Turntables, similar but different?

[Jim Shaw]

I read lots of glowing reviews of the Technics 1200 turntable. I own an AudioTechnica 120 turntable. Mine happens to have a Denon DL-110 HO m/c cartridge for whatever that means.

Have 'experts' measured or blind-tested differences in these two? They sure look similar, and function similarly. Their costs are more than 2:1 different.

Here's one like mine, the AT:

And here's the Technics:

 

[anmpr1]

It is probably impossible to A/B two turntables in real time. There's a lot of variables you just can't easily control. Some folks have digitized different player's outputs, and then compared that way. I've read about that.

Back in the day, few people paid much attention to record player sound. They were just things you bought based on price, features, and look. As I remember it, the idea gained prominence due to Ivor Tiefenbrun's (Linn) marketing. Ivor claimed his record player sounded better than anything else you could buy, and to prove his point, he ran demos where he'd compare an SP-10 in its factory wooden base to his AR/Thorens-ish Sondek LP-12.

Ivor's clever trick was using a Kieth Monks unipivot arm*, which design allowed him to lift the arm wand and cartridge off its pivot base, and swap it to an identical KMAL arm base fitted to the other player. Essentially using the same tonearm/cartridge (presumably with the exact same geometrical alignment), the only difference being the turntable itself. Of course it wasn't blind, and it wasn't an instantaneous swap--but it was a quick swap. People claimed to hear differences between the two tables, and Ivor certainly sold a lot of LP12s due to his demo, and subsequent word of mouth. Dealers helped a lot, for sure.

Was it a fair comparison? The factory Panasonic base was a flimsy wood affair. The only suspension and/or acoustic isolation it offered was the decks wobbly legs. With the introduction of the Mk2 Panasonic offered a heavier less resonant base, and a few third party operations (Mitchell Cotter and Sao Win) devised mods for the Technics.

In your case, as far as differences go, probably the immediate thing that comes to mind is the weight of the decks. Your A/T is listed at 10kg (22.2 pounds). The original Mk2 series was 12kg (26.5 pounds). The 'updated Mk7 actually weighs in less, at 9.6kg or 21 pounds, but has a different motor design. The current top of the line 1200G is almost 40 pounds, and features a magnesium alloy tonearm along with the revised motor. Make of that what you will.

At A/T's price point, I'd guess that it offers good value.

*Anecdote: In one of my slumming expeditions I came across a NOS boxed KMAL tonearm. I bought it from a local dealer for next to nothing. Back then I had the reputation of buying all sorts of odds and ends, and the Kieth Monks was certainly odd. I'd read about it, but never encountered one. Its arm wand fitted into a 'cup' that the user filled with elemental Mercury. The viscosity of the Mercury was supposed to supply both electrical conduction for the wires (I think) and pivot damping. The Mercury came in a little plastic tube, the top sealed with tape.

All I could think of was how using it would not only be a potential mess, but also an industrial hazard in the home. And who needs the EPA knocking on their door? After reviewing the instructions, I carefully put the lid back on the box and stored it in my garage. I don't recall what I ever did with it. Must have been sold with the house. I hope it didn't wind up in a landfill, Mercury seeping down multiple layers of porous rock, like blood from an alien, stong molecular acid, burning its way down to poison the aquifer. Probably the new owner has it fitted to an LP-12. That's the story I'm going with if anyone asks.

 

[USER]

I know specs are usually vague as all hell on these things but the biggest difference seems to be W&F.

1200 (MK7): "0.025% W.R.M.S." (21.2 lbs)
120: "<0.2% (WTD) @ 3 kHz (JIS)" and "SNR" (of the phono pre?) is on the low end at 50dB and technically not transparent for the medium. (17.6 lbs)

I know that these W&F specs aren't necessarily apples to apples, but maybe you'd be able to hear the difference during critical listening of something like a piano or a sustained instrument. Rock and pop is probably a different animal. From what I have read, W&F above either 0.1% or 0.06% is audible. Again, the question is with respect to what particular specification (wow and flutter is a lot of things) or standard.

My guess is that the motor and platter are beefier and all around better in the 1200 series like mentioned above. Also, depending on your cartridge, the loading options afforded by a separate phono preamp for the 1200 would certainly make them two very different turntables.

This all being said, here are some quick W&F measurements of the Denon DP-400. It was the best spec'd turntable I could find for under $500 at the time (0.10% WRMS, 62dB SNR). Seems to be better than spec, with the quasi-peak at around 0.074%. (My test record isn't the best but its issues should make the measurements worse and not better.)

 

[JeffS7444]

That's another pair of TTs that I might have liked to compare more systematically! But my SL1200 is long gone. As far as build quality goes, SL1200 Mk II is more impressive, with it's die-cast upper plinth, heavier platter, mineral-filled resin bottom cover, much higher torque, with near-instantaneous recovery time.

AT120USB (which I currently own) looks nearly identical at first glance. But is mostly made of injection molded (ABS? Polycarbonate?), including much of the tonearm, and much of the seemingly impressive heft is due to a couple of heavy steel plates, one or which is bolted to the bottom cover, and which seems to serve no purpose aside from adding mass. And yet, it works, and pitch accuracy and stability sound alright to my ears.

One area which is definitely substandard is the stock cable: Mine measured somewhere in excess of 200 pF. This is not a problem if you use the built-in phono preamplifier, but if using an MM cart into an outboard phono preamp, it's not ideal. [EDIT: On second thought as I review plot #3, eh, maybe not worth the bother of replacing the stock cable - it's thin and nicely flexible, and I save what, 80 pF by swapping with a thicker, stiffer cable?] Also, even when built-in preamp is supposedly bypassed, it's output remains in-circuit, and will produce confusing results if you try to measure cartridge loading via a capacitance meter.

All frequency response sweeps done using Analog Productions Ultimate Analog Test LP AAPT1 tracks 6 & 7, Ortofon 2M Red phono cartridge mounted on AT120USB turntable. Ignore discontinuity @ 1 kHz, as tracks 6 and 7 are recorded at different levels.

Using internal phono preamplifier:

Internal preamp bypassed via AT120USB's rear-panel switch, using phono stage of Douglas Self-designed Precision Preamplifier:

And finally, all traces of internal preamplifier taken out of circuit by cutting a couple of internal jumpers, using DS preamplifier as before:

Not sure as to cause of low-frequency droop in all plots, but subsonic filtering (which the DS-designed preamp definitely has) would be a Good Thing when dealing with vinyl playback.

Got something odd going on with middle plot showing high frequencies declining much sooner - the effect of part of the internal preamplifier remaining in-circuit?

Bottom plot looks pretty flat up to 10 kHz, but maybe could benefit from more, not less, capacitance? [sigh!]

I have not attempted to gauge crosstalk or immunity from overload, but internal preamp is quiet enough that noise from the record itself is all that I've noticed. Glad that I did not simply discard the internal preamplifier, as some tweakers have suggested, because at least as far as frequency response and noise are concerned, it looks more than alright.

 

[Jim Shaw]

Thanks for the help, folks. In fact, I don't use the A-T LP120's internal preamp because my Denon high output cartridge works well with the MM input on my preamp/amp. I suspect that the relatively low Z of the Denon DL-110 is less affected by the capacitance of the factory leads and attached internal preamp output circuit. I don't have a decent test record to check anything. I do recall replacing the stock A-T AT??95?? MM cartridge. It was a huge eye [ear] opener when I installed the Denon DL-110 MC. Imaging stabilized and focused, some sonic mud was flushed out, and I was startled by the difference the change made. The DL-110 has been in place now for at least a dozen years.

My A-T TT has been in occasional use for about 15 years now. At first playing, I did notice some very slight wow on sustained piano notes. It worried me, and I was about to return it. But that quickly disappeared; it was probably just the bearing wearing in. I play the piano and am unusually sensitive to pitch variations. [Don't ask my piano tuner unless you want to see abject exasperation.] The A-T now seems just fine.

I often wonder if Audio Technica: 1. stole the design, or 2. they are made in the same factory, or 3. are manufactured under (confidential) license from Technics?

If anyone out there has owned and used both, I'd like to hear about how they compare. Gratzie.

 

[JeffS7444]

I often wonder if Audio Technica: 1. stole the design, or 2. they are made in the same factory, or 3. are manufactured under (confidential) license from Technics?

My understanding is that Hanpin Electron is the OEM for a lot of familiar brands, but not including Technics. Internally, SL1200 and AT120 look very different.

 

[DVDdoug]

I grew-up with vinyl and I've heard rumble a couple of times from cheap turntables. I NEVER heard wow or flutter from anything that wasn't broken. They always measure & specify it but I never worried about it. (Usually if you have wow it comes-along with slow speed when a belt or e wheel is slipping. I don't think I've ever heard flutter from a turntable. The same thing can happen with a tape player or various defects can cause flutter on a tape player.)

Speed was never an issue either, although like most people I don't have perfect pitch anyway. I had a turntable with a synchronous motor that locks onto the line frequency (like an AC clock motor) and power line frequency is usually super accurate. My "current" turntable is an old Technics SL-D303 (which I only use for occasionally digitizing a record) has a speed adjustment knob and a strobe that operates from the power line frequency so it can be set "perfectly" too. The strobe setup was common in those days and maybe some still have that. A quartz clock can also hold super-accurate speed.

And, I never found crosstalk to be an issue. If one channel is around 20dB stronger than the other you don't hear the sound coming from the weak speaker.

Different cartridges do sound different (mostly frequency response).

...But when I was listening to records the frequency balance varied a lot and good sounding ones were rare so I was foolishly always upgrading or wanting to upgrade the cartridge. And I foolishly felt like I was "cheating" if I adjusted the EQ or bass/treble. I assume modern records better and more consistent, but you've still got the noise and other defects & limitations of vinyl.

If I was in the market for a turntable, I'd seriously consider the AT-LP120USB. It doesn't seem "too cheap" or too expensive, and it comes ready-to-go with a cartridge and built-in preamp. And it's direct drive so it should maintenance-free. My Technics has been trouble-free, but it hasn't seen much use for the last few decades. (And to me, it's not worth spending a ton of money that can never sound as good as my cheap CD/DVD/Blu-Ray player.)

 

[watchnerd]

There may be non-visual differences in the arms, too.

Even within the Technics line, the SL-1200G and SL-1200GR have different arm materials.

As you move up the Technics line, the platter also gets notably heavier, even if they look incredibly similar at first glance.

 

[restorer-john]

I often wonder if Audio Technica: 1. stole the design, or 2. they are made in the same factory, or 3. are manufactured under (confidential) license from Technics?

If anyone out there has owned and used both, I'd like to hear about how they compare.

The ATs, Pioneers etc are just plastic Hanpins. They have absolutely nothing in common with the Technics, nor were/are made by them. I've picked up a few ATs and gave them away to people who weren't HiFi aficionados- they just wanted a record player or something to digitize their 'vinyl'.

My Technics SL-1200mk2s will never leave my possession.

 

[dlaloum]

I recall them being reviewed by various people on VinylEngine, back when they were first released (10 years ago?) - from memory, I recall people were not impressed with the quality of the arm construction..... You could track down those threads...

 

[Chrispy]

Costs more than 2:1 different caught my eye....thought it was significantly more than that. Even for a used SL1200 in reasonable shape.....

I've not had reason to try an AT, but I wouldn't expect as much from it as I get from my 1200mk2. I'd think it has somewhat worse specs/bearings/construction sort of thing but if I didn't have the 1200 and for some reason needed a tt, the AT120 (or 240 before it) seemed reasonable for the cost and the medium.

 

[digitalfrost]

 

[anmpr1]

I often wonder if Audio Technica: 1. stole the design...

It's like the world of electric guitars. Everyone makes a LP or a Strat copy (body shape). The difference is that many of the copies are better, in fit and finish, than anything coming from Gibson or Fender's shop.

For their part, Gibson has been aggressive in 'going after' makers whose copies are 'too close' to the original design. I don't think Fender much cares, but I'm not up on the legal shenanigans of these large corporations. My guess is that it's not important to Panasonic, one way or the other. Or if they do care, it's not worth their bottom line to try and do anything about it. Sometimes it's true--imitation is sincere flattery.

The last generation Mk2 designs were well built, but rather industrial in fit and finish. By comparison, the latest four thousand dollar unit sure looks a lot cleaner. I bought my Mk5 for five hundred dollars, from a guitar store in 2005. Right before they stopped production. The new G is no doubt a big step up in both looks and performance. Whether it is a three thousand, five hundred dollar step up is another question.

Really, unless a person is just interested in keeping up with changing fashion, an SL-1200 will likely outlive the user. I have an 1100a I bought in 1975 or thereabouts, and it works like new. But, then again, I have a Garrard Z-100 that was made around 1970, and it still works as new. Sadly, my Dual 704 from about 1977 went south last year. As the smell of electronic smoke wafted out from under the base, and I knew it was time for it to make the trip to the fabled Turntable Graveyard.

 

[Jim Shaw]

Costs more than 2:1 different caught my eye....thought it was significantly more than that. Even for a used SL1200 in reasonable shape.....

I've not had reason to try an AT, but I wouldn't expect as much from it as I get from my 1200mk2. I'd think it has somewhat worse specs/bearings/construction sort of thing but if I didn't have the 1200 and for some reason needed a tt, the AT120 (or 240 before it) seemed reasonable for the cost and the medium.

Some reviews I have read say they cannot hear any difference between the A-T 120 and the Technics 1200.
They CAN hear big differences in cartridges.

Aside: Are there many DJs who still play vinyl at gigs??? That was always the market driver for the Technics 1200. Fashion, like a Shure SM-7B is to a podcaster.
Anything else is a red-headed stepchild...

 

[anmpr1]

Aside: Are there many DJs who still play vinyl at gigs??? That was always the market driver for the Technics 1200.

I watched a couple of YT DJ reviews of the new models. One said that as good as it was, the high end unit wasn't suited for the trade since its feet were too wobbly, not to mention the extreme cost, which no working DJ could afford.

Another DJ decided that the lower priced non-Japan made Mk7 wasn't as capable as earlier Mk2 based units, because the newer model wasn't built as well, in their opinion. Lighter, more prone to feedback, and generally didn't feel as sturdy.

FWIW, when the original 1200 came out, I bought one. It was really like nothing anyone had ever seen, before. Certainly nothing like the popular idler drive Dual and Garrard changers, which were really flimsy and finicky to work with.

You could find a few larger and substantial belt drive units, such as the massive Pioneer PL-61. Or the more compact AR, which was probably the best value out there (if you could live with its clunky and chunky tonearm). But for an 'all in one' package, the 1200 was hard to beat, and a real game changer. Cosmetically its bubbled dust cover (said to be that way in order to accommodate the SME 3009 tonearm) was really cool looking. No one had seen anything like that, before. I also bought an SL-1100a, which I still own. The 1100/110 was larger, physically, using a similar but longer tonearm; however I think it used the same motor and electronics as the 1200. Mk2 through 5 versions were superior in all ways to the original units.

 

[AnalogSteph]

Sadly, my Dual 704 from about 1977 went south last year. As the smell of electronic smoke wafted out from under the base, and I knew it was time for it to make the trip to the fabled Turntable Graveyard.

C'mon, you're not going to toss a 'table like that over a stupid RIFA mains filter cap? At least that's what I bet that was, those things are notorious.

 

[Chrispy]

Some reviews I have read say they cannot hear any difference between the A-T 120 and the Technics 1200.
They CAN hear big differences in cartridges.

Aside: Are there many DJs who still play vinyl at gigs??? That was always the market driver for the Technics 1200. Fashion, like a Shure SM-7B is to a podcaster.
Anything else is a red-headed stepchild...

Of course the transducer making a significant difference isn't a surprise compared to the tt/arm itself (but could). Seems vinyl is still fairly popular....don't we all like some sort of crossovers in fads/tastes from generation to generation?

 

[dlaloum]

Some reviews I have read say they cannot hear any difference between the A-T 120 and the Technics 1200.
They CAN hear big differences in cartridges.

Sort of self evident - to those that have been around long enough...

The least linear components in the chain are the mechanical transducers - Cartridges and Speakers.

They have an often massive impact on frequency response - hence they are the most audible "difference" in the system!

Which is why I keep harping on about customised loading of MM cartridges - you can make them a lot more linear, than the "default settings" that most people use do! 47k Resistive load, plus some random unspecified capacitance.... results in random, unspecified frequency response....

 

[anmpr1]

C'mon, you're not going to toss a 'table like that over a stupid RIFA mains filter cap? At least that's what I bet that was, those things are notorious.

No. I'm not going to. I already did. But if you were my neighbor I would have given it to you for free, so you could have replaced the cap. And back then, as like now, I'd have given you some other stuff (see pic), if I'd have known you. I'm pretty easy with all this gear, and have probably given as much away as I've traded, otherwise sold, or tossed. As much as I've had over the years, I'm not a pack rat. Generally, if I can't use it, it's gone to a better home.

BTW, I had two 704s. The first began to lose speed control stability. Started to drift. That was about 2005 or so, when I bought the Mk2 (my second, also). So that's two Dual DDs that didn't hold up as long as the Panasonics.

704 didn't have either the torque or the speed stability of the MK2. Nothing back then had speed stability of the Mk2. Quartz PLL wasn't seen on record players until later.

Dual had a nicer tonearm, with precision bearings that floated like that famous prize fighter, without the sting. At the end of the record the tonearm lifted, and motor shut off. Unlike any Technics, it actually had a suspension in the typical Dual fashion--four foam filled springs fitted to the metal base plate, inserted into the wood frame. I'd surely buy a new one, if they were made today, and looked like the 704.

Addn: It also had a two-part wobbly counterweight that bobbed up and down, supposedly reducing resonances. If it broke, it was not user fixable.

My last comment about Dual--their 704/721 series was not cheap, but showed cost cutting. Cosmetically it didn't look nearly as nice as the previous 701, which used chrome and aluminum accents, along with nicer looking switches. After the 704/721, Dual got in bed with Ortofon, which was a mistake, from a world-wide marketing standpoint, IMO. Because if you didn't want an Ortofon, it was a pain to switch cartridges, and their revised tonearms were so low mass they wouldn't work as well with some other non OM based cartridges.

Below is a pic I highlighting those times. This 704 was in a homemade custom base, which IMO looked a bit better than the factory base. The other odds and ends were a Denon integrated and tuner I had, for a short while. Loudspeaker to the right was (I believe) one of the very short lived JBL 'Harbour S' series, in piano black. Cat is just doing its cat thing. Happy they are SS, and not tubes.

 

[BDWoody]

FWIW, when the original 1200 came out, I bought one. It was really like nothing anyone had ever seen, before.

I saw this a while back. Can't say I disagree with any of it.

Watch: New Doc Shows How The Sony Walkman & Technics SL1200 Changed The World

It wasn't obvious from the start though. Celebrate the Walkman's 40 year anniversary today.

www.magneticmag.com