MCS 6502 vs. Technics SL-23

[Decibel_116]

As I have read on this forum, it seems that quite a few of us have at one time or another owned a Technics SL-23, which is an extremely nice entry-level belt drive vintage turntable. It was my first "Hi-Fi" turntable that I purchased with my "yard cutting money" back in 1976 at the age of 14. I purchased it at the local audiophile stereo store, "Sound Distributors" in the mall and had them set it up for me with a Shure M91ED. I eventually sold it after I "upgraded" to an SL-7 a few years later. In the same mall there was a JC Penney store that had a MCS 6502 turntable that looked very similar to the SL-23 except it had a wood-grain base and it came with a cartridge included for less $ than the SL-23. I never really understood why the salesman at Sound Distributors was so against the MCS 6502 - until now. I picked up a 6502 last week for next to nothing out of curiosity to play with. How many of you Technics fans have thought these MCS turntables were just re-badged Technics? Me too. Let me assure you that in the case of the 6502 this is NOT the case. Does it look similar (except for the wood look plinth)? Yes it does - at first glance. The purpose of this thread is to compare the two to clear up any assumptions some of you may have of how similar they really are.

Here are the similarities:
The dust cover (sans MCS logo) and hinges, the platter (even has the Technics logo cast into the bottom), the drive system including the frequency generator speed control system and motor.

Here are the differences:
Everything else. It has a lower quality tonearm with a fixed, non-removable head shell. Extremely cheaply designed cueing mechanism. Fixed counterweight (OK you can move it back and forth a little bit). The counterweight has no tracking force markings and is held in place with a set screw (thumb screw style). Factory-installed lowest of the low end Audio Technica cartridge (ATN-71) which I believe is similar to the current 3600. The particle board plinth wood-grain is a cheap vinyl sticker that peels off very easily.

So now I know why the salesman at Sound Distributors was so adamant about steering clear of the 6502. So for any of you thinking about picking up a 6502 and thinking you are getting the same rig as the SL-23, now you have some facts to base your decision on. On a positive note, I will say that after using deoxit on the pitch control and lubricating the spindle bearing and motor, the speed stability is exactly what I remember from the SL-23 - rock solid.

The ATN-71 stylus was history, so I spent the time to install a new AT 3600 cartridge that someone gave me a while back and a new belt. Sounds OK for what it is, but it won't get any use by me except maybe to check out thrift store vinyl or part it out for the motor and platter for an SL-23 that needs one.

Sad news, but there you have it. The 6502 is no SL-23.

Cheers,
David

 

[Decibel_116]

Added some photos of the 6502

 

[buttahman]

I can't really argue with your comparison, I've owned a 6502 for the last couple of years and have had a chance to play around a bit with a SL-23. However despite it's limitations the 6502 is a good sounding table and outperforms many modern entry level rigs.

 

[Decibel_116]

Did I mention the rock solid speed stability? That is one issue that most all new entry level turntables have (or so I have read in the reviews).

 

[Hifirob2]

... How many of you Technics fans have thought these MCS turntables were just re-badged Technics? Me too. Let me assure you that in the case of the 6502 this is NOT the case. Does it look similar (except for the wood look plinth)? Yes it does - at first glance. The purpose of this thread is to compare the two to clear up any assumptions some of you may have of how similar they really are.



Sad news, but there you have it. The 6502 is no SL-23.

Cheers,
David

You are comparing apples and oranges. Who on AK is really confusing these two as the same model?

The 6502 was spec'd by JCPenney to sell at a very low price point, and they sold tons of them. That is why it has less features than the SL-23.

I have yet to own an MCS turntable that is a simple rebadge of a Technics model. Why would Technics have allowed Penny's to sell the identical turntable for less money? They had to make changes, since they were sold in the same markets.

If you want to have a more fair comparison, compare a Technics SL-1950 to a MCS 6700. Lots of similarities, but, in the end, the 6700 is higher quality. It has a better isolated power transformer, better cuing mechanism, and is quieter in operation.

Or compare a Technics SL-D5 to a MCS 6701. The 6701 has different controls and smaller feet, but both tables are of the same high quality.

 

[Decibel_116]

You are comparing apples and oranges. Who on AK is really confusing these two as the same model?

The 6502 was spec'd by JCPenney to sell at a very low price point, and they sold tons of them. That is why it has less features than the SL-23.

I have yet to own an MCS turntable that is a simple rebadge of a Technics model. Why would Technics have allowed Penny's to sell the identical turntable for less money? They had to make changes, since they were sold in the same markets.

If you want to have a more fair comparison, compare a Technics SL-1950 to a MCS 6700. Lots of similarities, but, in the end, the 6700 is higher quality. It has a better isolated power transformer, better cuing mechanism, and is quieter in operation.

Or compare a Technics SL-D5 to a MCS 6701. The 6701 has different controls and smaller feet, but both tables are of the same high quality.

There are several threads such as this one that alludes to the similarities of the two:

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=547201&highlight=mcs+6502

This is certainly not an apples and oranges comparison. The 6502 uses the very same drive system as the SL-23. I was simply pointing out that the MCS version differs significantly in the tonearm department. That is all I was pointing out. I'm sure some of the MCS counterparts to the Technics versions may have certain advantages. My intent was not to criticize or put down the 6502, but to point out the differences for those that are curious or interested in knowing the differences. I apologize if I offended anyone.

David

 

[Hifirob2]

A MCS table comparable to the Technics SL-23 is the MCS (Panasonic) 2500. See pics here:

http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=63899

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=396611

To my eyes, the SL-23 and MCS 2500 look more similar to each other. The controls look a little different, and there is no strobe on the 2500, but that's where Penney's saved a few bucks.

 

[banyanleaf]

The 6502/6503 is made by Technics, which is a brand under Panasonic. You can find Technics brand name all over the place under the platter and the parts inside. So, you are both right and wrong.

Other than the difference in tonearm and headshell, there is virtually no difference between 6502 and SL23.

I would say, if you are in interested in a stylus that tracks between 2-3 grams, the 6502/6503 is a very good entry level turntable. I used it for a few years, playing record almost every day on it, and it is very solid and reliable, just as a Technics would do. I use a scale to measure the tracking force so the mark on the weight is not essential to me. If you want to use a lighter tracking stylus, then adding weight will be required.

A MCS table comparable to the Technics SL-23 is the MCS (Panasonic) 2500. See pics here:

http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=63899

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=396611

To my eyes, the SL-23 and MCS 2500 look more similar to each other. The controls look a little different, and there is no strobe on the 2500, but that's where Penney's saved a few bucks.

 

[Hifirob2]

The 6502/6503 is made by Technics, which is a brand under Panasonic. You can find Technics brand name all over the place under the platter and the parts inside. So, you are both right and wrong.

We all agree that the 6502 is made by Technics. Nobody said any differently.

You think it looks more like the SL-23, whereas I think it looks more like the 2500. Just a difference of opinion.

 

[banyanleaf]

Sorry, I read in a hurry yesterday and misunderstood.

We all agree that the 6502 is made by Technics. Nobody said any differently.

You think it looks more like the SL-23, whereas I think it looks more like the 2500. Just a difference of opinion.

 

[iLUVanalog]

As I have read on this forum, it seems that quite a few of us have at one time or another owned a Technics SL-23, which is an extremely nice entry-level belt drive vintage turntable. It was my first "Hi-Fi" turntable that I purchased with my "yard cutting money" back in 1976 at the age of 14. I purchased it at the local audiophile stereo store, "Sound Distributors" in the mall and had them set it up for me with a Shure M91ED. I eventually sold it after I "upgraded" to an SL-7 a few years later. In the same mall there was a JC Penney store that had a MCS 6502 turntable that looked very similar to the SL-23 except it had a wood-grain base and it came with a cartridge included for less $ than the SL-23. I never really understood why the salesman at Sound Distributors was so against the MCS 6502 - until now. I picked up a 6502 last week for next to nothing out of curiosity to play with. How many of you Technics fans have thought these MCS turntables were just re-badged Technics? Me too. Let me assure you that in the case of the 6502 this is NOT the case. Does it look similar (except for the wood look plinth)? Yes it does - at first glance. The purpose of this thread is to compare the two to clear up any assumptions some of you may have of how similar they really are.

Here are the similarities:
The dust cover (sans MCS logo) and hinges, the platter (even has the Technics logo cast into the bottom), the drive system including the frequency generator speed control system and motor.

Here are the differences:
Everything else. It has a lower quality tonearm with a fixed, non-removable head shell. Extremely cheaply designed cueing mechanism. Fixed counterweight (OK you can move it back and forth a little bit). The counterweight has no tracking force markings and is held in place with a set screw (thumb screw style). Factory-installed lowest of the low end Audio Technica cartridge (ATN-71) which I believe is similar to the current 3600. The particle board plinth wood-grain is a cheap vinyl sticker that peels off very easily.

So now I know why the salesman at Sound Distributors was so adamant about steering clear of the 6502. So for any of you thinking about picking up a 6502 and thinking you are getting the same rig as the SL-23, now you have some facts to base your decision on. On a positive note, I will say that after using deoxit on the pitch control and lubricating the spindle bearing and motor, the speed stability is exactly what I remember from the SL-23 - rock solid.

The ATN-71 stylus was history, so I spent the time to install a new AT 3600 cartridge that someone gave me a while back and a new belt. Sounds OK for what it is, but it won't get any use by me except maybe to check out thrift store vinyl or part it out for the motor and platter for an SL-23 that needs one.

Sad news, but there you have it. The 6502 is no SL-23.

Cheers,
David

I would agree with your assessment. A much better choice is the MCS 6603...it much more closely resembles the Technics SL-D2 than the 6502 resembles the SL-23.

 

[KentTeffeteller]

I am daily driving a MCS 6603. It puts up with my gimpy feet on wood floors, rotates accurately, adds or subtracts nothing, is dependable, has an excellent tonearm, and sounds great with my Shure M 75 EJ at present. My model is a rebadged, restyled, equivalent operationally and functionally to the Technics SL-D2. I can verify this due to having repaired, owned, and maintained both models.

 

[fiddlefye]

I am daily driving a MCS 6603. It puts up with my gimpy feet on wood floors, rotates accurately, adds or subtracts nothing, is dependable, has an excellent tonearm, and sounds great with my Shure M 75 EJ at present. My model is a rebadged, restyled, equivalent operationally and functionally to the Technics SL-D2. I can verify this due to having repaired, owned, and maintained both models.

I'd say that the MCS is the prettier of the two. Apart from cosmetics they look identical.

 

[KentTeffeteller]

I'd say that the MCS is the prettier of the two. Apart from cosmetics they look identical.

Agreed, and it's a little nicer built.

 

[MCM_Fan]

The 6502 was spec'd by JCPenney to sell at a very low price point, and they sold tons of them. That is why it has less features than the SL-23.

I have yet to own an MCS turntable that is a simple rebadge of a Technics model. Why would Technics have allowed Penny's to sell the identical turntable for less money? They had to make changes, since they were sold in the same markets.

As you noted below, the MCS model wasn't always inferior to it's Technics counterpart. It wasn't always about selling a lesser model for less money, there just had to be some differentiation. Obviously, appearance was a big differentiator, but in some cases (like the MCS 6700 you mentioned), the MCS model was actually better built and/or had more features than the its Technics sibling.

If you want to have a more fair comparison, compare a Technics SL-1950 to a MCS 6700. Lots of similarities, but, in the end, the 6700 is higher quality. It has a better isolated power transformer, better cuing mechanism, and is quieter in operation.

I have an MCS 6700 and agree it's a solid, well-built table, often overlooked because it was a department store brand. I also have an MCS-6601, which is an upgraded (semi-automatic) SL-2000. The 6502 was a downgraded, entry level model. I looked at one a while back, but passed due to the non-removable headshell. I wish I still had the old J.C. Penney catalogs from my youth. It would be interesting to compare original selling prices of the MCS models to their various Technics and Hitachi counterparts. I admit, at the time, in the days before internet forums and the age of information, I had a personal bias against them. As a college freshman, I wasn't about to buy my first real stereo at the same department store where I bought my underwear.

 

[Hifirob2]

As a college freshman, I wasn't about to buy my first real stereo at the same department store where I bought my underwear.

I was kind of the opposite. I got my underwear at Target, and only shopped the stereo department at Penneys.

I have some of the older catalogs that include pricing. I may be able to get the MSRP of some models you are wondering about. Sometimes, the MCS version was more expensive that the Technics because all MCS TTs came with a cartridge already mounted on the headshell. The MCS 6502 and 6710 were the real volume models early on, mainly because they were so inexpensive - and they sold the 6502 for quite a few years.

I know the MSRP of the 6700 was $219.95 to 229.95 depending on market.

 

[MCM_Fan]

I was kind of the opposite. I got my underwear at Target, and only shopped the stereo department at Penneys.

I have some of the older catalogs that include pricing. I may be able to get the MSRP of some models you are wondering about. Sometimes, the MCS version was more expensive that the Technics because all MCS TTs came with a cartridge already mounted on the headshell. The MCS 6502 and 6710 were the real volume models early on, mainly because they were so inexpensive - and they sold the 6502 for quite a few years.

I know the MSRP of the 6700 was $219.95 to 229.95 depending on market.

Thanks. Found this in the 1979 Stereo Review Stereo Directory and Buying Guide:

 

[Djtimm62]

I can't really argue with your comparison, I've owned a 6502 for the last couple of years and have had a chance to play around a bit with a SL-23. However despite it's limitations the 6502 is a good sounding table and outperforms many modern entry level rigs.

MCS 6502, it sounds good and does what it's suppose to do.

 

[WaynerN]

I picked up a MCS 6502 last fall. The motor and innards are pretty good as indicated by the speed stability. The arm sucked, so I modded my table and installed a tonearm mounting board and modded the speed control plastic. I also took off the fake walnut vinyl wood grain. I added a decorative oak board to the front, painted the MDF with some black paint and, well, judge for yourself.







I also removed the power cord and replaced that with an IEC connector, added RCA jacks and a ground screw.

 

[Djtimm62]

Damn nice job! Mine is still stock, I recently bought mine at a pawnshop after the RCA turntable i had for years gave up the ghost. All in all, still happy with the 6502. My neighbors finally gave up the idea that I had moved.