Technics SL-1900, any thoughts?

[jleon92f]

Hi,

I was looking at some TT's online and saw this one, Technics SL-1900, I like the way it looks! If an auto-matic model does not work auto-matically anymore , what usually breaks?

Any thoughts on this model from the experts:thmbsp:

Thanks,
John.

 

[ferninando]

only 160 new, servo not quartz. maybe adjustments off or something broke.
OK if maybe $50, anymore, no. specially if broke. not a hi end mdl. IMO, no expert but have 2 technics TTs

 

[NikkoUser]

I found a SL-1950 at Goodwill for $14.95. Six months later and 1500 miles away, I found another SL-1950 at a different GW for the same price. So, the GW price seems to be $14.95.

 

[audio-ed]

I have one and the only thing wrong is the tonearm lift is broken.Its a nice looking t.t. and i've played around with it a few times.One of these days I'll take it apart and see if its fixable.

 

[ferninando]

but GW prices fly all over the map pending location and SA is wusser.

 

[whell]

The SL-1X00 series are very good tables, but the MKII models are more sought after due to refinements in the drive, most notably the addition of quartz lock for steady speed. That said, the SL 1X00 series generally hold their speed well. If is has a good cartridge, under $50 might be a good buy.

 

[SA-708]

The 1900/1950/2000 series are a lesser beast than the rest of the 1x00 series. They have a shorter arm and a higher wow and flutter spec (0.045 percent) than any of the other Technics direct drive turntables.

 

[hakaplan]

The 1900/1950/2000 series are a lesser beast than the rest of the 1x00 series. They have a shorter arm and a higher wow and flutter spec (0.045 percent) than any of the other Technics direct drive turntables.

Your info came from vintagetechnics.info which unfortunately contains many errors. Actually the arm length is the same as the others, 230mm, the w&f is .03 compared to .025, a minimal difference, and the rumble is the same.

 

[SA-708]

Yes, that's the numbers I was looking at.

Even if that site has the specs wrong, that series was the low-end of direct drive Technics tables at the time it was produced, with only the first of Technics belt drive turntables below them in the pecking order.

 

[jleon92f]

Thanks for your replies:thmbsp:

Later,
John.

 

[hakaplan]

Yes, that's the numbers I was looking at.

Even if that site has the specs wrong, that series was the low-end of direct drive Technics tables at the time it was produced, with only the first of Technics belt drive turntables below them in the pecking order.

No lower than the successors, the SL-3100/3200/3300, SL-D1/2/3, SL-D101/202/303, all consumer level, non-quartz direct drives, all in the same relative position in the lineup--just above the belts. Most people are satisfied with those models. The only negative about the 1900/1950/2000 may have been that it was their first attampt at consumer DD, but still I've only heard good things about them.

 

[OneMalt]

I just retired a SL-1900. It gave me 30 years of flawless service. I changed the cartridge a couple of times through the years but that was about the only maintenance I had to perform. A solid, utterly trouble-free TT.

 

[lplover]

I have downloaded the brochure (Vinylengine, I think) re. the original 1x00 series DD tables. The SL 1900/2000 was the cheap table (the SL 2000 is manual) "designed for those who want direct drive performance at a moderate cost". The tonearm is shorter- 22 cm compared with 23 cm for the better models (SL 16/7/800). Rumble is -45/-70 for the SL 2000 compared with -50/-73 on the better models. Wow and flutter are 0.045 WRMS versus 0.025. The SL1900/2000 is an inch smaller in width and depth and weighs 13.4 lbs vs 19.4 lbs for the SL 1700. That said, if it's in good condition it would probably be a good starter or second table.

 

[lplover]

The SL 1x00 Mark II series were produced in the range of tables that included the SL D2. The SL D1/2/3 were DD, but servo as opposed to Quartz locked. (The SL Q1/2/3 were lower Quartz lock models). They were the generation after the series that inluded the SL 1500 to 2000. The specs for the SL D2 are better than the 1900 and they are more solid, heavy, and better engineered. The SL 1900 was for the lowest end of the market. They were black (called a "Black beauty" in the ads) which distinguishd them from the rest of the series and they were the only black tables Technics produced for the U.S. market until the much later cheaper P-mounts, which are still available.

 

[johnda]

I have the SL-2000, now 31 years old. Fully manual. The table is dead silent. The speed is fine, no wow or flutter, and it mates beautifully with my Grado Black cartridge.

Would I like to pick up a new SL-1200 MKII ? You betcha! The only thing wrong in this equation is that the SL-2000 "Black Beauty" has not given me any problems yet, so I don't have a good reason to plunk down $450 and to be honest, I'm not sure I'd hear the difference.

 

[Mchaz]

The 1900 is a solid mid level table. It's not quartz locked, but it still holds its speed better than many belt drives I've encountered. I picked up two last year from an individual on Craigslist for $35. The first one went to my mom with a Grado Black, and the second one is going to my brother-in-law as a birthday gift. Right now I have the second one spinning in my living room with a Shure M97xE mounted. I wouldn't go much higher on the cartridge ladder than that. However, both sound pretty good in my opinion, especially for the price.

What is broken in the auto function? I just had the one opened up to fix the auto cuing mechanism. It wouldn't drop the arm at the beginning of a record. It turns out the lever that was actuated by the auto gizmos had frozen up. It is spring loaded, and is supposed to return after being pushed one way. Well, the 30 year old grease had reached a glue-like consistency, and the lever wouldn't rotate. A cleaning and regrease did the trick. Now it's singing great.

 

[hakaplan]

I have downloaded the brochure (Vinylengine, I think) re. the original 1x00 series DD tables. The SL 1900/2000 was the cheap table (the SL 2000 is manual) "designed for those who want direct drive performance at a moderate cost". The tonearm is shorter- 22 cm compared with 23 cm for the better models (SL 16/7/800). Rumble is -45/-70 for the SL 2000 compared with -50/-73 on the better models. Wow and flutter are 0.045 WRMS versus 0.025. The SL1900/2000 is an inch smaller in width and depth and weighs 13.4 lbs vs 19.4 lbs for the SL 1700. That said, if it's in good condition it would probably be a good starter or second table.

Well there's a problem then, because the manual for the 1900 is over at vinylengine and the specs are not the same as what you state are listed in the brochure. It's very possible that Technics changed the specs before actually producing the turntable. I'd trust the specs in the manual that came with the tt before I'd trust a brochure.

You're comparing the the SL-1900/2000 with the SL-1700? Those are two different product lines--apples and oranges. The SL-1300 through 1800 MK1 and 2 were the upper level "pro" models, if you will. The 1900/2000 and successors were the lower level models. So certainly they are going to be smaller and lighter. You mention the D2; that's also a lower level model and was also smaller and lighter than the pro models.

Okay let's put this thing to rest, once and for all and compare apples with apples. This is directly from the manuals. Below is a comparison of the lower level, DD, full auto models, in chronological order. Yes, the specs went up--you'd expect that given the improvement in electronics each year. But as we know with other mfrs, that doesn't instantly condemn the older tables. According to the manuals, the tonearms are all 230mm with 15mm overhang. But as far as build goes, looks to me like they got lighter with each incarnation, not heavier:

SL-1900; .03 W&F; -73db; 15.9lbs
SL-3300; .03 W&F; -75db; 15.7lbs
SL-D3; .03 W&F; -75db; 15.4lbs
SL-D303; .025 W&F; -78db; 13.2lbs

And, of course, the testimonials of members like OneMalt and Mchaz about the 1900 tend to confirm the above and contradict the claims of cheapness.

Okay I found the brochure you're talking about at VE, and the 1900 is not in it. It lists the 2000, and then the higher models. So it is possible that the 2000 was a lightweight with lower specs, but if so, it was in that category by itself and shares none of that with the 1900.

 

[lplover]

First, I'm not trying to compare the SL 1900/2000 with the SL 1700.They are two different product lines. My purpose is to point out that they were produced in the same "model year" and were aimed at different parts of the market. They are both in the same brochure. (A bit like a Honda Civic and Accord can be made in the same year, but sold at different price points.) I'm simply saying that the SL1900/2000 were intended for people who wanted DD, but didn't want to spend as much as the "full size" models. Second, I'm saying that the SL D2 has some affinity with the SL 1900 (check its looks), but it may be a better table, since it's an improved model, similar to the way the Mark II models were considered to be improved. However, I like the looks of the SL 1900. (My SL D2 is actually a D2K, and it's black. These were produced for the European and other non-North American markets.) A drawback for me would be that the tonearm on the SL 1900 is shorter than the standard Technics tonearm (8.75 compared to the regular 9.125 inches). The platter is also 12 inches on the SL 1900, while it is 13 inches on it "big brothers". This isn't crucial, but just another cost-cutting measure, as was its size.

 

[hakaplan]

First, I'm not trying to compare the SL 1900/2000 with the SL 1700.They are two different product lines. My purpose is to point out that they were produced in the same "model year" and were aimed at different parts of the market. They are both in the same brochure. (A bit like a Honda Civic and Accord can be made in the same year, but sold at different price points.) I'm simply saying that the SL1900/2000 were intended for people who wanted DD, but didn't want to spend as much as the "full size" models. Second, I'm saying that the SL D2 has some affinity with the SL 1900 (check its looks), but it may be a better table, since it's an improved model, similar to the way the Mark II models were considered to be improved. However, I like the looks of the SL 1900. (My SL D2 is actually a D2K, and it's black. These were produced for the European and other non-North American markets.) A drawback for me would be that the tonearm on the SL 1900 is shorter than the standard Technics tonearm (8.75 compared to the regular 9.125 inches). The platter is also 12 inches on the SL 1900, while it is 13 inches on it "big brothers". This isn't crucial, but just another cost-cutting measure, as was its size.

No, the tonearm is not shorter on the SL-1900, and I don't know where you got that (other than vintagetechnics, which is in error). It is 230mm as with all the other models. Go over to vinylengine and look at the 1900 manual.

 

[lplover]

It also says in the Technics brochure that the SL 1900's tonearm is 22 cm and the rest of the line (SL 1500 through 1800) are 23 cm. As you said they could have changed their mind. Can anyone measure both for us and settle the question?