Technics SL-1200G vs SL-1200GR + suitable MM cartridge for either

correct. original comment had the two tables reversed.

 

I am absolutely loving the 1200G. I've been playing LPs all week, probably five or so a day. I went with a Soundsmith Zephyr MKIII cart and it seems to be a wonderful match. Part of the reason I switched from my Roksan Radius 5 is that its unipivot arm took more effort than I was willing to give to dial it in right. While it sounded great, I wanted something that just wasn't as much effort. And no longer having to worry about belts is welcome. Regardless, the 1200G is a noticeable step forward in my system.

It did take a while to level my turntable due to a combination of it having four 'feet' (tables with three are a lot easier to level IMO). Likewise, attaching the grounding wire takes a bit of effort as it's in a position that is tough to reach with big fingers. And with its four feet you really can't position the turntable off whatever you have it sitting on enough to get easy access. I also wish that the stylus light could be rotated; the way it's positioned the beam of light misses the cart by a couple centimeters. But these are the most minor of quibbles, the table is everything I expected and more.

I'm running it through an ifi Phono 2, which is probably the weakest link in my system. I hope to upgrade it soon (giving serious consideration to the Graham Slee Revelation M); when that happens I expect the sound will become even more to my liking. I also plan on getting both a mono cart and a 78 rpm-capable cart (with their own head shells); it's so very easy swapping out head shells on this unit that I want to take full advantage.

 

Technics manual (which I never bothered reading!) states to put the phono leads and mains plug in first before you do anything else and given how awkward they are to get at, good advice!

I left my LP12 for similar reasons, I had a service looming and for me that meant a long trip. The Technics sounds better and is maintenance free. I have never loved a piece of HiFi more. Can only imagine what the SL1000R is like....

 

a while ago I posted this on another forum:
I just recently bought the Technics SL 1200GR, which I paired with my Goldring MM 1042 cartridge. I change the stock headshell with a Yamamoto Acoustic craft Carbon fiber head shell HS-4 HS-4 NEW that I bought from Japan. This TT replaced a Music Hall 5.1 that was paired with the Goldring cartridge.

My local dealer have both versions and I auditioned both models the G and the GR through state of the art speakers, cables, pre/pro, you name it. I also was auditioning speaker because I though that my JBL L890 towers were too lowly. Two things happened:
1. After I listened to the Technic SL 1200GR paired with my cartridge while listening to my mobile fidelity album of Santana Abraxas I knew right there and then that I did not need to spent $4000 on the 1200G. The difference was so minimal(a little more open sound stage, and bass) that is not worthy, unless you are too anal retentive. And when my unit came, and they assemble it, after the Yamamoto Acoustic craft Carbon fiber head shell HS-4 HS-4 was installed the sound got better, so much better than the stock headshell that the owner of my local dealership (Broward County, FL), immediately ask me for a link of the Yamamoto dealer in Japan. Once at home I switch the stock platter mat with a Nottingham mat that I was using on my Music Hall. All I can say is that the sound stage open up so much that I could not believe it, and I had to call my wife and sat her in from of the system to verify if it was my brain playing tricks with me, she notice the difference also. So the 1200GR for me is all I would ever need(with this set-up the difference between the G and the GR closed-up to be almost the same), I listened to other TTs brands as well (in the thousands of dollars). This TT is way, way, way better than my Music Hall.

2. I auditioned Focal, Bowers and Wilkins, Elac, and others ranging from 4,000 to 15,000 dollars, and yes, you can tell the difference from my JBLs ($1700 original price), but it was only after you are in the $ 8,000 and up that I was able to discern such a change as to say: yes this is worthy. So I kept my JBls, because they sound so good in my system that there was no need to spent $ 8000 to 15000 to get some improvement. moral of the story: The JBls are not so lowly anymore to me after my snub attempt to trade up in speakers.

In closing the new Technics TT are very, very good. They are worthy every penny. I used to be under the impression that Belt Drives were better than Direct Drive; not anymore, not at all, anymore.
My set-up is: Emotiva XPA-3 Amplifier, Marantz SR7010 receiver as a pre-amp,
JBL Studio L890
JBL L8400p 600 watts Sub for 2.1 system,
OPPO UDP-203 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray player
Tascam CD-RW900MKII Professional CD Recorder,
Technics SL 1200GR Turtable with Goldring 1042 cartridge.
Graham Slee - Gram Amp 2 SE Phono Preamp (MM Only)
Blue jeans 12 gauge speaker cables

 

It's reasonable to assume that this headshell and this mat would improve the G as well.

 

It could be. The G is impressive on its own, I'm pretty sure that the Yamamoto head shell is superior to the stock Technic's one. I don't know why but my experience with TTs is that their stock mats is never good enough; by always going with an after-market mat you improve your sound. One exception in my opinion is Nottingham, their stock mats are excellent.

 

My experience is that different mats change the sound but whether this improves depends on the taste of the listener (it's like saying ketchup or vinegar improves the taste of fries... not for everyone).

I immediately transferred an Achromat to my 1200G when I got it and loved the sound. It ran this way for over a month, then I tried out the Technics rubber mat. It sounded great but in a different way - slower, & more 'organic' but less lively. I used this for several weeks and was very happy but eventually went back to the Achromat. I prefer that but two friends who listened to both mats liked the original more.

I'm as guilty as anyone in having that smug feeling of 'improving' on the manufacturers original design. Whether this is actually true may be debatable & I also accept that forum hype placebo probably influences many of us.

 

try the herbies way excellent 4mm.

 

it depends on your cartridge mass and the system mass / resonance frequency. the stock headshell is the lightest, many of the aftermarket ones are significantly heavier.

 

Yes I hear good things about this but the Achromat is a similar open cell foam & I doubt the difference would be worth it to me.

 

i tried the achromat and could not tolerate it. the bass sounded hollow, unsolid.

 

Well, that's the last thing I would say about these new Technics decks! I've mentioned elsewhere that bass is the tightest, most defined & layered of anything I have ever owned - analogue or digital, belt, idler or DD.

(because I use DSP correction/Open Baffle I realise that less than perfect time alignment between drivers can cause a hollow sound)

 

I still would love to know if the OP had compared the PLX-1000 to one of the new SL-1200...

 

I'd like to bring this thread back to life since some time had passed and maybe users know more about these tables than before.

We know that the G has a better arm compared to the GR. It also has a better platter, better plinth, better motor and better damping. I suppose this is the reason why it costs more than twice the price of the GR. As long as I know, Tecnhics designed the new GAE/G to high standards and then modified it using less expensive components maintaining the basic project and trying not to lose much quality resulting in the GR. The PLX-1000, which I own and like, is in a lower level compared to the GR but is still a good table.

What does this mean in an average real life situation ?

Let's imagine a good system, say, a 2M Black as referred in the OP paired to a good phono stage in the level of a Parasound JC3, a good integrated amplifier in the level of a Parasound Halo and good speakers at the same level. Nothing extraordinarily expensive and sophisticated but a good system. This system is inside the average living room and not in a dedicated and meticulously treated listening room. You have a sofa and your speakers are located in good but not perfect positions. Sometimes your dog barks. A telephone rings. Your neighbor shouts. Still, your system sounds great to your ears and you can enjoy and find pleasure listening to your beloved records that you keep clean and take a good care of. I'm almost describing my own experience. You get the point.

I might be wrong because my experience and knowledge are limited, but I suppose that in this situation the audible difference between these turntables would be minimal. I imagine the differences would start to appear if you try to upgrade from this level.

I mean, the PLX arm is probably not overwhelmed by the 2M Black, but how about a highly sophisticated LOMC? It is good enough for a $2,000 - $3,000 phono stage, I believe, but how about a really expensive one?

It's in the higher levels of system quality that the differences would become apparent. If you have a GR, you'll have much more space to grow than with the PLX. But with the G, this space is even bigger, probably almost to the limit where diminishing returns would challenge your wallet and your cost/benefit calculus.

With a good system, you're just as good with a PLX as you would be with any $1500 turntable. It's a nice deck, only cheap because it's made in China with lower manufacture costs, that can be a part of a nice system. With a better system, you'll maybe feel the need of a GR. With a very superior system, you might want to have a G.

The step up from a PLX to a GR would make sense if more exquisite cartridges and gear are not in your plans. If they are, maybe it would be wiser to try a G.

I plan to buy a SL-1200G but I don't expect it to be a huge jump in sound quality from the PLX-1000 in my current system. I don't really expect any change in the way my system sounds. I want the pleasure of handling this superb machine and to be sure I have space for future upgrades.

Please show me where I'm wrong here.

 

If I were in the OP's shoes, I'd go for the most expensive Technics regardless of whether I'd be able to hear the difference or not. That's what disposable income is for, and you only live once. It's build is delightful. But if the purchase depended exclusively on being able to hear the improvement and I couldn't hear it then

 

THIS is what I meant !!

 

H*ll no! There can never be "too much detail". I feel like I'm hearing all of the instruments being played right in front of me. The more advanced the better!

 

Just because the PLX appears to be a reverse engineered Technics does not guarantee it sounds as good, has identical long term quality or that it can adequately support as high of a range of quality cartridges. It might- but duplicating Technics engineering and production expertise is much more that just making a bunch of copy cat parts. The quality is in the details- materials, surface finishes, precision, adjustments, specifications, engineering requirements, analysis and validation, etc.
That being said, the differences in sound quality (all else equal) may be subtle. The differences in sound quality between the GR and the G etc. may also be subtle. Repeated back to back comparisons might be needed to home in on the differences.
However- once you find them- e.g. a slight pitch variation here, some loss of detail or clarity there, a repeatedly noted lack of dynamics in a passage, or a bit more grain / less refinement on that album- for example- once you hear the differences your ear will easily be able to pick up those tendencies every time you listen. Depending on the extent of the differences they could be deal breakers.

 

Thanks for the affirmation! A few weeks ago I did end up going with the FG70 stylus40 as part of the KAB pro s concorde package, and have been really happy with the balance and detail.

 

For anyone interested in my thoughts about the SL-1210GR and the PLX-1000:
Technics SL-1210GR & Pioneer PLX-1000

 

I was skeptical too but I definitely heard a great improvement with the GR. It sounds really better all other things being equal (both tables set up at the same place, with the same cartridge mounted in the same headshell, connected to the same system). I didn't think the turntable itself would make so much difference but it does. The GR gives a more focused, clear and defined soundstage, especially in the middle of the soundstage and in the midrange, with instruments more distinct from each other. I also have more detail and the bass and everything else is more organized. The GR allows for different torque set up. The factory adjusted higher torque makes the sound jump from the speakers while the lower gives a more relaxed and fluid sound. I found myself preferring the lower torque but I'm still experimenting.

This doesn't make the Pioneer a bad turntable, I still like it, but the Technics is superior and sounds like it is. It does make a clear difference that I think any audiophile would easily notice.

 

I think you need to offload the lesser table, the PLX-1000, and will be happy to take it off of your hands.

 

Ha, but no thanks, I'm keeping it. I had the Pioneer in the living room system and the Pro-ject Debut Carbon in the bedroom. The Pioneer is much better than the Debut, so it went to the bedroom and the Pro-ject went to the closet and is now for sale.

 

if there is a way to describe the difference between the 1200g and 1200gr I would say the 1200GR is a warmer sounding table and the 1200G is much closer to the sound of the sl1000R. The 1200Gr is an amazing value, actually they both are.

 

If I were to blow bucks on a Technics TT these days would be either the G, 10MKIII, or the SP10R.

Might as well get the last one you'll be running. I think I need to get in this kind of area to best the Victor TT-101