from anything, some sell the better and feel good with the worst....

and some audiophiles "feel" threatened that the so called high-end expensive turntables they show off and wear as audiophile jewelry.. could possibly be bested by the lowly 1200...

I've owned hi-end Pro-Jects (which were beautiful and very nice), but I'll never go back to the expensive boutique-style belt drive tables again. My KAB SL-1210M5G performs better than those expensive turntables I've owned, and others I've set up by doing needle drop comparisons (same records, cart, phono stage, interconnect, alignment geometry, A/D converter). Never once in any situation with tracking, noise, speed stability and tone was the Technics bettered. Ever. It's an ugly table. So what. It performs as good as it could reasonably get. The only advantages I can see other tables having over a KAB modded Technics is (maybe) a longer arm, a linear tracking arm, and a vacuum pull down platter. Those things would absolutely help.
The modded SL-1200 is a great sounding, great performing, easy to use, ugly ass turntable. It works where it counts, and is a snob repellant.

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.

With the Cardas re-wire and fluid damper offered by KAB the whole "myth" about the poor performance of the 1200's arm goes right out the door and makes it at least the sonic equal (or better)to any of the Rega arms you mention.

Kevin at KAB, says it best...
"Here's something to think about: how many high end tonearms can you name that specify bearing finish and friction? (take your time while you dig up the manual to your high-end arm)

Well, while you ponder that, consider this: the Technics SL-1200 tonearm is specified to have a bearing finish of ± 0.5 microns. This and the extra closeness of pivot center to the bearings results in a minimal friction of 7 milligrams. The '1200 arm has friction specified at 7 miligrams. That may be the lowest friction specified in an owners manual.(That is if you can actually find it listed in most manuals) It is important to note that the 1200 arm was designed at a time when tracking forces were pushing the 0.75 gram range. So a good margin of safety would place the bearing friction at 100 times less than that."

So the nit-picking about the 1200's arm has no basis in truth, no matter what any so-called "expert" might say.

Assuming that we all hear sound the same way, the only method to truly evaulate if one table sounds better than another would be to compare them in a blind test.

Can anybody recall any threads that describe results from a blind test?

I found this (and some familiar old characters) and thought that I might spur a conversation about good cartridge matches.

I have been running my 1210 with an SME 309 tonearm for a few years now--while not an expert, I do love the combination I ended up with it when I went to find a $4-5000 table to replace my 1210 but did not find anything I liked that much more. I instead took the plunge on swapping the tonearm and outboarding the power supply.

Any cartridges you love on your 12x0?

I am using a Denon DL-103r.

I too have just evaluated an old MKII with a very good well known(to me at least) MM cartridge that i know can play like real music...

this deck really shows off its speed stability in ALL ranges!! can sound quite nice sometimes really has incredible dynamics!... but as you all know some issues with the tonearm has its funny sounds....

someone needs to do some side by side testing with the big boys...IMO this deck kills the sp10MKII i had..... a real good find.... who would have known?!

I am not getting rid of mine...

Thanks to the OP :)

Lawrence
Fidelity Forward

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?

please contact me offline

[email protected]

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

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:-)

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!

Ok, not sure why I bother in this rather circular argument but I will add my 2 cents.

Every direct drive turntable I've read about and seen measured has lower wow & flutter and better rumble figures than most any belt drive unit. They also have in the magnitude of 10-100 times better speed stability. Now both properly made belt drive and direct drive turntables will have most/all sonic flaws be below general audibility. So we are talking for typically a debate only.

Direct drive turntables DO NOT have the motor in any direct contact with the platter. Any vibrations of the motor can only come through the bearing mount and the rest of the chassis. Engineers can reduce or mostly eliminate much of that. Since a direct drive motor turns 1:1 speed any first order vibrations will be at 33.3 or 45 rpm only. Well below what most of us will normally hear, at least as problematic.

Belt drive if engineered well can provide superb playback but all belt drive motors are coupled to the platter, yes a rubber belt acts as an isolator but it does attach the motor to the platter. On top of that most belt drive motors are 300 or 600rpm design. The vibrations they give in the first order will be at 300 and 600 rpm and if not filtered out/down well may be heard by normal human hearing.

This is why again pretty well any good direct drive turntable measures better W&F and lower rumble numbers.

I've owned both drives, both can sound great and can provide years of enjoyment but quite simply if engineered properly a direct drive turntable is a superior playback machine for all crucial specs, W&F, speed stability, affects due to temp. and humidity and rumble. It is not even a competition. To argue against such makes no sense to me.

This said as long as the engineering understands things, a belt drive turntable can provide a sonic pleasure that most any human can enjoy and will be generally incapable to hear any of the playback back ills we do not like such as W&F, speed stability problems and rumble issues. But belt drive requires more routine maintenance such as replace the of belts due to use, and age. Belt drivers do not like huge temp. and humidity ranges and many lack torque to deal with stylus drag in groove modulations. The question is can this stylus drag in groove modulation be heard? Well that is another rather circular argument, much like debating $2000 power cords vs the $5.00 ones.

I have a classic, high end, vintage, quartz locked, direct drive turntable. Impeccably engineered when the Made In Japan Corps had huge amounts of cash to R&D these behemoths. It's has impeccable speed stability, suffers from no cogging nonsense, has superior W&F measured less than .025% wrms/.04% Din. It has a measured rumble of >78db. It has a speed stability measure at <.002%. Set up properly and used properly it makes no audible room incursion noises, it's dead silent as a drive system on LP playback noise. It's near maintenance free and I will put it up against any other turntable made. I'm not saying it will equal or best all, but that it will not be embarrassed by any be they regular priced models or even uber high end ones.

Sorry folks I once began to fall in to this higher end, audiophile stuff (err, mucho crappola) and eventually realized too much of it is snake oil. I'm a hi-fi buff and anal about care and use of all my gear. I have very good hearing and I am a rather critical listener to music. I am human and not perfect so as such these flaws affect listening and pleasure of music. I put good money for value and I do not (sorry if this offends) delude myself in to a world of uber high end, too much audiophile snake oil. But if such works for others SO BE IT! IT'S YOUR MONEY!

I very much agree with your views on direct drive. I disagree with your view on the uber high end. Yes, it is expensive and probably overpriced. But some of it is actually really good stuff. It just depends on the manufacturer, the engineering, and the type of people that run the operations. Imo, the really good companies do not indulge in the snake oil business. It's true there's a lot of dubious marketing involved, but it's up to the consumer to see through that. And as you said, "it's your money." The point is to be happy and put together a system that brings forth a very satisfying musical experience!

As to high end, I totally understand why many may be enamored by it and as long as it's money one can afford to spend it's ok! I believe in the value to cost ideals though. I do not buy low end junk but I also do not see the value in the diminishing returns that uber high end gives in terms of performance over the multitude of quality gear at lower prices. Of course as audio jewelry of uber high end, well that's another discussion on said value or lack there may be.

The audiophoolery stuff though abounds in this hobby/adventure. I hate the snake oil crap that succeeds in taking money from otherwise regular peoples pockets. I have fallen even slightly for some of this snake oil crap. I've learned my lesson on it all.

05-23-14: Kiko65
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.

These "rules" you generalized have been repeated ad nauseam in forums and they are shaky. Please reread Les_creative_edge's comments.

I know the term "magnetic drive" was used as a marketing ploy to deflect the bad reps direct drive garnered in the past but it is in fact an apt way to describe how it works. The interface between the motor and platter is not a belt nor idler wheel but a magnetic force. You cannot get any mechanically simpler than that as there is only ONE single moving part!

.

As to high end, I totally understand why many may be enamored by it and as long as it's money one can afford to spend it's ok! I believe in the value to cost ideals though. I do not buy low end junk but I also do not see the value in the diminishing returns that uber high end gives in terms of performance over the multitude of quality gear at lower prices. Of course as audio jewelry of uber high end, well that's another discussion on said value or lack there may be.

The audiophoolery stuff though abounds in this hobby/adventure. I hate the snake oil crap that succeeds in taking money from otherwise regular peoples pockets. I have fallen even slightly for some of this snake oil crap. I've learned my lesson on it all.

I understand. Again, there's some of the uber high end that is head and shoulders sound wise above less expensive units. Not all of it falls into the diminishing returns camp. Is it still overpriced? Probably, but most of audio is that way, and the resale value isn't that great save a few select brands. But, you get what you pay for, imo. On the other hand, I am not adverse to good bang for the buck stuff. That certainly has its merits too. It all boils down to what you are looking for, and what can you get out of it to have a true satisfying emotional and musical experience.

I don't care for snake oil either. I'm not into crazy off the wall tweaks and such. However, I do believe that good quality cables make a difference. That has been a long running debate for at least 30 years now. I base my judgements by my experiments in my own system as well as others. I use excellent cables now, which were not cheap, and I use to have the dirt cheap stuff. And in my opinion, the current cables I now use succeed over the cheaper brands I formerly used. I did hear a noticeable difference; it wasn't subtle.

Some years back I had a chance to do a direct comparison with an SP10 with an Ortofon arm and two new Grado cartridges. It was very clear that the combination of a good arm and the much more robust drive made the idea of tweaking my SL very questionable.

In some respects the SL is a good choice for some but my Well Tempered Classic kills it. I don't think it has anything to do with speed stability, I think it's the constant cogging of the drive and/or the arm but I can't say for sure.

Even so I'll never sell it. It's become an icon.

Dont shout about a TURKEY!!!

Even so I'll never sell it. It's become an icon.

Same here. And due to the fact they're not manufactured anymore, makes keeping it a no-brainer...

Hiho,
So glad we live in a free country where we are able express ourselves without being ostracized.

If you read well, I am not criticising Direct Drive TTs, just summarising what thousands of music lovers have reported/experienced so far. I simply tried to express that both have pros and cons and, in the end, it really boils down to taste.

There is no right or wrong, just a matter of opinion.

I read Les_creative_edge comments well and STILL stand by my comments:

TO MY EARS, my Rega sounds more engaging than the late SL1200 MKII.

Sometimes is better to agree to disagree.

Happy listening!

Kiko65, I did not say the SL1200 sounds better nor do I care. The Rega probably does sound better and good for you! I'm not a fan of the SL1200 at all. It was not about taste. All I wanted to point out was your idea about direct drive's motor isolation and its mechanical aspects and also your claims about belt drive being more stable. Those are not taste issues. I personally like all three drive systems, direct, idler, and belt drive. They are just like food to me which goes back to taste and I have no qualms about tastes!

.

Point taken, all good.

In terms of motor isolation and its mechanical aspects:

Belt driven tables, with dedicated power supply units can provide excellent motor isolation.

Rega's new power supply/motor anti-vibration circuit (TT-PSU) comes from both the P9 power supply and the P25 anti-vibration motor drive feeding the 24V AC synchronous motor.

It uses a remote wall wart transformer keeping hum & noise to a minimum and away from all sensitive parts, such as the cartridge.

It uses exactly the same high stability crystal locked low distortion sine wave generator that was used in the late P9 power supply.

It is said to generate a 24Volt AC balanced signal of less than 0.05% distortion.

Not bad for a combined cost of $1290.00

No hard feelings and happy listening!

Kiko, so glad you recognize only we have free speech!
When I lived in Germany and Finland the audio police were everwhere .Poor Krauts were scared to death.

Audio police? Isn't "Krout" a derogatory word for a German?
Not sure if you're trying to be funny or sarcastic Schubert.

I'm sure you don't.

I rest my case in peace.

1200 vs. Rega is unfair match I guess similar to Vladimir Klitchko vs. Oscar Dela Hoya.
Any parameter you pick up 1200 is going to score high against most of Regas. Not sure what those higher-end Regas built like, but design in general for all of models budget oriented while in 1200 it's performance and durability oriented.
Quiet motor, RPM stability(vs. frequent RPM instability in Regas), TRACTION and TRACTION again to the point that dirt cheap cartridge will smoke most of Regas with high-end ones and I'm only talking about stock unmodded versions(have currently 4 for DJ use). Bass control, realistic and precise mids...
I hardly ever DJ now -- no time for it, but still rent them out to DJ's and there's certainly factor of built quality and reliability. I guess any Rega would just simply collapse trying to 'outrun' 1200.

If you haven't heard the 1200 with a higher end MM cartridge (at least $200-$300) you're in for a treat. I had a less expensive cartridge on there, and it was pretty good, but when I upgraded the cart, now it's really, really good! :D

I've got pretty fine arsenal of various carts utpo $500 worth.
Some of them are being upgraded re-tipped.

Cool, sounds good.

@ 57s4me

Sir, it is specified clearly that both turntables, TECHNICS SL-120 ORIGINAL MK1 and REGA PLANAR 3 had exactly the same cartridge, SHURE V15 III.

The only difference is that the TECHNICS had a slightly inferior tonearm.

That's why reviewer says:

"So at least in the case of the Technics SL-120 and the Rega Planar 3, we were hearing almost entirely the sound of the turntables themselves, rather than sound of the tonearms and cartridges."

Hellenic_vanagon,

Sir, my mistake in writing too hastily! I merely wanted to point out that comparisons are probably meaningless or at best misleading when the number of variables is larger than one.
Sincerely, 57s4me

@ 57s4me

The only difference, tonearm, was against the ORIGINAL SL-1200.

Despite the REGA had better tonearm, and exactly the same cartridge, and all the other factors being equal, Technics sounded better.

add KAB mods to 1200 tonearm and no Rega of any kind will compete at any price.

I can believe that. I really feel there's nothing wrong with my M5G with the A-T 150MLX cart. For $900, which is what I paid for both the cart and 'table, it's a bargain, imo. I would probably have to at least pay twice as much to eek out better performance. And will that performance be head and shoulders of what I already have? I'm thinking maybe, maybe not...