A first look at the new Technics SL-1210GR – is it worth the price?

By in Features, Turntables & Tech



At under half the price of Technics’ flagship SL-1200G reboot unveiled last year [£1,299 as opposed to £2,799], the SL-1200GR (and new black SL-1210GR) may be more affordable, but how does it really stack up? We take a first look at the divisive deck that’s gunning for the affections of “professional DJs” once more.

Technics arguably has an unparalleled pedigree when it comes to designing direct drive turntables. Matsushita engineer, Mr Kobayashi, published the design philosophy behind Technics’ DD mechanism in the June 1970 AES journal. It’s undergone many revisions since, but even today’s motor is faithful to the original principles. If you visit the DMM suite at Abbey Road you’ll see the lathe is powered by a Technics SP02 motor. The bulk of your record collection was probably cut by an SP02. When people trot out the old chestnut about budget belt-drives outperforming an SL1200, ask them this: how many turntable manufacturers have published peer-reviewed AES papers? Do you see their motors at The Exchange? Suffice to say, when Technics release a new turntable, it’s got a lot to live up to.

As we now know, the price of the new SL1200GR is under half that of the SL1200G; but is it half the turntable? Based on the Technics presentation at Abbey Road last week, where a GR was presented next to a G for comparison, here is an attempt to clarify what we know about the new turntable and how its design and construction stacks up against the G, as well as its famous forebear.


Overall Construction

Whereas the top plate for the G model is machined from 10mm solid sheet, the GR uses a more traditional cast aluminium design, which appears fairly similar to the chassis / top plate of the older decks. This design difference, along with the one-piece, cast platter, goes a long way to explaining the overall weight difference between the G / GAE (18KG) and the GR – which appears to be around 6KG lighter (and a similar weight to the discontinued SL1200 models).


In contrast to the analogue drive systems of their predecessors, the G and GR use digital circuitry for motor control – and both use what is essentially the same 9-pole motor. Whereas the G has twin rotors, the GR has a single rotor, giving it less torque. Although the GR has less torque, it achieves the same 0.7s start up time as the G on account of having a lighter platter (all previous SL1200 series used a 12-pole motor, with magnet and stator armature built into the platter – as opposed to the motor used in G and GR, which is effectively a standalone unit).

Technics claim in their literature that, as with the G model, the GR motor eliminates the troublesome phenomenon of ‘cogging’. Whilst cogging as a concept is well understood, objective proof of its effects in turntables that cannot be attributed to other elements in the chain is thin on the ground. With this in mind, a cynic could wonder if the inclusion of this claim is to appease industry figures who’ve postulated over the decades that cogging is the DD turntable’s Achilles Heel.

The GR differs from the G in its use of a feedback generator coil system (as used in the original SL1200) instead of an optical encoder. Although the optical system should give greater feedback resolution, it’s worth noting that the original SL1200 models were proven in tests to have exemplary speed accuracy, so it would be interesting to see lab measurements comparing turntable generations.



With the G having a hybrid brass / aluminium sandwich platter, weighing 3.5KG, the GR has a more traditional design of Technics platter, made from a single aluminium casting, damped with rubber and weighing 2.5KG (original SL1200 platter inc. earlier rubber mat = 1.7KG).

At the launch, Technics’ representative showed a waveform comparing the GR platter’s resonant decay to that of an SL1200Mk5. Although a quick tap of the knuckles on the platter at a press launch isn’t exactly forensic, its ringing, or lack of, appeared to confirm what the waveform showed. With its better-damped platter / mat combination, the GR should be substantially less prone to feedback in clubs than the original SL1200/10 – if maybe not quite as immune as its more expensive G sibling. The fact that Technics prepared graphical data to compare platter decay against an SL1200MK5 suggests that, whereas the G appears to have been focused on hifi users to date, they are actively targeting DJs with the GR.


Spindle Bearing

When asked, Technics’ representative said that the GR uses a different bearing to the G model, but was not able to give any more detail than that.



The SL1200G is fitted with a magnesium alloy tube, whereas the GR has an aluminium tube. The G’s arm also has a different finish to the GR, which Technics claim prevents resonance. The GR’s tube, being a different material and having different surface treatment, is likely to have very different acoustic properties to that of the G. Aside from the obvious differences in tube material and finish, both arms appear to be of a design that’s extremely similar to the original arm fitted to the first series of SL1200/10.

One added feature of note is the RCA sockets fitted to the GR. This will be to the considerable relief of anyone who’s experience cable fatigue in the old series of SL1200MK2/3 etc.


Technics claim that the design of foot used on the G and GR is optimised to each turntable, utilising a construction based around silicone rubber and ‘microcell polymers’. The feet were regarded by many as a weak point on the older SL1200 series, so this would appear to be a positive improvement.


Power Supply

All original SL1200 models used linear regulated power supplies, but the G broke with this tradition, installing a switch mode design. The GR follows in this trend. Although switching supplies have a mixed reputation amongst audiophiles, designed correctly, for an internal turntable power supply, an SMPS has merits; amongst them, a lower propensity than a large transformer to transmit vibration into the chassis, and reduced likelihood of inducing hum into some designs of cartridge. Another benefit to the SMPS is that it’ll work on just about any voltage, so no need to change if you move abroad.

Made and designed in Japan

Both G and GR models are made in Japan. Technics say they have been in contact with long-standing engineers. I didn’t get into specifics as to whether this was the ‘SP’ (Special Projects, as denoted on the legendary SP10 and SP02 motor / turntables) team, but the intimation appeared to suggest so.


Sales volume usually says little about the quality of a product and more about its marketing. Technics have stated that the original SL1200 sold over 3 million units. In my opinion, it did so, not because of marketing, but because it was a rare case of a product outselling its competition due to genuinely offering better value. Will the same be said of the new range? Technics have their work cut out if they intend to repeat the success. I wish them luck.

NB – for all the diehard fans of black, at present, Technics say there are no plans to release an SL1210G.

Comments (10)

  1. wcg 8 months ago

    People complaining about the Technic’s price need a reality check. There are two other manufacturers of direct drive tables still alive – Hanpin and VPI. The VPI table is $30K which shows how much a small run home grown direct drive costs. Getting Technics back up and running has cost a lot of money and it’s reflected in the premium prices. Personally, I think the Technics will hold up to tables in the same prices range. Not only that, it will measure better as well, if reviewers bother with it. (Take a look at the speed accuracy of Rega tables, for example.)

  2. John Werner 8 months ago

    For the average guy interested in purchasing a turntable this one isn’t really in the running. Perhaps a decent compromise would be the Pioneer PLX-1000 or 500 if you wanted a direct-drive type or just think these are retro-cool. In all of these turntables it seems the weak link is the isolation and the tonearms. They’re lesser SME arms in my humble opinion and many more modern designs do more for less. I’ve heard criticism of the Pioneer arms as not being endowed with the best or most rigid bearings. If true this will definitely effect the sound quality. The Project Essential III is kind of hard to beat if used on a good isolation stand for the money if DJ use isn’t your cup of tea.

    • danielle 5 months ago

      YES, Pioneers plx-1000 is great for djing,and also the plx is great for home use. there both great turntables.and welll worth the money.

  3. Kamil Kowalczyk 8 months ago

    I think these are high quality decks, at quite affordable price, given that they are hand assembled in Japan using latest technology. It might be huge step from old SL1200s, in terms of performance and more importantly, sound quality…

  4. DSM 7 months ago

    I used to want the plx…but I’d rather save and get these

  5. Acton_Spur 6 months ago

    No pitch extension…+/-16% too bad…I’ll be sticking with my MK5Gs for now !

    • dingo 6 months ago

      Yeah because it’s a regular occurrence to need to go more than +16%. FFS.

      • Acton_Spur 6 months ago

        Well, to answer that point you need to consider the type of music being played. If you’re playing almost any type of electronic (dance) music, then I’d say the pitch extension is absolutely essential. If say, you’re listening to opera or classical, then you’re highly unlikely to ever exceed +/-8%…

        • dingo 5 months ago

          I’ve been clubbing since 1996 and DJ’ing since 95. I’ve seen more DJ’s than most people have eaten hot meals, I’ve been to house, techno, gabba, hardcore, breaks, jungle and everything in between. Nobody worth their salt will go beyond 6% with a track. You’re just defiling something that was meant to sound a particular way

          • Acton_Spur 5 months ago

            Why do you think Richie Hawtin’s techno label was called “Plus 8” ? I’ll give you a clue (techno DJs back in the day did, and still do, play records at +8%!!). Shows how little you’ve learned since 1995…Besides, if Techno track A was recorded at 150 BPM in 2000 and I want to mix it with Techno track B recorded at 130 BPM in 2014, you do the math Mr. Carl Cox…

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Sign up for The Cut

Get new release info, tech guides, artist features and more.