How does the Technics SL 1200 compare with....

Being a Rega dealer and a DJ at a local radio station that uses the 1200 I did a quick but well controlled comparison and posted the results on an earlier thread that was removed for some reason. I used the latest P3/24 with its outboard power supply, with a barely broken in Rega Exact on both tables. I played them through my reference system. Unfortunately the record I used was punched out of round so speed stability issues were clouded. I would assume the Technics to have noticably superior speed stability. The Rega however was noticably more dynamic and transparant although a bit edgier on sibilance. The Technics was warm but muffled in comparison. Ideally I would have liked to have had more time to experiment though.

Addendum to my other reply:

Bear in mind that the new Rega P3/24 I used now sells for $845 and the outboard PS is an additional $345 totalling $1190 compared to the $550 for the 1200. Comparing the Rega P2 would be would be more apples to apples pricewise. Also, comparing the 1200 with the same Rega RB301 would have been interesting.

Bear in mind also that Although I am a Rega dealer, I also have access to the Technics tables, so no particular conflict of interest there.

Audiofeil,

In my comparison, it was definitely not so cut and dried, in either direction. Perhaps my sample of the Technics was compromised in some way, but not that I could tell. I used the same cart, mat and record weight and mounted both on the same VERY isolated platform, and the result was points in both directions. The Technics was smoother but not as clear, fast or dynamic. The Rega was edgier though. Speed stability, is another matter, and obviously a point in favor of the Technics.

There are so many variables with vinyl and, as I said above, a better comparison would have been to use the same arm as well, and perhaps a better cartridge, not to mention more time to tweek.

Audiofeil,

the fact is, except for the edginess, I prefered the Rega. Generally, I am always on the look out for a better, more elegant and, if possible, cheaper answer. I would have been delighted to find a cut and dried result so I could move on in definitive terms. Although I feel my comparison was not conclusive because of insufficient time, I do feel I got some welcome and relevant input.

The Rega P3 is obviously an entry level table for those who want a no fuss no muss set up. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything other than that it is arguably an appropriate comparison to the Technics, and a well known quantity to boot. I believe I made it clear tha I'm in a position to sell both. I do not think the Technics pulls the rug out from under the Rega line. My sense is they will appeal to different folks both sonically and otherwise.

I have no ax to grind here, although I get the distinct impression that you do.

"Happens all the time."

Peace.

Audio is obviously very subjective and there is simply no accounting for taste. That is not to say that there is no basis for ojective analysis, but people have different priorities and are sometimes willing to put up with some major downsides to get even a single major upside. It takes a much more ambitious product than either of these to aspire to being uncompromised. In my original review that I posted in the now defunct thread, I noted that my reference Maplenoll table understandably blew both the Rega and Technics out of the water. I couldn't live with either of those as my sole table. One of the two LP used to test had very challenging sybilance and the Rega had a real problem with it. The 1200 handled it better but was muddier across the board, although quieter. I suspect that this is plinth and arm related rather than direct vs. belt issue. The high mass, highly damped plinth of the Technics is the poloar opposite of the purposefully low mass highly rigid, undamped plinth of the Rega. Choose your poison.

Tvad,

I don't see myself as offering a "point of view" so much as observations and hypotheses. It makes sense to me that a direct drive would need damping. I did not at all intend to say that the Rega low mass undamped technique is better, just that it may contribute significantly to the differences between the two tables. My Maplenoll is VERY high mass and very damped but rigidly with lead and corian rather than rubber like the Technics. There are a alot of folks that believe that evacuating resonance is more effective than soft damping which they argue traps the resonance within the component. Perhaps the Maplenoll optimizes both by damping rigidly in a way that facilitates evacuation as well. I don't get that there is any "right" way to handle these issues, just lots of different roads any of which need to well tended and balanced to be comprehensibly effective. My sense is that the art of Turntable design and resonance management has evolved a bit since the Technics team made there (significant) investment. They got alot right, especially for a $500 table. I can easily relate what I heard to Johnnyb's comment, "the Technics is giving me a lot of musical enjoyment". My initial impression was, "mmm, comfy." The Rega was simply more incisive, but at a cost.

Incidentally, I heard recently that A. J. Conti compared the speed stability of his upper end Basis table, a belt drive using an exeedingly thin but super accurately ground rubber belt to the Technics 1200 with excellent results. Go figure.

Thom Mackris sums up this dynamic nicely in an unrelated adjacent thread:

"...while specific "superior" architectures may well arise, that ultimately, mature designs arise from multiple different architectures ... in the hands of a skilled and aware designer. I truly feel that these superior (yet divergent) architectures tend to converge on musical truth."

or as someone else once sung it:

"it ain't the meat it's the motion."

Managing resonance for sonics and for isolation are two very different things. The Technics does very well for isolation but I question whether it is as competitive for sonics in this respect.

Managing resonances for sonics has to do with isolating and evacuating resonances generated internally such as those generated by the motor, by the spindle and arm bearings and by the cartridge. Managing resonances for isolation has to do with isolating the table from externally generated vibes such as footfalls and airborn and structurally transmitted musical feedback. Musical feedback also effects sonics, whereas footlfalls effect skipping and the like.

"Bang on the table the turntable is sitting on. You'll get nothing. The cartridge/arm will not move out of the groove. Now do the same for virtually any spring-suspension turntable(I know of anyway), and the arm will start jumping around like a 2 year old child with a tantrum..."

That is an example of isolation issues, possibly irrelevent or detrimental to sonic issues.

An example of prioritizing sonics is how Lloyd Walker chose to design his table using air bearing feet, the stiffnes of which was tuned by ear. This then sits on a massive wood platform, designed by ear, which then sits on sorbothane pads on a massive rack, which then gets strapped to the wall if footfalls are a problem. At each point in the continuum from table to floor, sonics are the priority. At no point does he allow issues of isolation to compromise sonics.

Incidentally, I'm not speaking authoritatively so much as theoretically. Imperical research is always king.