Petition launched to reintroduce Technics turntables (Update: The SL-1200 is Back!)*

The perfect turntable for £3k? Sounds okay to me! (then again, I paid for £200 for my 1210 and it's perfect too!)

 

Agreed - I'd take my M5G over an LP12 any day.

 

I stand corrected.

 

Understood.

 

I wouldn't take everything here as gospel, but the KAB mods are well regarded and there is good info on the 1200s (pre-reintroduction) ...
TECHNICS SL-1200 MK5 33 45 RPM TURNTABLE AT KABUSA.COM »

 

He's asking about the GAE, not the Mk5.

 

And the thread is also discussing differences in the model run over the years. Hasn't gone far off topic, IMO. (My comment just above was quickly edited before you quoted, I did mention the link was "pre-reintroduction") for anyone not interested in the heritage. Carry on.

 

The SL-1200GAE is one of those pieces that almost requires it to be seen in person to admire the build quality, precision and general heft.

 

OK, I’ve been doing some more investigation into the VTA mystery and this is how I see things at the moment.

As you know, the arm tube (wand) of the SL-1200GAE is S shaped. I would assume that, if manufactured correctly, the S shape would be entirely in the horizontal plane when the arm was perfectly level. However, the S shape on mine is not entirely in the horizontal plane. Instead, it seems to me that the arm is inserted into its carrier slightly off-axis such that the arm tube is rotated slightly in a clockwise direction when looking towards the pivot.

If the arm tube were straight, this wouldn’t matter in the least. But because the arm tube is S shaped, this strange orientation means that the S shape is no longer in a horizontal plane but is now slightly oriented towards the vertical. As a result, if you stand in front of the table looking downwards onto the tonearm, the centre section of the S shape no longer just zigs to the right, but also zags slightly downwards from the rear towards the front.

It's difficult to show this in a picture but here’s an attempt. In this picture, the headshell - and, I think the front section of the tonearm itself - are at an exactly horizontal level as measured by a bubble level placed along the flat top of the headshell. At this point, the whole of the tonearm should also be level. But if you look at the centre section of the arm tube, which starts at the black arm rest post and continues until about two-thirds of the way along the arm, you can see that it slopes noticeably downwards, before levelling out at the headshell end.




And of course, the opposite is also true - meaning that, if you position the tonearm so that the main section of the arm is level, the headshell end is actually skewed upwards. Here are two more pictures to show you what I mean.

In the first picture, you can see that I have now levelled the centre section of the tonearm. I have balanced a bubble level on top of the arm to show that it is absolutely level.




In the next picture, without moving anything else, I’ve moved the bubble level to the top of the headshell, and you can see that the headshell is skewed noticeably upwards. As you may be able to see, the scale on the bubble level gives an angle of error of 2 degrees.




(Incidentally, if anyone's wondering - yes, I changed the cartridge since yesterday because I've been playing around with different cartridge heights. But it's just the tonearm and headshell we're looking at here.)

Now, I’ve listened to what you guys have been saying above and looking at your excellent pictures and some of you are saying that this is just how the tonearm is and they always slope down before levelling out at the headshell. But if that’s the case, my big question would be: why on earth does the instruction manual tell you to use the tonearm as the reference for getting your VTA correct? If the tonearm slopes downwards, that’s terrible advice and it’s completely wrong, because if you get your tonearm level, then by definition, your headshell is kicked upwards and your VTA is well out.

Another thing is, I really don’t think this is intentional for the following two reasons:

1. If you use a cartridge with a height of 16mm or 17mm, you can’t complete the setup in accordance with the instruction manual. Even if you set the arm height control ring to its lowest possible level (below zero), it's impossible to get the tonearm parallel with the record surface while the needle is in the groove because that upward skew of the headshell when the tonearm is level lifts the needle above the record surface.

2. The table in the operating instructions giving the "correct" arm height control ring setting for different cartridge heights is completely wrong, and I think that’s because the table was drawn up on the assumption that the tonearm was level. Because the tonearm in fact slopes downwards through its centre section, the effective arm height at the stylus end of the arm is much lower than the designer intended and therefore all the suggested arm height settings are wrong. To achieve a correct VTA, you need to have a much higher number on the arm height control ring than the table indicates. You need to add about 2 to every number in the table to get a correct VTA setting - and this in turn means that, contrary to what the table states, you cannot use a cartridge with a height of more than 21mm.

It's possible of course that it may be only my turntable that’s defective but I think it's far more likely that this is a manufacturing error and that all the tonearms are the same. I’ve sent an email to Technics today telling them what I think and asking them if they’d be kind enough to investigate or at least comment.

The funny thing is, now I’ve discovered what the problem is, it’s actually very good news, at least for me. Because the effective arm height is lower than Technics intended, it means I can easily fit my AT33PTG/II and get a correct VTA on it without having to worry about extra turntable mats or headshell spacers. I’ve found that, if you ignore the tonearm itself and instead concentrate on getting the headshell (and hence the cartridge) perfectly level, the correct setting on the arm height control ring for a 16mm cartridge (supposedly unplayable, according to the table) is number 1. That leaves plenty of room to play with for anyone who wants to go up or down searching for any sweet spot.

The important message I’d send to anyone trying to set up the arm height on one of these things is, whatever you do, don’t follow the instructions in the manual, because whether you get the tonearm parallel to the record surface or use the table set out in the instructions, your VTA will almost certainly be wrong. The easy way to get your VTA correct is to make absolutely sure that the flat top of your headshell is parallel to the record surface, either by eye or by more imaginative means.

Of course, if it turns out that my tonearm is defective and everyone else’s is fine, then this won’t apply. But it’s still a safe bet if you want to get your VTA right and don’t want to use the USB microscope method. After all, levelling the tonearm or using the table in the instruction manual are only proxies for what you’re really trying to achieve, which is getting your cartridge level with the playing surface.

 

If I'm reading what you've written and your pictures correctly then it looks like your arm tube has been incorrectly aligned and you have a faulty arm, which considering the headshell you got would be really taking the.... It makes me wonder why that particular deck was still available.

 

could this have sustained damage in shipping? if the force was hard enough to snap the secure connector between the headshell and the arm, maybe the arm got messed up as well?

 

I can appreciate your efforts and desire to get things "right". But even if you get an arm or adjustment method that meets your definition of "correct", isn't it all a moot point, without measurement of SRA? Your VTA could be "right", but if the SRA is wrong, all the fretting over the headshell, arm variance, etc., is rather pointless?

 

1. Is there any visible scratch on the arm underside at the point where it rests on the armrest? You say you notice a slope beginning at the armrest towards the headshell, so a guess would be that some force during shipping interacted with the locked armlock and caused the wand deformation. Just a guess to think about.
2. The part of the headshell where the bubble level is placed on has an upwards slope but not the part where the screws go thru. What says the level if placed there? Of course you'll have to take off the screws first.

 

I can't rule it out but I don't think so. The headshell wasn't on the arm when it was packed - it was packed separately - so that's unrelated. I can't see any signs at all of damage to the arm and it's not as if the box was damaged in any way.

 

You're right of course. But everyone has their own approach to VTA. Believe it or not, I'm not that concerned about it and I wouldn't get into adjusting it for every record or searching for some elusive sweet spot. My approach is to get the VTA level and then never think about it again. But the problem here was the struggle to get even that.

 

As above, there are no signs of any damage. On the level of the headshell, I think it's the other way around - the topside is mainly flat but it slopes down at the front where the screws are.

 

That just may be how the headshell and tonearm is for the GAE, although I sort of doubt it. It might not even matter but, if it is not how it's supposed to be, I can't help but wonder if the "rotated" arm wand itself has any effect on performance aside from any VTA issues. FWIW, the headshell and tonearm are in line on my MK5 regardless of which of my three headshells I use. (The cartridge is resting on its stylus guard which is about the equivalent of a 180g LP.)

 

I gave up doing anything more than leveling the tonearm after reading an interview with Stan Ricker and what he said, among other things, about all of the mastering studios (and different mastering engineers within each studio) cutting records at different angles. I guess if I had a proper USB microscope I'd probably set the SRA at 92 degrees and forget about it.

 

$60 and an afternoon of patience and done. Plus you can check your stylus wear, and removing the nagging in the back of your head regarding if you're really at 89º or 92º.

 

I'm not sure why you are focusing on whether or not the tonearm is level when not cued on the record. Don't worry so much about how level it is when up. And honestly, don't worry how level it is when cued either. You should be focusing on the angle of the stylus in a groove and should try for a 92 degree angle (measuring straight through the diamond from where it's connected to the cantilever to the tip). You can achieve this like others have mentioned by buying a cheap USB microscope. There are plenty that are under $60 as well. I just don't understand the problem you're having with the new Technics. I think the microscope would bypass any of these level "issues" that you're experiencing. I mean, setting VTA by leveling the tonearm is a good starting off point, but you'll find that not all styli are installed perfectly perpendicular to the cantilever, which makes leveling the tonearm pointless.

 

Whatever it is, I don't think it is a damage to your arm, since my arm is also not on the same horizontal plane as the headshell per my picture above.

 

If all GAE tonearms have the wand rotated in exactly the same way, it's by design. But if they're not all like that, then in a hobby where some people feel two cables carrying digital data that is verified as bit-accurate can still sound different from each other, I think it's fair to wonder if an S-shape wand being rotated could be detrimental or not.

But I do like the idea of a USB microscope. This thread will end up costing me.

 

The answer is, I don't have a USB microscope and I've never been into that level of accuracy. So I started off trying to get a roughly correct VTA simply by following the instructions in the manual, according to which all you need to do is get the tonearm level when the needle is in the groove. I found that was simply impossible with my cartridge, and that's where the problems started. Ever since then I've been trying to find out what's going on and you've joined at the point where I've now discovered that the tonearm isn't in a straight line with the headshell and that's why the instructions in the manual don't work. But you're absolutely right - anyone who tore up the instruction manual and used a USB microscope would never have run into the problems that I ran into, though they might be slightly puzzled to discover that when their VTA is correct, the main part of the tonearm is sloping downwards instead of being parallel to the surface of the LP.

Incidentally I don't think it matters that the tonearm is bent or slopes downwards or whatever it does. The only important thing here is that you mustn't do what it says in the manual and use the tonearm as a reference for setting VTA, because it isn't straight. (Well, mine isn't, anyway.) Nor can you use the table in the manual for setting the arm height. It doesn't really matter what alternative method you use for setting VTA - I'm quite happy using the top surface of the headshell as my reference but the USB microscope method is obviously more accurate. Just don't do what it says in the manual!

 

You should simply open a case with Technics - this is a version 1 of the recreation so it is bound to have a few possible flaws. They may decide to say - that is expected - or you may get a completely new arm. I wouldn't investigate any further in this thread - just keep it updated with your results. Both VTA and Alignment could be impacted if it is indeed not correct. Good luck!

 

@back2vinyl, if you take these various issues up with Technics directly, be sure to also mention that a lot of people would like to see a less expensive model that includes the ability to accommodate cartridges down to 14mm tall. Oh, and a longer spindle.