LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  March 2011

ARSCLIST March 2011

Subject:

Re: Possibly another reason why Technics is exiting the turntable business

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 11 Mar 2011 22:02:51 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (85 lines)

Agree with you about archival playback of 78's! I also love the fluid damping system that Kevin at 
KAB came up with. You can track lighter and still track some pretty badly warped shellac.

But for everyday playback, those cheap direct-drive 1200 clones are a lot better than what was 
previously available in that price range.

Also agree about 16" playback, but that's a whole other level of equipment.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Milan P Milovanovic" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 9:37 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Possibly another reason why Technics is exiting the turntable business


>I think that one of the main difference between legendary Technics 1200 and all the others cloned 
>turntables based on this design is in lack of good motor/speed control. One can compare i.e. wow 
>and flutter values for Technics and all Stanton, Audiotechnica, JBSystems, Numark etc. tables and 
>find that these values are up to 10 times better in case of original table. Also, I can only think 
>that all the others details such as main bearing, tonearm tolerances and final finished surfaces, 
>as well as all other parts are incomparable for theirs ruggedness, longevity and building quality.
>
> It was terrible day when I first heard Technics stopped their turntable production, and it is 
> still unclear if such decision happened or we are in some kind of vacuum until next step.
>
> To my mind Technics 1200 MK4 with 78rpm included and also with special RCA connectors (instead of 
> cable attached) was the best thing for everyday archival work on heavy 78rpm records (the only 
> lack of usage is, of course, as this turntable is not being suitable for 16" transcription 
> discs) - lots of torque and speed stability, fine tonearm, excellent quality in general. But, for 
> everything else it was - killer model, far better than some el-cheapo ProJect, than to some so 
> called "Thorens" (made in Austrian ProJect facilities, no single connection to the old brand), 
> Rega 78 and so on.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Milan
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2011 1:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Possibly another reason why Technics is exiting the turntable business
>
>
>> Quick update on this ...
>>
>> I had a chance to check out a Stanton ST150, which is a step up from the T92USB.
>> http://www.stantondj.com/stanton-turntables/st150.html
>>
>> This shares some of the same stuff as the T92, including SPDIF (but no USB) output. To my ears, 
>> the built-in preamp sounded identical, so my bet is it's the same circuit board and SPDIF driver. 
>> The tonearm itself looked similar but the counterweight was an upgrade, felt and acted more like 
>> a Technics part, and there's an arm-lifter mechanism not present on the T92USB. Also present on 
>> the ST150 is an arm-height adjustment, which is useful if you're using a taller- or 
>> shorter-than-average cartridge. The whole arm pivot/gimble and lifter mechanism was much more 
>> Technics-clone and than Technics-like. Apparently this turntable is so close to a real-deal 
>> Technics 1200 that a couple of high-end places have started offering souped-up versions as 
>> low-end "super-tables." Such things as a wooden box and disconnecting the digital circuitry and 
>> replacing the feet, which may or may not actually effect sound quality. In the case of the 
>> T92USB, the two most audible improvements I made were first and foremost swapping in a better 
>> cartridge than the stock Stanton 500 (but keep the 500 to play 78's, swapping in a 78 needle of 
>> course), and junking the cheap fabric "slip-mat" for a Technics heavy rubber mat. This killed off 
>> a metallic resonance that was audible on all records, but more so on thinner records. The mat, 
>> combined with a KAB push-on spindle clamp, really quieted down any "wiggly vinyl" noises and also 
>> made the turntable more impervious to tapping on the surrounding surface.
>>
>> I concluded that the ST150 is a really close clone to a Technics, but may not be as mechanically 
>> rugged. It supposedly has a more powerful motor than the T92USB, but its overall build, while 
>> good, did not seem as bulletproof as a 1200. But it costs half as much as 1200's were going for 
>> before they were discontinued, and requires not modifications to play 78's.
>>
>> Given that very similar units are sold under other brands, I suspect one Chinese company is 
>> behind all of this, and they caused mighty Pansonic to surrender by driving prices too far down 
>> for a Japan-made product to compete. One final point -- build-wise and ruggedness-wise, that 
>> ST150 ran rings around comparably-priced belt-driven models from Eastern Europe, sold under the 
>> Pro-Ject, Rega and MusicHall brands. The Euro-tables usually come with better-grade cartridges, 
>> though.
>>
>> -- Tom Fine
>>
> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager