The best Japanese SLT turntables. A comparison.

[Professor Bizzt]

Is the PL-L1000A a piece of junk?

To the Prof.

I bought a PL-1000a new in Europe. It would not keep the tonearm perpendicular to the rails. I returned it, not knowing why it did that. Others in my unit experienced the same. Since then I've considered it a turd. If you could speak to that I would be curious.

I now own a Marantz SLT. Do you have any experience with those?
edit: Pic is not of mine, just added it for reference.

Hello DCinDC,
Thank you for your question regarding the Pioneer PL-L1000A.

First off, despite my admittedly strong and sometimes emotionally charged ability to open my yap and insert my hoof regarding opinions I have acquired from the road-of-life over the years, I still try to be careful what products (or other things) I call a "turd" until I have had a chance to look at things a little more objectively.

I have clearly stated in this thread that all the SLT turntables discussed here should be carefully calibrated and maintained. I don't remember for sure without reading through this whole thread again, but I thought I also stated that the Pioneer SLTs should be closely examined for build tolerances, as I have found issues like skewed Cadmium Sulfide sensors (or CdS sensors for short). To be fair though, this CdS issue should only effect the amount of tracking error, and not the the arm's nominal perpendicular alignment to a radii from the spindle. Again, that is mostly addressed by the calibration.

All of the SLT service manuals that I have worked with so far contain a few errors, and the Pioneer manuals are not the worst! None of the Sony or Pioneer SLT service manuals mention anything about using precision jigs to calibrate these tables to a level of accuracy that would be expected by the normal audiophile. It is possible to experience issues like you mention if these jigs are not used, and I have no idea if Pioneer used assembly jigs for tonearm construction and calibration at the factory.

Perhaps the fact that someone has seen or heard about Japanese 1/2" mount SLT turntable tonearms performing sub-par has caused them to spend a lot more on some other more basic and traditional turntable option. I think that writing off a higher-end Japanese SLT because of this could be considered a premature conclusion.

I am aware of the Marantz SLT turntable (SLT-12?) you have. I have read about these, but I have never worked on one. I have no reason to believe that this vintage turntable will outperform the turntables discussed here, provided the turntables discussed here are operating as intended.


Best wishes, Professor Bizzt

 

[Professor Bizzt]

The Marantz SLT-12 turntable & the issue of complexity

The Marantz SLT-12 was legendary for many reasons aside from being the first integrated SLT table marketed.
http://www.thevintageknob.org/marantz-SLT-12.html
It was a very ambitious effort that required stringent set-up and maintenance to work at all, many were returned for failure to work properly whether the fault of the TT or the owner. One poster in another forum was the set-up and maintenance specialist for a Marantz dealer and stated that he had no trouble making and keeping them working for their owners. Others remember them as over-elaborate Rube Goldberg-ish frustrating disappointments.

Hello Pio1980,

Again, I have never seen a Marantz SLT-12 in the flesh and I do think it is wrong to willfully hurt anyone's feelings if they own something that I would probably not own myself, so I try not to engage in that. Nevertheless, it is important to help guide anyone reading this thread towards the truth as best as any of us understand it.

Albert Einstein once said: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler". The turntables discussed here have varying degrees of complexity, but none of them could be considered simple in design. Are they justifiably complex? As much as I respect simplicity, I have to say yes, I truly believe their complexity is justified to do the job expected of them.

Having said this, it is important for everyone to realize another issue that does not bode well for the Japanese SLT turntables discussed here. That would be the issue of complexity and its close cousin reliability. These SLT turntables are electronically complex. However, some are far less complex than others. Some of them will have a percentage of their ICs that are not available anymore. Fortunately, it seems that ICs on SLT turntables fail far less often than other components in the circuitry.

This is why owning one of these brings with it a measure of responsibility and a willingness to take a certain amount of risk, but it is a risk I for one am willing to except.


Best wishes, Professor Bizzt

 

[Aerobat]

Question for the PL-L8000 gurus -- what carts do you like on this arm? By my calculations, it needs a compliance of at least 16 to get to a resonant frequency below 12. This rules out my AT440MLa.

 

[Professor Bizzt]

PL-L1000 & PL-L1000A tonearm effective mass

Question for the PL-L8000 gurus -- what carts do you like on this arm? By my calculations, it needs a compliance of at least 16 to get to a resonant frequency below 12. This rules out my AT440MLa.

Hi Aerobat,

Although you ask about a "PL-L8000" (no such beast), I will assume you are referring to a Pioneer PL-L1000 or PL-L1000A.

You may want to try some of the JavaScript tonearm/cartridge fundamental resonance calculators that are available on the internet, but you will need to know the following first.

As you know, the tonearm/cartridge fundamental resonance frequency is determined by the tonearm's effective mass and the cartridge's compliance.

The Q of this fundamental resonance is determined by the frictional losses of the cartridge's cantilever suspension as well as the total losses contributed by the tonearm.

Unfortunately, most tonearm manufacturers do not publish the effective mass of their tonearms. Instead they typically label their design as low-mass, medium-mass, or high-mass.

I find this practice produces frustrating results when trying to compute the fundamental resonance frequency of the tonearm/cartridge. The effective mass will also vary depending on the combined mass of the cartridge/headshell the user selects, and the fore and aft position of the tonearm counterweight.

So the question remains, what is the effective tonearm mass of the PL-L1000 and the PL-L1000A in grams? The obvious answer is there is no way anyone could know this number unless one were to measure the fundamental resonance frequency with a test record and a cartridge with an accurately published compliance. You would then calculate the tonearm's effective mass and use that in future calculations to select cartridge compliances that produce the popularly believed ideal resonance frequency of 12 Hertz. However, you better make sure you do not change either the cartridge or headshell mass much or you'll throw off your math.

Seems like a lot of hassle, right? I think so. One of the great things about a servo SLT turntable with minimal horizontal friction and reasonable horizontal mass is that it does not perturb the cantilever's motion in the horizontal plane, so it does not allow a cartridge with too high a compliance for the given tonearm to flip-out as much as it might on a pivoting tonearm, at least not horizontally.

I advise you to minimize the playing of warped records (the primary subsonic energy source for the whole cartridge/tonearm fundamental resonance concern in the first place), and to experiment with cartridges that have different compliances to see how much compliance you can get away with. I believe more compliance is better, but too much can destabilize the tonearm/cartridge combination.


Best wishes, Professor Bizzt

 

[Aerobat]

Thanks Prof - I was referring to the PL-L1000, must have fat-fingered that one.

To calculate the tonearm effective mass, I'm using the EMC.xls spreadsheet from Luckydog on Vinyl Engine. Unfortunately the formulas are hidden, but I'm assuming it does a decent job.

The weight of the cart, hardware, headshell, and counterweight, as well as the weight of the tonearm without counterweight and headshell, are entered, and it outputs the effective mass. From there I use the standard formula to calculate resonant frequency. The PL-L1000 arm is lighter than a Technics S-arm but heavier than say a Microrace CF arm on a Harman-Kardon.

Interesting about the advantage of a SLT turntable in this area.

A copy of the spreadsheet with my additions can be found here.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/370002/EMC.xlsx

 

[Professor Bizzt]

Thanks Prof - I was referring to the PL-L1000, must have fat-fingered that one.

To calculate the tonearm effective mass, I'm using the EMC.xls spreadsheet from Luckydog on Vinyl Engine. Unfortunately the formulas are hidden, but I'm assuming it does a decent job.

The weight of the cart, hardware, headshell, and counterweight, as well as the weight of the tonearm without counterweight and headshell, are entered, and it outputs the effective mass. From there I use the standard formula to calculate resonant frequency. The PL-L1000 arm is lighter than a Technics S-arm but heavier than say a Microrace CF arm on a Harman-Kardon.

Interesting about the advantage of a SLT turntable in this area.

A copy of the spreadsheet with my additions can be found here.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/370002/EMC.xlsx

Hello Aerobat,

Sounds to me like you are on the right track.

The calculator you are using is probably as good as it gets, but you will never be able to calculate the exact resonance frequency as there are a few factors that cannot be easily incorporated into the formula.

Not to worry though, it is good enough.


Best wishes, Professor Bizzt

 

[Aerobat]

Hello Professor,

PM sent clarifying.
Thnx much for posting re the PL-L000/1000A mods, upgrades definitely of interest for owners desiring results comparable to affordable "audiophile" TTs with the LT/auto features of the subject units.
There is a recommended pipe damping mod to the Technics 'S' arm involving applying 1/2" 3-M shrink tubing. Dunno if it's applicable to the shorter straight L1000 arm pipe.
Best!

Hello Pio1980,

I don't see anything wrong with using heat shrink to damp any metal tonearm regardless of length, but doing this should be of significantly less benefit on a tonearm like the Polymer Graphite and aluminum tube composite design of the PL-L1000A. Personally I would not bother on a PL-L1000A.

About a year ago I completely dismantled a PL-L1000 tonearm in order to determine the value of damping the tonearm pipe from the inside. I can tell you it was not worth the hassle. Heat shrink would have been a far better choice overall. Heat shrink tubing certainly is a very easy way to damp a tonearm pipe.


Best wishes, Professor Bizzt

Reviving this thread. I acquired some 5/8" diameter clear heatshrink tubing and tested it on a piece of brass tubing.

This stuff is rather thick -- a 4" piece weighs 1.9g. A little more tonearm mass might actually help with a low compliance cart like a 440MLa. I'm debating trying this out on my PL-L1000.

 

[lumendog]

WOW. This thread has been great to a new pl1000 owner such as myself.
I recently got a beautiful example of this table. It does need a new belt for the tonearm drive, and the rubber boots for the springs are shot ( put some O rings in there) and the RCAs were sheared, so I soldered in some low capacitance rcas. So far I am loving it. I would love to learn about some other way to replace the rubber boots. Also, I could not find the belt on that link? any have a direct link they could post.

I am using an at150mlx with great results so far. This table kills my Acoustic Research Table.

 

[theophile]

WOW. This thread has been great to a new pl1000 owner such as myself.
I recently got a beautiful example of this table. It does need a new belt for the tonearm drive, and the rubber boots for the springs are shot ( put some O rings in there) and the RCAs were sheared, so I soldered in some low capacitance rcas. So far I am loving it. I would love to learn about some other way to replace the rubber boots. Also, I could not find the belt on that link? any have a direct link they could post.

I am using an at150mlx with great results so far. This table kills my Acoustic Research Table.

If it's worthy of your first post in almost 3 years(your first on AK ever),I'll take your word for it.

 

[lumendog]

Yes. I finally surfaced after lurking for years. I will try to get into the groove to support a community that I have relied on for lots of good info.

As for the table. I am very excited about it. I currently have 4 tables in circulation. This one is vying with my JVC TT81 for top table.
I really love the automatic functions. This is one of those great autos that does not interfere with sound quality at all. I will test the capacitance of the original cables soon and post the results vs. the new cables I soldered in( actually kind of a pain to put new thicker cables in, I took my time and did a pro job though). I don't know how this affects everything but my AT150 loves low capacitance.

I would love to hear about damping the tonearm and how this affects the overall sound if anyone has done this.

 

[Mike Gibson]

This has been a very informative thread to read and I thank you guys for it. I entered the world of SLT's accidentally several years ago. I bought a Mitsubishi LT-30 for the cartridge. After I got it home I did a little research and decided to try it in the system first. This was several years ago. It's still there today and the DP-62L sits in reserve.

 

[Aerobat]

It's great to see this thread come back to life, and hopefully the Professor will come back. I just completed a recapping of my PL-L1000, and I'm glad I did, as a few of the old caps were leaking. The arm seems to move with a bit more authority now.

I did the O-ring trick and soldered in Mogami Neglex cables. I drilled 2 1/4" holes in the strain relief plate for the cables to pass through. I haven't tried any tonearm damping yet but am considering some heat shrink. Looking forward to other's experiences. I think this table easily bests my Technics SL 1700MK2 with the same cart (AT440MLa).

 

[pfcs49]

PX-2 tonearm drives-what's really original?

:scratch2:
If you have a PX2, please visit this thread and contribute info including your serial #!
http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showpost.php?p=4305001&postcount=1

 

[Professor Bizzt]

Heat shrink damping of the PL-L1000 tonearm pipe

Reviving this thread. I acquired some 5/8" diameter clear heatshrink tubing and tested it on a piece of brass tubing.

This stuff is rather thick -- a 4" piece weighs 1.9g. A little more tonearm mass might actually help with a low compliance cart like a 440MLa. I'm debating trying this out on my PL-L1000.

Hello Aerobat,

I think you were the AK member that originally discussed this subject and referenced a link for downloading "Luckydog's Tonearm Effective Mass Calculator" spreadsheet.

That spreadsheet should give you the approximate answer you are looking for. For AK readers that would like more info on tonearm effective mass and tonearm fundamental resonance calculations, here is but one of many links: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/anal...-diy-tonearms-effective-mass-calculation.html

Any possible negative change due to a very slight lowering of tonearm fundamental resonance via the addition of 1.9 grams of tonearm pipe mass I consider inconsequential relative to the potentially large improvement you would enjoy due to more effective damping of the pipe in the higher frequency region.

The extra mass due to the heat shrink tubing is distributed along the length of the pipe and not at the headshell end. This lessens it's mass leverage effect. Furthermore, you could always use a lighter headshell to more than compensate for the extra 1.9 grams of heat shrink mass.

Finally, you could always remove the heat shrink fairly easily by slicing it axially along the bottom with an Exacto knife should you change your mind.

Bottom line; this is one of the most simple mods anyone could make to a tonearm. Go for it!


UPDATE!!!
It is the right thing to go back and edit what we have written when we discover there are flaws in it.
I have been having visions lately about someone applying heat shrink tubing to their tonearm and melting or damaging something on their turntable. It is for this reason that I am now very leery of recommending this mod to people. I apologize for this oversight.


Hope this helps, Professor Bizzt

 

[Professor Bizzt]

PL-L1000 cueing belt, spring seats, & belt drive madness

WOW. This thread has been great to a new pl1000 owner such as myself.
I recently got a beautiful example of this table. It does need a new belt for the tonearm drive, and the rubber boots for the springs are shot ( put some O rings in there) and the RCAs were sheared, so I soldered in some low capacitance rcas. So far I am loving it. I would love to learn about some other way to replace the rubber boots. Also, I could not find the belt on that link? any have a direct link they could post.

I am using an at150mlx with great results so far. This table kills my Acoustic Research Table.

Hello Lumendog,

The tonearm vertical cue belt can be easily purchased from MCM or Consolidated Electronics. Just measure it properly to get the right one.

The thin damper sleeve portion of the suspension boot/spring seats are almost always disintegrated or show major age cracking on PL-L1000s & PL-L1000As.

The thin sleeve portion of the rubber boot/spring seat only functions as a spring damper. Loosing it entails loosing damping of the spring and there will be more higher harmonic ringing of the suspension springs, but most people would not be able to detect this change under A-B testing. Also there will be a change in fundamental resonance Q, but again, this may be a subtle non-issue.

The seat is normally usable in most cases. Simply trim off the thin spring damper portion and you are usually good to go.

You mention that your Pioneer PL-L1000 direct drive SLT "kills" your Acoustic Research belt drive turntable.... Do you have any idea how many died-in-the-wool belt drive audiophiles are going to attack you for making a statement like that?

Don't feel alone. I have had my share of "fun" discussions regarding this topic and I personally have no desire to own a belt drive again after experiencing the better direct drives. The proponents of belt drive turntables argue that the platter of a direct drive (even the very best ones) is under constant, rapid, rotational acceleration & deceleration. This is nonsense, false, and unjustly obstructs those that would benefit from owning one of these turntables. This may hold true for some of the cheap direct drives, but the higher-end ones are a completely different story.

Does anyone think for a moment that Japanese manufacturers would have invested the huge sums of money they did into direct drive development and production if it was an inherently inferior technology?

Would they sabotage their industry by adopting a costly "inferior" technology?

Does anyone think for a moment that the Japanese always made direct drives and never progressed from developing their belt drives as far as was practical until they decided to move on?

Does anyone think for a moment that the evolution of the Rockport Sirius II belt drive to the Rockport Sirius III direct drive was done just because Andy Payor was bored one day and thought it might be fun to spend a load of cash and tax himself significantly with the burden of a complete overhaul of the Sirius II?

We all need to do more thinking and less feeling in this hobby.... We also need to start listening more critically and abandon this ridiculous addiction to the sound of "warm and comforting" and once again pursue the sound of accuracy, for I fear our industry has taken a giant turn for the worse in terms of the purposeful introduction of "pleasant" colorations. YUK!!!!


Best wishes, Professor Bizzt

 

[Professor Bizzt]

It's great to see this thread come back to life, and hopefully the Professor will come back. I just completed a recapping of my PL-L1000, and I'm glad I did, as a few of the old caps were leaking. The arm seems to move with a bit more authority now.

I did the O-ring trick and soldered in Mogami Neglex cables. I drilled 2 1/4" holes in the strain relief plate for the cables to pass through. I haven't tried any tonearm damping yet but am considering some heat shrink. Looking forward to other's experiences. I think this table easily bests my Technics SL 1700MK2 with the same cart (AT440MLa).

Hello Aerobat,

Please expand upon your "O-ring trick". Are you referring to the suspension's spring seats? If so, the seats are better served by a square cross-section compliant seat of the correct durometer and size as opposed to a generic round cross-section O-ring.


Thanks, Professor Bizzt

 

[Professor Bizzt]

I would love to hear about damping the tonearm and how this affects the overall sound if anyone has done this.

Hello Lumendog,

Please check out one of my recent posts to this thread regarding PL-L1000 tonearm pipe heat shrink damping.

Why not just do the heat shrink tonearm pipe damping mod yourself and be done with it? It is so simple and can be removed fairly easily should you not like it.

There is no substitute for trying mods yourself. Everyone hears differently and to trust what others say about a given mod, instead of doing it yourself, is not a good thing.

UPDATE!!!
It is the right thing to go back and edit what we have written when we discover there are flaws in it.
I have been having visions lately about someone applying heat shrink tubing to their tonearm and melting or damaging something on their turntable. It is for this reason that I am now very leery of recommending this mod to people. I apologize for this oversight.



Best wishes, Professor Bizzt.

 

[Aerobat]

Hello Aerobat,

Please expand upon your "O-ring trick". Are you referring to the suspension's spring seats? If so, the seats are better served by a square cross-section compliant seat of the correct durometer and size as opposed to a generic round cross-section O-ring.


Thanks, Professor Bizzt

Hi Prof,

Yes, I used generic black rubber O-rings of the exact size for the holes. I have seen mention of neoprene for this, but I wasn't able to find neoprene in that size; I would have had to cut them from flat washers. What would you recommend?

Mark

 

[Professor Bizzt]

PL-L1000 & PL-L1000A spring seats

Hi Prof,

Yes, I used generic black rubber O-rings of the exact size for the holes. I have seen mention of neoprene for this, but I wasn't able to find neoprene in that size; I would have had to cut them from flat washers. What would you recommend?

Mark

Hello Aerobat,

I searched high and low at my local Ace Hardware and despite lots of O-rings and such, found nothing that met my quality of fit expectations. I am very picky about doing things correctly and despite the fact that I own gasket hole punch tools, I am not going to try to cut them from raw material. I insist on purchasing the correct part for the job from a proper supplier.

The round cross-section O-ring approach is non-ideal because it allows the spring to wander in the O-ring and that results in vague centering of the spring. This is not a good thing.

My only option was to place a special order for a large quantity of the neoprene washers. The minimum order for these is about $100.00. If I could find enough interest in doing this, I'd place the order, but I'm not going to do this unless I have interest for obvious reasons.


Thanks, Professor Bizzt

 

[Aerobat]

Hello Aerobat,

I searched high and low at my local Ace Hardware and despite lots of O-rings and such, found nothing that met my quality of fit expectations. I am very picky about doing things correctly and despite the fact that I own gasket hole punch tools, I am not going to try to cut them from raw material. I insist on purchasing the correct part for the job from a proper supplier.

The round cross-section O-ring approach is non-ideal because it allows the spring to wander in the O-ring and that results in vague centering of the spring. This is not a good thing.

My only option was to place a special order for a large quantity of the neoprene washers. The minimum order for these is about $100.00. If I could find enough interest in doing this, I'd place the order, but I'm not going to do this unless I have interest for obvious reasons.


Thanks, Professor Bizzt

Well you can count me in for 4 of them if you have enough demand.:yes: