Technics at Purité Audio

[PierreV]

One might ask why the cost differential? In 1978 an SL-1000 Mk2 was $1400.00 (including base and EPA-100 tonearm). That would be about $5500.00 in today's inflato dollars. So cost is not proportional.

Step 1: adjust for inflation.
Step 2: assume the customer buying this in 2020 is the same as the one who bought in 1978. Use a Kaplan–Meier estimator to estimate the surviving customer base.
Step 3: adjust for said customer base current inflation corrected disposable income.

Conclusion: it's a steal!

 

[Purité Audio]

In terms of measurement all the Technics turntable range are below the threshold of Audiability, ie easily good enough .
Aesthetically I have always enjoyed the understated design of the SP vaunts compared to the SLs.
SP-10R in Acoustand plinth, brushed aluminium finish to match motor unit.



Keith

 

[Ceburaska]

When I win the lottery (that I don’t participate in)!

 

[Purité Audio]

That does reduce the odds somewhat!
Keith

 

[bigx5murf]

Looks like the same tone arm that I have my vintage Technics SL-1500 MKII. I hope they improved the lifter mechanisms. Nice arm, but the lifter mechanisms on these all sucked. The internals were made of plastic that after a few years wore out and stopped working. Look on eBay for the number people offering tone arm fixes and/or parts for Technics tone arms. Almost every used Technics turntable for will say the lifter doesn't work. Otherwise, Technics makes a good turntable.

This is actually a common issue, and a simple fix. You've gotta disassemble the cue mechanism, clean it, and put some 500CST fluid on it. The SL1500 did have plastic parts in the mechanism that break, but there are 3d printed replacements now. The ones with brass inards are gtg.

I've been slowly restoring my 2 poor man's SP10. Technics SL1200 mk1 actually have the same motor as the original SP10 and SL1000.

 

[anmpr1]

I've been slowly restoring my 2 poor man's SP10. Technics SL1200 mk1 actually have the same motor as the original SP10 and SL1000.

The original part numbers for the different motors vary.

SL-1200/SL1100 MJL-9A (or MJL12A for some SL1100)
SP-10 MKI MPL-10A
SP-10 MK2 SFMZ102-01E
SP-10 MK3 SFOP109M11A
SP-15 SFMZ015-02Z
SP-25, SL-1200 Mk2-5 SFMG520-31A

That does not mean the motors from the original SP10/1100/1200 were internally different, just different part numbers. You'd have to take the housing off to tell, and I don't know. It certainly would not surprise me if they were the same. Stereo Review reported an SL1100 showed the better specs than the original SP-10, but that could have been unit to unit variation. Certainly the original SP10 was no better than the SL1100-1200, motor-wise.

SP-25 and many of the SL Mk2 series turntables shared the same motor. I haven't checked, but I would imagine that the SP-15 shared the same motor and similar electronics as some of the later SL series that featured the digital speed readout. The SP-15 offered 78 rpm, though. There were also some mostly Japan-centric models such as the SP-12 and SP-20. And of course the top tier Mk3, last of the 'old' line.

 

[GeorgeWalk]

This is actually a common issue, and a simple fix. You've gotta disassemble the cue mechanism, clean it, and put some 500CST fluid on it. The SL1500 did have plastic parts in the mechanism that break, but there are 3d printed replacements now. The ones with brass inards are gtg.

I've been slowly restoring my 2 poor man's SP10. Technics SL1200 mk1 actually have the same motor as the original SP10 and SL1000.

I did take mine apart. There is a plastic lifter piece that broke in mine. I don't mind because I rarely use the turntable now. It is more decorative than functional in my listening.

 

[anmpr1]

Looks like the same tone arm that I have my vintage Technics SL-1500 MKII. I hope they improved the lifter mechanisms. Nice arm, but the lifter mechanisms on these all sucked. The internals were made of plastic that after a few years wore out and stopped working. Look on eBay for the number people offering tone arm fixes and/or parts for Technics tone arms. Almost every used Technics turntable for will say the lifter doesn't work. Otherwise, Technics makes a good turntable.

1) I would not imagine the cue mechanism is the same on this, and your turntable. I don't think that is a fair assumption to make.

2) The new arm is curved, and gimbaled, but different in composition than your SL-1500 arm--magnesium alloy v aluminum. Wiring is different materal (if that makes a difference).

3) The new tonearm does appear to be quite conventional. EPA 100 variants were certainly more 'exotic' in their materials--titanium nitride and boron alloy with damping. One issue I've read about is that the synthetic ruby bearings on the original EPA-100 were very fragile, and could fracture if care was not taken. Who would buy an SL-1000 and not take care? But accidents do happen, I guess. Below are pics of the two variants.

 

[Dogen]

Without judging the performance, this is a masterpiece of industrial design. If I wanted to go for eye candy, I’d reach for this chocolate in the box.

 

[Frank Dernie]

One issue I've read about is that the synthetic ruby bearings on the original EPA-100 were very fragile

Garrard arms all used synthetic ruby bearings. They had a spring loaded anti shock mount, a bit like in a watch.

 

[anmpr1]

While I'm at it, might as well show the last of the special EPA arms. The EPA-250 (curved arm) and EPA-500 system with variable straight arms to match cartridge compliance. The design drawback is that the horizontal pivot (the up and down bearings) are not offset at the headshell angle as in other Technics arms. This causes the arm (and stylus) to rotate during record warps. Whether that makes a noticeable distortion in real life record playing, I don't know. My guess is that the arm was designed that way to facilitate the slide-on arm change mechanism. These arms also incorporated counterweight resonance damping.

 

[Ilkless]

Any chance of carrying the SB-C700?

 

[Purité Audio]

Are those the speakers that received a terrible review from ‘what Hi-fi’, although a terrible from them is probably a badge of honour.
Keith

 

[Ilkless]

Are those the speakers that received a terrible review from ‘what Hi-fi’, although a terrible from them is probably a badge of honour.
Keith

Yes, they measure, look and sound great.

 

[Purité Audio]

Do you a link to their measurements?
Keith

 

[Alt-Wrong]

Do you a link to their measurements?
Keith

a link to stereophile’s sb-c700 measurements...
https://www.stereophile.com/content/technics-premium-class-sb-c700-loudspeaker-measurements
JA’s final words there, “The Technics SB-C700's measured performance reveals some excellent audio engineering from an unexpected source. I am not surprised HR liked it.—John Atkinson “

could be a nice pairing with gradient’s nero dipole subs

 

[Purité Audio]

Yes just set up my Gradient ‘Revolutions’ which have dipole bass ( open baffle) I will have a look at those measurements, it is a pity and unusual for a mag to completely rubbish a product, Panasonic couldn’t have paid their marketing bill.
Keith

 

[Ilkless]

Yes just set up my Gradient ‘Revolutions’ which have dipole bass ( open baffle) I will have a look at those measurements, it is a pity and unusual for a mag to completely rubbish a product, Panasonic couldn’t have paid their marketing bill.
Keith

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...huge-price-difference.8884/page-2#post-223655

Here are measurements from 3 sources. To my eye they handily beat the LS50 passive.

 

[Purité Audio]

We are delighted to also be able to offer Acoustand’s range of turntable plinths, here is a Technics SP-10R motor only unit , in Acoustand plinth, you can fit up to three tonearms.


Keith

 

[Purité Audio]

Pitch control,


Keith