I would like a decent P-mount turntable...

[003]

Upgraditis...

SLQ200 sounds fantastic, IMO, but I want to see how much better it gets.

I would really like a p-mount table, I am not yet prepared for a standard mount one with all the required adjustments and calibration. Preferably a belt drive one because I have read they have much less noise than direct drive. Price, I'm gonna say, $200 or less. It must come with the arm, I can't deal with separate amrs yet either. I already have a nice cartridge.

So does a turntable like this exist? I am positive it would have to be used on e-bay.

 

[infinitesymphony]

*shrug*

This won't help you at all (and I apologize

), but I scored a direct-drive standard mount turntable on eBay and haven't run into any issues regarding turntable rumble. Actually, the sound of the turntable working is whisper-quiet--quieter than my universal DVD player. I think it's possible to have good turntables with both types of drive systems, and others like idler wheels, etc.

I think it'll pay off to get a standard mount and learn about all of the necessary adjustments... Most of the higher-end cartridges will require the same kind of calibration if you ever decide to upgrade.

 

[memepool]

I would steer clear of P-Mounts for the reasons you have discovered that if they are not perfectly toleranced then there is little you can do to rectify it.

If you want something properly built with this level of convenience a B&O deck like the one cgrums found in his garage would propable be the best bet although a new cart is going to cost 150USD alone.

Otherwise Technics made some really beautiful linear tracking decks like the SL5/7/10/15 which have an MC cart and build in preamp.

But if you are on a budget check my 'no budget turntable' list and just get a conventional one like infinitesymphony suggests. Aligning the cart has to be done carefully but it's not very difficult if you have a protractor and these can be downloaded and printed for free, or else bought from somewhere like turntablebasics.com if you want a fancy one printed on a mirror which is even easier to work with.

 

[003]

Actually I think the channel imbalance I discovered was from a faulty phono stage. That TC-750LC did not sit flat on the desk, and it had a very cheap volume pot controlling the line level output, I think it was the cheap pot that caused the imbalance. So I replaced it with the version without a pot, the TC-750, and this time, the right channel on it was simply dead out of the box. Needless to say I won't be buying those anymore. I ordered a NAD PP-2 on audiogon for a good price, and I am anxiously awaiting it.

Just a quick question, if I get a turntable with a standard mount cartridge, would using a pmount-to-standard adapter be a bad thing to do? Because I do have one, and my cartridge was pretty expensive, $150.

 

[memepool]

A P-mount to standard adaptor should work perfectly.

Ultimately it is a small compromise as there will be extra resonances introduced by having an extra piece of plastic holding the cart but I wouldn't worry too much about it.

Also if your deck is sitting on a desk make sure you have it perfectly level by testing it with a small spirit level as this could also cause a channel imbalance.

If it doesn't have adjustable feet then you can make a platform for it to sit on out of a large heavy chopping board and stick some adjustable feet to the bottom of this. also I think Kabusa have some special adjustable feet ideal for Technics.

Ultimately a turntable wall shelf or proper stand if you are on a solid concrete floor is a better option though as was discussed recently in another thread.

 

[jwilldermood]

Check out the new Rega P1 turntable. I think it is only $349 with a standard mount Ortofon cartridge already mounted.

 

[003]

Well I got my PP-2 today, and thankfully this time it works, and sits flat, and overall feels like a higher quality product.

Unfortunately, the turntable still has an ever so slight channel imbalance. Trust me, I know. I don't need a reference LP to know for sure, I can hear it. I also can directly compare it to the CD version.

Anyway I thought I would inform you, I have snagged a Rotel RP-2400 belt-driven wooden turntable off e-bay for $31. Here is the link:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=180118390474

I also bought the manual for it from a website that re-prints and sells old manuals, and I bought a new belt for it from lpgear.com, as luck would have it they sold belts specifically for the RP-2400, surprising because despite my best efforts I can find no information about this turntable online.

I spoke with the seller and he is aware about the care that must be taken with shipping turntables and I asked him if it was wood. It is simulated wood grain over composite wood, so this seems to at least me a much nicer turntable than the one I have now, and judging from the pictures it does not look like p-mount, so it is most likely standard mount. Guess this was coming one way or another

 

[lini]

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif (...) Otherwise Technics made some really beautiful linear tracking decks like the SL5/7/10/15 which have an MC cart and build in preamp. (...)

Seems like you need a memory refresh on these, 'cause MC cart & integrated pre-amp only goes for the SL-10.

The others came with MM carts (EPC-P24S on the SL-5, EPC-202 on the SL-7 and SL-15, later on EPC-P205CIII on the SL-15) and without MC stage... The P24S on the SL-5 wasn't really good - I've upgraded mine with an AT-122EP, which was clearly better. I'm not sure, whether I've ever heard the 202, but the P205III was a really good MM...

003: Other than the aforementioned linear trackers (and of those I wouldn't rate the SL-5 any better than your SL-Q200 apart from comfort), it'll be hard to find a better T4P-Technics for 200 bucks. I'd doubt that one can find an SL-M1/M2 or M3 (<- big linear tracker) for that price in good condition.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lini /img/forum/go_quote.gif Seems like you need a memory refresh on these, 'cause MC cart & integrated pre-amp only goes for the SL-10. The others came with MM carts (EPC-P24S on the SL-5, EPC-202 on the SL-7 and SL-15, later on EPC-P205CIII on the SL-15) and without MC stage... The P24S on the SL-5 wasn't really good - I've upgraded mine with an AT-122EP, which was clearly better. I'm not sure, whether I've ever heard the 202, but the P205III was a really good MM... 003: Other than the aforementioned linear trackers (and of those I wouldn't rate the SL-5 any better than your SL-Q200 apart from comfort), it'll be hard to find a better T4P-Technics for 200 bucks. I'd doubt that one can find an SL-M1/M2 or M3 (<- big linear tracker) for that price in good condition.

You are right about the carts of course

Those linear trackers are good quality decks though and widely underated.

Anyway I'll look up the Rotel and see if I can find any info. It looks quite nice and they did make some good decks.

At least it will hopefully get around the problem of the misaligned P-Mount on the Technics.

 

[003]

So anybody able to find anything on the Rotel?

Also I just checked and only the crappy shure M92E cartridge works with the t4p to standard adapter, it is made by shure and came with the cartridge. So now I would also like a recommendation on a good cartridge to get. $200 max.

 

[003]

Great news guys. Remember how I said I could find no information about the RP-2400? Well, just for kicks, I had sent an e-mail to Rotel requesting any information they might still have on it.

I just got a reply and they still had the technical manual in PDF format, which has the tech specs, schematics, parts list, adjustments and alignment info.

I have hosted the PDF file online and you can download it here:
http://www.mediafire.com/?cgun3xjijtj

Now that we have the tech specs and info on the turntable, does this change any of your cartridge recommendations? I know that certain cartridges do much better with certain tone arms based on the specs of the tone arm, which are included in the PDF file. Please let me know!

 

[memepool]

No sign of any reviews for that particular model. The only ones I could find were the RP3300 / 5300 and the later RP-300 an RP-6400 in the period of 1977-80 so it must belong to an earlier series as it's not an '80s deck from the looks of it either.

All of the above models employed low-medium mass tonearms 11 or 12g which were quite highly regarded although the views of the decks were more mixed.

Going by the other specs for rumble etc, which look quite similar to the ones on the manual you posted a link for, I'd say this deck doesn't look as impressive as the Technics on paper but should be a decent enough performer, certainly superior to anything new upto a few of hundred anyway. Good value then considering it cost next to nothing.

The most serious criticism of Rotel decks at this time is the common one levelled against most Japanese decks, that of poor feedback isolation. Being a belt drive yours is less likely to suffer from motor noise breakthrough but putting it on a solid surface away from vibration, preferably a shelf, will be the most important consideration for optimising sound quality.

Assuming that the tonearm is similar to the ones on the models listed then any modern cart should do fine.

 

[003]

I really doubt the Technics SL-Q200 is better, it is all plastic, (even parts of the tone arm), and it is p-mount with only tracking weight adjustment. The RP-2400 is standard-slotted mount, and has all the necessary adjustments this time. Plus it's wood (less vibrations).

I will be using a Sumiko Pearl cartridge and a Herbie's Way Excellent II turntable mat, both of which were recommended to me at AudioAsylum, I got a lot of help there. Did you take a look at the PDF manual I got on the RP-2400? It contains all the tech specs including the arm specs.

Also, I figured out what the channel imbalance is caused by on the SLQ200. The Anti-Skate is not adjusted properly. I looked up what having an incorrect anti skate adjustment will sound like, and it said that if it is to little, the left channel will be more dominant with more detail and dynamics. That is exactly the case, and there is of course no anti skate adjustment on it.

 

[memepool]

The Technics tables are usually not made of plastic but some kind of composite which actually works a lot better at rejecting noise than you would think. Certainly with the older SL1100-1900 era models you can knock on the surface right next to them and it won't come through the speakers. As long as that surface is solid and not a light piece of furniture on a supsended wooded floor that is...

Anyway what I meant is that the SNR / Speed stability figures for the Rotel decks never seemed as good as the contemporary Technics decks even though with the direct drives they were employing the same Matsu****a motor.

Rotel's belt drives have always been better regarded and some of their 80's decks like the RP-850, which I have used in the past, were very nice indeed.

The Technics SL-Q200 is a bit odd not to have an antiskate. P-Mounts are designed to basically require the same mass and downforce characteristics to the extent where provision of user level adjustment was deemed unecessary supposedly. This was an idea they got from Bang and Olufsen I reckon. My Sony PS-FL77 (p-mount) has none of these settings but being a Biotracer design it's all automatic and adjusted continuously by servos.

Antiskate on the SL-Q200 is likely to be controlled by a spring inside somewhere that reacts to the counterweight. What's probably happened with yours is that this has got knocked out of alignment when it was thrown way.

The tech specs in the Rotel manual are not much use in determining the arm mass unfortunately as they only give you the range of the counterweight. based on the available info I have on other Rotel decks of the period though the arms fitted were all low to medium mass so my best guess is that your's will be 11-12g which is perfectly suited to almost any modern cartridge.

Emailing Rotel and asking them if they know what the arm mass is would be the only way to know for sure.