The SL-1600 was less robust and was a fully-auto turntable. The MKII version has a known issue with
one of the little belts in the automatic mechanism. I think most of us who transfer grooved disks in
a semi-pro or pro environment want fully manual tables and want a very robust build. The SL-1200
models offered all of that. KAB's mods make them excellent for 78 transfers. I really think the
fluid damping is key since many 78s you find these days can be warped or were pressed off-center in
the first place. The fluid damping stops some of the tonearm jiggle so it can track at a reasonable
weight and stay in the groove.
Shai is right about the EMT tables having lower rumble specs. But they cost a fortune and are
complex and don't have a reputation of being indestructable like the Technics 1200's. I've found
that you can lower the rumble spec on your Technics by first of all making sure you're using the
heavier rubber mat (which was standard on at least the MKIV and MKV models) and more importantly
using a spindle clamp like what KAB sells. Regarding rumble, it's also worth noting that _many_
"golden era" records had rumble baked in, also audible hum and of course extra hiss from the tube
cutting electronics. The baked-in noise was much less in the era after Neumann took over and
dominated the lathe market, but Neumann's automation parameters led to either timid (too low overall
level) or dynamics-compromised cuts by too many engineers. Some guys figured out how to push the
envelope with dynamics, and apparently passed this on to the modern generation of cutters. That
said, the modern way seems to be use a lower overall level, allowing "safe" headroom for the
automation, and then press on super-quiet vinyl. That works, too, but makes the rumble spec on your
turntable more important since you need to then playback at a higher overall level. In other words,
the s/n onus is now more in the playback stage, as was traditionally the case with European cuts.
"Golden Age" American cuts tended to concentrate on maximum overall level while still accomodating
dynamics (or not -- ie AM radio singles). The reason was that pressing would inevitably be on noisy
vinyl. Even prime-era RCA Indianapolis vinyl is much more noisy than typical British, Dutch or
German pressings of that same era. And every other company's US plants produced noisier records than
RCA. Columbia massively improved their vinyl by the late 60s, but then were going with paper-thin
records so the flimsy problems replaced the noisy problems. I have never heard an LP, pre-1970s,
from Mercury, Atlantic, Capitol or US Decca/ABC/MCA plants that isn't on relatively noisy vinyl.
Mercury's Richmond IN plant was the worst offender, followed by whatever plant Atlantic used.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Haley" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 5:18 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Turntable Recommendation ?
> You're right, Ellis. It's the CVS-16, not 14. And I see the not-great wow
> and flutter spec. I haven't noticed that because I use it only for 78's.
> Looking at the wow and flutter specs for the Technics SL-1600, it says it
> is .025 (the SL-1200 is .01). Other than this, I wonder why the SL-1200
> models are so preferred over the SL-1600 models?
> John Haley
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Milan P. Milovanovic <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Dear David,
>> just to put some correction here: there are no such thing as Technics "DJ
>> model" turntable. If it is talk about SL-1200 it is model fully developed
>> as part of their Hi-Fi program, and later accepted by DJ community because
>> of its solid, almost indestructible built.
>> Best wishes,
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Seubert" <
>> [log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 11:41 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Turntable Recommendation ?
>> If you can locate a Technics SL1015 R&B (Radio and Broadcast) you might
>>> consider that as a step up from the Technics DJ models. We bought a used
>>> one last year for a little over $1000. It's three speed and pitch is
>>> adjustable in .1% increments.
>>> I had unlimited money, I'd buy an EMT 950.
>>> David Seubert
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]**GOV <[log in to unmask]>] On
>>> Behalf Of Tom Diamant
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 10:54 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: [ARSCLIST] Turntable Recommendation ?
>>> The three speed turntable of the Arhoolie Foundation has died and I don't
>>> know if it's repairable. We're looking for a good replacement.
>>> Here's what we need.
>>> 1. Three speed
>>> 2. Variable pitch
>>> 3. Sturdy (we use it every day, all day long) 4. good specs (low rumble,
>>> low wow & flutter) 5. Although we have yet to have a use for a turntable
>>> that can play 16 inch transcriptions, it perhaps might be something we
>>> would look at.
>>> 6. Not insanely expensive!
>>> I'm sure many of you know more about this than I do, so any recommendation
>>> would be appreciated.
>>> Tom Diamant
>>> Arhoolie foundation