advertisement


Technics SL1200 turntable upgrades

A decent arm and arm board lifts the SL-1200 into another world IMO.

That Fidelity Research tonearm and headshell currently in the classifieds would be fantastic on a Technics deck.

I know when I fitted the Micro Seiki arm on my deck the sound from the cart was just fantastic compared to the stock arm which is pretty good too BTW.

I'm not sure that I could afford or want to spend over £1K on a platter and bearing though.

Tony
 
Interesting tip of the iceberg comment.

Some claim that music is "good" you'll like it payed back through anything, I disagree with this. For me some music is not easily approached if it's not allowed to be comprehensible by the kit that you use for playback. Some music on some devices is utterly destroyed and becomes either unlistenable and/or boring, but I guess that's not the debate on this thread.

I'm interested by the kit, too. I.e what does piece of kit A bring me compared with piece of kit B, sometimes, often even, there's nothing to speak of, but sometimes there's a big and apreciable change.

Agreed
There are many albums I love.
After system mods some of them reveal such magic it takes the breath away.
At the other end we have the wonderful Kokomo, self titled, just nothing else revealed at all, apart from the question "what did they think they were doing, why is it so flat and lifeless ?!" (Saw them live a few times so I know of what I speak)

I listen on 4 different systems, 5 including the car.
Yes, the great album is great on all systems but I often yearn for System 1 when listening on the lesser systems.

Part way through my last set of mods, in the past year or so I find myself really liking music I don't like - as it is so well made
 
A decent arm and arm board lifts the SL-1200 into another world IMO.

That Fidelity Research tonearm and headshell currently in the classifieds would be fantastic on a Technics deck.

I know when I fitted the Micro Seiki arm on my deck the sound from the cart was just fantastic compared to the stock arm which is pretty good too BTW.

I'm not sure that I could afford or want to spend over £1K on a platter and bearing though.

Tony

Hmm

How do you think it would get on with an Ortofon SPU ?
What migh it be like compared to a Jelco SA750D ?
 
MartinT's 1210 looks fantastic

Thanks, Alan. The absolute core of why the Technics SL-1210 is worth all the effort of pursuit is that fabulous direct drive motor and drive circuit, followed by the extremely dead sandwich plinth.

There has never been a modding race in my mind and I certainly haven't bothered with bling; however, I have done my utmost to take that motor, drive it with the lowest noise highest current power supply and add the best arm I could find to make it a lot more than its constituent parts. It has reached a level of performance now where I am very careful not to make further changes without losing the essence of what I have. There is still improvement to be had, though; my most recent upgrade was the Thomas Schick graphite headshell, and that gave a significant step up all round. I get a great deal of pleasure listening to records on it.
 
A decent arm and arm board lifts the SL-1200 into another world IMO.

That Fidelity Research tonearm and headshell currently in the classifieds would be fantastic on a Technics deck.

I know when I fitted the Micro Seiki arm on my deck the sound from the cart was just fantastic compared to the stock arm which is pretty good too BTW.

I'm not sure that I could afford or want to spend over £1K on a platter and bearing though.

Tony
Some of the bearing alternatives do seem pricey, but on the other hand the standard bearing (and the quite audible rumble) does feel like the main obstacle to spending big money on tonearm, PSU, etc, so in some ways the bearing seems pivotal (<- arf).
 
The bearing looks to be one part that may have been changed for the worse or even cost-cut between the Mk I and Mk II. The one on the Mk I looks far more conventional, solid and seems very nicely engineered. It has a fairly long shaft which is attached to the sub-platter, so pulls out of the well rather like a LP12 or Rega subplatter once one releases the little catch at the rear. I assume there is a captive ball or something similar at the base of the well. I was pleased to see that mine had retained it's oil and was in absolutely beautiful condition with no scoring or rub-marks on the shaft at all. It looks up to the job to me.
 
The bearing in the Mk. 2 is definitely the weak point and holds back the performance of the rest of the deck.
 
Not sure how relevant this is, but i used to own an SL1600mk2 back in the late 70's, early 80's, and remember its lovely build quality, however its arse got whooped when i bought my first Rega Planar 3, which then got its arse whooped when i got my first LP12/Basik. The Technics was in stock form, and i'm no Technics expert so no idea if a 1200 was any better. I doubt it was much better mind you as the build on the 1600 was superb.
 
Not sure how relevant this is, but i used to own an SL1600mk2 back in the late 70's, early 80's, and remember its lovely build quality, however its arse got whooped when i bought my first Rega Planar 3, which then got its arse whooped when i got my first LP12/Basik. The Technics was in stock form, and i'm no Technics expert so no idea if a 1200 was any better. I doubt it was much better mind you as the build on the 1600 was superb.

SL1600 cut from the same ilk as the sl2000, I think ? I had an SL2000 which was definitely bested by a thorens TD160 derivative (165, 166, I can't remember).
 
I'm still using a modified OEM bearing and it doesn't seem to hold my deck back at all ?

I'm in the same position, I think my deck sounds superb and can't really see how a £450 bearing could make it sound hugely different or better but from what I've read the MN bearing does makes a difference but that the difference isn't night and day.
 
I'm in the same position, I think my deck sounds superb and can't really see how a £450 bearing could make it sound hugely different or better but from what I've read the MN bearing does makes a difference but that the difference isn't night and day.

I've listened to some rips of the oem vs the MN bearing and the MN sounded worse to me, though it wasn't run in I might add, on listening to further rips after it had run in, it did seem to be an improvement but £450 improvement? Wouldn't like to say.

Its interesting to point out that inspire use the OEM bearing shaft with brass taper in there Monarch TT, in a bespoke bearing housing but if its so bad why??

Seems odd to me why two aftermarket bearings use a separate ball in the bearing, yet the OEM doesn't? This can only increase noise! Also I'm told that the brass taper to platter interface is critical!
 
I have the MN bearing and it does make for a noticeable improvement. I've not heard any of the other bearing options (modifications) so can't really comment of the VFM of the MN item.
 
I have got stunning results by following the following cheapish upgrade path.

Changed the rubber mat to an Acromat

Took out the power supply and boxed it separately

Replaced the arm with a Rega RB300 with a structural mod from Origin Live

Had the arm re-wired

Removed the spring from the tracking force adjuster

Swopped the cartridge for an Ortofon 2M Red

The result is marvellous. Tight bass and a lovely sweet mid.

I am delighted and all for lemonade money

M
 
To my mind the Mk II is the real deal, it is the timeless classic. The Mk I (like my SL-120) misses the bits that enabled it to become a classic (the rock solid quartz-lock, the pitch slider and large on/off switch, the cueing light etc. The Mk V blinged / pimped it up with a shiny finish and ugly bright LEDs etc. Definitely a step backwards. A mint boxed SL-1200/1210 Mk II is the one to have IMO.

PS The more I think about it the more I'm convinced the SL-1200 Mk II is a remarkable product. It really did facilitate something that was barely even possible before. The features that enabled dance culture / turntableism were really rather strange and out-of-place when viewed from an audiophile perspective, so it's hard to picture how Technics came up with them at all. It was after all an audiophile deck, it was not designed as a club TT. Why was the pitch slider so big and positioned where it was so ideal for right-hand access? Why did it have a pop-up cueing lamp? Why a large broadcast-style on / off switch independent from the speed selection? The typical audiophile needs none of these things; they don't alter pitch beyond setting the correct speed, don't change records in the dark and don't need a radio-station style fast-start. All these features were introduced with the Mk II - they didn't exist on the original SL-1200 / SL-120 or the higher-end SL-110. This precise yet unusual combination of features actually enabled whole musical genres.

Wrt the ergonomics and design of the SL1200, I think Panasonic intended the primary purpose of the deck to be a hifi turntable for domestic use, and secondarily they intended the deck to be used in low-tier or college radio stations. This is reflected in the initial advertising materials that they released at the time of launch.
 


advertisement


Back
Top