SOTA NOVA, HR-X VPI, Technics 1200G recommendations?

I think that’s why luxman pd 121a I’m using sound so different from rest of dd. the speed control. is soso.. but the platter is thick and heavy. and somewhat more quiet..quite a shocker when the result is very natural highly detailed and round.. even with a cheap MM. eleptical.

Never tried PD-121, my only Luxman is their top PD-444.
SAEC is the best for Luxman platter because the platter edge is higher than its inner side. SAEC is the opposite (look here). And this is a top side.

Micro CU-180 diameter can be too big (there is a little tolerance in diameter according to the manual), sometimes it can’t fit! This is my cu-180 on my lux platter. And the side view.

And Sakura Systems THE MAT is just perfect for LUX platter size.

Mijo, What we disagree on is the idea that a typical spring-suspended turntable is the sine qua non of turntable isolation.  I fully agree that isolation from environmental energy is important, and we agree on the why of it.  But I don't think the SOTA as prototype is the best way to go about isolating a turntable from the environment.  And I have stated the reason for my opinion several times:  With all such systems, and the SOTA is not much different from the now ancient and much loved AR turntable of yore and all its descendants (albeit the SOTA is far more advanced), the designer has a choice.  Either the motor is suspended along with the tonearm and bearing/platter, or it is mounted on solid footing, so it does not couple energy into the working elements.  If the motor is suspended, then a major source of noise (and here I am talking about mechanical energy, not EMI) is coupled into the platter.  Belt drive motors must operate at higher rotational speeds so as to maintain platter speed, compared to any dd motor, and what's more there will be a side force on both the platter and the motor pulley which eventually needs to extraneous noise due to the long term effects of friction, so I think that is why most designers of spring-suspended turntables adopt the other option, having the motor on solid ground, so to speak.  But when the motor is mechanically separated from the driven elements, there will be motion of one relative to the other.  If the belt is at all compliant, then there will be speed inconstancy owing to the stretching and relaxing of the belt as vibrational energy is absorbed.  You like to talk about the 80s and 90s, when "everyone" figured out that belt-drive turntables were superior to direct-drive, but I would posit that what happened in those decades, besides the near total demise of vinyl, was the result of a propaganda barrage from the industry, not excluding the magazines. It was and is just so much easier to build a low end belt-drive turntable that everyone was and still is doing it.  I was there, and I was swept up in it for a number of years, just as you were.  Now some of the modern and expensive belt-drives do the suspension right, including the Dohmann Helix.  I think that's a great turntable but I would rather not afford it.  I would further point out that there are sophisticated methods by which to isolate a non-suspended DD turntable that in my opinion can have an effect at least equal to springs but without the negatives.  So to be clear, by not liking spring-suspended belt-drives, I would not want to be seen to believe that isolation is trivial.

My aversion to direct drive turntables comes from pretty extensive listening tests back in the late 70's early 80's. The universal opinion was that direct drive turntables sounded inferior to the best belt drive turntables. There were various theories of why this might be, none of them proven that I know of. I do know that isolating the turntable from everything else going on around it including the music is very important.

@mijostyn  I remember when direct drive was getting that bad rap. It turned out that there are good direct drive tts and bad ones, just like there are class D amps that sound terrible and others that are great. It depends on design and execution.

The thing that Technics always had going for them was a robust research and development department since they are owned by Panasonic.  Turns out that control theory, if properly applied, can work on a turntable no worries- with less speed variation than any belt drive ever made. They've not lost that expertise! While I don't doubt that you heard some inferior DD turntables, and some of them even lower priced Technics that were bad, you'd do well to disabuse yourself of your anecdotes and take a serious listen to either the 1200G or SP10R, either equipped with the tonearm of your choice.


I've done that and its the reason we stopped selling our Atma-Sphere 208, which is very speed stable for a belt-drive machine. The Technics is simply better- and for less money. I have to admit I like our plinth better but Technics did a very good job on theirs (in the SL1200G, not so much the SP10R IMO).

@chakster 

When you flip your record, do you stop the turntable each time? On my old SOTA, I just grabbed the record while the platter was turning and flip it. With hard surfaces like copper, I am thinking it would damage the record if you grab it while the platter is still turning.

Jay, Yeah, but with a good DD, there is a brake that stops the platter on a dime, and it takes seconds to get back up to speed.  So stopping the rotation in order to change or turn over the LP is not going to cause any extra delay. 

Along the lines of Atma-sphere's theme, besides the SP10R or the SL1200G, very few DD aficionados these days use the OEM plinths that were supplied along with the typical DD turntable in the vintage days.  I personally favor high mass and constrained layer damping, along with an energy absorbent shelf that could do its work by any of several modalities. Heck, I wouldn't even look down on a spring-supported shelf if done properly.  MC seems to have done that. Nor do most use the thick rubber mats that also were normal fare in days of yore.  Those definitely killed the sound.  (See also the many posts by Chakster and others regarding preferable mats.)