Objective Differences Between Technics G & GR Models

[computer-audiophile]

areas I can see the newer decks being objectively better are platter resonance and feet isolation, as well as power supply mechanical hum and EMI

What about cogging?

 

[Chester]

What about cogging?

And that terrible tonearm

 

[restorer-john]

It's worth noting that Technics destroyed the tooling for the orignal 1200/10 when they discontinued it around 2009/10.

The tooling and dies were worn out. They'd produced millions of turntables and arms, not just for the 1200 series but the 13xx through 16xx series as well. The only mould they supposedly kept was the dust cover.

There's very little if any discussion on the new arm and its characteristics. It's clearly been engineered this time around to be cheaper in my opinion. The 1200mk2 and onwards used a die cast pair of main gimbal components, whereas the new are uses twin cut extrusions. How the moving piece differs in mass would be interesting and how that translates to any lateral differences would also be interesting to know.

As for the motor, it's merely an evolution of the already low cost motors they were using in the early 1980s on their slimline quartz DD P-mount turntables. Sure, the control circuitry has been leveraged off optical disc but otherwise the motors could be pulled straight from those decks.

And lets not even talk about cogging.

 

[Chester]

My GR arrived today. Haven’t listened to it yet but I placed it next to my MK2 that I bought new in 2000. Visually the GR looks and feels better quality (mostly). That could all be superficial though and it’s not really a fair comparison between a brand new machine and one that is 22 years old. I’m not expecting any real audible differences but I’m certainly not disappointed with the purchase either.

 

[restorer-john]

My GR arrived today. Haven’t listened to it yet but I placed it next to my MK2 that I bought new in 2000. Visually the GR looks and feels better quality (mostly). That could all be superficial though and it’s not really a fair comparison between a brand new machine and one that is 22 years old. I’m not expecting any real audible differences but I’m certainly not disappointed with the purchase either.

That's exciting!

You are in a great position to make some real comparisons, take some measurements and tell us what your impressions are.

 

[Chester]

That's exciting!

You are in a great position to make some real comparisons, take some measurements and tell us what your impressions are.

I would happily, but the only measurements I would know how to take would be with a tape measure.

 

[Cote Dazur]

how big a difference is there likely to be between these two turntables when it comes to pure objective audio performance?

The only way to settled this is to record both TT and analyse the digital file the same way we would analyse any digital file.

 

[anmpr1]

There's very little if any discussion on the new arm and its characteristics. It's clearly been engineered this time around to be cheaper in my opinion.

My guess is that the new tonearm is probably as good as the old one. Might even be better in certain aspects, but nothing special. The old one was OK for middle of the road. I guess it held up to DJ abuse.

The last sophisticated tonearms Technics offered were the EPA-100 series (Mk1 and 2) and the EPA-500 system, both featuring fairly sophisticated resonance damping properties based upon selectable cartridge compliance settings. The fact that they didn't offer anything like that, even on their twenty thousand dollar SL-1000, shows a practical limitation of the company's budget. Maybe it wasn't a priority. Who knows what they were thinking?

 

[Prana Ferox]

I looked over the recent Technics models and I'm baffled that 'auto-lift' is considered a feature to boast about while full-on auto-return doesn't even look like an option. Is it an audiophile feature that if you fall asleep your turntable spins all night?

 

[JeffS7444]

If you look at the link in post no.10, you'll see the plot given by Technics that compares platter resonant decay characteristics of different generations of decks. A classic problem with the MK2/3/4/5 is platter ringing, particularly when DJs remove the mat that it was designed to use and fit fabric mats that are 1/10th of the rubber mat's weight. This is easy to see: remove the mat and give the platter a rap with your knuckles.

My informal tests of the A-T LP120 suggested something interesting: Although the A-T's platter has less mass than the SL1200's, and seems to ring equally well when struck, the very act of putting a record on the bare platter eliminated most ringing (I do not recall hearing any pure tones being picked up by the stylus), and the stock felt DJ mat alone was surprisingly effective at dampening platter vibrations.

But the record itself (and dust cover!) picking up airborne vibration was another matter: I clapped my hands near the turntable, and could easily see that the noise was being picked up by the stylus. IIRC, switching to a rubber platter mat didn't make nearly as much difference as I might have supposed, but putting some sort of weight upon the record label sure did. Not too heavy - it didn't seem to matter whether it was enough to flatten the record into more intimate contact with the platter mat; the weight itself appeared to be doing much of the added dampening.

 

[JeffS7444]

What about cogging?

If it were a real problem, it would be super-easy to spot at the output.

 

[knobtwiddler]

I guess it held up to DJ abuse.

That would definitely be a somewhat subjective question. I've had literally hundreds of 1200/10s pass through my hands over the years. The tube is made from a soft alloy. Repeated and heavy-handed cart changes (typical for a club, several times a night if visiting DJs bring their own carts) twist the tube over time, putting the azimuth out of whack. Similarly, any kind of impact skews the tube. If a deck's been DJ-ed with, I'd say that the vast majority of examples will have arm geometry that's way out. Were you to randomly buy 10 off Ebay, I'd estimate that well over half would have questionable arm geometry.

Similarly, play in the bearings is an issue - chatter that's visually obvious is common. The locking collar nut that keeps the vertical shaft aligned gets loose and all bearing play / friction tolerances will be totally out.

Unless buying from a friend who's known to be a hifi user, not a DJ, my advice to anyone buying a secondhand 1200/10 original would be to budget for a NOS arm assembly or fit a Jelco. The original arm stands up to hifi use, but is definitely worse for wear after decades of being manhandled by DJs.

Other issues include internal wiring, the spring-loaded headshell terminals - as well as the counterweight stub drooping with play in the coupling.

In short, the original arm was definitely built to a price. If yours hasn't left the house and hasn't had 3 cart changes every night for 20 years, then it's probably in similar condition to any other arm you have around that's led a similarly comfortable existence. But the 1200 arm definitely doesn't have any added DJ robustness over hifi arms.

 

[restorer-john]

But the 1200 arm definitely doesn't have any added DJ robustness over hifi arms.

It absolutely does. The gimbal with vertical bearings (lower ball races and upper needle) adds protection for the arm from vertical impacts and transfers any impact on the bearing housing direct to the plinth. Normal 'hifi' arms at a disadvantage there because the lack of the gimbal bearing places way more potential forces on the horizontal arm bearings when aggressively moved.

Sure, I agree the arm was built to a price, but it's a good overall arm. The part I don't like is the plastic central bearing housing and arm lifter pad- that should have been alloy from day one.

 

[knobtwiddler]

I should correct a faulty memory in an earlier post before someone else does:

The 1200/10 MK2 has the following rumble spec (from service manual):

-56 dB (I EC 98A Unweighted)
-78 dB (lEC 98A Weighted)

It'd be highly interesting to compare actual measured figures against the newer TTs.

 

[knobtwiddler]

It absolutely does. The gimbal with vertical bearings (lower ball races and upper needle) adds protection for the arm from vertical impacts and transfers any impact on the bearing housing direct to the plinth. Normal 'hifi' arms at a disadvantage there because the lack of the gimbal bearing places way more potential forces on the horizontal arm bearings when aggressively moved.

Sure, I agree the arm was built to a price, but it's a good overall arm. The part I don't like is the plastic central bearing housing and arm lifter pad- that should have been alloy from day one.

I'm not criticising the original arm's design. If your arm's had a cosseted existence then I'm sure it works well. My opinion is influenced by the fact that it's so rare to see an arm that isn't damaged in some way, but I am probably being harsh as we're talking about arms that are 20-30 years old. You make a good point about the protective properties of the gimbal design.

 

[BJL]

What about cogging?

The Technics website states (with respect to the GR and I'm sure the other current models as well) "a newly developed coreless direct-drive motor and precise motor control technology that eliminates cogging from rotation irregularity."

 

[restorer-john]

The Technics website states (with respect to the GR and I'm sure the other current models as well) "a newly developed coreless direct-drive motor and precise motor control technology that eliminates cogging from rotation irregularity."

Technics (Panasonic) were smart. Instead of saying their turntables have exhibited zero cogging effects since 1971, they put the entire debate (finally) to bed by saying we've fixed cogging in our new turntables. Nobody can argue now.

 

[JP]

The gimbal with vertical bearings (lower ball races and upper needle)

Not following what you mean as all four bearings are the same.

 

[restorer-john]

Not following what you mean as all four bearings are the same.

You know what I'm talking about.

The lower (5 ball bearing race- needle) bearing in reality carries the entire weight of the arm, the upper bearing does not, it only carries a small load, but its solid housing protects the other arm bearings from taking the brunt of an impact on the top of the arm itself. Most arms (non gimbal) support have an upper and lower ball race and if the top of the arm is impacted, it's most likely the twin bearings either side of the arm will take the force.

I have no doubt the longevity of the Technics 1200 arms in clubs is due to the gimbal's fixed 'tower' shielding the arm from dropped records and other accidents.

 

[computer-audiophile]

What about cogging?

This question was not entirely serious, because if there is any cogging, which can be imagined, it is so slight that I have not heard it even with a good system. I have owned several DD's, not only from Technics, from the time of their emergence until today.