• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

The Technics 1200 Fascination?

analoghifi said:
Cuttng/Mastering Engineers have always used a Stock 1200 mk2 equipped with a cartridge of their choice to achieve the most identical reproduction of the source recording...
Click to expand...

Ken Boyd said:
I was not aware that Cutting/Mastering Enigneers have always used a stock 1200 MK2 with a cartridge of their choice to achieve the most identical reproduction of the source recording.

If you ask me this is one of those post that are put out their as fact, when in truth its not factual. Over the decades their has been untold number of tables in Cutting/Mastering Shops, and who knows what cart they used...
Click to expand...

I have been in many mastering suites over the years, mostly during the original sunset of LP mastering.

Mastering facilities never had a turntable in them. They used the lathe to play back lacquers and vinyl records. All the lathes I've ever seen (and that you see pictures of) had a tonearm mounted to it for that purpose. In the USA, it was mostly a SME 3009 variant.

As to what carts were used, that is not a mystery and quite quantifiable. They used either Stantons (681EEE, 881S,) or Shure V15 Type IV and V's. In Europe, Ortofon was a reference. (As could be seen in the old "Play it as it lays" Ortofon ads of the 1980's.)

Ken Boyd said:
Technics was not even in existence when they cutting and engineer records long ago...
Click to expand...

Sorry, but Technics as a brand has been around since 1965, and parent company Matsushita since 1918 so, it WAS in existence when LP was at it's height. Gotta keep facts straight.
 
needlestein said:
The Denon DL-103 is a great cartridge on the SL-1200, but you must use the accessory arm weight and a heavy headshell. The DL-103 is a low compliance (no, really low--believe me; some people don't seem to really understand what low compliance means or that they can run the DL-103 with a much lower VTF if they mass up the arm enough) cartridge and will not sound its best unless the arm mass is increased at the rear and at the head, preferably in a way that the CW remains as close to the pivot as possible. Done right, the DL-103 will sound fabulous tracking at 2g. I also am beginning to wonder if "groove pinch" that is associated with conical styli, but which usually comes up in conversations about the DL-103, and documented in articles about the DL-103 in fact but curiously not light tracking conical styli, is really a problem caused by insufficient arm mass. Once I massed up my arm, what I had heard going on during prior listening and thought was "groove pinch" since that conclusion was guided by some really in depth articles by decent knowledgeable authors--one in particular--totally went away for me.
Click to expand...

I dunno. I've got my DL-103 on my PS-X800 it sounds pretty darn good. Not much arm mass there. The tracking force is applied electronically (it should therefore be constant even on warped records) and I don't need to worry about resonance due to the fact that the arm is also electronically dampened. Although, Sony's biotracer arm is another kettle of fish when you compare it to what the 1200 has. I think the conical stylus does exhibit some groove pinch, but that was only on an LP that had more 25 minutes cut onto it—which is not typical at all.
 
empirelvr said:
I have been in many mastering suites over the years, mostly during the original sunset of LP mastering.

Mastering facilities never had a turntable in them. They used the lathe to play back lacquers and vinyl records. All the lathes I've ever seen (and that you see pictures of) had a tonearm mounted to it for that purpose. In the USA, it was mostly a SME 3009 variant.

As to what carts were used, that is not a mystery and quite quantifiable. They used either Stantons (681EEE, 881S,) or Shure V15 Type IV and V's. In Europe, Ortofon was a reference. (As could be seen in the old "Play it as it lays" Ortofon ads of the 1980's.)



Sorry, but Technics as a brand has been around since 1965, and parent company Matsushita since 1918 so, it WAS in existence when LP was at it's height. Gotta keep facts straight.
Click to expand...

yup I should have included the model number this thread is about, I just assumed everyone would take my post as meaning the Technics 1200. My post did say quote "that Technics" which meant the 1200. Something tells me you knew what I was posting about. ;)
 
Last edited:
drillher said:
What major difference id you notice between the vintage 1200 vs the 1200GR?
Click to expand...
.
I think the fit/ finish is a bit better on the GR, though it was still fantastic on the SL - in fact, IMHO it was the best of all comparably priced tables back in 2013 (I paid $999 - NOS from B&H Photo). Specifically, where the rubber bottom half of the base meets the metal top half, is now perfectly flush on my GR, whereas there was a tiny bit of unevenness on the SL. Plus, I absolutely love being able to use my own RCA cables. ..In my case, I use 8 ft. cables so my TT can connect directly to my Mac Integrated (i used to have it connect to an outboard phono pre situated in b/w both). Still, despite the longer than average cables, there is very little noise or hum. ..To hear any background noise on my 102db efficient Klipsch Cornwalls, I need to turn the volume up to 40% and hold my ear to the speaker just to hear faint hiss. That is a quiet TT!

added 4/20/18:
As for major sonic differences, I'm reluctant to claim any. ..I'm very much an objectivist when it comes to audio gear. ..My 1200mk2 had already been shipped when I rec'd my 1210GR so I could not make a side-by-side comparison. Suffice to say both sound great, have perfect pitch stability (noticeable w/ sustained piano, guitar, violin notes) and are very very quiet. I personally don't believe the whole "analog is superior to digital" thing... Nonetheless, owning a great turntable is justifiable b/c it allows me to enjoy all of my old records, much of which I don't own on cd. I did have a KAB damper on my 1200 which I'm not sure made any difference. Hence, I'm probably not going to put it on my 1210 (not sure it even fits)
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2018-04-17 at 12.34.36 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2018-04-17 at 12.34.36 PM.png
    568.3 KB · Views: 12
Last edited:
Ken Boyd said:
I was not aware that Cutting/Mastering Enigneers have always used a stock 1200 MK2 with a cartridge of their choice to achieve the most identical reproduction of the source recording.

If you ask me this is one of those post that are put out their as fact, when in truth its not factual. Over the decades their has been untold number of tables in Cutting/Mastering Shops, and who knows what cart they used, along with the fact that Technics was not even in existence when they cutting and engineer records long ago. So I call this reason to own a stock table as just plain nonsense.

You have no idea of what the original recording "was suppose to sound like", because their is no one sound that it is suppose to sound like. The artist probably argued over what is should sound like, as did many others in the process. You would have no way of knowing, just as no one else would know.

Good try.
Click to expand...

So not EVERY single lathe mastering company may use a 1200 mk2 but I can name 5 right now where the 1200 mk2 is there turntable of choice for referencing. Maybe back in the 60's other tables were used which is true, but right now in 2018, apart from the reference arm on the lathe itself, the 1200 mk2 is used. I've seen it. Now when you say "I have no idea what the original recording was supposed to sound like", I have been cutting lacquers for almost 28 years now. Respectfully , I'll keep this topic on the Remarkable Turntable and it is indeed a great piece of engineering. I think you were thinking on the grounds of major recordings from major labels from probably 1970's and back and what was used as a reference deck in those times.
 
You know what's really terrible about the SL-1200?

It makes everyone try to justify spending more for a turntable. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom