Which turntable do you recommend

[3db]

My choices are

1.) A demo NAD553 for $550.00 from a hifi specialty store
http://www.nadelectronics.com/turntable/533_framset.htm

2.) A new Pro-ject Debut for around 402.00
http://www.project-audio.com/bild.php?debut.jpg

Any experience with either one? Which do you recommend?

[jrhymeammo]

The price you have listed seem high on both. Are they Canadian dollars? For the price I would get Xpression2 ($499) by Pro-ject. I own Xpression1 and think it is a great entry-level TT. Xpression2 to me is better since it has metal cones as feet, and would be great for vibration control (this to me is huge). Carbon fiber tonearms are great, but I'm not sure if Debut comes with one. And it is about the only one in this price range with RCA phono jack that I know of, and playing with different cables are always fun. But if you are going to decide from those 2 listed above, I would go with NAD for the RB-250 tonearm. Ask and read up on Rega owners since NAD TT are supplied with Rega RB 250s.

Good Luck

[3db]

The price you have listed seem high on both. Are they Canadian dollars? For the price I would get Xpression2 ($499) by Pro-ject. I own Xpression1 and think it is a great entry-level TT. Xpression2 to me is better since it has metal cones as feet, and would be great for vibration control (this to me is huge). Carbon fiber tonearms are great, but I'm not sure if Debut comes with one. And it is about the only one in this price range with RCA phono jack that I know of, and playing with different cables are always fun. But if you are going to decide from those 2 listed above, I would go with NAD for the RB-250 tonearm. Ask and read up on Rega owners since NAD TT are supplied with Rega RB 250s.

Good Luck

yes they are in Canadian dollars. SInce the Canadain dollar is so high, I was hoping to see price drops on electronics here in Canada but it hasn't happened yet

[BRANDONH]

My choices are

1.) A demo NAD553 for $550.00 from a hifi specialty store
http://www.nadelectronics.com/turntable/533_framset.htm

2.) A new Pro-ject Debut for around 402.00
http://www.project-audio.com/bild.php?debut.jpg

Any experience with either one? Which do you recommend?
Go direct drive and forget about it.

http://www.musiciansfriend.com/dj/navigation?N=100001+201817

http://img3.musiciansfriend.com/dbase/pics/products/7/8/4/291784.jpg

[Robb]

Hey BrandonOh,
What a coincidence! I have that very same table under the Audio Technica brand name...just wondering what cart you use with it. Cheers!

[BRANDONH]

Hey BrandonOh,
What a coincidence! I have that very same table under the Audio Technica brand name...just wondering what cart you use with it. Cheers!
Hey Rob,
The table in the above pic is not mine I have the Grand Master Technics SL-1210M5G (below):

http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/4011/2917631ho.jpg

http://www.musiciansfriend.com/product/DJ/Gear/Lighting/Turntables/Cartridges?sku=807049

but the cartridge I use is the Shure V15VxMR sadly it has been discontinued :(
I am planning on getting one of these though:

KAB/ORTOFON PRO-S40 http://www.kabusa.com/phoncart.htm#pg2a

<a href="http://imageshack.us"><img src="http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/4963/ccprosl5lc.jpg" border="0" width="300" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us" /></a>


OUTPUT 5cm/S:4mV
FREQ RANGE:20Hz - 29kHz
RESPONSE 20Hz-20kHz:+2 -0 dB
TRACKING 315Hz:>90uM
LATERAL COMPLIANCE:25 uM/mN
STYLUS TYPE:FG70 5/70 uM
STYLUS REPLACEMENT:STY40
STYLUS TIP MASS:0.30 mG
TRACKING FORCE: 1.25-1.75 Gr
LOAD IMPEDANCE: >47kOhm,
200-500pF
CARTRIDGE WEIGHT: 18.5 Gram

The advantage of the integrated design is that the arm wand, cartridge coils and cantilever are in alignment. This creates a better path for vibration dispersion. The result is great midrange transparency and powerful punchy bass. These are custom assembled by KAB. Who else!

[emaidel]

I've said this before (probably at this site, but, perhaps at another one) and I'll say it again: despite the adoration some people give the Technics SL-1200 and its siblings, it isn't the best choice for an audiophile turntable, but is for a DJ. The tubular, "S-shaped" tonearm is just too massive and clunky to work well with a low-mass, high compliance phono cartridge, and its pivot, while incredibly durable to allow for the abuse DJ's relentelessly give it, isn't of a low enough fricition to satisfy a discriminating audiophile. The models depicted here on this thread have a pitch control, which is of no use to an audiophile, and some of the newer models also have a reverse switch, which is equally useless (and potentially dangerous, when used with a high quaility, audiophile cartridge not designed for back-cueing).

There's also a great deal of admiration for KAB, who, at least in the example of Stanton and Pickering cartridges, has simply ripped apart certain stylus assemblies, inserted what's left of them into either Groovemaster or Trackmaster bodies, and called the resulting kluge an "audiophile" product. The all but totally exposed cantilevers (originally protected by the stylus handles they were initially a part of) which now protrude dangerously from Groovemaster and Trackmaster bodies are exceptionally prone to severe damage, which is completely and totally contrary to the exceptional durability both Pickering and Stanton cartridges always exemplified.

My two cents, but having been Pickering's National Sales Manager in the late 70's, and the Vice President of Sales and Marketing for Stanton throughout the 90's until the company was sold, I know of what I speak.

[JohnMichael]

My vote is for the NAD. I own the Rega Planar 2 and I have also owned a Thorens ttable manufactured by Pro Ject. I think the arm on the NAD is better. The Rega has been completely dependable. The Thorens(Pro Ject) went back for service twice.

[emorphien]

Both are good turntables. You get what you pay for though, if the NAD has been taken good care of it would be the better overall turntable and give you more upgradeability (better arm and all the Rega P2 goodies will work on it).

I believe the model should be either 533 or 555 for the NAD however, with the 555 just being a newer version by my assumption. I really haven't been able to get much info on the 555.

As far as the price on that NAD... I could get a 555 new for $500ish (USD) which is more than you're going to pay for that, but not much. I don't know the state of the market for this kind of gear in Canada but you're paying pretty much the same to the new US price for that turntable (currency adjusted, I'm not that dumb :) ). I'd find out what the new price for one of those is in Canada, it's a demo so give it a thorough going over and base how much you think its worth off that. I personally would expect it to be a fair bit less.

edit: Ok i looked a little and your Debut is about $60USD more than it is here after the currency change. Based on that your NAD is probably still too expensive, but not as bad as I had originally thought

[BRANDONH]

I've said this before (probably at this site, but, perhaps at another one) and I'll say it again: despite the adoration some people give the Technics SL-1200 and its siblings, it isn't the best choice for an audiophile turntable, but is for a DJ. The tubular, "S-shaped" tonearm is just too massive and clunky to work well with a low-mass, high compliance phono cartridge, and its pivot, while incredibly durable to allow for the abuse DJ's relentelessly give it, isn't of a low enough fricition to satisfy a discriminating audiophile. The models depicted here on this thread have a pitch control, which is of no use to an audiophile, and some of the newer models also have a reverse switch, which is equally useless (and potentially dangerous, when used with a high quaility, audiophile cartridge not designed for back-cueing).

There's also a great deal of admiration for KAB, who, at least in the example of Stanton and Pickering cartridges, has simply ripped apart certain stylus assemblies, inserted what's left of them into either Groovemaster or Trackmaster bodies, and called the resulting kluge an "audiophile" product. The all but totally exposed cantilevers (originally protected by the stylus handles they were initially a part of) which now protrude dangerously from Groovemaster and Trackmaster bodies are exceptionally prone to severe damage, which is completely and totally contrary to the exceptional durability both Pickering and Stanton cartridges always exemplified.

My two cents, but having been Pickering's National Sales Manager in the late 70's, and the Vice President of Sales and Marketing for Stanton throughout the 90's until the company was sold, I know of what I speak.
Audiophile Snobiophile who cares!
I have the Pro-Ject 1.2 and replaced it with the Technics which easly out preforms the Pro-ject in every way.
True the Technics is used and sold as DJ table but was first intruduced as an audiophile table and today the build quality and sound that comes from these tables is every bit studio um Audiophile quality.
I dont care what anyone says about those over priced audiophile rubberband driven tables, Technics are still an excellent table especially for the money.
And between the two tables the original poster is asking about the Technics fitted with a good cartridge will blow them away.

[emorphien]

I agree Technics are good tables, but in general I find them too analytical and lifeless for the majority of music I listen to. For actually listening to and enjoying my music I prefer a "rubber band" driven table.

[3db]

Audiophile Snobiophile who cares!
I have the Pro-Ject 1.2 and replaced it with the Technics which easly out preforms the Pro-ject in every way.
True the Technics is used and sold as DJ table but was first intruduced as an audiophile table and today the build quality and sound that comes from these tables is every bit studio um Audiophile quality.
I dont care what anyone says about those over priced audiophile rubberband driven tables, Technics are still an excellent table especially for the money.
And between the two tables the original poster is asking about the Technics fitted with a good cartridge will blow them away.

So you've heard the NAD? You can say this because you've heard it or is it merely your opinion?. The NAD is a copy of a Rega Planar2 , a very well regarded turntable in audiophile circles.

[Resident Loser]

...So you've heard the NAD?

...since a tonearm's purpose is to hold the only sonically-dynamic element, i.e. the cartridge, in a fixed plane in relation to the disk and platter...and the platter should revolve at a fixed speed with little or no rumble, wow or flutter...is it really possible to actually "hear" a turntable?

jimHJJ(...if you can, I'd say something is definitely wrong...)

[E-Stat]

...is it really possible to actually "hear" a turntable?
Unless you are referring to models such as the Clearaudio Master Reference, the Kuzma, the SME, the Rockport, or the VPI HRX to mention just a few, that would be an affirmative.

Similar to speakers and their cabinet resonances, turntables exhibit varying levels of tonal neutrality, soundstaging ability, and bass extension.


...if you can, I'd say something is definitely wrong...

Wrong? It's just physics. I learned that lesson thirty years ago when I heard a Linn Sondek LP-12 with a SME 3009 arm considerably outperform a Dual 1229. I use an Ariston RD-11s (immediate precursor to the Linn) with an SME today in my vintage system.


rw

[musicoverall]

Unless you are referring to models such as the Clearaudio Master Reference, the Kuzma, the SME, the Rockport, or the VPI HRX to mention just a few, that would be an affirmative.

Similar to speakers and their cabinet resonances, turntables exhibit varying levels of tonal neutrality, soundstaging ability, and bass extension.



Wrong? It's just physics. I learned that lesson thirty years ago when I heard a Linn Sondek LP-12 with a SME 3009 arm considerably outperform a Dual 1229. I use an Ariston RD-11s (immediate precursor to the Linn) with an SME today in my vintage system.


rw

You haven't heard a turntable until you've not heard a turntable!

:)

[Resident Loser]

Unless you are referring to models such as the Clearaudio Master Reference, the Kuzma, the SME, the Rockport, or the VPI HRX to mention just a few, that would be an affirmative.

Similar to speakers and their cabinet resonances, turntables exhibit varying levels of tonal neutrality, soundstaging ability, and bass extension.

Wrong? It's just physics. I learned that lesson thirty years ago when I heard a Linn Sondek LP-12 with a SME 3009 arm considerably outperform a Dual 1229. I use an Ariston RD-11s (immediate precursor to the Linn) with an SME today in my vintage system.


rw

...You don't really mean to compare an automatic/changer to a (probably) belt-drive deck with a custom-fit separate arm do you? Idlers and pulleys vs. the beautiful simplicity of a belt-isolated platter...and an SME? You probably would have heard a difference between the Dual and an AR or a Thorens.

I mean once you have reduced the wow, flutter and rumble to negligible levels and gotten the cart/arm geometries correct, the TT/arm should be transparent, simply a carrier for the phono-cart...

jimHJJ(...like children, a TT should be seen and definitely not heard...)

[emaidel]

The NAD is a copy of a Rega Planar2 , a very well regarded turntable in audiophile circles.

Just another wortwhile note: the NAD also is less expensive than the Technics SL-1200, and I seriously doubt that the Technics sounds better, nor accepts as wide a range of high quality cartridges as does the NAD.

[3db]

...You don't really mean to compare an automatic/changer to a (probably) belt-drive deck with a custom-fit separate arm do you? Idlers and pulleys vs. the beautiful simplicity of a belt-isolated platter...and an SME? You probably would have heard a difference between the Dual and an AR or a Thorens.

I mean once you have reduced the wow, flutter and rumble to negligible levels and gotten the cart/arm geometries correct, the TT/arm should be transparent, simply a carrier for the phono-cart...

jimHJJ(...like children, a TT should be seen and definitely not heard...)


So my question still stands. Has he heard the sound coming thru a NAD turntable compared to that of a Technics? It implies going thru a pre/amp, amp and speakers..in case you didn'tt know.

[E-Stat]

...You don't really mean to compare an automatic/changer to a (probably) belt-drive deck with a custom-fit separate arm do you?
That was an extreme example responding to your overreaching statement.


I mean once you have reduced the wow, flutter and rumble to negligible levels and gotten the cart/arm geometries correct, the TT/arm should be transparent, simply a carrier for the phono-cart.
Agreed. Not easy to achieve.

rw

[E-Stat]

Just another wortwhile note: the NAD also is less expensive than the Technics SL-1200, and I seriously doubt that the Technics sounds better, nor accepts as wide a range of high quality cartridges as does the NAD.
I had a Technics SL-110 back in the 70s before moving on to a belt drive Ariston (now also have a VPI Scout). While DDs may be optimum for DJs, there are simply zero direct drive turntables at the highest turntable performance levels.

Auditioning the two contestants would be optimum, but I would opt for the NAD based upon the arm.

rw

[JohnMichael]

I had a Technics SL-110 back in the 70s before moving on to a belt drive Ariston (now also have a VPI Scout). While DDs may be optimum for DJs, there are simply zero direct drive turntables at the highest turntable performance levels.

Auditioning the two contestants would be optimum, but I would opt for the NAD based upon the arm.

rw

I also vote for the NAD. It is a good turntable and there is always aftermarket mods if you want even more performance from your table.

[BRANDONH]

http://www.tnt-audio.com/sorgenti/technics_sl1200_e.html

Technics SL-1200 MkII

http://www.tnt-audio.com/jpeg/sl1200_t.jpg

[Technics SL-1200 MkII turntable]
[Italian version]

Product: Technics SL-1200 turntable series
Manufacturer: Matsu****a - Japan
Price: from 460 euro
Reviewer: Werner Ogiers - TNT Belgium
Reviewed: February, 2006

It is not often you get to review an audio component that has its very own page on the wikipedia.

Or one that has been around for almost 35 years.

One that sold over three million units in that time.

One with a bad reputation among us.

I've always wanted to test-drive the SL-1200, in an evil "Let's tell the world how bad it really is" kind of way. Then I got a Technics SL-D2 to refurbish for an acquaintance: a consumer low-end direct drive turntable, now old enough to have a driver's license and insurance bonus points. After the usual cleaning (yuk), tightening, and re-adjusting I dropped in a DL-103 and got ... quite enjoyable sounds. Enough to make its owner rediscover his LP collection. Enough to rekindle my interest in the chieftain of the DD clan.
http://www.tnt-audio.com/jpeg/sld2.jpg

[cheap fun: rejuvenated SL-D2 with DL-103]The direct-drive principle has often been met with disdain and contempt from the audiophool quarter. This was probably and rightfully fueled by the tens of nasty cheap turntables Japan Inc made in the eigthies. But the other, less correct, cornerstone of this disdain was the notion that a quartz-locked DD would always be hunting for the correct speed, as opposed to the much safer and cleaner belt drive. The champions of this theory then blissfully ignored a number of belt-drive basics, namely that 1) a motor with an elastic belt driving an inert platter constitutes an underdamped mass-spring system, and thus resonates and 2) that the more sophisticated belt drive motor control units out there are remarkably similar to the 'hunting' controllers of good DDs and thus suffer the same 'faults'. But as usual, self-deception works wonders in this business and in the western hemisphere the direct-drive was effectively banned from the audiotype's world, in firm favour of a solution that entailed cheap motors on cheap plinths driving cheap platters on cheap bearings with cheap rubber belts.

The actual reason for the massive adoption of belt drive, of course, is that it allowed low-key cottage-industry types to enter the turntable market without investing in the research and tooling required to make a really good direct drive: had any of the presently-established European and American high-end turntable manufacturers tried to design a top-end DD model in the late seventies or early eighties they would have gone belly up in no time through lack of funding. No, they settled for belt drive, and flaunted it with the aid of the local audio press.

At the same time the advent of CD caused the Japanese to withdraw almost immediately from the analogue front, which subsequently killed off all further development of the direct-drive species.

http://www.tnt-audio.com/jpeg/technics_sl1200.jpg

[original SL-1200]One DD turntable survived this massacre. In 1972 Matsu****a brand Technics released the SL-1200, a model sitting in the midst of its consumer range, but still at the right side of the quality/cheapness divide. With its rich functionality and relative sturdiness the Ur-1200 got adopted by the DJ-crowd, and later generations of the SL-1200, from the 1979s MkII on, shed some of their domesticality and grew more pro/DJ-oriented. As such they got somewhat separated from Technics' main product line, which put them into a position to be preserved throughout the ages: despite numerous new iterations, the MkII never ceased production.

So we should be grateful to those disco knights of yore. They kept Technics' order books filled. What started as a fairly upmarket example of seventies engineering is now, after all tooling has been written-off at least a hundred times, a marvel of cheap but high-quality mass production: a Technics SL-1200 MkII costs today, with careful shopping, about 450 euros. This is what I paid for my Dual CS-5000 back in 1987. This is less than what one pays for a Rega P2 clone today. Compare the engineering contents. Compare to the cost evolution of that contemporary of the SL-1200: the Linn LP-12. The SL-1200 outright beat inflation, and that is a small wonder.

Reasons enough for a closer look, not?

The SL-1200 is based on a heavy plinth, sited on four height-adjustable compliant feet. The plinth has a nice aluminium top, and a rather ugly and utilitarian-looking bottom made from a fairly dead compound. The aesthetically-challenged plinth and the four high feet make this turntable look sligly awkward, something that you'd want to hide in a console (as in studios!) rather than exhibit in public. With the exception of a rather flimsy and insubstantial dust cover the overall impression of quality is decent, which given the low selling price is quite an achievement. The deck is sturdy, very heavy, and confidence-inspiring.
http://www.tnt-audio.com/jpeg/sl1200_motor_t.jpg http://www.tnt-audio.com/jpeg/sl1200_platter_t.jpg

[SL-1200 drive system stator] [SL-1200 platter with rotor]

The heart of the SL-1200 is of course the tried and trusted direct drive motor, with its stator bolted to the plinth and its rotor part of the platter. This latter is of thin aluminium, damped with a layer of rubber. Even then it still is rather ringy and really requires the included thick and heavy rubber mat to quiet down. This mat is rather massive, but appeared to be not perfectly flat, causing a wobble of about 0.5 mm.

The drive is controlled with a large start/stop button and a pitch slider with center-detent for nominal speed. A stroboscope light is, distractingly, always on. A nice touch is the hidden stylus light that pops up at the push of a bottom, making cueing in dark rooms a tad easier.

Despised as the SL-1200 is in some circles, its tonearm has an even worse reputation. I'm not sure why. Yes, it is old-fashioned. Yes it is not a single casting and thus structurally less rigid than often desired. Yes it has an outmoded detachable headshell. But these are all vices that can be sidestepped by a proper choice of cartridge. The arm's medium-high 12 g effective mass (including headshell) precludes the use of high-compliance MMs (i.e. most MMs fall out). If an MC is preferred, then its (assumed) imperfect integrity dictates a well-behaved cartridge, as opposed to one with an undampled, resonant treble. But even with these restrictions there is still plenty of choice.

http://www.tnt-audio.com/jpeg/sl1200_arm.jpg

[SL-1200 tonearm, carrying a Benz MC Scheu]

The less-dogmatic music lover or record collector will find this arm a charm to work with. The arm's height, and thus VTA/SRA, can be set easily with a large rotating collar that travels over a range of 6 millimeters, and then can be locked in place with a lever. Advocates of the SL-1200 claim that VTA can be set safely while playing a record, but on my sample the silicone fluid damping the collar motion was so thickly applied as to result in uneven and jerky travel. More: the access to the collar is partly blocked by various bits and pieces of the arm that you don't want to touch while tracing a rare record, so my advice still is only to set VTA with the arm firmly locked in its rest position.

The presence of a separate headshell (no-name spares are available for a low 20 euro!) mean that several cartridges can be hold in store. The VTF, VTA, and anti-skating dials all are clearly marked, so all one has to do is write down the settings for each cartridge. In the course of this test I repeatedly swapped between three cartridges, each time in less than two minutes, each time with entirely consistent results.

In use the arm feels remarkably light, lighter than my own RB-300 or SME IV, and this despite the Technics being the heaviest of the three. This is testament to the SL-1200 having very low bearing friction, perhaps even lower than the IV does! The arm's cable is attached and of the standard commercial variety, terminated in nickle (?) RCA plugs. The cable loom is configured for a floating cartridge connection: contrary to e.g. the standard Rega wiring, the deck's ground wire is not attached to any cartridge wire. This allows using the arm with balanced-input phonostages such as the AQVOX Phono 2 Ci (to be reviewed soon).

The SL-1200 comes with one headshell and assorted cartridge screws. There is also a screw-on weight for the tonearm, to balance heavy cartridges, as well as a metal plate for the headshell, to increase the arm's effective mass somewhat. Then there is an overhang alignment gauge that clips over the headshell, but I found this to be too crude to be of any value: perhaps fine for mounting a Stanton 500 in a dark club, for my more subtle groovetracers I opted for the Schon template.

DJing Dynasty

The SL-1200 MkI was entirely replaced by the MkII in 1979, bringing significant improvements to the drive system and the tonearm, while adding features for clubbing. As said, the MkII remained in production to this very day, but was supplemented with a number of newer versions all the same. The MkIII hardly differed from the II. The MkIV is never seen outside of Japan, but allegedly this is/was a more audiophile oriented turntable, with improved arm cabling and a 78 rpm option (in addition to a very apocryphal platinum-plating of all visible metal parts). The most up to date model is not one, but rather a family of MkVs, which are distinguished mainly by their cosmetics (up to piano black plus gold). Compared to the MkII they add a better cable, but eschew the heavy rubber mat in favour of a felt 'slip' mat. In my opinion this is a significant drawback, as the much thinner felt mat limits the useful range of the tonearm's VTA adjustment, while also doing nothing for the insufficiently-damped aluminium platter. With the cheapest MkV costing more than a MkII, while offering less, I feel that the older deck still has the edge in performance/price.
Bastards, Nephews, Klones

No turntable has ever been copied more than the SL-1200. Its survival and widespread popularity in the DJ scene recently attracted a number of direct competitors from pro/DJ-sound manufacturers like Numark, Stanton, and Vestax. While these machines allegedly improve on the original functionality (e.g. even higher motor torque, shorter arm to facilitate scratching, smaller outline, ...), none of them are of any appeal to the audiophile community, precisely because they are so single-mindedly targetted at club use.

Then there is a spawn of much cheaper (like a silly 150 euro!) clones that only excel at looking exactly and shamelessly like a 1200. I have handled a number of these and can say that, without exception, these 'turntables' exhibited lower mass, lower structural integrity, ringing platters, and tonearm bearings with ludicrous amounts of play in them.
Modifications and Upgrades

Numerous updates and add-ons have been devised for the SL-1200 family, some of them relevant to audiophiles and record collectors: Origin Live sell a replacement armboard that can be fitted with some minor surgery to the deck. This board allows the use of near-any Rega-based tonearm, but note that it is entirely incompatible with the Technics' arm height mechanism. KAB in the USA sell a host of updates for the Technics player, including a silicone damping through for the arm, a big outboard power supply, sprung feet, a strobe lamp defeat (for reduced noise), 78 rpm option, and enough propaganda for a carreer as dictator in a small country ... They also sell decks readily coverted and updated.

The SL-1200 feels very solid in use. Despite its weight it is fairly compact. Setup consists of dropping it onto any sturdy and flat platform (I used the gorgeous Tabula Rasa Basis racks) and leveling it with its four adjustable and easily-accessible feet.

Listening started in earnest with my old Benz Micro MC Scheu cartridge. This is a 1.6mV moving coil, designed as a superior variant of the well-known Benz Glider (today a 0.35mV silver coil version of the MC Scheu is still available at 775 euro). Phonostage was the Trichord Dino+, set for 48dB of gain and 1k input impedance. (This Dino has been modified by me, resulting in a somewhat sweeter sound). The Scheu's long cantilever allowed an easy alignment to my favoured distortion-reducing null points (not always possible, also see my review of the Schon template), and VTA was set with the arm a whisker tail-down.
http://www.tnt-audio.com/jpeg/sl1200_scheu_t.jpg

This then is a turntable/cartridge combination of about 1200 euro. It surprised at once with stable and solid images rooted in an inky-black background. Stereo width was confined to the boundaries of the loudspeakers, but depth was outright impressive, the soundstage being rectangular in shape and very well defined. Tonality was very fine too, a tad warm and round, with a nicely-detailed and sweet treble. Dynamics were fine, though not exceptional. (This combination of a warm and lush sound with somewhat muted dynamics is something I feel that comes with the use of a heavy rubber mat. I remember a similar character in my late Dual CS-5000 and my TD-160-with-Michell-GyroMat. I am planning to test three alternative mats on the Technics soon: Funk Firm Achromat, a felt mat, and the SRM Tech thin silicone mat.) Rhythm and drive were present in abundance, and the result was one of a certain fundamental 'rightness' to the sound.

In absolute terms the sound could be critised for the slighly-narrowed imaging (and I mean slightly!) and a little bit of emphasis in the 100Hz region. But none of these annoyed me, and I spent many happy hours just listening to this combination. If you allow me to extrapolate, then I'd gather that an SL-1200 Mk2 plus one of Benz's second-generation ACE L, M or H cartridges yields an unbeatable 1000 euro record playing system!

[a cheap near-perfect match: DL-103]Looking for a less-costly combination it would be a sin to ignore the Denon DL-103, the more so given the heavyish Technics arm. I only had a modified Denon, with my additional mass/thickness plate glued to it. This was configured for 2.5g VTF, and the Technics' VTA collar reading at 3 mm (meaning that a non-modded DL-103 would require the arm at its lowest or 0 position, something to think about!).
http://www.tnt-audio.com/jpeg/sl1200_dl103_t.jpg

Dramatically lower in total cost, less than 600 euro for the combo, the sound quality expectedly scaled down too, but not much, really. Overall there was a fundamental similarity to the excellent results obtained with the Benz: a slightly narrowed soundstage of still fine depth, the propulsive drive, and the inky-black background. But the images were somewhat less solid, the reproduction a bit less natural and more synthetic. The slight bass hump now started to cloud the lower reaches somewhat. But once I had solved a problem with excessive sibilance (the 1k cartridge load initially chosen had to give way for 100 Ohms) I could settle down and truly enjoy some music (re)played well. The extra-weighted DL-103 indeed mated very well with this arm, and despite my previous list of faults the result was still very musical and competent, with that calm air of a professional doing what he's good at.
http://www.tnt-audio.com/jpeg/sl1200_platinum_t.jpg
[not recommended: Grado Statement Platinum]The final cartridge to try then was Grado's Statement Platinum. This is a curious beast in that architecturally it is a moving magnet (or more correct: moving iron), while its output voltage is a mere 0.5mV, just as with a normal moving coil. It requires a gain of 60dB (MC-like), combined with a recommended load of 47kOhms (MM-like). However, I found it to work well at loads of 1kOhms and above, while even 100 Ohms do not really cause problems. Compliance is typically-MM, at the high side of things.

The Grado costs three times more than the Denon, and yet its sonic results did not even come close. Oh yes, the Grado showed a rounded and slightly deeper bass than the DL-103. But against that stood a rather vague and confused sound stage, and a somewhat obvious and spitty treble. A couple of record sides was enough to make me run away from this experience, mounting the Denon back.

Now I do respect the more expensive Grados of the Statement series a lot, but this cheaper sibling really did not cut it in the Technics arm (and I have similar feelings about it when combined with the Rega). I can only suppose that a lower-mass tonearm like a Hadcock, Morch, or 1980s Thorens would be a better choice.
Conclusions

I can't help but like this turntable a lot. With the Benz MC Scheu and the Denon DL-103 it performed outright impressively and inspiring at these combinations' respective price points (even when the marriage with the Grado was less lucky, and the result rather ordinary). This, together with its ridiculously low price of 450 euro (internet shopping), makes it a no-brainer for quality of sound alone. Factoring in its battlecruiser build and then its easy-going functionality makes the SL-1200 a massive bargain which should be especially attractive to record collectors using many different cartridges. You don't have to take my word for it, but if you are shopping in the sub-1000 euro price bracket then you'd better not ignore the Technics. Whatever the experts say.

system used

* resident turntable: Michell GyroDec MkV, SME IV, Jan Allaerts MC1b
* cartridges: Benz Micro MC Scheu 1.6mV, Denon DL-103, Grado Statement Platinum
* phono preamps: Trichord Delphini MkII, Trichord Dino+, AQVOX Phono 2 Ci
* line preamp: DIY (FET-based)
* power amp: LFD PA0
* loudspeakers: Quad ESL-63

© Copyright 2006 Werner Ogiers - www.tnt-audio.com

[ Home | Staff & Contacts | DIY & Tweaks | Listening tests | HiFi Playground | Music & Books ]

[emorphien]

The Denon cartridges are good. I like my 110. Another option is the 160.