Hi,
yes they use the same bearing and motor.
Both DDs also use the same IC chipset AN6675-AN6680.
The major differences regard the electronics/functionality.
The motor control IC AN6675 of the 1210 is supplied with 21V, while the Q33 is supplied by 12V.
This difference is responsible for the different torque figures.
It also requires different values of certain parts associated with the motor driver IC AN6675
Most anything else is equal apart from a few parts values of the PLL filter related to the Oscillator-/PLL- IC AN6680 (two resistors at Pins 13 and 14).
The Q33 can´t be pitched (Pins 2,3 of the AN6680 connected together), while the 1210 features Quartz locked Pitch through the additional ICs AN6682 and a Quad-NAND-CMOS-Logic IC 4011B, connected between Pins 2 and 3 of the AN6680.
The SL-Q33 features a µC chip MNI4000P for the tonearm control.
Apart from this the differences are a different plinth and tonearm.
jauu
Calvin
yes they use the same bearing and motor.
Both DDs also use the same IC chipset AN6675-AN6680.
The major differences regard the electronics/functionality.
The motor control IC AN6675 of the 1210 is supplied with 21V, while the Q33 is supplied by 12V.
This difference is responsible for the different torque figures.
It also requires different values of certain parts associated with the motor driver IC AN6675
Most anything else is equal apart from a few parts values of the PLL filter related to the Oscillator-/PLL- IC AN6680 (two resistors at Pins 13 and 14).
The Q33 can´t be pitched (Pins 2,3 of the AN6680 connected together), while the 1210 features Quartz locked Pitch through the additional ICs AN6682 and a Quad-NAND-CMOS-Logic IC 4011B, connected between Pins 2 and 3 of the AN6680.
The SL-Q33 features a µC chip MNI4000P for the tonearm control.
Apart from this the differences are a different plinth and tonearm.
jauu
Calvin
And platter!
Torque is not a huge worry for me as I am not intending to do cyprus hill impressions, although sounds like drive voltage could be increased if required. The automatic features will be disabled.
It looks like I have the starting point for something that can be very nice! Not an SP10 but not too poor a relative either.
Torque is not a huge worry for me as I am not intending to do cyprus hill impressions, although sounds like drive voltage could be increased if required. The automatic features will be disabled.
It looks like I have the starting point for something that can be very nice! Not an SP10 but not too poor a relative either.
Hi,
well that is very similar to the MyTechnics project and the upcoming new TheKiller project on my website ;-)
jauu
Calvin
well that is very similar to the MyTechnics project and the upcoming new TheKiller project on my website ;-)
jauu
Calvin
so working top down (and why not). An SL-1200 platter is around £60 for the damped version. So any mods to the 33 platter should cost less than that. Now as I have just completed a shed/lab in the garden I have half a tin of roofing adhesive which is mainly bitumen. Very tempted to try a 1mm layer of that if I can get it runny enough to apply. I think plasti-dip would be better, but that's money and not like I have anything to lose!
Is the Technics SP10 really superior sounding to the better Denon's such as DP6000 and DP80 ? How about compared to the top Sony DD's? Denon claimed that their AC drive (?) was superior. Both Sony and Denon used magnetic pulses recorded in platter with provided very fine information for the servo. Sony claimed to use Brushless Slotless motor, built very different from ordinary motor. Technics SP10 didn't have these extra fancy features, just a big heavy motor, which apparently gets feedback from a motor winding (and I'm not sure how fine grained that is). Technics may have been the first with Quartz Lock but everyone else quickly copied that.
One interesting thing I think I've figured out correctly is how many poles the SP10 has. When I was researching it last year, I found someone made electronic recording of small speed variations of many types of turntable. SP10 shows very slight variation 10 times per rotation. (The person who made these recordings had to crank up the multiplication to make these very slight variations even visible.) Hence…10 poles! That must be where the name SP10 came from!
10 poles per rotation doesn't sound like very much. In fact I believe many cheaper DD's used more poles. And the number of poles passed per rotation of an idler drive turntable is a huge number like 720. But I can see now why 10 poles may be an optimal choice, because it puts the speed variation caused by the poles at a very low frequency, where it is going to be less audible.
One interesting thing I think I've figured out correctly is how many poles the SP10 has. When I was researching it last year, I found someone made electronic recording of small speed variations of many types of turntable. SP10 shows very slight variation 10 times per rotation. (The person who made these recordings had to crank up the multiplication to make these very slight variations even visible.) Hence…10 poles! That must be where the name SP10 came from!
10 poles per rotation doesn't sound like very much. In fact I believe many cheaper DD's used more poles. And the number of poles passed per rotation of an idler drive turntable is a huge number like 720. But I can see now why 10 poles may be an optimal choice, because it puts the speed variation caused by the poles at a very low frequency, where it is going to be less audible.
SP10 vs SL1000
Back in the beginning of the thread, someone said SP-10 (mkII) was the name of the complete turntable. This is wrong. SP-10 was the name of the motor drive unit, which is believed to have sold more units (to radio stations) than the whole turntable package. The complete turntable package was called SL1000 (mkII) which included the "Obsidian" base (SH-10B3), dustcover, and the EPA-100 arm. Likewise the other turntable packages from Technics are also SL's.
Back in the beginning of the thread, someone said SP-10 (mkII) was the name of the complete turntable. This is wrong. SP-10 was the name of the motor drive unit, which is believed to have sold more units (to radio stations) than the whole turntable package. The complete turntable package was called SL1000 (mkII) which included the "Obsidian" base (SH-10B3), dustcover, and the EPA-100 arm. Likewise the other turntable packages from Technics are also SL's.
Hi,
the SP-10 motor had 20 poles and 60 slots, much different from the MK2 and MK3 motors.
The speed regulation consisted of a E-sevo, where coils within the motor generate a speed dependant voltage that is compared to a reference voltage.
The sensor voltage is rectified and smoothed with lowpass filters with large time constants.
The regulation is comparably slow and depends also on temperature etc.
So the platters were build heavy with lots of inertia to increase the mechanical time constants.
The faster FG- and PLL-servoes allowed for the use of lighter platters with less inertia.
It seems though that Technics found a good combination of parameters, because as charlesp210 said, the Denon AC-motor and Sony´s BLDC-Motor were the smoother running motors and the higher number of sensor pulses per revolution allowed for higher resolution.
The Q remains if the Technics drive is already good and ´fast´ enough so that any improvement is just of academical interest and beyond diminishing return.
Keep in mind that the mechanical time constant due to platter inertia is always by far the dominant time constant.
That´s what basically all belt drives rely on, as they typically use inferior motors and mostly only very basic electronic speed control - if any at all.
jauu
Calvin
the SP-10 motor had 20 poles and 60 slots, much different from the MK2 and MK3 motors.
The speed regulation consisted of a E-sevo, where coils within the motor generate a speed dependant voltage that is compared to a reference voltage.
The sensor voltage is rectified and smoothed with lowpass filters with large time constants.
The regulation is comparably slow and depends also on temperature etc.
So the platters were build heavy with lots of inertia to increase the mechanical time constants.
The faster FG- and PLL-servoes allowed for the use of lighter platters with less inertia.
It seems though that Technics found a good combination of parameters, because as charlesp210 said, the Denon AC-motor and Sony´s BLDC-Motor were the smoother running motors and the higher number of sensor pulses per revolution allowed for higher resolution.
The Q remains if the Technics drive is already good and ´fast´ enough so that any improvement is just of academical interest and beyond diminishing return.
Keep in mind that the mechanical time constant due to platter inertia is always by far the dominant time constant.
That´s what basically all belt drives rely on, as they typically use inferior motors and mostly only very basic electronic speed control - if any at all.
jauu
Calvin
Moot for this thread as we cant afford those either! You seem to be able to pick up a DP-6000 for around $600, which is tatty SP-10 territory.
Edit: Just looked at DP-80 prices and they are hovering around $1000. Would love to get one to try, but not going to happen!
Last edited:
We all know, but let it drop as we understood what was being said. The goal here is to see how far you can take the unloved but good models. SP-10s (and their brethren at the top of the DD tree) are rare. SL-1200s are plentiful but still quite expensive for clean examples. Even lencos and the like are now fetching 4x what they were and need heroic work to get them sounding really good (IMO). Which leaves the unloved cheapies. As Calvin has shown you can repurpose those very nicely for not too much if you have the woodworking skills.
Who knows what else we have overlooked!
Yes. Idea was to get other budget alternative. Dual 701 and 721 are also good direct drive turntable I hear.
---
If we ignore exaggerated wow, flutter and rumble figures measured by different standards in brochures of these turntables I find them adequately quiet and with stable speed so one can focus on plinth and tonearm mods or totally new plinth and tonearm if it is a motor unit.
---
If we ignore exaggerated wow, flutter and rumble figures measured by different standards in brochures of these turntables I find them adequately quiet and with stable speed so one can focus on plinth and tonearm mods or totally new plinth and tonearm if it is a motor unit.
You raise an interesting point. As has been shown, with the technics units you can strip the motor unit out to start from scratch or mount the top plinth in something more robust as a base. Would be interested in real world experience with this.
It's a shame my friend Bob is dyslexic ( worse than me ) as he would never risk writting here. His 1210 is mounted in solid wood in a boat like shape. It has a Garrard 401 platter machined to fit. It sounds like a Garrard ! The electronics and bearing are as standard. As a Lenco sounds better than a SP10 to me and 401 better than a Lenco, Bob's TT is not too bad. Whilst cogging might be a problem, many sounds heard are the structure. It took Linn 30 years to see this clearly, Bob took one giant leap of faith and got a result. I often wonder if dyslexia helps an engineer? It stops their train of thought from being clouded. A great number of my friends are both engineers and dylexic. I suspect the part of the brain used by most people to write things is given over to rotating objects in their heads. I was very surprised when I learnt that others can not do this. Colleen my girlfriend says it is obvious I have an answer to a problem when my hands seem to pick the object up as I speak. I never realised I do that!
Dual 700's. Very detailed yet slightly thin. The arm might be the cause. Simple mass loading the arm might help. Dual would have fitted Shure V15 which is a very different PU compared with what is typical now. A Denon DL 110 might work if mass loaded. The Denon needs the phono stage to have a 1 mV sensetivity if it's dynamics are to be heard. 2.5 mV typical might cause you to think it not the best. Most phono stages can be modified by adding the same value resistor to the feedback loop. Eg, if 1K add another 1K to the lower arm ( solder one to the other giving 500 R ). If a capacitor fitted do the same. That cap can make a difference. Try it both ways as less can be more. The Linn-Naim PRAT thing sometimes has less bass. Non polar electrolytic caps somtimes are exactly the right thing to use. They also are cheap. High voltage versions if OK on size might be the best sounding. The reason being the larger can helps the HF as a bonus. As a rule keep these below 0.4V peak for best results. A phono stage giving 1 Vrms and a gain of 200 will fit that very nicely. Even a power amp might give 30 watts before starting to enter the cap polar zone (Eg, Quad 405, gain circa 56 ). This is an arguement for 500 mV power amp sensetivity which suits CD very well. It might be this cap is the sound of many amps? 5 watts is possibly the lowest level where this idea can be said to be helpful. That being so most amps can use non polar types. I fitted a 100 uF 100 V non polar to a Rotel RA 931 in place of it's 100 uF 6.3V polar in the power amp. It looks silly, it sounds great.
Dual 700's. Very detailed yet slightly thin. The arm might be the cause. Simple mass loading the arm might help. Dual would have fitted Shure V15 which is a very different PU compared with what is typical now. A Denon DL 110 might work if mass loaded. The Denon needs the phono stage to have a 1 mV sensetivity if it's dynamics are to be heard. 2.5 mV typical might cause you to think it not the best. Most phono stages can be modified by adding the same value resistor to the feedback loop. Eg, if 1K add another 1K to the lower arm ( solder one to the other giving 500 R ). If a capacitor fitted do the same. That cap can make a difference. Try it both ways as less can be more. The Linn-Naim PRAT thing sometimes has less bass. Non polar electrolytic caps somtimes are exactly the right thing to use. They also are cheap. High voltage versions if OK on size might be the best sounding. The reason being the larger can helps the HF as a bonus. As a rule keep these below 0.4V peak for best results. A phono stage giving 1 Vrms and a gain of 200 will fit that very nicely. Even a power amp might give 30 watts before starting to enter the cap polar zone (Eg, Quad 405, gain circa 56 ). This is an arguement for 500 mV power amp sensetivity which suits CD very well. It might be this cap is the sound of many amps? 5 watts is possibly the lowest level where this idea can be said to be helpful. That being so most amps can use non polar types. I fitted a 100 uF 100 V non polar to a Rotel RA 931 in place of it's 100 uF 6.3V polar in the power amp. It looks silly, it sounds great.
dyslexia just comes with the territory of an analytical brain in many cases, at least if you believe the myers-briggs tests.
You have made me wonder. Linn platters are available new and at £185 a lot cheaper than many mats on the market!. If you were to machine down the existing platter to the diameter of a linn subplatter that could be a very interesting option. Got access to a lathe?
You have made me wonder. Linn platters are available new and at £185 a lot cheaper than many mats on the market!. If you were to machine down the existing platter to the diameter of a linn subplatter that could be a very interesting option. Got access to a lathe?
What a shame as I had a scrap LP12 outer ( might still have it in the loft ). Plaster of Paris could work. The mold might be easy enough. Less fragile than a Lyra pick up.
So given a current vast supply of affordable green motors and a lot of information out there on them (although someone will need to work out how to tweak the control loop for platter changes) what needs to be looked at for plinth design to keep it rolling smoothly. In particular where do we need to address vibrations?
I've not looked at DD before this thread started, but if you look at belt drive there is every solution under the sun, from a simple slab of MDF up to massive monstrosities. My main turntable even uses a leaf spring principle to isolate the tonearm from the rest of the plinth!
There are many sources of vibration to be considered, but lets focus on 3 for now
1. motor and bearing
2. cartridge/tonearm
3. external.
In a technics the motor is fixed and only the platter and bearing turn. So platter balance and bearing noise need to be addressed. Looking at Calvin's great pics of his build, the motor has a flange that allows it to be bolted in leaving the bearing hanging. So Q1 is, does this minimise bearing noise, or do you need to bolt mass/damping onto the bottom of the bearing.?
I've not looked at DD before this thread started, but if you look at belt drive there is every solution under the sun, from a simple slab of MDF up to massive monstrosities. My main turntable even uses a leaf spring principle to isolate the tonearm from the rest of the plinth!
There are many sources of vibration to be considered, but lets focus on 3 for now
1. motor and bearing
2. cartridge/tonearm
3. external.
In a technics the motor is fixed and only the platter and bearing turn. So platter balance and bearing noise need to be addressed. Looking at Calvin's great pics of his build, the motor has a flange that allows it to be bolted in leaving the bearing hanging. So Q1 is, does this minimise bearing noise, or do you need to bolt mass/damping onto the bottom of the bearing.?
RIAA and cartridge Fo comes into it. Fo = 1/ 2Pi root ( MC ). RIAA says 20 Hz a bigger problem than 500.5 Hz. Simple squashballs seem to work. The problems are off the scale so choose the easiest route and use an analyser ( set to - 60 dB ) . Plinths like Bumble Bees should not work. Leaf spring was Thorens after TD160. It was a complicated way of doing it badly. TD150/LP12 are better. Sadly the Thorens idea seemsed a step forward until Hi Fi Choice raised doubts as to stability. Conceptually it seems ideal. Mass below a good suspension is not a problem nor a great advantage. Seen by the stylus migtht be mass wrongly used. Chassis seems OK and platter if up to 3 kg for the platter.
The main noise is releated to motor cogging. This seems related to pole shape. OK you can dictate the current offered and waveform. That isn't really a cure. I dare say if pole shape improved then torque reduced. I very much doubt bearing noise is a big problem. From one to ten bearing noise problems two and cogging eight. The Japanese only beaten by Dual for getting cheap things they can perfect. VHS head bearings prove this. ALBA/ BUSH although very cheap had no real defects in these areas. These things passed down from JVC etc. Sony seem the ones to doubt. Never found Technics or JVC in doubt.
The main noise is releated to motor cogging. This seems related to pole shape. OK you can dictate the current offered and waveform. That isn't really a cure. I dare say if pole shape improved then torque reduced. I very much doubt bearing noise is a big problem. From one to ten bearing noise problems two and cogging eight. The Japanese only beaten by Dual for getting cheap things they can perfect. VHS head bearings prove this. ALBA/ BUSH although very cheap had no real defects in these areas. These things passed down from JVC etc. Sony seem the ones to doubt. Never found Technics or JVC in doubt.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.