MCS 6502 vs. Technics SL-23

[JJCalvillo]

WaynerN, do you know if this table has the same IC on the control board as the Technics SL-23?

 

[Decibel_116]

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.

View attachment 1430854

View attachment 1430855

View attachment 1430856

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

View attachment 1430857

I just now saw this. Nice job on the modifications!

 

[WaynerN]

Thanks! Its kind of goofy with an AR tonearm on it (worth way more then the rest of the table.

 

[10seventy9]

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 highlighted part of one line that you are incorrect on: If you look closely at the weight and it's mounting stem, you can see 3 marks on the mounting stem that show up when you are setting the counterweight. Closest to the arm's gymbal (all the way in) was 2.0 grams with the factory OEM cartridge; the middle setting was the recommended one for the OEM cartridge, which would set it for 1.75 grams; all the way out would get you 1.5 grams of tracking force. It's VERY limited, for sure, but it WAS adjustable with the OEM cartridge, and IS marked. That said, you cannot rotate the weight to adjust any more than the short travel of the weight slide area will give you, so you MUST make sure you have a cartridge that weighs about the same as the OEM if you want those 3 markings to mean much of anything.

I bought one of these new in a "Christmas deal" package from JC Penney, and I used it for well over 20 years, and it worked great for me. It definitely IS a budget/entry level table, but it performed WAY above it's initial price point when it was new. The arm may not be fancy, but performance-wise, it's actually quite good in use, even IF limited in terms of adjustability or upgrade options. I never had an ounce of trouble from the cue mechanism, so whether it was cheaply made or not, it worked absolutely as advertised. Pretty hard to beat when it came in a package with a 12.5 watt per channel receiver, a low end but functional cassette deck (8-track was also an option if you preferred that), and a pair of 8", 3-way speakers for a whopping price of only $269.99 brand new. Honestly one of the best Christmas stereo package deals I have ever seen in terms of bang for the buck.