AT-LP120 and Technics Sl-1200 MK2

[skriefal]

I see no problem with the comparison. Many shoppers may be considering whether it's worthwhile to spend 2x the AT-LP120's price for a used SL-1200MK2 (or whether it's "good enough" to settle for the cheaper option). Very few would be willing to spend the ~$1200 for a NIB SL-1200MK2. One question (new AT-LP120 or used SL-1200MK2) is generally useful to many turntable shoppers; the other question (new AT-LP120 or new SL-1200MK2) is academic. Both comparisons are useful... to different audiences.

 

[Frank Sol]

I see no problem with the comparison.

:thmbsp:

Some people would rather pay $200 for a good sounding LP120 than most of the $1000.00-1200.00 'entry level' TTs being offered today...

And if they are happy with a LP120 , I'm happy for'em

 

[Greyson]

One is a quality piece of equipment proven to have withstood the test of the time, the other is an imitation made to look the part and do a decent enough job playing records.

You can find 20-year old 1200's that still work flawlessly, you can't say the same about the AT. Mine already has problems. Some people like to buy cheap products and toss them out when the hot new thing comes along, I prefer to invest in a product that will last.

 

[68custom]

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...MK2_SL_1200MK2_Professional_DJ_Turntable.html

Serious ? I should spend that kind of money to compare tables? It only re-enforces my point...thanks for the assist !!!

a new sl 1200 mk 2 is a nice TT just not nice at $1200!

 

[Tim64]

I would like to see Arcorob have fun with this. He is putting in the effort so let's be a bit laid back on calling the AT names and see what happens. And yes of course the Technics will be better but let's see how close a 200.00$ turntable will get to it. I'm in neither camp I have a Fisher Linear Drive and am neutral.

 

[speedle]

I see no problem with the comparison. Many shoppers may be considering whether it's worthwhile to spend 2x the AT-LP120's price for a used SL-1200MK2 (or whether it's "good enough" to settle for the cheaper option). Very few would be willing to spend the ~$1200 for a NIB SL-1200MK2. One question (new AT-LP120 or used SL-1200MK2) is generally useful to many turntable shoppers; the other question (new AT-LP120 or new SL-1200MK2) is academic. Both comparisons are useful... to different audiences.

Well put.

 

[grottyash]

wow and flutter specs, DB, etc...are very valid on the Technics , suspicious as I found out on the AT. They did not post their best. just the less than. Regardless, since wow, flutter and Db have NOT been an issue in my listening, I suspect only the MOST CRITICAL LISTENER would ever find it and that said..why is the MOST CRITICAL LISTENER buying a $200 table? If you stand on that argument and that the superior engineering..etc etc. then you don't get the point of this whole comparison as I have said time and time again..what is the value you get for $200...It may not be a REGA 3 , or a Pro-Jetc Debut Carbon or a new out of the box Technics SL1200 Mk2 - but for a 1/3 the cost you get a damn fine table.

You can't assume only most critical listeners hear wow and flutter or rumble, it simply isn't true. Both are important since they affect the music and consequently pleasure for many. In fact, wow and flutter can occur on the record, because the hole is imperfectly centred, the turntable for obvious reasons, and even on the master tape. It can even be reproduced on CD - have a listen to "While my guitar gently weeps" on the CD of the white album and you'll hear it clearly. The fact that rumble and flutter doesn't bother you isn't really the point, since it may bother others.

It may be worth running a speed test on both decks. If you have a test record with a 3150hz test tone, you can use the Dr Feickert free app, which will show you whether the AT's published specs are indeed conservative, and whether your Technics is close to spec.

I think you were right: a more appropriate test would be the AT up against the Rega RP1, Pro-ject Carbon, Duals and Denon budget decks which retail here new around the same price. It may well compare more favourably than any of them.

If you want to compare the copy against the original you have to take into account original new selling price. If you look at the Technics new price until close to the end of production, it was around the 299 - 300€ mark here. I bought mine new for 199€ in 2010. At that time the AT was 299€. Even if you take the last new selling price of the Technics as being 499€ then it was still a major bargain and, to be frank, there'd be no reason why you'd even look at the AT.

Let's also not forget that in watch terms the AT is the fake Omega and the Technics the real thing. No R&D, no development, no tooling up, just a bit of styling to make it look the same. What is interesting is that there is a story that the new AT follows a lot more closely the original Technics motor design, and as a consequence the w&f has dropped to .1%, in line with other current budget turntables. Now that would be an interesting turntable to investigate in its own right.

 

[Hail Vinyl!]

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

Thanks to you for the samples . I've just heard them so many times through my headphones. So far, both sound virtually identical to me. Even the slightly distorted trumpet note at 00:53 (on "Ha 1" - 00:51 on "Ha 3") sounds equally distorted on both samples.

But again, I feel a slight difference in mid frequencies. This time, "Ha 1" has a slightly more mid-scooped (hence more "hi fi") sound, while "Ha 3" has a bit more of mids presence. I tried to find differences on stereo separation, but both samples sound the same to me in that department.

I'll try later listening without headphones and will post if I notice something different. But so far, I can't talk of substantial differences between both clips. I wouldn't even call that mids presence difference "substantial", although it's noticeable to me.

 

[ODS123]

I applaud arcorob for posting music samples. And though I recently bought a new-in-box SL1200mk2 I don't feel the least bit threatened by the comparison with the AT. I have no doubts whatsoever that the AT, at 1/5th the price is probably 75% as good as the Technics in terms of build quality and perhaps indistinguishable in terms of sound quality. For this is how it goes with audio - your returns diminish very quickly.

I found the sound samples to be indistinguishable. ..And I suspect that if someone with a $6000 analog rig were brave enough to post samples alongside samples from an SL1200mk2 using the same cartridge, I (we) would find it near impossible to distinguish b/w those as well.

Let's face it, the limiting factor w/ analog is the friction b/w the stylus and the record. The other problems with TT design were solved years ago. So long as the table turns the record at the right speed, the tonearm holds the stylus at the proper angle, and the motor and power supply are adequately isolated from the signal, you have state of the art analog! ..It's that simple and it can be accomplished rather cheaply - as with the AT. ..IMHO, turntables that go beyond this are simply exercises in engineering self-indulgence.

People on AK love to talk about how this table trounces that table, etc.. but how many of us have actually done side-by-side blinded comparisons? ..Saying you heard Table X a few years ago - with a different cartridge, different speakers, a different room, and a different LP - is basically meaningless. ..Only comparisons like arcorob is facilitating matter, in my book.

 

[gusten]

I have listened to two music samples.
I find that there are differences beween them, in highest treble one is lighter, in midrange one has more presence, and in bass one has more authority.

Listening to the samples both are good to me. Without knowing how a much better TT would sound with the same record, it´s a difficult choice. Much of the difference could be depending on different effective masses on the arm, slightly different damping in bearing, differences in the isolation to the stand, different capacitance in ICs, and of course also other differences, but it´s hard to know.

I would in this case say personally I like #1 more than #3. But honestly I have no idea which is which. But this is how it normally is with audio, if one doesn´t know which one one is listening to, differences diminish greatly.
gusten

 

[Frank Sol]

...I suspect that if someone with a $6000 analog rig were brave enough to post samples alongside samples from an SL1200mk2 using the same cartridge, I (we) would find it near impossible to distinguish b/w those as well.

...But this is how it normally is with audio, if one doesn´t know which one one is listening to, differences diminish greatly.

Food for thought :yes:

 

[arcorob]

Thank you folks

For the positive re-enforcement and for understanding that the goal is not to "trounce" or beat a table...its to see if compared to a well known good table (the Technics), does the AT make a decent alternative for those who can't afford the full price.

THE SAMPLES some speak of were a private sampling I provided a few. I too chose table 1 but only by a hair..and I think it was more of a setup issue in terms of more robust bass (think I need to adjust the SRA on table 2) ..regardless. I chose table 1 but liked both very much.

Table 1 was the technics. See I am not biased.

But if I heard table 2 by itself, I would hear say no problem, it sound great.

AS to wow and flutter, I did not mean I can't physically detect it - I mean I have had no issue with it. I have heard it before on non-isolated tables mounted near my speakers..but have never heard it since with proper setups..

Again thanks to all for seeing the value in this thread...

 

[gusten]

Here are some frequency plot of the 1KHz tone, which can be used to detect w&f. I would say both are very good, no particular difference as I see it.
gusten

First two is #1, left and right channel.

 

[ccvc]

Technics

I'm diggin' those groovey blue LEDs on the 1200. Does the stylus illuminator have a blue LED, also?

 

[illini]

The blue leds are most likely from a dj kit.

 

[ccvc]

Yes, but does the stylus illuminator have a blue LED, also?

 

[yzzaj]

I go out of my way spend money and spend time to do a fair, blow by blow comparison and what do I get ? Grief..

Well, you basically asked for it.

That is the norm of internet forums, no matter what the topic.

 

[arcorob]

So...

Here are some frequency plot of the 1KHz tone, which can be used to detect w&f. I would say both are very good, no particular difference as I see it.
gusten

First two is #1, left and right channel.

I gather then wow and flutter concerns go out the window? Thank you gusten

The blue LED's...I thought that was stock...the AT uses red.

The pop-up light on the Technics IS blue led. The AT is a clear light.

Who knows, you may be able to buy this on BT when the comparison is over.

SPECIAL NOTE : BOTH tables are being tested using an ART DJ II Pre for the phono stage. Not bad for a $39 unit...so if more expensive units sound better...well then, it only gets better from here

 

[Hail Vinyl!]

if someone with a $6000 analog rig were brave enough to post samples alongside samples from an SL1200mk2 using the same cartridge, I (we) would find it near impossible to distinguish b/w those as well.

Michael Fremer would say otherwise.

 

[Frank Sol]

Mikey says he can hear a DD turntable changing speed every 60 seconds (something like that) so most of us are not in his league