Technics 1210 MK2

[reubensm]

PHEW - 301, 401, SP-10, 1200, 1210.....that is some lineup I must say. I guess you must be in the nth stage of Audio Nirvana

Any more legends to the above list?

OMG :yahoo:

what do you plan to do with so many? a dedicated TT for each genre of music?

 

[bhaskarcan]

OMG :yahoo:

............ a dedicated TT for each genre of music?

Nah, I don't believe in that. I only listen to the 1200 and 301. The SP10 was my dad's pride, so it remains in the same position where he left it in our village home. The 301 has Shure 97 with Jico SAS, so it's only for the new/mint records. The 1200 (again with Shure97 but with default stylus) is my workhorse. The 401 is sparsely used for 78's only. Looks like the 1210 is going to be a showpiece beside the 1200 or I can lend it to my brother if he wants it.

Regards,
Bhaskar

 

[prem]

Hi Bhaskarcan

Congrats. I am curious. Wouldn't the SP 10 be a better player than the 1200?

 

[reubensm]

Hi Bhaskarcan

Congrats. I am curious. Wouldn't the SP 10 be a better player than the 1200?

As per my understanding and from the Tech specs, the SP10 is essentially the 1200 without the tonearm assembly and 1200 stock plinth. The powersupply is possibly different though. This is an interesting query and I'm very interested in the responses from our dear FMs. Saying so as there are lots of SP15s and SP25s doing the rounds, and these draw interest from time to time.

 

[prem]

Hi Reubensm

From what I have heard the SP 10 mk 3 is one of the best dd tables made. It goes for a lot of money. I think it's more expensive than a EMT 938

 

[bhaskarcan]

Hi Bhaskarcan

Congrats. I am curious. Wouldn't the SP 10 be a better player than the 1200?

Yes it's supposed to be a better player. It has a Jelco arm on it with ShureV15 cart. But as I mentioned b4, it remains in our village home and we listen to it when we visit there. Apart from the sentimental issue, my main idea of using 1200 was to have a good plug n play reference TT beside the DIY plinthed 301. And fortunately/unfortunately they All sound great to me(even my Akai and Sherwood belt drives).

Regards,
Bhaskar

 

[prem]

Thanks Bhaskarcan. I can understand the sentiments associated with the SP 10

 

[jls001]

As per my understanding and from the Tech specs, the SP10 is essentially the 1200 without the tonearm assembly and 1200 stock plinth.

Hardly. The design and construction of SP10 is very different. For broadcast purpose, it was sold as motor plus outboard power supply (SH-10E). Buyer supplies plinth and tonearm.

The domestic version was called SL 1100. It came with the very sexy obsidian plinth (some sort of volcanic glass, black like black marble and bit translucent), and I think the EPA 500 tonearm.

Quick and Dirty specs comparo:

SP10-II / 1200-II

Platter: 2.9 kgs (6.4 lbs) / 2 kg (Mk II)
Starting torque: 0.6 Nm / 0.15 Nm
Moment of Inertia: 380 kg per cm^2 / ?
Time to reach nominal speed: 0.25s (about half a revolution) to 33 rpm. Stopping 0.3s from 33 rpm / 0.7 s to 33 rpm
Motor controller: outboard (SH-10E) / inbuilt
Wow and Flutter: 0.025% / 0.025% wrms
Rumble: -73 dB / -78 dB
Control: quartz controlled phase locked servo / quartz
Motor: Brushless DC motor, electronic rectification / Brushless DC motor
Weight: 9.5 kg motor + PS, without plinth / 12.5 kg
Tonearm Effective Mass: NA /12g
Speeds: 33, 45, 78/ 33, 45
Pitch Control: 10% / 8%
Speed fluctuation by load changes: 0% within 5kg-cm / ?

 

[navinsinha]

Congrats Bhaskar! It looks lovely!

 

[anilva]

Hardly. The design and construction of SP10 is very different. For broadcast purpose, it was sold as motor plus outboard power supply (SH-10E). Buyer supplies plinth and tonearm.

The domestic version was called SL 1100. It came with the very sexy obsidian plinth (some sort of volcanic glass, black like black marble and bit translucent), and I think the EPA 500 tonearm.

Quick and Dirty specs comparo:

SP10-II / 1200-II

Platter: 2.9 kgs (6.4 lbs) / 2 kg (Mk II)
Starting torque: 0.6 Nm / 0.15 Nm
Moment of Inertia: 380 kg per cm^2 / ?
Time to reach nominal speed: 0.25s (about half a revolution) to 33 rpm. Stopping 0.3s from 33 rpm / 0.7 s to 33 rpm
Motor controller: outboard (SH-10E) / inbuilt
Wow and Flutter: 0.025% / 0.025% wrms
Rumble: -73 dB / -78 dB
Control: quartz controlled phase locked servo / quartz
Motor: Brushless DC motor, electronic rectification / Brushless DC motor
Weight: 9.5 kg motor + PS, without plinth / 12.5 kg
Tonearm Effective Mass: NA /12g
Speeds: 33, 45, 78/ 33, 45
Pitch Control: 10% / 8%
Speed fluctuation by load changes: 0% within 5kg-cm / ?

As jls has mentioned & illustrated above, they are completely different. Compared to SP10 Mark II, the SL1200 is a toy. The torque ratings are very different. You cannot stop or slow down a SP10 Mark II, using hand fingers. There is no comparison. The next revision of SP10 is Mark III, which is ultra rare, ultra heavy and is more expensive than EMTs.

Cheers

 

[jls001]

SP10/II was already a remarkable machine what with its extremely high torque and stupendous start/stop times.

Mark III took an exponential jump in specs. Torque was now 16 kgm (or 1.6 Nm) which is 1 Nm more than the Mark II. There was also a substantial >3x hike in platter weight to 10 kilos. Despite the much higher platter mass, start/stop times remained unchanged. But rumble performance was improved over the II. Think of what motor it would have. There was also increased pitch adjustability (20%).

Unfortunately it was Japan-only 100V release. Very rare. Very costly. Properly rebuilt ones are close to 20K (in Benjamins).

 

[Saket]

Thanks for the wonderful information on the SP10 Jls!

Torque was now 16 kgm (or 1.6 Nm)

I am sure you meant 0.16kgm (& not 16kgm)

 

[jls001]

I am sure you meant 0.16kgm (& not 16kgm)

I mean 16. But now I am a bit confused about the unit use by Technics. The manual of the Mark II state the starting torque as 6 kg.cm (5.2 lbs.in). Now, the SI unit of torque is Newton meter (Nm).

The more correct units seem to be 6 kgf.cm (kilogram-force centimeter) and 5.2 lbsf.in (pound-force inch). The correct SI conversion is 0.588399 Nm.

So Mark III's 16 kgf.cm is 1.569064 Nm. Sorry for the confusion. See this conversion table.

The bottom line is: the torque of the Mark II is so high if you dare push your finger to the platter it wont affect the speed. I think anilva can confirm this since he is a proud SP10 owner But please don't break your nails or finger.

A corollary to this is that the SP10 is totally useless for DJ use as you can't vary speed with your fingers. It won't replace a 1200 anytime soon for DJ use:lol:

 

[peace_sells]

Wow. The mark 3 does sound impressive. I did little search on the internet about this. Found some interesting things about the sp 10 mk iii ('drool-material' pictures too :licklips

Technics Sp10 Mk3

 

[Saket]

I mean 16. But now I am a bit confused about the unit use by Technics. The manual of the Mark II state the starting torque as 6 kg.cm (5.2 lbs.in). Now, the SI unit of torque is Newton meter (Nm).

The more correct units seem to be 6 kgf.cm (kilogram-force centimeter) and 5.2 lbsf.in (pound-force inch). The correct SI conversion is 0.588399 Nm.

16kg.cm would be equal to 1.57Nm; which seems logical. If the SP10 torque figures would have been really 16kgm, many would have happily used it as an automobile.

Another point: My car's torque figure is 8.1kgm which is half of the figure stated above

So Mark III's 16 kgf.m is 1.569064 Nm.