>> Oh I don't doubt the basics, red book is red book and bits are >> identically replicable and re rippable bits. > > I don't see any problem with taking innovation as far as is practical > and saying "it's finished, no more updates".Sure, basics :) Again, I'm meaning in regard to about bugs, docs, porting and nits.> If I want to do freedb lookups, I can use > abcde (in text mode) or any of the GUI rippers, most of whom use flac > and cdparanoia as back-end utilities.Yep, if you can get their TOC tables to agree. cdparanoia, eac and cdda2wav do differ at times with this. It took raw scsi/ata commands to figure out who was right. A minor example of an unfixed fixable.> Technics ... turntables are still in production, out of the same factory > in Japan. They have definitely not left the market! > If you have news that Technics have definitely ceased production, please > link to an official website.Manufacturers routinely decline to state such matters. However, about 1.5 years ago you could get a factory new SL-1200 for $485US. Now one cannot be had for under $825. Furthermore, you may follow this link and attempt to find any major seller with in stock quantities of any model at a sane price. That would be an excercise in futility. Therefore, they've left the market. At least for all of 2010 through today, during which major outlets had no stock and the price consistently rose. SL's are destroyed in their environment every day. Matsushita can produce thousands to a buying public, and competitors exist at various points. So it's the only feasible explanation for the starvation, unofficially official. http://www.panasonic.com/consumer_electronics/technics_dj/prod_default_analog.asp> Stanton and other brands are playing "also ran" with direct drive or > belt drive turntables that just aren't as good.Not quite. Only the Stanton ST.150 competes at par. I recently tried both side by side and went ST.150. It is a solid tank. Yes, the rest of their line and other 'dj' brands are flimsy direct or belt. Another note, $wise, 2x new ST.150's = 1 new SL-1200, 2x used SL-1200 = 1x new ST.150. So even slicing it that way, or as longevity spares in good unabused and smoke free shape, the SL-1200 is now largely mooted. I'm ripping about 2000 albums to FLAC, so somewhat on topic :) M97xE, some old Yamaha/Denon/Onkyo pre (haven't decided), and at least an Audigy2 or better spec'd card... if anyone cares. Inexpensive, sufficient quality, happy.
On Jan 10, 2011, at 11:59, grarpamp wrote:> However, about 1.5 years ago you could get a factory new SL-1200 > for $485US. Now one cannot be had for under $825. Furthermore, you > may follow this link and attempt to find any major seller with in > stock quantities of any model at a sane price. That would be an > excercise in futility. Therefore, they've left the market.That is the strangest definition of "discontinued" that I have ever heard. I paid over $700 for my SL-1200M3D many years ago, and $825 seems like about the right price considering inflation. Just because you used to be able to get a discount doesn't mean the product has been discontinued. The 1200 has always been expensive, and nobody has ever considered the cheaper alternatives to be a fair substitute. Of course they're expensive now, because nobody else makes a good turntable in that market. Fortunately, FLAC is free. It cannot be priced out of the market. Speaking of ripping vinyl to FLAC, I would expect that a belt drive would be better than direct drive. Direct drive motors impart frequency modulation into audio, where belt drive smoothes out the pulsing of the motor. A 1200 is great for DJ purposes, but that doesn't make it the best for ripping. I use the Ortofon Arkiv cartridge for ripping, or the Gold, but I still do not have the ideal turntable. Brian Willoughby Sound Consulting
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 12:54:35PM -0800, brianw at sounds.wa.com wrote:> Fortunately, FLAC is free. It cannot be priced out of the market.But companies like Apple can refuse to support it, out of "Not Invented Here" ass-headedness. Companies like Denon (and actually all of the CDJ manufacturers) don't have the excuse of having their own formats to promote: Pioneer have a CDJ deck that can play CDDA or files on CD discs or files from attached USB mass storage device or SD card, but it can't play FLAC even though it's royalty-free and relatively easy to support. It can play MP3 and WAV and AAC, but not FLAC. Denon's excuse (on their own support forum) is that maybe there might be some kind of lawsuit in the future, and they don't want to support FLAC and not have their asses covered against some vaguely possible future threat. So do all the hand-waving you want, Denon, you're not getting any of my money!> Speaking of ripping vinyl to FLAC, I would expect that a belt drive > would be better than direct drive.There's a common misconception that direct drive == bad, due to many cheap and nasty DD decks in the late 1970s or early 1980s from "also ran" vendors who wanted a DD deck in their product ranges. The motor used in the 1200/1210 decks is a very close relative of the Technics SP10 that most vinyl cutting lathes use. With a modest investment in hardware mods, you can turn a stock 1210 or 1200 into an audiophile deck for not a lot of money (on the audiophile spending scale). -- -Dec. --- (no microsoft products were used to create this message) "Mosaic is going to be on every computer in the world." - Marc Andreessen, 1994
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 02:59:23PM -0500, grarpamp at gmail.com wrote:> Sure, basics :) Again, I'm meaning in regard to about bugs, docs, > porting and nits.And packaging by OS distributions (making the RPM and DEB files).> Yep, if you can get their TOC tables to agree. cdparanoia, eac and > cdda2wav do differ at times with this. It took raw scsi/ata commands > to figure out who was right. A minor example of an unfixed fixable.The various CDDB databases (and more accurate sites like Discogs) have more than unreliable TOC reading to worry about. When ripping using abcde, I regularly have to choose between 2 or more freedb choices where different users typed in different versions of song titles. And that's without taking into account bonus tracks or reissue/remaster jobs that change the durations of what should be the same tracks in the TOC.> So it's the only feasible explanation for the starvation, unofficially official. > http://www.panasonic.com/consumer_electronics/technics_dj/prod_default_analog.aspThe best explanation I read (and I spent a few hours over the weekend reading assorted blogs and web boards) is that they no longer have them in constant production, so the prices can go up and down depending on the global supply. Just because they are not making them *today* does not mean they have stopped, and market supply/demand explains the sane price becoming less sane.> Not quite. Only the Stanton ST.150 competes at par. I recently tried > both side by side and went ST.150. It is a solid tank.Have you tried using the Audio Technica AT-PL120 deck? I've read a lot of reviews based on "we looked at pictures of it" but nothing based on using it. Of all the also-ran decks, it's one of the closest in looks to the Technics range. -- -Dec. --- (no microsoft products were used to create this message) "Mosaic is going to be on every computer in the world." - Marc Andreessen, 1994
On 1/10/11, Brian Willoughby <brianw at sounds.wa.com> wrote:> > On Jan 10, 2011, at 11:59, grarpamp wrote: >> However, about 1.5 years ago you could get a factory new SL-1200 >> for $485US. Now one cannot be had for under $825. Furthermore, you >> may follow this link and attempt to find any major seller with in >> stock quantities of any model at a sane price. That would be an >> excercise in futility. Therefore, they've left the market. > > That is the strangest definition of "discontinued" that I have ever > heard. I paid over $700 for my SL-1200M3D many years ago, and $825 > seems like about the right price considering inflation. Just because > you used to be able to get a discount doesn't mean the product has > been discontinued. The 1200 has always been expensive, and nobody > has ever considered the cheaper alternatives to be a fair > substitute. Of course they're expensive now, because nobody else > makes a good turntable in that market. > > Fortunately, FLAC is free. It cannot be priced out of the market. > > Speaking of ripping vinyl to FLAC, I would expect that a belt drive > would be better than direct drive. Direct drive motors impart > frequency modulation into audio, where belt drive smoothes out the > pulsing of the motor. A 1200 is great for DJ purposes, but that > doesn't make it the best for ripping. I use the Ortofon Arkiv > cartridge for ripping, or the Gold, but I still do not have the ideal > turntable. > > Brian Willoughby > Sound Consulting > > _______________________________________________ > Flac-dev mailing list > Flac-dev at xiph.org > http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev >
> That is the strangest definition of "discontinued" that I have > ever heard.If Japan was producing them, there would be supply and mainstream sellers would have stock. I scoured the web and called about 20 established sellers last month looking for one. Both retail and online. All but BH and mom+pop/s were out, all were saying discontinued. It's been that way since early 2010. Yeah, a GuitarStore had 2 factory sealed MK5's for $950 each, and they still do because everyone with a brain is going new OEM at $500 or used SL for less than that. Mat/Tec/Pan does not rebase existing model consumer products into the strato market, they sell through and leave. The ramp in SL price with the remaining small stock sellers only serves to confirm there is no production or new supply from some fabled mega distributor warehouse. Distributors hate inventory anyways, it's not their biz. Just in case further proof is needed to support the obvious, google, google, tappity tap, clickity click, huzzah... http://studio-lights.com/blog/technics-discontinued-1200-turntable.htm http://studio-lights.com/images/blog/technics-turntable-letter.jpg Nuff said.> With a modest investment in hardware mods, you can turn a stock > 1210 or 1200 into an audiophile deck for not a lot of money (on > the audiophile spending scale).And for no investment one can afford the other needed items and be equally as satisfied as the audi's. And never have to worry about replacing an obsolete or esoteric belt. Belts do absorb motor noise/mod, as do heavy platters and chassis. Belts also have elastic spring issues with large masses and have very short lifetimes. I put a test record (sine waves, noise, samples, that sort of thing) on a few turntables, listened and checked a scope. Heavy metal platters and chassis, as opposed to cheapo plastic lightweights were the winner. More than DD vs. belt. With DD, I also chose to avoid hard, cracked and welted belts, by design, forever. One can only smooth things as far as the number of poles in the motor and speed sensor will afford. Good driver electronics only help reach those limitations. Take them apart, DD and belt motor tech is similar. Some have feedback circuits, some don't. Unlike CD-DA and FLAC, analog is not bits. And unfortunately, the audi's don't use numbers in their reviews. That sucks.> Audio Technica AT-PL120 deck?I have not seen it in person. From what I can tell by looking at AT's site, it is a fair clone of the SL-1200, even down to the pop-up light (it's shorter and fatter). The tonearm mount gimbals are way different. AT is not a Mat/Pan/Tec company. I saw only an SL-1200, an ST.150 and some plastic thing I don't care to remember. And some kilobuck audi stuff at the nosebleed shop, but only for kicks. Liked the phono and backup line out of the (OEM) Stanton ST.150. And yes, price was a factor, I've got bills to pay :) Best place to eyeball all the turntables is youtube demos :) There's a great one of a guy tapping on an ST.150. No way I could walk around on these floors and expect a good rip with plastic. And of course check the manufacturer site, along with their W/F, S/N (rumble) and weight specs.> And packaging by OS distributions (making the RPM and DEB files). > different users typed in different versions of song titles. And that'sLeave the raw tracks sequentially numbered. Use symlinks to hold the names. Change, sort, duplicate and categorize the links as desired. Oh well, this is waaayyy off topic, I'll shut up now :)