Rega Planar 2 vs Technics SL-1200mk2 comparison needle drops

I made a few recordings of both these stock decks using the same phono cartridge. This time a cut from The The - Soul Mining. Kind of a fun cut to evaluate that can be listened to in three segments. Something a bit different to the Dr. John song used in the other thread. Enjoy!

http://www.mediafire.com/listen/89zdpvi72vqf31f

http://www.mediafire.com/listen/gw4vvnwwd95ab20

 

I think these tracks have the same characteristics of the last ones. I guess neither of these setups are for me. Maybe it's the cartridge, but the highs on both files sound hard and bright and excessively emphasized to my ears, like there's a eq boost in the upper octave and a half. #7 sounds like the Rega to me (that seems like undamped Rega armtube ringing at the beginning of the file; #8 the Technics, but who knows.). #8 sounds better to me, the highs are better controlled, there's may be less in the way of mechanical artifacts impinge on the recording, but it seems lower in level than #7 so it's hard to know for sure, maybe normalized for level you'd hear more noise. I think this is just not the cartridge for me. At least not mated to those two arms on those two tables, or maybe VTA isn't optimized. Not sure what it is, but neither's doing the trick for me.

 

I liked 8 better -- the sibilances were much better controlled, and the marimba (or whatever it is) toward the end seemed to have a lot more dimensionality and weight. On the whole, #8 sounded both warmer and clearer, with better separation. Number 7 sounded kind of smear-y and flat. If I had to make a wild guess, I would say #8 is the Rega, because in general Rega arms are better than Technics arms, and a better arm can produce all the differences I heard. Of course, I could be completely wrong. But when I went from a decent 1970s Japanese table with a similar arm to a table with an RB300, that's the kind of improvement I heard: better separation, improvements in both warmth and detail, greater clarity, etc.

PS: very cool tune. I'll have to keep an eye out in the used bins for that.

 

[QUOTE="John76, post: 11182148, member: 10770"... Something a bit different to the Dr. John song used in the other thread. ...[/QUOTE]

What album is that on?

 

Glad you enjoyed the tune, I think you would like the album if you should stumble upon a copy. Comments like that is what I really enjoy about needle drops!

 

I think the file #7 is the Rega, it´s a bit sharper and a tiny bit more controlled. File#8 is less precise, like a little more arm vibrations. Can´t really say I´m a fan of how these files sound. Hard to enjoy, too sharp, too unmusical, but that is me.

 

Pretty big speed discrepancy there! At least one of those TTs is off by a pretty good margin, enough for me to declare that I wouldn't have it in the house.

Both have "fuzzy" highs - dirty record, dirty or worn stylus, and/or bum pressing.

I couldn't get past those two things to make any other judgements.

 

What album is that on?[/QUOTE]

"In a Sentimental Mood", I wish he would another one like it!

 

Another great thread nice work John! I chose 8 due to feeling that the highs were a bit sharp for me in Track 7... But I also felt that 8 sounded a bit woolier especially in the mid bass region (I believe). This will be interesting to find out which is which. I also couldn't hear the speed fluctuations mentioned by others but figure it would be more apparent if it was music I was more familiar with.

 

Is this a Planar 2 with an Acos arm, or a Planar 2 with a RB250?

 

Eight is cleaner too me. I would say eight is the same table as three in the last comparison. Seven has the upper mid/ lower treble glare that four did in the last thread.

The cartridge seems to trace good too me though.

 

How was the conversion done? From the TT to what? A computer?

They sound very similar to me using my Swan near fields. Not a huge difference. I take it the tracking weight, anti skating, overhang etc was done on each table so no mechanical set up differences came into play.

 

Soul Mining 7 is the Rega to my ears. The guitar sounded real. More 3 dimensional.
Soul Mining 8 is the Technics, which sounded darker.

 

Speed Differences

Soul mining 8 has noticeably faster playback. I audibly compared both tracks to a guitar and keyboard. My findings are that #7 is pretty much at standard pitch (A=440Hz) whereas #8 is somewhat sharp.

For that reason alone, I would have to go with #7.

#8 running apparently fast clouds my ability to compare tonal differences between the two clips.


P. S. I wouldn't be surprised if #8 is the Rega...

 

RB250

 

Passing listen, preferred 7 - just a bit fuller, and the voice on 8 had a kind of loose echoey rasp that I couldn't get beyond...

 

The differences are not great listening through my Sennheiser HD-420-SL headphones plugged into my laptop. My older tower with an Audigy sound card may have revealed more of a difference. Being a guitarist, I can not help but notice the guitar being more lush and a bit "larger" in sm8. The phasor tonal colors are a bit more prominent, but not by a large margin. More than that, the reverb trail offs are longer in SM8, especially noticed in the vocal esses. The esses are cleaner also. I found the quality of the vocal to have more texture, or harmonic character thus more realistic . Overall, I prefer sm8 over sm7, as this piece is sweet and sounds sweeter, plus more revealing of low level content in the mix. It's a close call!

 

Yeah, I hear that too. I'm not particularly sensitive to pitch so I didn't even notice it until I went back and listened to these files later in the day going quickly back and forth between 'em and it was as much the tempo as the pitch that I noticed. It might even be paying a role in the tonal differences. I guess that suggests #8 is the Rega since those decks have the reputation of running fast. Is this still an issue with current production Regas?

 

And I hear it too, and missed that upon my first listen. Just extrapolating from the playing times for each cut, 1:20 vs 1:21, and the latter begins approx. 0.5 seconds later, there is beteween a 0.5% and 1.0% speed difference. Assuming SM7 is spinning at 33 1/3 RPM, SM8 would be approaching 332/3RPM. At 1000 cycles, at 1% sharp, we would have 1040 cycles, 10,000 cycles would be 10,400 cycles. The fundamental note "A" above middle C, 440 cycles, would be 444.4 cycles at 33 2/3 RPM. The next higher semitone is A# or 466.16 cycles, so assuming a round figure of 1% error, the sharpness is audible but nowhere near the next semi-tone. If 440.0 cycles were to be played in unison with 444.4 cycles, the result would be discordant with beats.

I feel the pitch error is inacceptable for any turntable in the price ranges of the SL1200 and Rega P series. The slower speed induces an artificial perception of "darker" vs faster a feeling of brighter, or "happier" perception. Back in the 50's 60's, radio stations intentionally inceased pitch as much as a semi-tone for this exact reason, plus more music program and commercials could be crammed into a hour's worth of program.

Does a 0.5% to 1.0% error change the tonality of the music significantly? I must say no, however human perception is very sensitive to pitch in terms of how the music feels, darker or brighter, whether we consciously hear it or not. So this test is flawed IMO!

 

Wow so if track 8 turns out to be the Rega have we all preferred it over the 1200 because its faster! Crazy! I agree though, I hold pitch stability of a turntable as being pretty damn important, hence why I own a quartz locked 1210! This is developing into an interesting thread (seeing as I initially chose track 8).

 

That would be my guess too. I owned a Planar 2 back in the day, and it ran a little fast, until the sub-platter got a single layer of electricians tape. That fixed it.

jeff

 

To me 8 had clearer and more up front vocals and a good bass line. I would not say that either track did a great job with the bass, but good enough. 7 just had the vocal recessed too much for me.

 

I find it really hard to compare two samples at obviously different speeds because the "feel" is different and my brain has to really force itself to isolate the music from the pitch. Ended up going with 7; I think it's the speed accurate version (probably the 1200) and also I found the treble in 8 to be really distracting/fatiguing.

 

I lined them up in Audacity and got about a 1.1 second difference over 60 seconds. Almost 2% which is pretty bad.

The phase also looks inverted between the clips. I don't see how this happened with the same cartridge.

I slowed down 8 by 1.85% and inverted 7. http://1drv.ms/1vRBHCQ
I still think 8 is a bit cleaner.

 

My bad, happened during the editting process. Glad it didn't affect your judgement.