2. analog
  3. 135856-20428

Technics 1200 Critic Fremer Praises the newer 1200G

Michael Fremer the critic of older Technics 1200s praises the newer 1200g
https://www.analogplanet.com/content/technics-direct-drive-sl-1200g-turntable
vinny55
chakster's avatar
chakster
6,144 posts
 
@glupson 

Now, when you mentioned Luxman, I have my eye on their latest turntable just for the looks. The only reason why I have not bought it is the belt drive. I am sure it is great, but the idea of having to change belt is not that appealing no matter how simple the procedure it is. I really do not care if it does or does not have torque or if it is "audiophile" or not. I have a feeling that all these machines actually perform very close to each other. Of course, after a certain threshold of quality. 
 
The OLD luxman reference PD-444 motor was made by MICRO SEIKI and it is Direct Drive. I would never use any belt drive.

I think you're right that all reference turntables perform very close to each other, some of them are just practically better, but it's personal preferences, i can swap and adjust the tonearm on PD-444 in 3 minutes, i need maybe another 15 minutes to made absolute alignment of the cartridge with Feickert protractor. No need to drill any holes, screw something to the turntable plinth with that Luxman PD-444. Tonearm and cartridge combination is much more important on those top class Direct Drives, i can not stick to one tonearm, i want to compare the arms on the same turntable. The engineer was a genius in my opinion. And designer was also genius as this is the most elegant DD turntable. I just love when everything made right (usability, design, quality) for reasonable price. Luxman has a long history since 1925. And reputation is Micro Seiki is a top notch too. I was in love with Technics for 23 years, but now i prefer Luxman PD-444 to any Technics i have owned including the SP-10mkII.  


lewm
13,518 posts
 
How about some specifications for the PLX1000?  Fit and finish are one aspect of "value", but what about the technology built into the turntable?  We know that the new SL1200GAE/GR/G is different from the old SL1200 in every possible way, except, sadly, appearance.  And all the differences are on the plus side of the equation.  For example, does the PLX1000 use a coreless motor, as do the newest Technics'? You can't argue a comparison between the PLX1000 and the SL1200 completely in the abstract.

It becomes more clear with every "Technics thread" on this forum that Technics made a horrible marketing decision, or rather two horrible marketing decisions, by first building their new turntable as a replica of the old SL1200, and then giving it the same model name. Thankfully, the 10R at least has that "R" to distinguish it from all the old SP10s, and the appearance is modernized enough to make it instantly distinguishable from an old SP10 Mk2 or Mk3.
cleeds
6,093 posts
 
chakster
 ... all reference turntables perform very close to each other, some of them are just practically better, but it's personal preferences ...
I agree completely. The very best turntables sound strikingly similar, independent of whether they are belt, direct or idler drive. And - although it annoys some when I observe this - the best phono playback systems sound remarkably digital. That is, they are free from noise, speed variations, environmental disturbances ...
 
pryso
1,973 posts
 
glupson, "are we the only two people out there who think a new design would have been a better idea?"

No, in fact you are not.  Shortly after the SL1200GAE was introduced I posted a critique titled "What was Technics thinking?".

For those who bothered to read about them it was obvious that Technics spent a great deal of time and effort in designing their new line up of turntables.  But not everyone bothered to read about that.  Instead they jumped to conclusions based upon similarities in model numbers or physical appearance and assumed Technics simply pulled a major rip-off with higher priced offerings.  In actuality, Technics went to the extreme of recruiting a couple of the technicians from retirement who had worked on the famed SP-10 Mk 2 and 3 and EPA-100 arm to assist in the new upgrades.  I still believe Technics' decisions lead to confusion.

However it is similar to the false suggestion the SL1200 was a DJ table.  That was released in the '70s as a consumer product.  The role of the DJs was to embrace that table in the late '80s and '90s and their demand kept it in production.  It's easy to jump to conclusions if you don't bother with the facts.
jsm71
141 posts
 

Serious shoppers hopefully aren’t so shallow that they avoid the 1200G because it looks like a cheaper version. I never owned one of the older Technics 1200 machines, but I was certainly aware of what they were, and what the quality level was.

I had no trouble understanding that the new 1200G was quite different and worth the price. Buying it based on its merits at its price was an easy decision for me. I’m also not hung up on looks as much as I want functionality and quality. My electronics are ugly but they work best for my system. I’m not trying to impress anybody, but I do like the high level of fit and finish on this table.

Anyone who avoids the new 1200G because of its looks is only missing out on a great option. Those who are blind to the improvements and think Technics has priced this new table too high aren’t really potential buyers and just like to throw mud.

Fremer correctly suggests that Technics couldn’t have brought this table to market for "only" $4,000 if they had to craft a totally new design.

More to discover