How does the Technics SL 1200 compare with....


other belt drive tables with comparable price tags? Specifically, the Music Hall
MMF 5, and the Rega p3. For arguements sake, lets say these items are all going to be placed on a three inch thick block of oak with vibrapods, and also have comparable cartridges and preamps. I really want to make a foray into vinyl, but for the life of me I just can't decide on a player. Any help would be much appreciated.
jmoog08
Post removed 
I'm not trying to persuade anyone that A is better than B (as a side note - might some of the differences in opinion about the Technics table revolve around experiences with a stock SL1200 series TT vs a KAB modified version?)- just trying to relate my experience and also confirm what Johnnyb has said, "the Technics is giving me a lot of musical enjoyment". Two recent changes have contributed greatly to this: 1) I purchased a used Lehman Black Cube phono-pre (in part because of a thread response by Tvad (though not the SE version). This replaced a very entry level NAD PP-1. 2) I did a DIY Mapleshade knockoff using a heavy, 2&1/4" thick Cuisinart chopping block from the kitchen organizer dept at Lowes along with 4 Dayton speaker cone spikes from Parts Express (thread of the accompanying studs is a perfect replacement for that of the Technics stock footer). I'm using Isonoe boots (orginally purchased for the stock TT footers) under the cutting board. The benefit of this latter tweak may go to Tvad's point above about the need for damping. Whatever the cause(s), vinyl on the KAB Technics SL1210 M5G is sounding amazing to me.
Tvad,

I don't see myself as offering a "point of view" so much as observations and hypotheses. It makes sense to me that a direct drive would need damping. I did not at all intend to say that the Rega low mass undamped technique is better, just that it may contribute significantly to the differences between the two tables. My Maplenoll is VERY high mass and very damped but rigidly with lead and corian rather than rubber like the Technics. There are a alot of folks that believe that evacuating resonance is more effective than soft damping which they argue traps the resonance within the component. Perhaps the Maplenoll optimizes both by damping rigidly in a way that facilitates evacuation as well. I don't get that there is any "right" way to handle these issues, just lots of different roads any of which need to well tended and balanced to be comprehensibly effective. My sense is that the art of Turntable design and resonance management has evolved a bit since the Technics team made there (significant) investment. They got alot right, especially for a $500 table. I can easily relate what I heard to Johnnyb's comment, "the Technics is giving me a lot of musical enjoyment". My initial impression was, "mmm, comfy." The Rega was simply more incisive, but at a cost.

Incidentally, I heard recently that A. J. Conti compared the speed stability of his upper end Basis table, a belt drive using an exeedingly thin but super accurately ground rubber belt to the Technics 1200 with excellent results. Go figure.
Thom Mackris sums up this dynamic nicely in an unrelated adjacent thread:

"...while specific "superior" architectures may well arise, that ultimately, mature designs arise from multiple different architectures ... in the hands of a skilled and aware designer. I truly feel that these superior (yet divergent) architectures tend to converge on musical truth."

or as someone else once sung it:

"it ain't the meat it's the motion."
"I will go with the Rega any time over the Technics. The Technics is no way an audiophile TT if you are the discerning kind."

Shsohis: The Technics SL-1200 was designed at a time when it was much more affordable (and profitable) to design high-end DD turntables. Add to that, that Technics obviously has a tremendous edge in R&D funding over all "cottage" companies in Europe and North America, that have given the turntable industry the reputation of being a "cottage industry". While it is true that many Japanese companies offered cheap, lousy sounding direct drives (mostly because of the shitty arms on them) in the '80s, what is NOT true is the inferiority of DD over belt-drive...quite the opposite, in fact. A properly designed DD has huge advantages over direct drive that enable the table (we're not factoring in the arm) to far surpass the performance of a belt-drive. The 1200 was and is the giant killer of DD, along its bigger and more bad-ass brethren, the SP-25, 15 and the mighty 10 Mk2 and 10 Mk3. There are converted audiophiles who swear these tables, with the right arm, are the best-sounding tables ever. If you really want to get into the nitty-gritty of DD, check out the details on KAB's website. I won't even begin discussing the audiophile snobism towards the EPA-120 arm, which is again vastly better than audiophiles think (though it is not to the level of the table itself). The arm boasts bearing tolerances of half a micron, which puts it into SME, Rega, Graham and Kuzma territory, amongst other great arm manufacturers.
Enough here....my Michell turntable is up for sale if anybody wants it....I just purchased a 1200MkII and awaiting delivery...going to mount my Rega arm on it with the Origin Live armboard.