Technics 1200GR vs alternatives

I stole this pic from another thread, dude put a SME IV on a new G.

 

"Less massaged"?
Using that reasoning, my Music Hall 2.2 and 7.1 should have sonic equality, only differences being the plinth/arm/platter/motor.

 

It's not a type of reasoning, just critical thinking in general about two facts which are not aligned: specs are same; yet, plinth, tonearm, platter, and motor are not the same, which suggests, if the parts are perceived to be better on the G than on the GR, the specs would be different but they're not. This implies the more expensive parts from the G must have some qualities which are about something other than general performance.

 

Rumble and W&F stats are of import for sure, but are a small part of the overall picture.

 

I thought about this too and chose my cartridge for the GR carefully to get a near perfect 10Hz system resonance along with a mat that is known to dampen resonances (Herbies). Results- near perfection.

 

What cart? How does it sound?

 

Does the G sound better than the GR?

 

Better is a much misused word on forums & is indefinable.

These tables may sound different but with distortion free playback, 'better' can only be to the tastes of individual listeners.

 

If one feels the need to ask that question, prob best to purchase the GR.
It's a nice table at a nice price.

 

Ortofon Cadenza Blue. I am thrilled every time I put a record on and i've had it for a year already!

 

The damping characteristics of the plinth and tonearm are of paramount importance in defining the sonic difference between the GR and G. They are both outstanding, but the G is slightly better. Whether the small difference is worth the extra cost is a personal decision. I don't think you can go wrong with either one - period.

 

If only slightly better, why would anyone ever get a G?
Clearaudio tables all have the same 'look', wonder if their upper models are only slightly better than the Concept?

 

I would expect the G to be more than slightly better. I thought the GR was slightly better than a PLX 1000 in the context I heard it so would expect G to be a lot better. MF did video comparisons with a Caliburn deck. See 'Analogue Planet' Channel on Youtube. Certainly held it's own for the price if not as good.

 

from what i remember looking at the resonance graphs the G has a slightly higher resonant peak at one frequency while the GR has a resonant frequency shelf over a slight but broader range if frequencies. in other words the GR tonearm resonance could color the sound slightly more than the G. the G is probably more forgiving of tonearm/cartridge compliance/ mass resonant frequency matches than the GR, which is why I chose a near perfect 10Hz match for the GR cartridge, along with a mat known for its damping capabilities.

 

I thought I recalled a review that actually found the speed stability (lack of "cogging") of the GR slightly better than that of the G, but I've never been able to find it again.

 

HiFi World January 2018, page 53, part of a review on modifying a GR with new tonearm and external power supply

 

Thanks!

 

Unfortunately that borders on publicity for Sound Hi-Fi (aka Dave Cawley) mods. Whether the outlay is justified is up to you? The 'cogging' could be sample variations but according to Technics the G eliminates cogging and has a more sophisticated motor. To be taken with a pinch of salt. Not sure if they measured the modified or unmodified versions here?

 

No publicity, as I never mentioned the company doing the mods and I was just giving a citation to the source of the review excerpt and only focused on the measurements they made related to the cogging claim for the 1200G. I only mentioned the review details in case people wanted to hunt down a copy of the magazine.

And for the cogging, it really shouldn't make a difference whether the unit was pre or post mods as the motor is being fed the same voltage regardless if it from the stock internal switcher or the external power supply.

I can't comment on the validity of their findings as I was just sharing the review excerpt as I found it to be interesting

 

Publicity? I meant the review!

 

It would be interesting to understand how Technics was thinking about this: was their original plan when they were launching G to follow it with a mainstream model (GR), or was that an afterthought seeing the positive reception of the G? Considering the halo that the GR is currently enjoying from the G (pretty much all reviews on the G were super positive and that clearly was the driver for GR) the first scenario definitely would have been a smart plan and it would mean that the points of difference between the two models would have been well defined from the G design stage.

 

I always had the impression that they first found out in their market research that they could sell a high quality direct drive with Technics brand for 4K. Then they made it the best they could. Later, they started to see what would be possible to downgrade without losing quality, considering the experience in designing and manufacturing the G, and came out with the GR, which theoretically would have the same specs with cheaper materials and some newer technology, since G was launched August 2016 and GR was announced January 2017 and hit the market August 2017.

 

Also the truth as beauty lies in the eye of the beholder and in case of the G with his heavier golden platter and higher purchase price gives many the straight belief it has to be a better sounding turntable but whether that is true is doubtful the sky is the limit for both (modding) and maybe has the GR a head start.

 

Aren‘t we talking about slightly better if we can‘t hear a difference between the G GR especially because of price weight and used materials