Can a Technics SL-1200G challenge the state of the art?

[Atmasphere]

For the last 15-or-so years I have been the proud owner of a Nordic Concept Artist (here sporting a Breuer 8c and Dynavector XV-1s).

Could the humble SL-1200G be used as the platform for an “assault on the summit”? A true SoTA deck that can go toe-to-toe with the best available? This idea was fuelled by the joy of having one in-house and being able to play my records again which had led to a major vinyl renaissance!

The SL1200G has an extremely well designed plinth, platter, motor and motor drive. The job of the plinth is to couple the motor mount and the base of the tonearm as tightly as possible (which is why pod-mounted tonearms are problematic) while also being as acoustically 'dead' as possible.

The SL1200G plinth is a two part metal system; the two bits (the top and the subchassis, bonded together) rob energy from each other since they have very different resonant points, while allowing for very good coupling. Two damping systems are then applied to the plinth, which form the base of the machine.

That's the mechanical engineering needed to control air-born or induced vibration from influencing the sound, since any vibration that actually gets into the plinth is in the same plane in at the base of the motor and the base of the arm.

The patter uses a similar technique of bonded dissimilar metals to create anti-resonance. It is then also damped. So it need not be super high mass to be low in coloration.

These two things really aren't well understood about this design. Its far more advanced and far less resonant than 99% of turntables ever made. Its actually got a better plinth than any of the SP models, which really don't have a plinth at all since they were designed for radio station service. So the motor mount/tonearm mount coupling is actually superior.

The weaknesses of the machine are two fold. The platter pad is their traditional fare, which is a joke. The platter pad's job is to simultaneously damp the vinyl during playback as well as the platter. If this is not done correctly the vinyl will 'talk back' to the stylus and so introduce distortion/coloration. The best commercial pad I've seen so far for this is the Oracle mat, which has to be permanently adhered to the platter. This means the platter mount screws probably should not be installed. A complication is the record spindle really isn't long enough so you can only use a record weight but not a clamp. I expect to fix this on my machine this winter. The stock platter pad is one reason I think you see so much variable results people talk about; the job of the platter pad is IMO poorly understood in the marketplace.

The other weakness is the tonearm, which by high end standards is actually quite good. But there are better arms and if a proper arm board is fabricated (of the same material as the plinth, otherwise colorations are introduced) better arms can be installed. I've installed the Triplanar arm, even the 12" version with excellent results.

IMO these two things are needed for the SL1200G to be world class by any metric.

So can it challenge the state of the art? Yes- easily. Most machines are less resistant to vibration due to poor plinth design and most do not have effective platter pads (which is an easy fix in most cases). I know it hurts a bit when so many high end turntables are far more expensive; look at it this way: Technics has a far greater budget for proper R&D and the manufacturing ability to make the machine in quantity. A smaller manufacturer, if they were able to engineer the motor and its controller, would be charging several times more to build the same thing. So you should not let the lower price fool you into thinking it has less value. IMO/IME it has more.

 

[RickS]

The SL1200G has an extremely well designed plinth, platter, motor and motor drive. The job of the plinth is to couple the motor mount and the base of the tonearm as tightly as possible (which is why pod-mounted tonearms are problematic) while also being as acoustically 'dead' as possible.

The SL1200G plinth is a two part metal system; the two bits (the top and the subchassis, bonded together) rob energy from each other since they have very different resonant points, while allowing for very good coupling. Two damping systems are then applied to the plinth, which form the base of the machine.

That's the mechanical engineering needed to control air-born or induced vibration from influencing the sound, since any vibration that actually gets into the plinth is in the same plane in at the base of the motor and the base of the arm.

The patter uses a similar technique of bonded dissimilar metals to create anti-resonance. It is then also damped. So it need not be super high mass to be low in coloration.

These two things really aren't well understood about this design. Its far more advanced and far less resonant than 99% of turntables ever made. Its actually got a better plinth than any of the SP models, which really don't have a plinth at all since they were designed for radio station service. So the motor mount/tonearm mount coupling is actually superior.

The weaknesses of the machine are two fold. The platter pad is their traditional fare, which is a joke. The platter pad's job is to simultaneously damp the vinyl during playback as well as the platter. If this is not done correctly the vinyl will 'talk back' to the stylus and so introduce distortion/coloration. The best commercial pad I've seen so far for this is the Oracle mat, which has to be permanently adhered to the platter. This means the platter mount screws probably should not be installed. A complication is the record spindle really isn't long enough so you can only use a record weight but not a clamp. I expect to fix this on my machine this winter. The stock platter pad is one reason I think you see so much variable results people talk about; the job of the platter pad is IMO poorly understood in the marketplace.

The other weakness is the tonearm, which by high end standards is actually quite good. But there are better arms and if a proper arm board is fabricated (of the same material as the plinth, otherwise colorations are introduced) better arms can be installed. I've installed the Triplanar arm, even the 12" version with excellent results.

IMO these two things are needed for the SL1200G to be world class by any metric.

So can it challenge the state of the art? Yes- easily. Most machines are less resistant to vibration due to poor plinth design and most do not have effective platter pads (which is an easy fix in most cases). I know it hurts a bit when so many high end turntables are far more expensive; look at it this way: Technics has a far greater budget for proper R&D and the manufacturing ability to make the machine in quantity. A smaller manufacturer, if they were able to engineer the motor and its controller, would be charging several times more to build the same thing. So you should not let the lower price fool you into thinking it has less value. IMO/IME it has more.

Excellent points to contemplate. Especially at the end. Makes me want to buy one of these myself.

 

[Atmasphere]

Excellent points to contemplate. Especially at the end. Makes me want to buy one of these myself.

We designed a turntable 30 years ago whose plinth met these requirements- very rigid and dead to maximize coupling as I mentioned with a heavily damped platter. With a state of the art arm it could challenge anything out there. But it was belt drive and the Technics beat it easily (once the issues of platter pad and arm were equalized). So we discontinued our turntable- the Technics is better for less money and comes with an arm. No brainer.

 

[directdriver]

We designed a turntable 30 years ago... But it was belt drive and the Technics beat it easily... So we discontinued our turntable...

I believe it was a modified Empire 208.

 

[mtemur]

We designed a turntable 30 years ago whose plinth met these requirements- very rigid and dead to maximize coupling as I mentioned with a heavily damped platter. With a state of the art arm it could challenge anything out there. But it was belt drive and the Technics beat it easily (once the issues of platter pad and arm were equalized). So we discontinued our turntable- the Technics is better for less money and comes with an arm. No brainer.

Unfortunately, this highlights your misunderstanding rather than Technics’ supposed overachievement. I say this from experience, having owned a pristine, top-performing Technics SL-1000. I could never call it a great turntable in terms of sound or wow & flutter. It reminded me of the older Technics models I used to own. Designing and building a turntable isn’t simple, and just because someone is skilled with a lathe doesn’t mean they can create the ultimate turntable.

 

[struts]

The SL1200G has an extremely well designed plinth, platter, motor and motor drive. The job of the plinth is to couple the motor mount and the base of the tonearm as tightly as possible (which is why pod-mounted tonearms are problematic) while also being as acoustically 'dead' as possible.

...

So can it challenge the state of the art? Yes- easily. Most machines are less resistant to vibration due to poor plinth design and most do not have effective platter pads (which is an easy fix in most cases). I know it hurts a bit when so many high end turntables are far more expensive; look at it this way: Technics has a far greater budget for proper R&D and the manufacturing ability to make the machine in quantity. A smaller manufacturer, if they were able to engineer the motor and its controller, would be charging several times more to build the same thing. So you should not let the lower price fool you into thinking it has less value. IMO/IME it has more.

Thank you for the very thoughtful post! Your points are very much in line with my own thinking, but you have obviously delved into this in much greater depth than me and your arguments are clear and compelling.

I arrived at the same conclusions regarding the two weak points. I continue to experimented with platter mats (Funk APM, Shein, Oyaide etc.) It is a little bit fiddly as they are different thicknesses and change the VTA every time you swap them. They each have their strengths and I haven't yet decided which, if any, I prefer overall. I am currently using the Oyaide mat together with their record weight and that is a good combo. I don't like the idea of gluing the mat down so I think I will pass on the Oracle.

Regarding the arm I ordered a Supatrac Blackbird back in March and heard just this week that it has shipped so i should be receiving it shortly. I will be mounting it on a beautifully machined alloy armboard from Ammonite Audio. That will be the next major step in this project. When I have done that I will post another update.

But I really appreciate your input. Thanks again!

 

[Atmasphere]

I believe it was a modified Empire 208.

That is where we started. When we designed our plinth, we made it look like the original but with a better finish. The plinth we made was machined out of solid 3/4" aluminum. We machined the platter too and of course had a proper platter pad and was designed for a modern arm.

Unfortunately, this highlights your misunderstanding rather than Technics’ supposed overachievement. I say this from experience, having owned a pristine, top-performing Technics SL-1000. I could never call it a great turntable in terms of sound or wow & flutter. It reminded me of the older Technics models I used to own. Designing and building a turntable isn’t simple, and just because someone is skilled with a lathe doesn’t mean they can create the ultimate turntable.

Apparently you did not read my post thoroughly. The SL1000 and the 'r' version have the same problem as the SP10 series in that they lack a proper plinth. Since you specified an older machine, I suspect it was not operating properly- those older 'tables need the power supplies rebuilt to work properly. The Technics designs are not simple, in case this is what you are implying; at any rate I agree a lathe by itself and the skills to operate it do not qualify one to create the ultimate turntable. I'm sure though that you are not referring to Technics or me, so this bit seems a red herring.

I will be mounting it on a beautifully machined alloy armboard from Ammonite Audio.

Just so we are clear about how the plinth is supposed to work, a proper armboard will be the same thickness as the top plate. It should be machined as tightly as possible such that its a bit of a force fit into the mounting arena.

 

[struts]

Just so we are clear about how the plinth is supposed to work, a proper armboard will be the same thickness as the top plate. It should be machined as tightly as possible such that its a bit of a force fit into the mounting arena.

I have no idea, I guess I will find out when I fit it.

 

[mtemur]

Apparently you did not read my post thoroughly. The SL1000 and the 'r' version have the same problem as the SP10 series in that they lack a proper plinth. Since you specified an older machine, I suspect it was not operating properly- those older 'tables need the power supplies rebuilt to work properly.

I’ve read through your earlier posts, and it’s clear that the SL-1000 is operating as it should, with everything well within spec. I suspect you’re fully aware of the sound characteristic differences between direct drive and high-mass belt drive turntables—beyond just the technical aspects. The same goes for the distinctions between SET and digital amplification. Let’s not overlook what we both know about these contrasts.

 

[Atmasphere]

I’ve read through your earlier posts, and it’s clear that the SL-1000 is operating as it should, with everything well within spec. I suspect you’re fully aware of the sound characteristic differences between direct drive and high-mass belt drive turntables—beyond just the technical aspects. The same goes for the distinctions between SET and digital amplification. Let’s not overlook what we both know about these contrasts.

If you are commenting about your turntable's wow and flutter, I'm going with 'no, its not operating as it should'. That is because it should be considerably lower wow and flutter than any belt drive machine. But this thread is not about the SL1000 or the 'r' variant, neither of which I would buy. Its about the 1200G. The SL1000 comments are a bit of a red herring. IMO, the SL1200G is better.

Technics devoted considerable time to developing a motor that lacks the 'cogging' issue that many belt drive advocates complained of (never mind that belt drive machines are perfectly capable of that same problem). This issue has been addressed on this thread prior.

I bought several pro tape machines, a set of Neumann U67s and made recordings which were pressed to LP. I use those as reference. So my comments are based on that perspective.

 

[directdriver]

I used to own many Technics models (SP-10Mk2, SP-15, SP25, SL-150, etc...) except the SP-10Mk3, which is the driving motors in the two Scully lathes Bernie Grundman uses in his mastering studio that's responsible for many classic jazz reissues. I moved on from Technics since I discovered direct-drive turntables with coreless motors a la Dual, Kenwood, JVC, etc... for their more fluid sound. It's ironic that Technics' return to direct drive turntable came with a change to coreless motor. I agree with Ralph that the SL-1200G has an advantage over the higher model like SP-10 because the motor and tonearm mounting on the same surface without decoupling. If I'm looking for a new DD table, the SL-1200G (or one of its variants) can be one candidate.

 

[mtemur]

If you are commenting about your turntable's wow and flutter, I'm going with 'no, its not operating as it should'.

No, I'm not commenting based on my Technics turntable's wow&flutter which is on par with new version and better than almost all variants new and old. It is based on various new direct drives I measured.

That is because it should be considerably lower wow and flutter than any belt drive machine.

That is how I understand you have no experience with high end, high mass belt drives.

But this thread is not about the SL1000 or the 'r' variant, neither of which I would buy. Its about the 1200G. The SL1000 comments are a bit of a red herring. IMO, the SL1200G is better.

I just laugh at that and three 1200Gs that I've measured were actually not better than old 1310 MKII.

Technics devoted considerable time to developing a motor that lacks the 'cogging' issue that many belt drive advocates complained of (never mind that belt drive machines are perfectly capable of that same problem).

Cogging is a significant direct drive problem unless your exposure to belt drives is limited to extremely light, flimsy platters.

I bought several pro tape machines, a set of Neumann U67s and made recordings which were pressed to LP. I use those as reference. So my comments are based on that perspective.

I don't understand the relation you've mentioned with our topic but I remastered and restored albums in the past to be released on vinyl records.

 

[mtemur]

I used to own many Technics models (SP-10Mk2, SP-15, SP25, SL-150, etc...)

But you haven't owned a SL-1000, right?

 

[Atmasphere]

No, I'm not commenting based on my Technics turntable's wow&flutter which is on par with new version and better than almost all variants new and old. It is based on various new direct drives I measured.

That is how I understand you have no experience with high end, high mass belt drives.

Citation needed; AFAIK you have no idea what experience I have or don't have so this statement is surprising.

I just laugh at that and three 1200Gs that I've measured were actually not better than old 1310 MKII.

Cogging is a significant direct drive problem unless your exposure to belt drives is limited to extremely light, flimsy platters.

I don't understand the relation you've mentioned with our topic but I remastered and restored albums in the past to be released on vinyl records.

Cogging is a significant problem with belt drive too- don't fool yourself- even if the platter is fairly massive.

To really see how this works, a Sutherland Timeline is a handy device. The SL1200 can keep one of the dots in the same place all day long while the LP is being played. Belt drive machines (as much as I like them) can't do that.

Remastering is different from actually recording. It helps to have been there so you know how the LP is supposed to sound.

 

[mtemur]

To move past some of the less productive parts of the discussion and focus on the key question: Can the Technics SL-1200G challenge the state-of-the-art turntables? The short answer is no—unless your idea of a sports car is a Toyota Corolla. The SL-1200 is like the Corolla: reliable, a solid performer, but not something that competes at the cutting edge of high-end audio.

 

[Atmasphere]

To move past some of the less productive parts of the discussion and focus on the key question: Can the Technics SL-1200G challenge the state-of-the-art turntables? The short answer is yes.

High end audio is driven by intention rather than cost. That is why a relatively inexpensive machine like the Technics can easily outperform turntables costing multiples more.

 

[BillK]

But you haven't owned a SL-1000, right?

The newer SL-1000R is one of the best tables I've ever heard, yes with the Technics arm.

Have I heard one parameter or another sound better on another table? Yes.

But overall, rarely, and for the price, definitely not.

I'd love to hear the SL-1000R with a SAT arm.

 

[Holmz]

The newer SL-1000R is one of the best tables I've ever heard, yes with the Technics arm.

Have I heard one parameter or another sound better on another table? Yes.

But overall, rarely, and for the price, definitely not.

I'd love to hear the SL-1000R with a SAT arm.

How about with a Korf arm?

 

[BillK]

How about with a Korf arm?

I haven't heard it in other contexts, so I can't say.

 

[RickS]

It amazes me how much R&D went into DD turntables in the latter part of the 1970s. My brother in laws Sony PS -x7s turntable with its carbon fiber tonearm, quartz X-Tal lock and Shure M91ED cartridge sounded phenomenal back in the day. Top notch all the way and easily as good as FM broadcast turntables sounded back then. I recorded many of his choice and barely played Led Zeppelin, Hendrix, Cream , Jethro Tull etc albums on Maxell UD XLIIS tapes back then that were excellent sounding.

When I later in 1988 bought a Technics SL1200MKII from J&B Music I was very much NOT happy with the horrible sound. Terrible mistracking and IGD and OGD lol. I believe mine had a tonearm with very poorly adjusted bearings unfortunately. I kept that table for about five yrs before I could afford something better sounding (Rega Planar 2, believe it or not). I didn’t realize until 20yrs later the Technics table I had was most likely not representative of 99.99 % of them. But in 2014 I bought a used Sony PSX6 table that was at the time KIller sounding. No IGD or any other distortions etc and I absolutely loved how excellently the platter spun on the money and had such slam and pace! They really did some excellent R&D back in the day to have such choice vinyl playback direct drive machines in the 70s.

If the newer Technics tables have the major improvements over the DD tables of the 70s then for $4000 they’re probably going to be extremely good at what they’re designed to do IMO.