the home of the turntable

Mod: Sl1200mk2 Improving Wow And Flutter

turning japanese

Mod: Sl1200mk2 Improving Wow And Flutter

Postby OneyedK » 06 May 2011 00:22

This whole thing got triggered by a change Technics made in the production, wich I failed to understand.
Changing C211 from 47nF to 220nF.
http://www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=36633

I tried to redo the math on the multiple feedback lowpass filter, wich resides right after the FG amp.

With the stock components, I calculated the frequency of 5,88Hz and did a simulation for the impulse response:
Image

Adjusting C210 within a reasonable range (I didn't want to allow the filter to lead a life of it's own),
a value of 550nF seemed fine (that's 220nF-stock parallelled with 330nF).
Frequency will be 3.72Hz and resulting in the following response:
Image

Enough with the theory, let's get measurements.
I don't have fancy wow and flutter measurement equipment at home,
but recently, I bought Adjust+ Pro, so that'll do for the moment.
--> I redid every measurement at least five times, to exclude occasionally better results.
--> measurements are taken with the stock platter mat, it's weight is important as it is part of the rotating mass.

Let's get the table spinning, C211 is 47nF, all else is stock but renewed (all components, bearing and arm).
Image
I have no idea what standard Adjust+ uses (maybe I should read the manual).
These values are for now considered relative and as a reference.

So I started implementing the mod.
No result, well, yes result, but no improvement.
Started experimenting with uncalculated values, even adjusting the gain of the filter, but to no avail,
it seemed to live a life of it's own, and nothing I did seemed to make a positive difference.
I reverted to stock and was ready to give up...

But then I remembered the odd change in C211, from 47nF to 220nF in more recent models.
My calculations were based on ideal op-amps, not on the thing that resided inside a 70's Panasonic chip.
Maybe the engineers had a good reason to change that value.
So, opened up the table (again) and swapped the 47nF with 220nF.
This is the result:
Image
Now it seemed to me, some sacrifices were made to improve the unweighted w&f.
As the weighted value was a little bit worse.

While I was feeling strenghtened with the obtained result,
I did the mod I originally intended, parallelling C210 with 330nF.
And this is the result:
Image
Oh yes, I redid the test about ten times, just to be sure that I saw what I saw.
Also put on some 12inches from my DJ days, handling the TT the way a DJ does,
and no noticeable drawbacks.

Will do some listening test the next days, but if my ears are not deceiving me,
this is indeed an audible improvement.
(don't worry, I'm not a reviewer, so I won't slap you around the ears with
audiophile listening descriptions)
I don't think I will stop here, but other modifications will cost more money
and might not give that much improvement.

One warning, this mod is done on a deck with a new (standard) technics bearing,
well oiled. All capacitors have been changed. One IC has been changed.
http://www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=36482
I have no idea if the mod results in the same improvements on worn decks with old caps.
Technics SL-1200 Mk2 recapped / MN bearing / Funk Firm Platter / Denon 103R / Lundahl LL1681
Thorens TD 126 MkIII / SME Series III / Ortofon SME 30H // AT-OC9ML/II
Thorens TD 160 / TP16 / Stanton 681SE
Denon DP-1200 - WIP -
OneyedK
senior member
 
Posts: 643
Images: 1
Joined: 26 Aug 2010 19:48
Location: Belgium

Postby flavio81 » 06 May 2011 01:30

Interesting...

I recall the service manual has plots of the waveforms for calibrating the system, maybe you would like to perform such calibration with an oscilloscope.

As for flutter itself, adding more platter mass always helps...
User avatar
flavio81
contributor
 
Posts: 4553
Images: 32
Joined: 16 Sep 2009 23:45
Location: Lima

Postby OneyedK » 06 May 2011 01:55

flavio81 wrote:I recall the service manual has plots of the waveforms for calibrating the system, maybe you would like to perform such calibration with an oscilloscope.


Did that after the capjob and the 4011 swap.
All waveforms are exactly as in the service manual, but there is some jitter on some of the signals.
I tried hooking up a very decent lab supply instead of the onboard regulator, didn't help.
Load regulation is provided by the regulators in the circuit, not much in the main power supply.

flavio81 wrote:As for flutter itself, adding more platter mass always helps...


Yes, but it's a direct drive, so electronics must be matched accordingly. A complete redesign is out of the question :)
And I don't know how much more stress the stock bearing can take, will try to improve the old bearing with a thrust plate from Joël.

Going from 0.1% to 0.03% with a few cap changes will be hard to match, even with doubling the weight of the platter...
But redoing the math is not that difficult, if I would get my hands on a copper mat or something similar...
Technics SL-1200 Mk2 recapped / MN bearing / Funk Firm Platter / Denon 103R / Lundahl LL1681
Thorens TD 126 MkIII / SME Series III / Ortofon SME 30H // AT-OC9ML/II
Thorens TD 160 / TP16 / Stanton 681SE
Denon DP-1200 - WIP -
OneyedK
senior member
 
Posts: 643
Images: 1
Joined: 26 Aug 2010 19:48
Location: Belgium

Postby cafe latte » 06 May 2011 03:13

OneyedK wrote:
flavio81 wrote:I recall the service manual has plots of the waveforms for calibrating the system, maybe you would like to perform such calibration with an oscilloscope.


Did that after the capjob and the 4011 swap.
All waveforms are exactly as in the service manual, but there is some jitter on some of the signals.
I tried hooking up a very decent lab supply instead of the onboard regulator, didn't help.
Load regulation is provided by the regulators in the circuit, not much in the main power supply.

flavio81 wrote:As for flutter itself, adding more platter mass always helps...


Yes, but it's a direct drive, so electronics must be matched accordingly. A complete redesign is out of the question :)
And I don't know how much more stress the stock bearing can take, will try to improve the old bearing with a thrust plate from Joël.

Going from 0.1% to 0.03% with a few cap changes will be hard to match, even with doubling the weight of the platter...
But redoing the math is not that difficult, if I would get my hands on a copper mat or something similar...


In the latest Hifi World (April issue) There is a Technics sl1210 MK2 modded by Origin live. Basically new arm and transforner, psu, mat feet and a nice cart. Anyway Hifi World measured wow and flutter at 0.078% and wow and flutter IEC weighted at 0.047 % Which they said is as low as it is possible to measure. There was no mass added to the platter, so IMO the better PSU is helping a bit, but the Technics measues well anyway in this area as is proved by 0.03% which is an astounding result that most TT at any price cant match.
cafe latte
contributor
 
Posts: 5157
Images: 163
Joined: 11 Oct 2009 04:27
Location: Cattle property near Ravenshoe Qld Australia

Australia

Postby OneyedK » 06 May 2011 09:19

Maybe I can get my hands on the April issue...
Would like to see the actual "improvements".

Too bad they measure with Audiomatica "Clio",
not exactly an industry standard.
If they used an Audio Prescision System One,
it would be a different story.
Hopefully I can get some AP time somewhere in June.

btw, an outboard psu can actually make matters worse.
--> The guys at KAB understood that and decided not to use
an external stabiliser.
The stabiliser should be as close to the motor as possible.
If I really would go bananas, I'd put transformer, rectifier and
large caps outside the TT (the transformer hum annoys me).
Together with a decent regulator inside the TT.

But I'm fairly sure that this would make the TT more quiet,
without added w&f performance. The Technics design doesn't
rely on absolute psu stability to get it's speed stability.

Getting rid of the jitter here and there might help,
will try that next week.

Oh yes, don't focus on the absolute 0.03% number, the only thing I'm sure of is that I brought it back from 0.1 to 0.03.
Will ask Dr.Feickert what these numbers are worth.
Technics SL-1200 Mk2 recapped / MN bearing / Funk Firm Platter / Denon 103R / Lundahl LL1681
Thorens TD 126 MkIII / SME Series III / Ortofon SME 30H // AT-OC9ML/II
Thorens TD 160 / TP16 / Stanton 681SE
Denon DP-1200 - WIP -
OneyedK
senior member
 
Posts: 643
Images: 1
Joined: 26 Aug 2010 19:48
Location: Belgium

Postby OneyedK » 06 May 2011 10:06

Update:

I just received word from Dr.Feickert.

He says these results cannot be bettered,
there is no test or any other record that is better cut,
so as for measuring, I'm stuck.
(maybe there is room for improvement, but that would be subjective)

Better find some idler drives to compare subjectively 8)
Technics SL-1200 Mk2 recapped / MN bearing / Funk Firm Platter / Denon 103R / Lundahl LL1681
Thorens TD 126 MkIII / SME Series III / Ortofon SME 30H // AT-OC9ML/II
Thorens TD 160 / TP16 / Stanton 681SE
Denon DP-1200 - WIP -
OneyedK
senior member
 
Posts: 643
Images: 1
Joined: 26 Aug 2010 19:48
Location: Belgium

Postby cafe latte » 06 May 2011 10:47

Seriously well done!! You should be proud!
CL
cafe latte
contributor
 
Posts: 5157
Images: 163
Joined: 11 Oct 2009 04:27
Location: Cattle property near Ravenshoe Qld Australia

Australia

Postby cafe latte » 06 May 2011 10:48

flavio81 wrote:Interesting...

I recall the service manual has plots of the waveforms for calibrating the system, maybe you would like to perform such calibration with an oscilloscope.

As for flutter itself, adding more platter mass always helps...

As has been proved Flutter is not an issue with the sl1210...
cafe latte
contributor
 
Posts: 5157
Images: 163
Joined: 11 Oct 2009 04:27
Location: Cattle property near Ravenshoe Qld Australia

Australia

Postby OneyedK » 06 May 2011 15:37

cafe latte wrote:Seriously well done!! You should be proud


:P Thanks, I'm very proud I added one capacitor :P

There was a slight error in "I tried to redo the math on the multiple feedback lowpass filter, wich resides right after the FG amp."
It's not after the FG amp, but actually the last part of the AN6680 circuit. At least I got the filter type correct ;)

Encouraged by the result, I took a look at the multiple feedback highpass filter, the one that really resides right after the FG amp :?

Did some simulations, fc is 40,78Hz but the component choice results in an oscillation at 28,79Hz. Since the filter slope is not that steep, it might encourage erratic behaviour in the loop...

Changing C204 from 47nF to 22nF
and R204 from 2k7 to 6k8 resolves that.
fc will now be 37,56Hz and no oscillation will occur.
Don't try this at home yet, I want to see the results first ;)

I wanted a quick win, and I got one, maybe I was too fast and I should optimize the values of the LPF some more (like I did with the HPF right now)...

/edit: did I make an error in the image posting format???
Still seeing links instead of screenshots?!
Technics SL-1200 Mk2 recapped / MN bearing / Funk Firm Platter / Denon 103R / Lundahl LL1681
Thorens TD 126 MkIII / SME Series III / Ortofon SME 30H // AT-OC9ML/II
Thorens TD 160 / TP16 / Stanton 681SE
Denon DP-1200 - WIP -
OneyedK
senior member
 
Posts: 643
Images: 1
Joined: 26 Aug 2010 19:48
Location: Belgium

Postby flavio81 » 06 May 2011 22:39

cafe latte wrote:
flavio81 wrote:Interesting...

I recall the service manual has plots of the waveforms for calibrating the system, maybe you would like to perform such calibration with an oscilloscope.

As for flutter itself, adding more platter mass always helps...

As has been proved Flutter is not an issue with the sl1210...


Flutter _figures_ are not an issue with the Technics SL1200... when tested in the conventional DIN/IEC way.

Go compare it with an idler drive with a 4Kg platter mass and for sure you will hear a difference.

The flutter test they are carrying (1) applies weighting (2) it's limited to one fixed frequency (1KHz or 3KHz) and (3) cannot measure lower flutter than 0.05% because of the test records' limitation.

Please don't assume i have anything against the SL1200, as i've defended and keep defending it (and it's related models) on this forum.
User avatar
flavio81
contributor
 
Posts: 4553
Images: 32
Joined: 16 Sep 2009 23:45
Location: Lima

Postby cafe latte » 07 May 2011 01:05

flavio81 wrote:
cafe latte wrote:
flavio81 wrote:Interesting...

I recall the service manual has plots of the waveforms for calibrating the system, maybe you would like to perform such calibration with an oscilloscope.

As for flutter itself, adding more platter mass always helps...

As has been proved Flutter is not an issue with the sl1210...


Flutter _figures_ are not an issue with the Technics SL1200... when tested in the conventional DIN/IEC way.

Go compare it with an idler drive with a 4Kg platter mass and for sure you will hear a difference.

The flutter test they are carrying (1) applies weighting (2) it's limited to one fixed frequency (1KHz or 3KHz) and (3) cannot measure lower flutter than 0.05% because of the test records' limitation.

Please don't assume i have anything against the SL1200, as i've defended and keep defending it (and it's related models) on this forum.

Yes, but i do not agree that flutter is an issue on the sl1200.You are the only person who seems to think so.
cafe latte
contributor
 
Posts: 5157
Images: 163
Joined: 11 Oct 2009 04:27
Location: Cattle property near Ravenshoe Qld Australia

Australia

Postby flavio81 » 07 May 2011 01:14

cafe latte wrote:
flavio81 wrote:
cafe latte wrote:
flavio81 wrote:Interesting...

I recall the service manual has plots of the waveforms for calibrating the system, maybe you would like to perform such calibration with an oscilloscope.

As for flutter itself, adding more platter mass always helps...

As has been proved Flutter is not an issue with the sl1210...


Flutter _figures_ are not an issue with the Technics SL1200... when tested in the conventional DIN/IEC way.

Go compare it with an idler drive with a 4Kg platter mass and for sure you will hear a difference.

The flutter test they are carrying (1) applies weighting (2) it's limited to one fixed frequency (1KHz or 3KHz) and (3) cannot measure lower flutter than 0.05% because of the test records' limitation.

Please don't assume i have anything against the SL1200, as i've defended and keep defending it (and it's related models) on this forum.

Yes, but i do not agree that flutter is an issue on the sl1200.You are the only person who seems to think so.


No, not the only one. I we have an old thread on this very same subject, and i was just defending the SL1200 flutter as you were doing; while other people were telling me that the 1200 (and similar DDs) weren't as stable as commonly thought.

Now i see i was wrong.

Just search for "direct drive" and "cogging".
User avatar
flavio81
contributor
 
Posts: 4553
Images: 32
Joined: 16 Sep 2009 23:45
Location: Lima

Postby OneyedK » 07 May 2011 01:38

Gentlemen, let's not get sidetracked here.

The purpose of this topic was to improve w&f on a Technics SL1200mkII.

It was my choice (or at least my wallet's choice) not to use
an improved bearing. Any flutter induced there will be incorrectible.

First part of the mission was to improve the loop performance.
I think I succeeded in doing that.
Maybe there is even more room for improvement.

Now the question is, is there anything in the design that can cause flutter.
If so, where? And if we can determine where, maybe we can correct it.

But please focus on possible electronic improvements.
Technics SL-1200 Mk2 recapped / MN bearing / Funk Firm Platter / Denon 103R / Lundahl LL1681
Thorens TD 126 MkIII / SME Series III / Ortofon SME 30H // AT-OC9ML/II
Thorens TD 160 / TP16 / Stanton 681SE
Denon DP-1200 - WIP -
OneyedK
senior member
 
Posts: 643
Images: 1
Joined: 26 Aug 2010 19:48
Location: Belgium

Postby cafe latte » 07 May 2011 07:36

Yes you have achieved very low flutter much lower than most TT's. There are still many that think dispite the proof to the contorary that Technics has flutter and idler are better in this respect. The simple facts are in the library. Garrard, Lenco even my Commonwealth have published flutter Way way higher than a Technics. I even have a mag test somewere with the 401's flutter results which are very good but not as good as a Technics. Also cogging on a Technics does not exist and has become a bit of a myth, well explained why it is not true all over the net. Anyway this is off topic dispite it being a popular topic we can discuss it elsewere if we wish, appologies to the OP for the interuption.Do you think you can get the flutter any lower Oneyedek? Can you even measure it any lowerif you did!!! Have you thought about changing the transformer and regulator as this seems to be the next best upgrade. I have a plot somewere in my mess :oops: of how poor the supply is regulated in the stock Technics. It is true that the Technics does not get its stability here, but hey it cant hurt!!
I too have read mixed things about increasing the mass of the platter with copper mats ect putting too much stress on the motor and bearing. I would not go that way either
Electrically I cant think of any further improvement you could make, but I would love you to prove me wrong, then I can do it too :D
Regards
CL
cafe latte
contributor
 
Posts: 5157
Images: 163
Joined: 11 Oct 2009 04:27
Location: Cattle property near Ravenshoe Qld Australia

Australia

Next

Return to Technics Forum


Design and Content © Vinyl Engine 2002-2013

faq | site policy | advertising | hifiengine