Technics SL-1300G New Generation Grand Class Turntable

[J.M. Noble]

Sometimey per several buyers reviews. So I wouldn't buy it for that feature.

Allthetimey for me, and there is an un- or under-documented feature that allows you to set it up so that it also powers the turntable off after a delay.

You do have to lower the cue lever until it clicks to re-arm the auto-lift, so the reviewers might be experiencing operator error.

I love everything about this deck and after swapping out the 2M Red for a 2M Blue stylus I have zero desire to make any changes. Any gains from here will be incremental at best.

 

[JeffS7444]

after swapping out the 2M Red for a 2M Blue stylus I have zero desire to make any changes.

I find the Red a pleasant-sounding thing, though prone to a bit of buzzy distortion; do you find that upgrading the stylus made a substantial improvement in that regard?

 

[J.M. Noble]

I find the Red a pleasant-sounding thing, though prone to a bit of buzzy distortion; do you find that upgrading the stylus made a substantial improvement in that regard?

The Red is ... OK. Inner groove issues and kind of a lo-fi top end seemed like the price I had to pay, and it generally sounded decent. It was on a par with the OM-10 stylus I had on my Rega RP1 for a long time, though the Technics is a much better deck.

I don't want to overstate things, but the 2M Blue was a revelation. I'm 160+ album sides in (I put a quarter in a coffee cup for every full album to fund the next stylus) and I still think this is the biggest bang for the buck I've encountered in hi-fi. The differences don't sound that large in needle drop comparison recordings, so the main things I was hoping to gain were reduction/elimination of inner groove distortion and maybe a little nicer highs.

It solidly delivered the former and greatly exceeded expectations on the latter. I have a decent DAC (Schiit Modius E) and hi rez sources to compare with, and the 2M Blue closed most of the gap. I'm willing to believe the 2M Bronze & Black are better in some way, but I don't see the point--not with my speakers etc.

I'm mildly curious about the Audio-Technica cartridges, but I don't want to muck around with outboard phono stages and the onboard phono preamp on the Technics seems to be out of the recommended capacitance range for A-T.

 

[JeffS7444]

I don't want to overstate things, but the 2M Blue was a revelation.

Sounds like a winner to me! Part of me has been tempted to try a different cart, but OTOH, I've measured the frequency response of my 2M Red, and it's decently flat.

 

[JaccoW]

I just love my og SL-1300. The platter being the rotor of the motor just blows my mind. So clever. And the 1300 full auto system is very hardy. 50 years post manufacture and it's still working, clunking notwithstanding. Regardless, I hit go and it goes, and I don't have to get up when it's done. The hinges still hold, too.

About the only upgrade I'm after is perhaps a 1301, the quartz locked half-gen successor.

For me the TT is for fun and ritual. Frankly, having a vintage table is part of that fun. Especially when I'm cognizant of the price: performance compared to "modern" tables. I got mine for $100, spent a few dollars on caps and damping fluid, rewired the tonearm/RCAs (dead quiet), and spent more on the cart than I would have otherwise. I'd do it that way again if the budget was 5k.

New technology is always cool. But when the technology from 50 years ago is still on par... . (Quartz locked would be more accurate, but still.)

I have the same feeling about my Sl-1400. The Mk2 model has Quartz lock but the Mk1 looks better IMHO and the semi-auto (lift, return, stop) mechanism is glorious.
With a few small mods there is nothing to complain about either.

Maybe I will go on the hunt for an SL-1700 mk2 one day with its lights and better tonearm.

 

[J.M. Noble]

This was the answer for my GR. I griped about the lever when I first bought it but after adjusting (backing out the adjustment screw a few turns I believe) I don’t notice it at all anymore.

Thank you for this, my SL-1500C's cueing is much improved!

 

[EJ3]

Love the discussion in this thread of magnesium used in the highest-end Technics tonearms. U-Turn sells turntables starting at <$300 that use a one-piece thixoformed magnesium tonearm, so let's dispense with the idea that magnesium is some sort of high-end, unobtanium finery in such applications.

Technics is gorging on the fat wallet audiophile crowd with their current offerings.

The tonearm on my Technics SL-M3 says that it is made of Titanium Nitride.

 

[ban25]

I have the same feeling about my Sl-1400. The Mk2 model has Quartz lock but the Mk1 looks better IMHO and the semi-auto (lift, return, stop) mechanism is glorious.
With a few small mods there is nothing to complain about either.

Maybe I will go on the hunt for an SL-1700 mk2 one day with its lights and better tonearm.

I have the same feet on my 1200MK7, good stuff!

 

[ban25]

Here's a pretty good teardown of the SL-1300G vs the 1200GR2:

 

[KEM]

It is not outrageously expensive. But in 2024 it is poor value considering how far behind digital it inevitably is. Trying to improve vinyl playback is a fool’s errand.

I don't agree.

The experiences are different. Many older LPs with wonderful performances will never be digitized, let alone streamed.
Yes, LPs have poorer SNR, mono-blended bass, poorly centered spindle holes, pops and ticks, etc. If you want to listen to a recording that has not been digitized, then you must put up with these (minor) annoyances.

Digital has its place. It requires very little to no maintenance, minimal user interaction, less hardware, better SNR, more portable, etc...

I listen to both analog and digital media. I have no preference, except for performance and mastering quality. A poorly executed performance or mastering job can sound terrible no matter what the medium.

Each medium has many uses where its qualities outshine the other.

 

[J.M. Noble]

Each medium has many uses where its qualities outshine the other.

Definitely. It's interesting to listen to original pressings of familiar albums and compare them to the remasters on CD (which I did in the 80s and after)--and then compare *those* to the later remasters on the streaming services. There's more than a difference in media at play here, with later masters usually being "louder".

"Fidelity" isn't the whole story, especially with studio-oriented music from the 50s through the 80s.

 

[EJ3]

It's good to see a company with more than half an engineer, and a company that understands manufacturing quality, attempt this. I'm more a linear tone arm fan, maybe those will come back.

I have my LINIAR tracking (the arm is titanium nitride) Technics SL-M3. When Technics makes another LINIER tracking one, I'll consider it.
My backup TT is a Dual 1229.
Both of these are full automatics. Neither one has ever failed to do it's full automatic cycle.
And I would NOT buy ANY turntable without that feature.

 

[Leporello]

Each medium has many uses where its qualities outshine the other.

Vinyl - as a medium - has not a single sonic quality where it outshines digital.

 

[reforminded]

Vinyl - as a medium - has not a single sonic quality where it outshines digital.

My early 70's pressing of Kind of Blue sounds better than my Mofi SACD, or the Hi-Res file on Amazon or Tidal. It has the same precision and dynamics but sounds more real, like I am at the recording session. Conversely, my more recent "jazz classics" pressing of Kind of Blue sounds like ass. Good vinyl has a je ne sais quoi that I haven't found elsewhere.

This has been discussed elsewhere on ASR but the rankings of the versions of Kind of Blue are interesting:

https://magicvinyldigital.net/2024/...reo-and-multichannel-dolby-atmos-and-sony-36/

 

[J.M. Noble]

Vinyl - as a medium - has not a single sonic quality where it outshines digital.

This has been discussed elsewhere at length, but in short vinyl--as a medium--enforces certain limitations on well-known audio abuses by recording and mastering engineers and the corporate overlords that employ them.

 

[undeakyetonde]

This has been discussed elsewhere at length, but in short vinyl--as a medium--enforces certain limitations on well-known audio abuses by recording and mastering engineers and the corporate overlords that employ them.

And what are those limitations? Is there anything beyond this list? https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)

 

[Angsty]

But I always thought the weak link on the GR2 models was the tonearm. The SL-1200G includes a significantly better magnesium tonearm, obviously at a higher cost.

From the Stereophile article on the SL-1300G:

"As Bill Voss explained: The 1300G uses the same basic tonearm, with the same bearings and bits as the 1200G, but substitutes an aluminum armtube for the magnesium pipe on the 1200G. And! According to Bill, the only difference between the 9" magnesium arm on the 1200G and the 10" magnesium arm on the SL-1000R is the length. What this means is: Technics makes one tonearm and fits it with three different armtubes to suit the needs of three different turntable models."

 

[EJ3]

Oh crap - this has set my ASD vibes off - and NOTHING to do with the product itself

The SL1300 was a fecking FULL AUTO deck, start and stop, the 1350 a 'changer' type when made. B&O used to re-use model numbers and it got me right going at the time. This re-use of an established number has done it again in my dotage...

Why can't they find another number series to use, it's already all but impossible for a non-anal-follower like me to rationalise the different and 'evolved' 1200 models over several decades now

Oh, where's the strobe and disc support?

Moan over - as you were fellas, as you were


All this money on bling when the basic model at a fraction of the price has arguably better tech performance than many of the lathes which cut the master acetates in the first place

But they sure turned the inaudible supposed "cogging" issue that the belt drive manufacture where bitchin about into a HUGE MARKETING deal over the older Technics DD's & the belt drive folks.
My Technics (1984-1988) SL-M3 doesn't do anything bad that I can hear:

Specifications​

Type: fully automatic

Drive method: direct drive

Motor: brushless DC motor

Drive control method: quartz phase locked control

Platter: 325mm, 2.5kg, aluminium die-cast

Pitch control: +-6% range

Speeds: 33 and 45rpm

Wow and flutter: 0.022% WRMS

Rumble: -82dB

Tonearm: dynamically-balanced linear tracking

Effective length: 238mm

Effective mass: 13g (including cartridge)

Cartridge: moving magnet

Replacement stylus: EPS-33ES

Dimensions: 526 x 205 x 425mm

Weight: 15kg

 

[DSJR]

But they sure turned the inaudible supposed "cogging" issue that the belt drive manufacture where bitchin about into a HUGE MARKETING deal over the older Technics DD's & the belt drive folks.
My Technics (1984-1988) SL-M3 doesn't do anything bad that I can hear:

Specifications​

Type: fully automatic

Drive method: direct drive

Motor: brushless DC motor

Drive control method: quartz phase locked control

Platter: 325mm, 2.5kg, aluminium die-cast

Pitch control: +-6% range

Speeds: 33 and 45rpm

Wow and flutter: 0.022% WRMS

Rumble: -82dB

Tonearm: dynamically-balanced linear tracking

Effective length: 238mm

Effective mass: 13g (including cartridge)

Cartridge: moving magnet

Replacement stylus: EPS-33ES

Dimensions: 526 x 205 x 425mm

Weight: 15kg

Maybe the tooling for the previous DD motor designs wore out or was scrapped (I believe a chip or two in the servos became unavailable for the previous 1210 family). The more recent motor for this family looks to use the same principles as the EDS1000 my Dual 701 is fitted with, this latter giving more of a soft belt drive torque (the massy platter smooths it all out). technics quartz drives as I remember, have very high torque, needing a hearty hand on the platter to slow, let alone stop rotation. It was suggested in the 12**mk2 that the torque was too high and not as smoothly applied as it could have been, but if this was true then, the current drive system should eliminate it as the fields overlap each other.

Although my long term dealings with Rega dictate that if I was looking for a deck, it should really be the Planar 3RS or Planar 6 (I prefer the deeper platter edge), an SL1500C with 2M Bronze stylus is where I'd arguably be looking these days (it looks really cool in white as my local record shop has one ).

 

[EJ3]

Maybe the tooling for the previous DD motor designs wore out or was scrapped (I believe a chip or two in the servos became unavailable for the previous 1210 family). The more recent motor for this family looks to use the same principles as the EDS1000 my Dual 701 is fitted with, this latter giving more of a soft belt drive torque (the massy platter smooths it all out). technics quartz drives as I remember, have very high torque, needing a hearty hand on the platter to slow, let alone stop rotation. It was suggested in the 12**mk2 that the torque was too high and not as smoothly applied as it could have been, but if this was true then, the current drive system should eliminate it as the fields overlap each other.

Although my long term dealings with Rega dictate that if I was looking for a deck, it should really be the Planar 3RS or Planar 6 (I prefer the deeper platter edge), an SL1500C with 2M Bronze stylus is where I'd arguably be looking these days (it looks really cool in white as my local record shop has one ).

I was mainly relating to the then audio press and belt drive manufacturers used the inaudible (to most) cogging as a reason to buy their gear. Now, subtly, Technics is saying "we rectified that (even though it was not a real world issue for most people) now our gear is better than ever" that they sure used the negative that others said & turned it around. Great marketing, after leaving the market totally for a while. Take a non-existent negative, fix that "problem" so it cannot be an imagined "problem" & now: 'better than ever'.