Why is my Technics sl qd33 considered a low end starter table?

[Grenadeslio]

A table doesn't have to cost 25G to be considered a top tier table, $3495 in 1985, $650 18months ago lol. I've seen 4 more sell for around $800 on eBay this past yr, current bargain of the analog world.

Well Tempered Lab Turntable


came with these cables to boot.



You know a high end table when you hear one I can assure you.

And here's the nifty part, a true high end table like the above sounds better with a budget cartridge than a budget table with a high end cartridge. So imagine just how much better it will sound with that high end cartridge.

If the thrifty type you're much better off putting your money into the table, then saving on the part that requires changing, the cartridge. Over time you'll come out ahead money wise and have better music along the way.

This way when you decide to drop some big coin on a cartridge you can feel comfortable knowing you didn't waste your money because the table isn't up to snuff.

 

[Artie]

I have almost the same table as the OP. (SL-DD22.) I think the only difference is semi-auto, non-quartz. I actually tend to use it more than my SL-1400 MKII. But that's mainly because my table isn't permanently set up, and the SL-1400 is virtually unliftable. It's one of the heaviest pieces of audio I've ever owned. The DD22 moves easily. It's light weight isn't a big problem here in NE Florida, where most houses are built on solid concrete slabs.

But, back on point, it's a "nice" table. I like it.

 

[Grenadeslio]

I have almost the same table as the OP. (SL-DD22.) I think the only difference is semi-auto, non-quartz. I actually tend to use it more than my SL-1400 MKII. But that's mainly because my table isn't permanently set up, and the SL-1400 is virtually unliftable. It's one of the heaviest pieces of audio I've ever owned. The DD22 moves easily. It's light weight isn't a big problem here in NE Florida, where most houses are built on solid concrete slabs.

But, back on point, it's a "nice" table. I like it.

at 25lbs the SL1400 isn't one of your heavier tables, but compared to the 9lbs of the SL QD33 yes it's a tank lol.

 

[lini]

(...) I think the only difference is semi-auto, non-quartz. (...)

Not quite, iirc. I.e., even compared to the fully automatic SL-DD33 the SL-QD33 should not only differ by sporting the quartz-referencing, but also by still sporting the +/- 0.25 tracking force fince adjustment via thumb screw (including a little indicator scale integrated into the counterweight cage) as well as an extra, separate motor for the automatic arm motion. And then, of course, there are the pretty obvious differences in form of the additional power switch as well as the soft touch buttons (instead of slide switches) for the lift, the speed selection and the repeat function. And I think, at least over here the QD33 also differed from the DD33 by coming with the EPC-P30 with elliptical needle instead of the EPC-P30S with spherical needle.

So quite a few more or less small differences actually...

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[RobRoy]

Direct Drive,Quartz locked, Shure m104 stylus and Shure m105 cart,so what is low end or starter about that?

To some sports car enthusiasts, a Corvette is "low end". Ignore them and get good tires.

 

[Grenadeslio]

well when compared with its contemporaries of the day it was kind of a dog lol, and the Vette had the larger 3.8 vs the XK 3.4. I don't think new tires would have helped. And notice much of the figures below were for the "improved" more powerful 1954 model and it still lags the XK, and with the XK rear end option it's 0-60 drops to 8.0, crushing the Vette even more.

And keep in mind the numbers for the Jag were the same in "1949", 5yrs before the Vette could barely top 100mph.


1953 Chevrolet Corvette –0-60 11.0 seconds*
First-year Corvettes, while pretty, weren’t sparkling performers. The only powertrain was the 150-hp “Blue Flame” inline-six paired to a two-speed Powerglide automatic. Acceleration was leisurely.
*Test figures from Road & Track, June 1954; the ’54 Corvette was unchanged relative to the limited-production ’53, save for an updated camshaft that bumped output to 155 horsepower.
Published Performance Results
0-30 MPH: 3.6 Seconds
0-100 MPH: 39.0 Seconds
Quarter Mile: 17.90 Seconds @ 77.0 mph
Top Speed: 108 MPH


Jaguar XK Top Speed: The Jaguar XK 120 DHC - [1953] has a top speed of 120 mph (193.1 kph)
Jaguar XK Acceleration: The XK accelerates 0-60mph (96.6 kph) in 9.5 seconds or 0-100kph in 9.8 and can achieve an estimated 1/4 mile drag time in 15.91 seconds with a trap speed of 86.0 mph

edit: bold lettering was from the source, I only copied and pasted.


The Corvette was never a sports car, it tried to be early on and failed miserably. It was just too heavy, poor handling, brakes, etc, it did become quite the muscle car though. It's now and has been for some time aspired to be in the same category as Lamborghini and Ferarri, performance wise it's there, cache' on the other hand

And that's not elitist thinking because there are domestic cars that have achieved this same status, the Ford GT comes to mind.

 

[Artie]

So quite a few more or less small differences actually...

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

You're right. Now I want a QD-33.

I love the sleek, slim, simple design of this series.

 

[Artie]

at 25lbs the SL1400 isn't one of your heavier tables, but compared to the 9lbs of the SL QD33 yes it's a tank lol.

I think that one of the reasons it feels like more, is you tend to hold a turntable, and arms outward, to protect it. 25 lb's at arm's length, is different than 50 close to your body.

 

[Grenadeslio]

I think that one of the reasons it feels like more, is you tend to hold a turntable, and arms outward, to protect it. 25 lb's at arm's length, is different than 50 close to your body.

One of it's contemporaries, "The Rock" tips the scales around 35lbs, but mines a bit over 50lbs



It's fun trying to reposition the Vibrapods under the feet whenever I have to move it.

 

[Artie]

One of it's contemporaries, "The Rock" tips the scales around 35lbs, but mines a bit over 50lbs

I have the KD-3055. IIRC, it comes in, also, at close to 25 lbs, like the Technics. I'll have to go out to the shed and lift it.

Why is yours 50?

 

[revox-b77]

You're right. Now I want a QD-33.

You are right now I want a Ford GT 40.

 

[Grenadeslio]

I have the KD-3055. IIRC, it comes in, also, at close to 25 lbs, like the Technics. I'll have to go out to the shed and lift it.

Why is yours 50?

Just checked and the SL-1400 is only 1.5lbs lighter than the SL-1200MKII, interesting.

Although "The Rock" was designed to fight acoustic feedback it's not infallible if it's located in the worse spot lol, mine was so measures had to be taken.






Before the modification I was having issues at anything past 10:00 on the volume knob on the Kenny amp, after the mod at 3:00 on the volume knob listening to The Doors.


no more feedback issues, plus the overall SQ of the table was improved more than just a bit

 

[Grenadeslio]

You are right now I want a Ford GT 40.

Well the GT "40" is something different, got a few mil? lol

 

[Artie]

no more feedback issues, plus the overall SQ of the table was improved more than just a bit

That's sweet. I haven't peeked under my 3055 yet. I wonder if it would benefit from that treatment?

 

[Grenadeslio]

That's sweet. I haven't peeked under my 3055 yet. I wonder if it would benefit from that treatment?

I believe the automatic parts underneath might be an issue, the later KD 600 doesn't have the sectioned off cavities so a lead sheet like Dynamat would work better there.

 

[RobRoy]

well when compared with its contemporaries of the day it was kind of a dog lol, and the Vette had the larger 3.8 vs the XK 3.4. I don't think new tires would have helped. And notice much of the figures below were for the "improved" more powerful 1954 model and it still lags the XK, and with the XK rear end option it's 0-60 drops to 8.0, crushing the Vette even more.

And keep in mind the numbers for the Jag were the same in "1949", 5yrs before the Vette could barely top 100mph.


1953 Chevrolet Corvette –0-60 11.0 seconds*
First-year Corvettes, while pretty, weren’t sparkling performers. The only powertrain was the 150-hp “Blue Flame” inline-six paired to a two-speed Powerglide automatic. Acceleration was leisurely.
*Test figures from Road & Track, June 1954; the ’54 Corvette was unchanged relative to the limited-production ’53, save for an updated camshaft that bumped output to 155 horsepower.
Published Performance Results
0-30 MPH: 3.6 Seconds
0-100 MPH: 39.0 Seconds
Quarter Mile: 17.90 Seconds @ 77.0 mph
Top Speed: 108 MPH


Jaguar XK Top Speed: The Jaguar XK 120 DHC - [1953] has a top speed of 120 mph (193.1 kph)
Jaguar XK Acceleration: The XK accelerates 0-60mph (96.6 kph) in 9.5 seconds or 0-100kph in 9.8 and can achieve an estimated 1/4 mile drag time in 15.91 seconds with a trap speed of 86.0 mph

edit: bold lettering was from the source, I only copied and pasted.


The Corvette was never a sports car, it tried to be early on and failed miserably. It was just too heavy, poor handling, brakes, etc, it did become quite the muscle car though. It's now and has been for some time aspired to be in the same category as Lamborghini and Ferarri, performance wise it's there, cache' on the other hand

And that's not elitist thinking because there are domestic cars that have achieved this same status, the Ford GT comes to mind.
View attachment 2360091

My brother-in-law has a 1953 corvette. It's a straight six and not even a sports car by today's standards. It's just a two seat economy car.

But I wasn't thinking of old corvettes. Even though it's old, this one did pretty good.

 

[Grenadeslio]

My brother-in-law has a 1953 corvette. It's a straight six and not even a sports car by today's standards. It's just a two seat economy car.

But I wasn't thinking of old corvettes. Even though it's old, this one did pretty good.

still not a sports car, it was a muscle car through and through, the Corvette was never a sports car.

And I addressed the newer Vettes in my earlier post.

maybe this will help

AC Ace "sports car"


AC Cobra "muscle car"


even though the Cobra started as the Ace after it's transformation it was no longer a sports car

a sports car puts handling and communication with the driver first above all else.

 

[Artie]

I believe the automatic parts underneath might be an issue, the later KD 600 doesn't have the sectioned off cavities so a lead sheet like Dynamat would work better there.

Unfortunately, VinylEngine doesn't have the service manual. Only the OM and specs. I'll have to physically look underneath to know what's going on.

 

[RobRoy]

still not a sports car, it was a muscle car through and through, the Corvette was never a sports car.

And I addressed the newer Vettes in my earlier post.

maybe this will help

AC Ace "sports car"
View attachment 2360162

AC Cobra "muscle car"
View attachment 2360164

even though the Cobra started as the Ace after it's transformation it was no longer a sports car

a sports car puts handling and communication with the driver first above all else.

Yep, the "sports car vs muscle car" thing is a big deal to me. I own an FR-S with 186k miles on it. It's on its ninth set of tires and most were Michelin SS's an now S4's. It's definitely NOT a muscle car, but absolutely is a sports car. And even more so than my old Opel GT. My best friend from high school, back in the seventies, had an Austin Healy 3000. That was a fun car.

My all time favorite "muscle/sports" car is the AC Cobra you posted. Being a small convertible with more power than you know what to do with, that is my favorite car ever made.

I think I'm hijacking the thread. I think the OP's turntable is a lot more than "entry level". I bought a practically new U-turn plus a few months ago because it was just too cheap and I've not had a belt drive since my old Technics SL23 that I bought new in the mid-70's. That thing is like a toy compared to my other turntables, including the old SL-23. Even compared to my AT120USB.

 

[Grenadeslio]

Yep, the "sports car vs muscle car" thing is a big deal to me. I own an FR-S with 186k miles on it. It's on its ninth set of tires and most were Michelin SS's an now S4's. It's definitely NOT a muscle car, but absolutely is a sports car. And even more so than my old Opel GT. My best friend from high school, back in the seventies, had an Austin Healy 3000. That was a fun car.

My all time favorite "muscle/sports" car is the AC Cobra you posted. Being a small convertible with more power than you know what to do with, that is my favorite car ever made.

I think I'm hijacking the thread. I think the OP's turntable is a lot more than "entry level". I bought a practically new U-turn plus a few months ago because it was just too cheap and I've not had a belt drive since my old Technics SL23 that I bought new in the mid-70's. That thing is like a toy compared to my other turntables, including the old SL-23. Even compared to my AT120USB.

Was my brother's favorite car.