MMF 2.2 vs Phillips 312 or repair Technics SL 3300

[Stroth]

I'm currently running a MMF 2.2 with a AT VM540ML.

I had a Technics SL 3300 that I loved, but it's got some type of speed issue where it won't maintain 33.3. I may be able to find a tech to fix it, but that's 100 bucks - maybe more.

I like the MMF 2.2 - but I find it finicky and tight. I have no idea if that makes sense to anyone, but that's how I find it.

I've got a line on a Phillips 312 with a shure rxp3 for 250.

I would love any insight into how the 312 compares to any of these other decks. Stick with the MMF, repair the Technics SL3300 or go with the Phillips 312.

Thank you!

 

[kermit z]

I'll throw in my 2 cents to the question. The SL-3300 is a decent table, though if I remember it was not the top end of the Technics line. But, for 100 bucks to get it working, that's not bad and you should have a table that will last another 40 years. I had a 312, and really liked that table, but once I got my Thorens, it sat. The 312 has been called the poor mans Thorens. Very nice table indeed, but, though value should not be discussed in this forum, seems high priced. Maybe it's just me, but I would not had bought one if it was that expensive. I don't know anything about the MMF so someone else can comment. But I guess I don't understand the problem with it. How is it finicky?

 

[56RETROGRADE]

I have owned the mmf 2.2 and the Phillips 212 tables. In my opinion the 212 is definitely a step up. There apples and oranges so not the same at all. I gave away my 212 and regret that move. Sold off the mmf 2.2 and no regrets.

 

[Stroth]

I do not like the fishing weight anti skate on the MMF 2.2. Just changing a record seems to have it move out of place. It may have nothing to do with the table, but the MMF 2.2 also seems to pick up more static than the Technics. I also like the auto return feature of the technics.

 

[Bob in WI]

I do not like the fishing weight anti skate on the MMF 2.2. Just changing a record seems to have it move out of place. It may have nothing to do with the table, but the MMF 2.2 also seems to pick up more static than the Technics. I also like the auto return feature of the technics.

Seems you're fixing the Technics then.

 

[kermit z]

The static could be related to the cartridge. Which cartridge are you running on the MMF? I am surprised to hear about the anti skate weight. I have one on a Project RM 1.3 that has never been a problem. It has never shifted, as long as it's in the slot.

 

[Roypercy]

The Philips 312 is nice, but in my experience, even after upgrading the RCA cables and finding a very nice match with a Stanton 680EE I preferred the sound of a Hitachi DD turntable. I suspect the Technics is ultimately a nicer sounding table.

Also, as others have said $250 is high for a Philips 312, even in good working order.

Have you tried cleaning the Technics speed controls with DeOxit? It could be a simple solution.

 

[Kit Carson]

Agree with Roypercy invest $10 in DeOxit to clean Technics speed controls before you drop $100 for a shop to do the same thing. Also agree with others re the Phillips being a costly sideways move and the MMF2.2 having a lot of issues documented on AK.

 

[bigaltx24]

I've had my SL-3300 for about eight years now, very solid table. Mine has never missed a beat.

 

[melofelo]

The Philips GA-212 & 312 both benefit from a high compliance cartridge to suit their low mass arms . While the design is a good 50 years old now , the suspension and speed / pitch controls are still nice features to have. They can sound quite nice given the age of the design but I wouldn't fit an expensive cartridge beyond a decent high compliance elliptical as the tonearm has it's limitations in terms of rigidity and effective mass. Something like the older AT-11E , AT-110E , perhaps an Ortofon VMS -5E or 510 with a new stylus would be about the furthest I'd go in terms of cartridge quality. Such a combination should give a nice sounding, afforadble platform for flipping betwen albums and singles . These were basic , but well made, entry level turntables in the early 70s ,and, you got more user convenience ergonomics and features for your money back then. As a second turntable , I find its stylish looks and basic sound character very easy on the eye and ears in a retro way. The poor man's Thorens comparison is reasonably valid in that it was one of the cheapest suspended belt drive design in the day with quite good noise isolation and speed stabilty. In practice , even the standard tonearms fitted to most Thorens will give more scope for cartridge upgrades being generally better in quality where it counts. Still..if you like the early 70s look and want a good sounding, basic turntable with the convenience of speed switching..these are great little units at the right price. And those 'magic eye' speed switches...still look fantastic all these years later. Modern tables could take a few styling cues from this old but solid little relic.

 

[Stroth]

It worked !
I took the bottom of o- f the Technics SL 3300 -- gave the pots as much of a spraying with deoxit as best I could without taking anything else apart and I believe it worked. Speed issue seems to be resolved! Love this forum. Thanks for giving me the suggestion again. I'm still going to keep my eyes out for a Phillips 312 - but will hopefully get one for less $.