Glupson - At the risk of further discussion undermining my WGAS stance on the topic, I think you put your finger on the problem by pointing out the general vagueness of the term "audiophile" in asking what’s the objective/3rd party standard that must be applied to determine qualifications? I’ll nitpick and comment further that an audiophile is a person, not a device so the OP’s real question is, "Why isn’t the Technics 1200 acceptable to audiophiles?" or words to that effect - but this comes right back to your point. Looking up audiophile I see Wikipedia and Merriam Webster define it as a "hi fi enthusiast". Take the word apart and the parts can mean lover of sound. Those definitions impose pretty low "barriers to entry". Heck, I was probably an audiophile at 11 but didn’t know it listening to music on the AM band of a cheap Japanese transistor radio. Years later listening to a KAB mod’d. SL1210 playing vinyl that’s over 40 years old the device is different but the enthusiasm is the same. Unfortunate part is how’d the term get to be so closely associated with a bunch of effete, supercilious (thank goodness for an on-line thesaurus :) semi-informed, know-it-alls?! But like I said before, WGAS. Time to put on Side 2 (though I’m probably listening to something digital tonight). |
ghosthouse, I guess you and I are in the same boat except that your turntable is even older than mine. However, it seems to me that, as time passed by, "barrier to entry" has gotten to be much higher than it should. The word remained the same, but the meaning evolved into full dedication to equipment and the price of equipment required to join the club seems quite high. Deep inside, I have a feeling that an overall "audiophile" as a person is someone who spends lots of money on equipment. Of course, "lots" is in the wallet of the observer. Maybe, time too. Eventually, to justify it all, smaller and smaller things start mattering. Cogging, color on top of capacitor, etc. Do not get me wrong, all of them may technically matter at some point, but I am willing to live with those imperfections. Does dismissing them as insufficiently important to me make me less of an audiophile? In the end, I believe that SL 1200 does not qualify for an "audiophile" piece because of its, at this time in history, relatively humble origins and possibly technology (I am far from being capable and qualified to judge about that). Add millions produced which brought "coolness" factor further down and add the fact that they really ended up being so enthusiastically embraced by DJs who simply would not be allowed to have a clue about what "real fine music system" is. I think that all of those together sealed SL 1200's "audiophile" fate before anyone would even listen to them again. Wait, did I just come up with my own answer to the original thread question? Sure, Thorens from 1950s, or whatever year they were, must be "audiophile". Maybe, some day I will give it a listen and hear for myself. |
It was not designed as a "disco" turntable for deejays, 3 000 000 copies sold since it was made. It's bulletproof quality with only one main disadvanage when it's used by deejays and this fact is a proof that it was not primary designed for dj use. The disadvantage is a bass feedback if the big soundsystem is near (in the clubs) because of the poor desing of the original footers. Because it was designed for a home use as a Hi-Fi component for relatively cheap / affrordable price. Zu Audio - the manurfacturer of amazing full range speakers, also tweaked Denon cartridges for years, now they are tweaking new Denon DJ turntable: https://www.zuaudio.com/turntable |
