Vinyl Heaven 4 - Technics SL-1200 MK2 - The Best Turntable To Buy

Visit KAB Electro Acoustics >>
.

Here are some more comments - this time from the pages of TNT

Re: Technics SL 1200 review:

Dear Mr Ogiers, I'm sending this mail from Italy to sincerely thank you for your wonderful job. I've been an hi-fi lover and record collector for years, owned different types of hi-fi turntables and since 1992 I'm a fan of the SL1200 that I use together with my current system composed by Thorens TD160 Marantz 1060 amp and AR 3a speakers.

Gotta say that the SL1200 has always sounded extremely good, and the Thorens and all the other decks of the same category I used never did better.

Always liked the quality of its construction but I saw that all the "experts" were always talking bad about this deck. Anyway I noticed that none of them had listened to it. They simply say that it's a pro turntable. That's very unprofessional. All the SL1200 fans in the hi-fi world were take for a joke. Anyway none of them for what I know have stopped to state what the truth is, AND THE TRUTH ON THIS WONDERFUL DECK IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU STATED IN YOUR REVIEW.

I'm very happy that TNT is not afraid to speak the truth loud. I'd like to know if you have tested the SL1200 with the hi-fi mats, to see if that lush and warm sound can be improved. I can't wait to upgrade my deck in the better way, so I hope you could help me. Thanks.
I can't wait to read your future reviews!
Regards.
Alfonso

http://www.tnt-audio.com/feedback/october06.html

WO:
Dear Alfonso,
thank you for your letter. Indeed, as soon as one drops one's prejudices and listens it appears that the SL1200 MkII in its basic form is perfectly competitive in sound and in price with more fashionable products. All it needs is a suitable cartridge and some care in set-up. But this rule applies to any record player.
Kind regards,
Werner Ogiers

http://www.tnt-audio.com/feedback/october06.html

Re: Technics SL 1200 review
Werner,
I commend you for your review. Many "high-end" audiophiles are herd animals and refuse to check things out for themselves. Also, it is easy to let preconceived views influence ones thinking.

As you point out, the Technics is an older design, but, then again, it is not older than the belt drive turntable. Your review makes clear that the table was originally intended for the consumer market, however, with the Mk 2 version the deck was specifically marketed towards "professionals" as part of their pro line (along with the SP-15, 25, and 10 Mk2 and 3).

It shares the same motor and electronics with the erstwhile SP-25. I have 2 Technics decks. The SL-1100, and SL-1200 Mk5. The latter is similar to the Mk 2 with the exception of a Quartz lock reset, and a recessed power switch. Also, the stylus light is, I believe, now an LED. The 1200 Mk2 is a better engineered deck than either the 1100, or the original 1200.
The tonearm on the Mk5 has not changed from the 1200 Mk2. I have seen modifications allowing use of other arms, but, as you point out, the VTA function is then unavailable. An option would be to find an EPA-250 (which consists of the EPA 500 arm base and EPA 250 S-shaped tonearm assembly; they occasionally turn up on ebay).

This ought to fit the table without much modification, and would then allow adjustable VTA. In any case I'd like to mention that at least one MM cartridge can be used without problems. I have a V-15x MR sometimes installed, and with the damping brush there are no resonance issues.

Good MC cartridges work well with the arm. Some of the very heavy cartridges are best used in heavier arms. I would hesitate against using a stone Koetsu, a Fidelity Research cartridge, or an SPU in the tonearm, but who knows? Denons work well. Unfortunately, Denon has decided to offer only the spherical tip in their current 103 line-up. Nevertheless, the DL-103 (and I presume, the 103 R) mate well with the Technics arm. I have used both the 103 and 103 D with good results.

I have just ordered my second 103, and will then be sending my current Denon to Mr. van den Hul in order to have it re tipped. The cantilever will also be replaced with a boron tube. I am interested in hearing what difference a modern line contact stylus does for this ancient cartridge design.

Direct drive has gotten a lot of bad press over the years. Yet, two of the most highly regarded phono technologists have used this principle in their designs. Here, I am talking about Mitchell Cotter and Sao Win. As far as I know, neither Cotter nor Dr. Win are involved in hi-fi any more, but in this I could certainly be mistaken.

The idea that the quartz servo system "hunts and pecks" and that this is responsible for audible speed problems is foolish. No one will hear any flutter or speed variation with the SL-1200. A good check is Liszt lieder.

Just piano and voice--two of the most difficult instruments to reproduce. I own a Thorens TD-160 which I have modified in accordance to standard practice. I prefer the Technics. I can discern no speed related artefacts between the two, but the Technics is less prone to room vibrations affecting the tonearm. In general, I prefer mass and rigidity over a spongy, springy suspension, but I suppose that different installations have different requirements.

The Technics is also better in this respect than a Denon DP-75 I once owned. The latter's factory laminated wooden base was quite resonant, not unlike a guitar or violin. The base of the Technics is relatively inert.

If I could make any changes I would add the addition of 78 rpm. KAB offers an appropriate modification, but then the factory warranty is voided. In a more perfect world Technics would still offer the EPA 500 tonearm system as an option.

However, as it is, the standard Technics tonearm is well designed and functional. Like you, I have noticed and agree that it is surprising how friction free it feels when handling it. There is no bearing play I can discern.

Older designs are not necessarily always worth ignoring. There is a gentleman in Japan designing low powered tube amps that he mates with classic horn systems. He employs a primitive Grace oil-damped tonearm (ever see one of those?) with a Denon DL-102 mono cartridge in order to show off his wares.

So, I feel a bit modern sporting a Denon DL-103 on a Technics SL 1200.
Regards,
Michael

http://www.tnt-audio.com/feedback/october06.html

WO
Dear Michael,
thank you for your lengthy comment. You touch on some aspects covered less in my review, but then, reviews cannot be of infinite length, and so we sometimes have to leave things out. Yes, the damper-equipped Shure cartridges can be used with arms of excessive (relative to the cartridge's compliance) mass: the damping action cancels the negative effects of a peaky resonance at too low a frequency.

As for the DL-103's spherical stylus ... it may seem crude, but it keeps the cartridge cheap(er), and as long as the result sounds like music we're all happy, not?

Thanks for the feedback!
Werner Ogiers

http://www.tnt-audio.com/feedback/october06.html

Real Stereo

Where To Buy YOUR Technics SL-1200 MK2

As with any piece of sophisticated equipment, such as the Technics SL-1200 MK2, the only safe option is to buy from an approved and authorised dealer. It is only in this way that users will be able to obtain the proper after-sales support.

In the UK there should be numerous authorised dealers. SUPERFI is a highly respected hi fi dealer and stocks various Technics SL-1200 models. Visit http://www.superfi.co.uk/index.cfm/page/moreinfo.cfm/Product_ID/228

In North America the renowned Technics turntable experts are KAB Electro Acoustics. There is probably nothing that KAB's Kevin Barrett does not know about the Technics SL-1200 line. Visit http://www.kabusa.com

Second Hand. Although the Technics SL-1200 is regarded as almost 'bomb proof' by many, make no mistake, it is a precision instrument and it is probably very wise to avoid buying a used model, unless it is certain that it has been used carefully and only for hi-ifi reproduction and definitely not for DJ work or 'scratching'.

Some Hi Fi Magazines - They Really Get My Goat!

Unwarranted Bias

So there we are, a few representative stories from the real world - Not from biased or opinionated Hi Fi magazines, not from shops that foolishly don't stock the Technics SL-1200 MK2 and so must pressurise customers into buying some other inferior product - and then the endless, expensive and useless upgrades that inevitably follow.

I must admit that I have enjoyed reading various Hi Fi magazines over the years, but as my own listening skills have improved so have my skills at weeding out the good from the bad as far as Hi Fi journalism goes. While there are some excellent reviewers writing for certain magazines, some magazines appear to have gone very down market, in particular What Hi Fi Sound and Vision which now seems to reside in the Clarksonesque school of sensationalist writing.

While there may be one or two informative pieces between the glossy covers, it seems to me that most of the (so called) reviews are extremely superficial, highly subjective, very lightweight and generally omit any meaningful analysis or product specifications and are written in an unnecessarily sensationalist and typically 'blokey' FHM style that appears to have little relevance to serious music lovers and real stereo enthusiasts.

I appreciate that forming a personal opinion of hi fi sound is subjective, but surely there should be some objectivity in a written review and some of the reviews I have read must simply be plain wrong: I have been out and listened to some of the 5 star recommended equipment and found that, at best, it sounds disappointing and at worst it's just plain b' awful - amazingly some of the shops that are selling this 5 Star junk even agree! One frustrated hi-fi dealer exclaimed - well what sort of hi fi journalism do you expect from people who are more used to writing for caravanning magazines and the like - i.e. they are just writing stuff for writing's sake and the end of month wage packet. They are not real stereo enthusiasts at all. They tell readers to buy this rubbish and we shift loads of the stuff, even if it isn't any good.

That's journalism. Why let facts get in the way of a sensational but ultimately pointless (and sometimes downright misleading) article.

I often suspect, and one or two hi fi shops have confirmed this, that some hi fi magazines award top marks and highly recommend mediocre products so long as the manufacturer in question places lots of advertising with the publication. I may be cynical, but I now take most of what I read with a kilogram or two of salt.

As I stated on the first page I get increasingly annoyed with the garbage written in certain H-Fi magazines (such as must have loudspeaker or interconnect cables that can cost up to and over hundreds of pounds - of all this is "snake oil" for the gullible): The only safe way to use such publications is to use them for clues as to what's currently on the market, then go out and listen taking care to ignore all the shop assistant's biased ravings!

Any potential hi-fi buyer really should audition any potential new purchase such as CD plaer, tuner or amplifier - and absolutely must go out and listen to important items such as loudspeakers, turntables and cartridges since these items will impose a very particular audio signature on the overall sound. Chosing hi-fi is as much about the technical accuracy of a particular component as it is about personal taste. I doubt that many people could tell any really significant difference between one amplifier and another (as long as they are from decent 'proper' hi-fi manufacturers) though I am not saying that there is none, but the difference between turntables is extremely significant (which is why I now have a Technics SL-1200 of course) as is the huge difference between different loudspeaker models.

So maybe all this is why the Technics SL-1200 is all but ignored by the Hi Fi press - even though it seems quite apparent to me that it is a far superior turntable compared to anything anywhere nears its price. I think that this is a disgraceful state of affairs, and I do feel cheated by the Hi Fi press and dealers pushing obviously inferior yet far more expensive turntables instead. If only I and many other music overs had found out the truth about the Technics SL-1200 MK2 many years ago we could have all been spared unnecessary (and often expensive) dalliances with other inferior record players.

Some links that maybe you should see:

Here is a magnigicent example of some of the utter nonsense printed, in the guise of a serious review in a hi-fi magazine:

http://sound.westhost.com/madashell8.htm

Here are some brilliant examples that you might think could have been given Best Buy Five Star reviews in a certain hi-fi magazine. Wot:

http://sound.westhost.com/satcure/scam.htm

http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/directionalcoaxial.html

CONCLUSIONS
.

Vinyl Is Better Than CD

I won't get drawn into the Vinyl is better than CD, or CD is better than vinyl debate, because I just don't think that, after years of listening, that one format is better than the other - they are just subtly different. Some may prefer vinyl over CD and others may prefer CD over vinyl - OR some people may find that some recordings are preferable on CD while others are more enjoyable on vinyl.

Personally I like the convenience and the generally excellent quality of CD, but I do still enjoy listening to LP records immensely - the music is somehow more rewarding, possibly for the reasons discussed on previous pages.

I think that what I have realised is that, in 2007, it seems relatively easy to design and mass produce a CD player in the Far East that can sell in the UK for £150 to £250 that will make the basis for a very good sounding Hi-Fi system indeed. This is due to the fact that a CD player consists mostly of relatively inexpensive (when applied to mass production) highly integrated (LSI - Large Scale Integrated circuits) electronics.

It also seems certain that it is incredibly difficult to design and manufacture a satisfactory high quality turntable for £300 or £400 that will sound as good as that relatively cheap CD player in terms of high signal to noise ratio (lack of rumble and noise), lack of wow and flutter and perfect pitch stability. This is because the requirements of a good sounding turntable are down to high precision engineering and manufacture which is more difficult to accomplish, and therefore very much more expensive, than producing electronic equipment such as CD players. The costs of R&D and engineering for the CD player, or constituent components, are also borne over a very much larger production run than would be the case for a new turntable design. – That is unless we are talking about the Technics SL-1200 MkII turntable which, while it cost the equivalent of many millions to develop, has been in production for so many years that the initial R&D investment has long been paid for and today the unit cost of this deck is now so relatively inexpensive, it in no way represents the true cost of what such a turntable would retail for had it been designed in the last few years.

Perfect Sound Forever

The CD manufacturers slogan of the 1980's was 'Perfect Sound Forever', however even though CD reproduction is never plagued by such trouble as speed error, wow and flutter, end-of-side distortion, mis-tracking or crackles. However CD's can certainly be damaged by scratches, just like vinyl records can, and then can suffer skipping, jumping, sticking and in bad cases may even be rendered completely un-playable. These should be rare occurrences if one looks after a CD carefully. The thing that I find difficult to explain is that the music reproduction from some digital CD's can seem less musically satisfying than from a good analogue source. I also find that CD's can have rather course and 'gritty' treble and even suffer from some subtle and inexplicable but very noticeable distortions - maybe it is these distortions that make CD's sound less than satisfying. These effects cannot be put down to a particular CD player, as I will notice such effects on budget decks as well as very expensive machines.

From the technical articles that I have read (I'll admit to never reading Philips Red Book, the bible of the Compact Disc standards) the CD format should provide near perfect sound reproduction, and I should have no reason to disbelieve this.

Therefore I can only explain the cause and gritty treble, and other distortion by way of poor mastering or pressing rather than an intrinsic defect of the CD system.

I don't know what it is, but I like it.

It is true that record replay can sound utterly dire if played on poor equipment, and will sound extremely poor even if played on good equipment that has not meen set up and adjusted properly. That's the snag with vinyl - it takes some real effort to set up a turntable and cartridge properly in order to obtain really good sound quality. Even when a turntable is set up correctly, CD is technically superior on paper. CD has lower noise and distortion figures and should have a much flatter frequency response. However the fact is that vinyl remains an extremely enjoyable medium and in many listener's opinion the sound of analogue LP's is much more preferable to digital CD. So how can this be? I have taken good quality LPs and recorded the audio onto a PC as Wave files (.wav not compressed mp3 or aac files) and then burned the resulting files to CD using Windows Media Player or Nero and the resulting CD is, I would say, all but indistinguishable from the original LP. Does this prove that CD makes perfect copies of the source material? Perhaps so. But why do so many people (60 percent according to one recent listening test) prefer a piece of music played from vinyl to the identical piece of music played from CD?

Ideally the frequency response of a cartridge should be flat, but it is known that each cartridge has its own subtly different character. So maybe one factor in the LP vs CD debate may be that vinyl record reproduction is itself subject to its own form of distortion - but pehaps the ear, or a least some listeners' ears, regard this as a nice distortion. So, the frequency response may not be as ruler flat as that achieved by CD players, but the audio signature of vinyl reproduction, in the form of a slight emphasis of certain frequencies, can perhaps make for a pleasuarable audio experience. Maybe this is part of the reason that can make listening to an LP a very rewarding? This is a very difficult phenomenon to explain. I love listening to my CD's, but I do feel that records can sound smoother and purer.

Maybe, on the other hand, a good analogue recording really is better than digital, as many people argue. After all the word analogue means an exact copy, whereas a digital recording is split up into bits of data, the ones and zeros that computer binary code uses, that attempt to represent a musical wave form.

Perhaps it's a purely psychological effect that renders LP reproduction as a far more rewarding and physical experience: The listener has to carefully remove the beautiful black vinyl from its sleeve, place it onto the turntable and clean it, then gently lower an elegant tonearm (a Technics SL-1200 tonearm, of course!) onto the playing surface of the record. It's all very difficult to explain! I don't know why it is, but I like it - well as long as it's played on a Technics!