Is an SL-7 really any better than...

rise_above

... the SL-QL1.

Bought one of these recently for peanuts and really like it. What has me thinking is why is the SL-7 (and similarly the SL-10) so highly regarded while the SL-QL1 doesn't seem to attract the same interest.

Watching ebay auctions, good SL-7s can easily top the 2 ton mark, while the QL1 is lucky to get quarter that (although a very nice SL-DL1 did go for about 90 quid this week).

Fundamentally, they appear very similar - both very well made in the same way to a similar design and apparently from the same materials, they appear to have the same tonearm, they even originally came with the same factory fit cart. The only obvious difference I can observe is the integrated record clamp of the SL-7. The QL1 was even some 20% more expensive than the SL-7 when they were both new in the early 80s.

Any thoughts anyone ...

JaS · Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 1:36 pm Post subject:

Hi,
The SL-DL1 and SL-QL1 where developed from the SL-7, the QL1 having the benefit of quartz locking. Performance wise I'd expect the QL1 to be on a par with the SL-7, but I seem to recall that an HFC review suggested that the SL-7 edged ahead on sound quality? I'll scan it sometime if I can dig it out.

However, the SL-7 has one important advantage - size! The SL-5, 7, 10 and 15 command a premium because they offer reasonable sound quality (for integrated turntables) in a very compact and stylish package; something quite unusual before the advent of CD. Increase the size of the deck (as in the DL/QL1) and all of a sudden the performance wouldn't seem so impressive.

I guess this makes the DL/QL-1 a bargain of sorts if you don't mind the (in)convenience of the Linear tracking arm. I used an SL-10 for some time so I know they can sound nice when in good fettle.

Regards,
JaS

rise_above · Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 3:21 pm Post subject:

Thanks Jaz.

You have pretty much confirmed my own suspicions here, and I can certainly see your point about the size issue. I have to say for the money I paid for it, I have been more than impressed with the sound quality, indeed even after spending 40 quid on a new Ortofon OM10 it has still come well under the price of a new Pro-Ject Genie or Debut, for example, and as such I see it as something of a bargain especially when you consider both the high standard of build and the convenience of use. Put it this way, my Rega P2 has been gathering dust for a few months now, and it has me convinced that I need a serious DD motor unit to mount that RB250 on...

Cheers,

Mike.

shonver · Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 1:38 pm Post subject: About SL-7

I'm not familiar with the other models, but I spent a week with an SL-7, and I must say it was a lot of fun! I say "fun" because it is a completely different experience using it compared to my SL-1200. Its diminutive size belies its build quality and ultimate audio performance. You'll also get a shock the first time you pick it up: it is unpredictably massive (all 7kg's of it)!

The original EPC202 (IIRC) stylus fitment was a bit loose, so I replaced the cart with an Ortofon OM320. That is the best I have heard the 320 sound (did not do too well in my low-mass AT-1100 arm). That being said, I hope that the new owner will tweak settings to get the ultimate from this cart.

A nice TT indeed, and I'd get one again if I had the space for it.
_________________
Shaun Onverwacht
________________

DON'T PANIC

fscl

Just got my SL 7 working again. Had to take it out of the main hifi when the arm kept driving into the cover.

Wasn't aware that Ortofon made p type mounts, can you direct me to the OM 10 and OM 320 literature and specs.

I presently have a "tweaked (as in bent cantilever but rebent back)" AT 316EP which sounds great but I'm looking to replace this as it seems that the right channel is slightly louder than the left channel when monitoring with VU meters.

My SL 7 came an Ortofon TM 14 which also needs a new tip, are they still available? and is this a better / worse cartridge than the OMS 10 320?

I put my anti-skate test vinyl LP "Second Winter / Johnny Winter (side 4 is blank)" and although the turntable is level, the arm slowly skates towards the center. Is this normal? With a standard pivoting arm, I can adjust the anti-skate so that the needle is stationary anywhere on the LP

Thanks for any help / comments.

Fred
_________________
Music is Everything....Except Predictable....WFUV Fan.

Alec124c41 · Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 1:28 am Post subject:

The SL-7 and SL-10, and the SL-V5, had a record clamp built into the lid, and so could be used in a vertical position, minimizing the footprint, and looking super-cool.
I never had any of them, but I own an SL-6, which functions perfectly, and sounds very nice. Picked it up in a thrift shop. Very Happy

Alec

Steerpike_jhb · Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:17 pm Post subject:

fscl · Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 6:02 pm Post subject:

Steerpike_jhb,

Yes, that is correct, there is no groove cut into Side 4 of "Second Winter". Liner notes from Johnny says that this was all the music they had to give, no more, no less so there are only 3 sides of music on a 2 LP set. The volume levels on the record are high too, so I'm sure the engineer needed more "meat" to lay down the music as Winter intended.

Before I played Side 4, it was vinyl mirror smooth. It now has some needle scratches on the surface over the years of cartridge / arm set up.

However, isn't that the function of anti skate mechanisms, whether by weights or springs, to resist the natural force inward towards the centering hole on pivoting tonearms while the platen turns?

Shouldn't just the groove guide / direct the needle towards the center and so thus anti skate results in not biasing the pressure on one side of the groove / needle causing an inequality of sound?

Isn't the ideal record player a player with a tangential tracking arm which should have no skating forces at all?

I'm talking theory of course, even though the SL 7 is a tangential tracking arm, it has to displace slightly causing the (+ / -) voltage required to drive the tracking arm / motor, however, in theory, this slight displacement is smaller than a pivoting arm which is designed for 2 sweet spots?

Shouldn't my level SL 7 play on one part of my blank record and not move? And isn't this why there is no anti skate adjustment on any tangential record player because there is no skating?

Also, aren't tangential tracking record players sound, in theory, more accurate as the cutting head on the master also tangential?

I am so enamored with the SL 7, I spent the better part of this morning finding, spinning and listening to several LPs in my collection.

Please help if my understanding of TTs is way off.

As an aside, the SL 7 and other Technics tangential record players as mentioned previously can play vertically, though not recommended as it has a tendency to wear out the platter bearing.

The players were also meant to be used portablely, ie as in a car, and has a 12VDC input along with the AC input.

I'm sure some early adopters did so and carried around their LPs, however, this all went away with the advent of 8 tracks and cassettes.

And yes, I'm on a Nak forum too. LOL.

Fred
_________________
Music is Everything....Except Predictable....WFUV Fan.

rider · Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 12:12 am Post subject: stuck in the groove

I just recently picked up an SL-7 at a yard sale for free. It's in excellent shape physically. When I got it home and played a couple of LPs, the stylus got stuck in a groove on both of them and kept playing the same note. I adjusted the stylus weight to recommended maximum but that didn't correct the problem. Wondering if it's a tracking problem instead, or a worn stylus? How can I fix this?
Cheers,
Adrian

Steerpike_jhb · Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 11:36 am Post subject:

Yo Fred

The SL7 is a nice looking & neat machine - I have an SL10, and my daily use TT is a Revox, so I'm not against linear trackers.

fscl · Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:21 pm Post subject: Side Play....?

LOL Steerpike_jhb,

Well I've never put my SL 7 on its side.....

Just standing up vertically on its back (side where the wires enter/exit) and the sound is still stereophonic......

Thanks for the reply.....

Fred
_________________
Music is Everything....Except Predictable....WFUV Fan.

Hypnotoady · Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:46 pm Post subject: Re: stuck in the groove

fscl

flavio81 · contributor Joined: 16 Sep 2009 Posts: 517 Location: Lima

flavio81 · contributor Joined: 16 Sep 2009 Posts: 517 Location: Lima

BTW just to contribute a little bit,

The first SL linear tracker was the SL-10, Technics pulled all stops with it and gave it the highly reputed EPC-310MC moving coil p-mount cartridge. To put it in perspective, it was a highly ambicious turntable for Technics: Direct drive, quartz locking, full auto operation, mc preamp, mc cart with boron cantilever, ultra low mass arm, tangential tracking, vertical operation, and everything had to fit in an area no bigger than 32x32cm, while sounding great!!

Next are the SL-15 and the SL-7. The SL-15 was even more expensive than the SL-10, it added track programmability. The cartridge was now the EPC-P205CMK3, another stellar performer, this time MM instead of MC, but with even better specs. To put this cartridge's AMAZING performance in perspective compared to current cartridges:

Freq response: 　
5 - 80,000 Hz
15 - 60,000 Hz ±3 dB
20 - 15,000 Hz ±0.5 dB

Effective moving mass: 　０．１４９ｍｇ. Compares favorably with even the most expensive Ortofon cartridges (Ortofon is one of the few manufacturers has the decency to publish this spec).

The other turntable, the SL-7, was an attempt to do a lower cost alternative to the SL-10. This one, being a different design, has a new material for the plinth: TNRC (Technics non-resonant compound). That is the "plus" respect to the SL-10. The "minus" points are:

- Gone was the MC preamp.
- Gone was the EPC-310MC cart, replaced by the (conventional but very good) EPC-P202C cart.

The rest of linear trackers that followed were either cheaper versions (more plastic, belt drive) or wider body versions.