• Please note that Audiokarma will be offline briefly for updates early on Monday morning, September 28th.

AT-LP120 and Technics Sl-1200 MK2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gusten

gusten said:
No big difference so far, #2 is a little bit better with everything as I see it, except the pitch, both are 1018Hz.
gusten
Click to expand...

Did you detect any motor noise in either or was it not the right type of capture for that ? Thanks
 
Hail Vinyl...

Hail Vinyl! said:
On #2, high frequencies are slightly more pronounced (based on the announcer voice's sibilance). On the other hand, #1 has slightly bigger low mids presence. This makes surface noise slightly more noticeable on sample #1. I guess that music should have stronger vocal presence on turntable #1, while it might have more of a scooped ("hi-fi") quality on # 2. Very slight, but noticeable differences nonetheless.

That's what I feel it is worth mentioning from what I hear.
Click to expand...

Thanks for listening...I am confused...you said highs more pronounced on table 2...but that table 1 would have a better vocal presence..is that backwards ?

Anyway, think it will be better listening when I get music ! Thanks again !
 
arcorob said:
Thanks for listening...I am confused...you said highs more pronounced on table 2...but that table 1 would have a better vocal presence..is that backwards ?
Click to expand...

Not sure if I'm understanding your question/remark. High frequencies make instruments like cymbals, maraccas, vocal sibilance and fret noise more noticeable. Trumpets' tone has a sharper, more incisive quality. At least where I live, people refer to that sound quality as "brightness". Music sounds "bright" if those instruments ring loud and clear.

But vocal presence (I mean, not "ss", "sh" or "zz" but vowels' notoriety, for instance) isn't about "brightness". Middle frequencies (around 800 Hz - 1 kHz) are what make vocals and mid-pitched percussion instruments like congas more noticeable. And this is what I feel more pronounced on example #1.

When low and high frequencies are stronger than middle ones, the overall sound has a more "hi-fi" quality because mid frequencies are "scooped". That's why, in most cases, people adjust graphic equalizers' sliders in a "V" or "smile" shape. In most cases, this gives a "prettier" sound quality. Raising middle frequencies robs that "prettiness" from the sound, but gives a richer, fuller sound quality. That's why the term "critic" or "crucial" is often associated to middle frequencies by experts: As on a good meal recipe, you must learn to apply the exact amount of middle frequencies to find the right balance between "fullness" and "prettiness". And that's the hardest part of getting a well-balanced sound.

My apologies if this explanation was unnecessary. Again, I'm not sure if I understood your post correctly.
 
Last edited:
arcorob said:
Did you detect any motor noise in either or was it not the right type of capture for that ? Thanks
Click to expand...

There is a bit more hum with #1 at 60Hz, rather much more at 180Hz.

As the stylus is not conducted, it´s possible it´s not the TT, I would like to see a very silent groove for this.
gusten

Edit: I looked at the silent bits there are in the file, no particular difference, a little lower resonance amplitude with the AT, probably a tiny bit more bearing friction.
 
Last edited:
Hail Vinyl..perfect

Hail Vinyl! said:
Not sure if I'm understanding your question/remark. High frequencies make instruments like cymbals, maraccas, vocal sibilance and fret noise more noticeable. Trumpets' tone has a sharper, more incisive quality. At least where I live, people refer to that sound quality as "brightness". Music sounds "bright" if those instruments ring loud and clear.

But vocal presence (I mean, not "ss", "sh" or "zz" but vowels' notoriety, for instance) isn't about "brightness". Middle frequencies (around 800 Hz - 1 kHz) are what make vocals and mid-pitched percussion instruments like congas more noticeable. And this is what I feel more pronounced on example #1.

When low and high frequencies are stronger than middle ones, the overall sound has a more "hi-fi" quality because mid frequencies are "scooped". That's why, in most cases, people adjust graphic equalizers' sliders in a "V" or "smile" shape. In most cases, this gives a "prettier" sound quality. Raising middle frequencies robs that "prettiness" from the sound, but gives a richer, fuller sound quality. That's why the term "critic" or "crucial" is often associated to middle frequencies by experts: As on a good meal recipe, you must learn to apply the exact amount of middle frequencies to find the right balance between "fullness" and "prettiness". And that's the hardest part of getting a well-balanced sound.

My apologies if this explanation was unnecessary. Again, I'm not sure if I understood your post correctly.
Click to expand...

Thank you !! That was great...and I know exactly what you mean. I had a similar situation when searching for the "right" input tubes from my amp. Many of the preferred ones seemed to push the mids too far back. Highs and lows were pristine but vocalists sounded like they were behind the band.

I found two sets (Mullards and a special pair of Sylvania's) that brought the artist vocalist where they belonged and still maintained clean highs and tight, strong bass.

Again my thanks
 
Ahhh...

gusten said:
There is a bit more hum with #1 at 60Hz, rather much more at 180Hz.

As the stylus is not conducted, it´s possible it´s not the TT, I would like to see a very silent groove for this.
gusten

Edit: I looked at the silent bits there are in the file, no particular difference, a little lower resonance amplitude with the AT, probably a tiny bit more bearing friction.
Click to expand...

But you don't know which is the AT ...lol..though I think you do..:-)
 
This is like looking for a good 5 cent cigar, ain't gona happen. Save your coin and buy the the real thing, the 1200, not an imposter. You could count the number oif people who'll ever use the 78 speed on the AT on your right hand. Seen plenty of very good condition Technics in trhe $300-$500 range, not $400-$700 unless loaded with mods, box/packing material and all the accessories and a nice cartridge. As for affordable turntables/analog/audio is much like getting into boating, if you have to ask how much this isn't for you, stick to CDs and digital downloads.
 
illini said:
An additional difference in this case: the AT is new but the 1200 is used.
Click to expand...

And that right there is why this test is really invalid unless the idea is to compare a new(ish) AT to a used, unserviced 1200 in unknown condition.

Rob, what sort of inspection and/or service have you performed on the Technics? Unless you've determined that things like the arm bearings, spindle bearings and the electronics on the motor board are in spec then the test is unfair.

John
 
Last edited:
Folks

There are some here who will try to invalidate the test or just plain ignore the facts.

The first "whine" is "don't bother, if you can't afford a more expensive table, get a cd player". Pretty negative and bordering on snobbish. These just get ignored.

The second is "New vs old". Well, sorry I didnt shell out $700 bucks for a new table. if I had, the results would be the same. And not the point here.

I will say it AGAIN. The comparison is not to say the AT is equal to or BETTER than the Technics. The point is a low cost alternative that can get folks into vinyl with a NEW solid table. For some of the very same reasons listed. Why pay $300 to $700 for a USED table that may or may not be perfect? Maybe you want to, maybe the technics is all you have been dreaming of, maybe you have $500 and want a technics -
or
Maybe you want to get a new table, you don't have a monstrous budget and you want something that has been vetted. Then the AT is a great solution. An alternative. I have already used the Lexus / Hyundai analogy

As to the Technics condition, I have found no flaws in the mechanics or operation. Cosmetically it has some small side scuffs, but that is it. It runs silent, operates correctly, speed is spot on, arm is in tip top shape...besides, everyone brags the Technics lasts forever, right ? Superior construction and all? :D
 
My earlier version did not like the DL160 one bit. Since the JVC is dedicated to better MM cartridges like the 150MLX and V-15, I sold the DL160 with no real place to use it. I would not buy one of these AT tables if MC was in the picture.

I will also say that the AT table does not like the Grado's while on the arm rest (hum from the quartz lock lamp below), or in the run-out groove (pick up a bit of motor field). But, it seems to be fine in the music zone. I mostly run a Grado BLACK when the LP at hand wants Grado as it's my wife's favorite on this table. I have others, but she has made a good case for the BLACK. The others have now been reset for the JVC.
 
arcorob said:
There are some here who will try to invalidate the test or just plain ignore the facts.

The first "whine" is "don't bother, if you can't afford a more expensive table, get a cd player". Pretty negative and bordering on snobbish. These just get ignored.

The second is "New vs old". Well, sorry I didnt shell out $700 bucks for a new table. if I had, the results would be the same. And not the point here.

I will say it AGAIN. The comparison is not to say the AT is equal to or BETTER than the Technics. The point is a low cost alternative that can get folks into vinyl with a NEW solid table. For some of the very same reasons listed. Why pay $300 to $700 for a USED table that may or may not be perfect? Maybe you want to, maybe the technics is all you have been dreaming of, maybe you have $500 and want a technics -
or
Maybe you want to get a new table, you don't have a monstrous budget and you want something that has been vetted. Then the AT is a great solution. An alternative. I have already used the Lexus / Hyundai analogy

As to the Technics condition, I have found no flaws in the mechanics or operation. Cosmetically it has some small side scuffs, but that is it. It runs silent, operates correctly, speed is spot on, arm is in tip top shape...besides, everyone brags the Technics lasts forever, right ? Superior construction and all? :D
Click to expand...

So, pointing out that, beyond the fact that the thing spins and makes noise, the condition of the Technics is unknown is "whining"? Again, what have you done to determine the condition of the Technics? What sort of servicing have you performed? These are valid questions and your failure to respond to them other than with dismissal is pretty telling.

Oh, and your comparison most certainly is to determine which is the better table. That's what comparisons do. Then there's your "preliminary findings" where you come right out and declare one table or the other to be, um, better in some regard.
John
 
Last edited:
arcorob said:
I will say it AGAIN. The comparison is not to say the AT is equal to or BETTER than the Technics. The point is a low cost alternative that can get folks into vinyl with a NEW solid table. For some of the very same reasons listed. Why pay $300 to $700 for a USED table that may or may not be perfect? Maybe you want to, maybe the technics is all you have been dreaming of, maybe you have $500 and want a technics -
or
Maybe you want to get a new table, you don't have a monstrous budget and you want something that has been vetted. Then the AT is a great solution. An alternative. I have already used the Lexus / Hyundai analogy
Click to expand...

I think that's appropriate. After all that's the whole point of the Orbit. Yet you've got folks that are willing to give the Orbit FAR more slack than the A-T, which I don't think is fair. Again, I think looks play a big part in how people judge whether a product qualifies as audiophile worthy material. The A-T wil never get any respect, whether it performs well for its price point or not.
 
Put 4 O-Ring rubber washers on the LP120's tonearm and add KAB's Tonearm Fluid Damper (will it fit?) and enjoy the :music:
 
Boreas...John

boreas said:
So, pointing out that, beyond the fact that the thing spins and makes noise, the condition of the Technics is unknown is "whining"? Again, what have you done to determine the condition of the Technics? What sort of servicing have you performed? These are valid questions and your failure to respond to them other than with dismissal is pretty telling.

Oh, and your comparison most certainly is to determine which is the better table. That's what comparisons do. Then there's your "preliminary findings" where you come right out and declare one table or the other to be, um, better in some regard.
John
Click to expand...

Lets just agree to disagree. I clearly laid out the parameters, what the purpose is, over and over, clearly and distinctly. If you choose to think differently and still think I am biased even when I gave the technics kudos in build, anti skate and platter, then I will not be able to convince you regardless of what I say.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one...
 
boreas said:
And that right there is why this test is really invalid unless the idea is to compare a new(ish) AT to a used, unserviced 1200 in unknown condition.

Rob, what sort of inspection and/or service have you performed on the Technics? Unless you've determined that things like the arm bearings, spindle bearings and the electronics on the motor board are in spec then the test is unfair.

John
Click to expand...


But, you know what? I think one of the telling things of this comparison is that a used, heck even heavily used, 1200 will still have a significant degree of the original performance specs without even breathing hard. Unless of course it has been damaged. That's the beauty of high grade engineering and construction...it lasts.

However to compare apples to apples we really should be dealing with "new" products.
 
If I may, let myself make a fairer comparison. Technics SL-D2 versus AT-PL 120. Build quality is closer and the AT PL-120 new price is close with inflation to the old SL-D2 price in 1980. And build quality is closer and actual performance. Both have strong points and weak points. Both perform similar. And are close in real price terms then and now and the market they serve. Both are nice bang for the buck in their era and bargains.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom