I cheated a bit and looked at the compressed audio of both. While the SL1200G is really good, it can't match what the Caliburn does with the attack, sustain, and delay. The Caliburn table, tonearm, wiring, and suspension/isolation really show the control a top tier system has over the playback but not knowing any better, I would be perfectly happy with the SL1200G. I can only imagine it sounds that much better in person. Splitting the video into 8 second samples and interweaving the video really demonstrates a clear standout as I find my aural memory can be fleeting. That said, even in the few shootouts I have done via RUclips, folks have been able to hear a clear difference even with the compressed audio. Your set up, even with compression, the difference is even more clear and the Wave data proves it. Thanks for doing this, I always wondered how other tables would stack up against your reference!
Great roundup! I'd be happy if you evaluate my findings on this, more to see if youtube really can convey the character of the sound, or I just made this all up in my head... What I heard was that first part had somewhat more neutral, playful approach and wider, more open sound. Where second part was more focused, more... i really lack the words... like the old watchmaker, crunched over his table, working on something - very meticulous and concentrated, but a bit closed up in itself, very detailed and precise nonetheless. FIrst recording was like a young girl playing a piano, very passionate, very immersed in the music, but a bit lacking in the skill, and the second more of an old maestro, immaculate, impeccable on the technical side, but deep inside somehow fed up with it all. And also brighter, second part was definitely brighter.
I'm hoping you switched the audio, (please please tell me you were el swappo). -but it appeared that the record warps lined up at least as I was watching the CC turntable. Sigh. I bought two 1200GAE because I always wanted a DJ table that sounded good . Being an audiophile I used to run a high-end DJ Business in New York City as an excuse to buy audiophile gear that could do double duty for PA. I heard the 1200GAE at T.H.E. Show Newport Beach 2016 and decided to buy a sequential serial numbered pair. I still haven't owned up the boxes as I have not gotten Cartridges for them yet. I was thinking of Grado Prestige Gold bodies and being able to swap in the Grado MCZ styli and load them. Lower 11kohms to optimize them, and quickly being able to swap to the Grado DJ200 styli. But wasn't sure if the diamonds are mounted with consistency or if the styli weigh the same or if I would have to change arm height to get the proper SRA ( I know I would have or change VTF). Your thoughts on that? As you can see I am EXTREMELY excited about what this means for both DJ sound and Radio station sound. It really could bring a high fidelity intro to so many others. I sometimes DJ small groups with Genelec s30D (they use Decca derived ribbons) using an E.A.R. 912 tube pre-amp and sometimes a rebuilt Bozak DLC mixer. People flip when they hear grate sound on the dance floor for the first time. Couple of questions. Shouldn't the tables use the same clamp? The 1200G had no clamp. Also leaving on the dust cover brings more vibration into the system and can rob the 1200G of air. It sounded like more stylus drag on the 1200, which should not be because they have really worked hard on this dual rotor- the cogging isn't completely gone but it's way down compared to the old 1200 and 1210 series. I did happen to sit directly behind you at T.H.E. Show Newport Beach 2015 when you were auditioning the Chronos turntable and almost bought that table, really enjoyed it. That particular recording was very good, wish I could remember it because I would like to play it on my 1200GAE Also the Technics arm, how does that fair in terms of being a good compliance match for that cartridge vs the match on your CC? Which arm is the cartridge biter matched for. Certainly I would expect a Technics arm to be a match for your CC. However I do feel the motor is very very vey good. Which does lead me to think you might have switched the audio, but then again I don't remember hearing those sort of harmonics and detail for the one running an Ortophon 2M black at the show...but then again a 2M black doesn't compare anyway. I will say this, I thing the 1200GAE is the best sounding audio product ever come out of Technics, it's so good it almost seems out of step quality wise. Hopefully the brand will continue to lift its standard in this promising direction. Also what geometry did you use for each turntable ? The Technics recommends a set up with a 52mm overhang (modified Stevenson Geometry) was that the same on your CC? I have heard both sides some love the MINTLP protractors made for the Technics 1200 , and some prefer the standard 52mm. I'd assume the 52mm mounting scheme didn't care as much about Inner groove distortion since DJs playing 12" singles rarely get that close to the inner ring? If anyone might know , Mr. Fremer, why did Technics use that 52mm mounting distance and not use a longer arm or headshell or change headshell angle? And those Ortophon carts made the the 1200s appear longer than 52mm, do they use a different geometry? I know it's a ton to ask, but that's what these comment sections are for. I just wanted to know the testing conditions. I saw some CH gear next the table- well made stuff. I just packed a system of all CH Swiss Precision (2) AI, C1,D1. And well all of that digital ($65k ) still falls short of above average analog. Keep up the great work, I think it's so much fun to see you taking the ball and running with it. You make many an audiophile excited about the music and keep the reviews engaging.
I liked this post! I own the SL1200G and know it´s actually pretty good, but, of course, the price range can never be ignored. The Continuum sounded clearer and more consistent, but it would be a logical absurdity if it were not so. Only by the arm, this is already justified! But, the mere fact that a US$4.000,00 turntable is being compared with one of around US$100.000,00, already shows the incredible quality of the first one.
I don't think its so much the quality of the first one being shown off so much as it is demonstrating how far into diminishing returns the second one is.
just want to add my 2 cents. listening tests like this are very difficult. i've gone through the golden ears series and reliably ID-ed 1/3 octave bands by ear and a bunch of other things (compression settings, delay times). I'm also listening on mixing monitors in a treated room which gives me almost as much detail as my DT 880 beyerdynamics headphones. And I mix records semi-professionally. I've done lots of critical listening. I can't say that i hear any difference at all. there are a few things to know about listening tests like this. first off, professional mixers swear they hear plugins and then realize they were bypassed. in other words, even pros get fooled because they expect to hear something. Second, a long passage like this makes it very hard to compare. I take maybe 5 seconds of identical passages and switch back and forth. you may hear a particular drum hit in A that sounds fuller then a different hit in B. I've had people swear they heard a difference only to find out that A was an exact copy of B. I'm not sure wave forms tell you anything meaningful. I mean, they might, but they might not. they certainly don't tell you how the brain perceives the music. Some things just sound different, not better. I've compared mics, and preamps, and converters and you can hear differences but many times i couldn't say which was "better". lastly i think there is a lot of BS and hype around audio gear especially in the home hi-fi market. i'm from the pro audio world and it's a little more reality based. If you want things to sound good the room is probably the number one place to sink your money. not sexy. i know. but go into a pro studio and see what they do.
@@pking39 , The majority of audiophiles are wannabe engineers but in reality they did not go to any form of audio engineering school, play instruments at a professional level, or in any other way qualify themselves to be "golden ears." As someone who has studied psychology on a formal basis, I have learned that you are bang on when you describe just how easy it is to fool one's self and to be fooled by others into observing what one is told to or expected to observe. Many audiophiles fall victim to their own insecurities and automatically assume that the super expensive model sounds better, when oftentimes it only sounds a tiny bit different. Only through double blind or at least single blind tests with familiar acoustic source material can one really know when one component really sounds more accurate. In this case, any sonic differences between the two turntables which favor the more expensive one are only worth the hundred plus thousand dollar difference to a person with money to burn. That is why Technics stayed in business building millions of their mass market turntables for DJs, radio stations, audiophiles on a budget, and normal people who just wanted a reliable turntable to play their music on. The Thorens models and their derivatives from the same era mostly fell by the wayside because they were less user friendly, even though they had potentially better sound if set up properly. Thorens still had a great run of over a hundred years and is back in business. And some users preferred the sound of the Technics to boot, especially in the mid bass impact zone. In the end, the cartridge counts just as much as the turntable, and perhaps more. And just like turntables and all other audio components, there are laws of diminishing returns by the time a component costs more than a few thousand dollars. Those tiny difference don't always favor the more expensive component. And one will never know unless the listening room is top notch.
@@AMERICANPATRIOT1945 you'll find that a lot of audiophiles are the reverse. Just that the stereotype audiofools have become the poster boys of the hobby because of controversial price tags and dodgy science explanations plus being the most vocal. All of these encouraged by the audio components market. The audio hobby splits broadly in to Audiophiles, Audiofools and Gearsluts. The last is easiest to spot. They are focused solely on their rig and tend to listen to equipment which seem to only sound best to them when it has something new and expensive. They go on endless upgrade quests and spend more time reading reviews and seeking affirmation in forums for something they want to buy rather than sitting enjoying music. They mostly dont understand electronics but can spout tech specs, data and topology theory. They make basic errors like put a speaker way too big for their untreated room based solely on audio buzz and rave reviews. They are the lifeblood of the market place. Having the upper range of their price bracket for kudos is important to this group. Audiofools tend to be experienced gearsluts but think they know more. They'll tend to have better set ups including room treatment. Better chosen complimentary gear. They think they have golden ears and swear to hear frequencies that only babies and dogs can. They thrive on the esoteric and 'exclusive' component and/or understanding of audio. Their knowledge of electronics seem at first to be better until one realises that either they misapply scientific principles, exaggerate effects of natural phenomena or be downright deluded with pop sci or faux science. (A lot of reviewers and their groupies seem to fall in to this category...). They also tend to listen to recordings that make their set up sound good rather than recordings they normally like. They are the main market for snake oil. Kudos is also very important for this group. Audiophiles on the otherhand spend more time listening to music. They'll make smart purchases, make incremental upgrades and treat or not their rooms. Why? To spend most of their time and money on music. Their brains are so in to the music that it fills out the gaps of their equipment. (A lot dont even notice how un-hifi their systems have become with time.) Their quest for 'hifi' ideals are slower, they'll own equipment for years. Their understanding of electronics coincides only to their interest levels towards it. They tend to understand more about the recording process. They are not insecure about the music genre they prefer and their systems reflect this preference even if it gets denigrated as not being 'audiophile'. All three want the best high fidelity playback. Each though define this quite differently...
@@ememe1412 , You are bang on! If I didn't know any better, I would say that I just described gearsluts and audiofools. It is refreshing to hear (pun intended) that there are still genuine audiophiles who enjoy listening to recorded music, even on less than perfect audio systems. I remember a time when most people had something descent at home to listen to music on, even if it was less than ideal or state of the art. I fall into the last category of audiophiles. I always prefer to trust my own ears before buying anything new. I only buy new when I have to in order to replace something broken or so obsolete that it is no longer compatible with the available standards. This applies mainly to digital gear. Those were the days of Tech Hi Fi and other retailers of gear which appealed to a wide range of budgets and listeners. Then the middle class was destroyed, home theater came into its own, the spouse and the interior decorator took over while the hobbyist became pussified, and audio changed forever. It would be nice if the public at large would rediscover that one does not need a huge budget to enjoy recorded music. I have had the good fortune to compare so called class C turntables such as the SL 1200 and its Thorens colleagues to much more expensive class A level 'tables with equal excellent cartridges on the same very revealing systems, and have found, along with other listeners in the same room at the same time that the cartridge makes the biggest difference once one is at that basic level of 'table. I would pit the SL 1200 or a vintage Thorens against any ultra high end 'table with the right matching equipment any day on very revealing associated equipment with real musicians and/or live audience members in the room, as I have. As on this thread, only the gearsluts and audiofools would hear any real differences, and only if the tests were not conducted blind. A few more things I would like to add, as well. The listening room makes a huge difference. So does the setup of the gear. All of the components in the chain make an equal contribution, including the recording. Cables count, but do not have to cost an arm and a leg to be fully transparent. And yes, the laws of physics have not changed. Tiny subs and even full range speakers which claim high performance and full range output are full of baloney, and distortion. Even in a small room, one can sacrifice a few cubic feet for speakers big enough to have meaningful range, efficiency, and output capability. Most normal people can afford to spend a thousand or two to put together a system they will be proud to listen to music and film on for a large fraction of their lives. It only has to be done one component at a time, and can start with used or garage sale items if they learn what to look for. That is what makes audio and the enjoyment of recorded music so exciting.
I honestly cant tell the difference... Im 28... My ears should be fine... Listening through ha pair of SR40 STAX headphones... What exactly am I listening out for?
After hearing the track you played here, I'm going to have to pick up this LP. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Oh, and I'm a big Tech 12 fan.
same hear, i heard much less surface noise & better handling of the high-pitched bells especially when their recording-velocity increases as the track progresses. I see it's a 3 years old vid now & i'm expecting this has maybe been revealed as a set-up where the mobster-talking gangster maliciously framed the Caliburn to be a Patsy for the Technic's half-assed work. Or, phono cartridge's subtle variation between the same model cannot be that much ...it's pretty shoddy quality control if ....no no no, it's a set-up job
And that's where this simply becomes a 'madness of the few'...to say one "turntable" sounds better than the other is borderline preposterous. Placebo effect is strong in force here. Nothing more nothing less.
Every time you do one of these Michael I laugh when I get to your turntable because it is so much better. The bass drum is fuller, tom toms sound real as does the glockenspiel which sounds like bells ringing. So much more realistic with your turntable every time.
They sound different but I can't say one sounds obviously better. The second seems somewhat louder and brighter, more up front and richer in the bass but also a bit less tight. The first is somewhat more laid back and dynamically restrained but that could be because the gain is a bit lower. However listening to compressed files over RUclips it's difficult to compare analog nuances as they tend to get swamped out by compressed digital degradation. Listening to them in person and over an extended period I predict will reveal the differences more noticeably.
Without a doubt the sound playing while we were watching the Continuum turntable was better. The sound was more pure, and the ringing of the drums was very real sounding. Obviously, the Technics TT is the better value.
I really like my SLQ200 and have had it for 35 years plus. Stuck an inexpensive Shure cartridge in it when I bought it and it has been bullet proof with no change in rpm all these years. Hard to justify anything more expensive when playing vinyl which is the real weak link.
For me, the first one presented a much greater sense of space and air around the musicians. The second one may have sounded more detailed because everything sounded very forward and in your face which to me sounded unnatural compared to the first one.
A lot of these newer audiophile tables (not Technics) seem like they push the volume louder. The Technics SL-1200 MK2 in my opinion is the perfect output for a turntable (which gives us more room when editing). Especially for audiophiles or DJ's that record there records to CD or Files. We have to remember the Technics SL-1200 MK2 came out in 1978 and at that time, recording engineers were not corrupting music, making it so loud it is distorted. The Continuum Caliburn is a great turntable but it obviously is pushing the sound a little to much and it is not holding the pitch as well either. Technics SL-1200's hold the pitch better than any table on the market. Wow and Flutter is 0.01%.
No idea if you switched the audio or not but for me the second one at 10:05 sounds better than the first at 2:49. But the difference of sound quality vs price (Technics $4,000 vs Continuum Caliburn $100,000) is not worthy for most people unless you are an extreme audiophile with money to burn.
More air at 10:05 - but is it worth 25x money for a "normal" person. Of course not. For a high end enthusiast? I'm sure there are people who buys turntables for more than that...
I'm listening through PSB Alpha PS1/SubSeries 100 I agree the second track has more warmth and is fuller sounding both are very detailed though with the first more micro detail but less midrange fullness. I'd be happy with either but on my computer system i'd take the second track it sounds fuller smoother to me more musical lets say.
Analog Planet : Difference was obvious , on my smart phone. Your Caliburn is fabulous ! Some other people have untrained audio palates / haven't listened to good systems much. Thx a lot Michael. Appreciated.
I don't have junk speakers, mine are PSB (modified with HiVi drivers) and the amp is a Parasound, and if I'm correct he transferred the sound at 24bit/96khz. The sound is so much different, the bells on his fabulous turntable and cart sound like you're in the room with them. That is not the case with the Panasonic, and if I may say so, the sound is about the same as my Rega RP1 with a Audio Technica AT-7V (or maybe not that good).
There is a difference--I preferred the first, but I don't know if that is the "correct" answer. To some extent, the issue with turntables is reliability. I had a Linn Sondek for years, and when it was tuned properly, it sounded wonderful to me. But it slipped out of tune a lot, and so needed to be fussed with. I moved on to a SL-1200, and while at its best does not sound as good to me as a Linn at its best, on an average day, it sounds better to me. When I want to listen to music, I want to listen to music--I don't want to fuss with equipment. The SL-1200 with a Denon DL-110 provides me with enjoyment time after time. But then, there is a reason I drive a Honda Accord, too.
So this Klingon table here made in USSR 1979 from SS20 missiles titanium with an oil filled arm would blow the Continuum out of the universe :-) ruclips.net/video/fXNdRG3GHkM/видео.html
I thought the Technics recording was wonderful, very vibrant, dynamic, a great variety in tones and colors to the music. Then the Continuum begins and immediately blows it out of the water: far more air and resonance to the bells, more color and punch to the drums, you can hear the air in the recording studio and get a spatial sense of where everyone is playing. It's quite remarkable. The sound of the record itself is quieter on the super-turntable, but we should expect that, given its price. Heck, for the kind of money this beast commands, I'd probably just hire some musicians to come play at my house, hah. Anyway, this is a great demonstration and I am thankful to have heard it.
I do not know which was which but the first was way more deeper, had more weight, more energy. The second was more brilliant, more intense in the upper highs, more loose, more free from the ground, more at ease, more spacious. Interesting. Also lighter but no thinner. Whatever did contibute to that. I do not even know what would deliver greater joy to me. Somehow the second is more fascinating but is lacking warmth and impact. The first one sounds more natural to me, the second is way more resolving or just highlighting the highs, given greater sense of microdynamics but at the expense of body and soul.
Since I am watching and listening to this at work, using the speakers in my freakin monitor, I doubt I could make a fair comparison. I do, however, wonder about a couple of things. Why use a record clamp on the fancy turntable, not on the SL1200? Even still, why is the tonearm jumping up and down with the Continuum? Is it a different record? Or is that ungodly expensive TT mat uneven? Also, I would like to know more about the setup for the two decks. What is the tracking force and anti-skate, if any? Truly, if you want to A-B the two decks on You-tube, why not just show a blank screen or a screen showing an old Dual TT playing the same record? The visuals in this comparison are very powerful, no matter the true source of the sound. No matter if the sound is swapped. Full disclosure: I think the old SL-1200 drive system was pretty good. I think the drive system on an AR XA was pretty good. And I think the Continuum drive system is pretty good.
So this Klingon table here made in USSR 1979 from SS20 missiles titanium with an oil filled arm would blow the Continuum out of the universe :-) ruclips.net/video/fXNdRG3GHkM/видео.html
Yeah, he did did not use a record clamp on the G so that that Continuum could sound a bit better & tighter obviously, He could have used a more fancy headshell for the Technics.
The Continuum uses a vacuum. Hence the clamp . The actual continuum clamp is screwed on, not sure what this clamp is. The record is warped on the Technics as well. Cartridge on both is worth about $10,000. There is less of the table showing thru with the Continuum which will give you a lower noise floor and more natural dynamics.
When the piano comes in here: 3:40 vs. 10:56, the Caliburn system has more distinction between notes on piano, letting the low notes come through more, and everything has more presence and liveliness. Not a night and day difference, as would be expected given the price points, but I'm sure those all come through much more in the room.
Sorry, but the first one sounded little more clear to me, the drums, bells the piano... it was sort of like the group playing live in front of me, but what did I know I'm just a poor punk rocker who doesn't have money to buy an old Technics and can only dream for something like this and of course I can be wrong Cheers from Macedonia
I honestly would have liked to hear the 1200g with a better headshell, maybe silver headshell wires and better isolation like the caliburn is isolated. I bet it would have been even closer. The headshell and platter mat are the weaknesses with the 1200g which are easily tweaked to ones satisfaction.
Thanks Michael......wonderful comparison. Even though it is You Tube and I am not there it is rather obvious. One the Technics SL 1200 G is really really good and if I never heard the Continuum Caliburn I would have been happy and content. So said when you played the Continuum it had a much more real tone with more harmonics and felt natural and well what's the point I cannot afford either one but thanks!
2nd recording is far more musical, if everything else is the same, then it’s no contest. The key here is to turn the volume down and you can hear the space/air around the 2nd recording even via crappy RUclips playback. The first recording sounded thin and a bit edgy imo. Thanks for doing this. Kudos mate. If the 2nd recording is the Technics I’m so selling my gear and buying it.
I too like to hear/judge with volume turned down. It's one technique I use producing radio commercials. In the studio, when volume is high it reveals every subtlety but it's at lower volume those subtleties need to come through for the S/X to have the desired impact with a passive listener. At low volumes dynamic range is also revealed.
The first track wins hands down. More transparent more dynamic, more extension of ranges, and more musical! Minus the dullness of a direct drive sound signature! Final diagnosis, the tracks were swapped 😅✌️
there was way more air / space in the second recording, making the first recording sound dynamically restricted by comparison - but it also seemed that the groove noise was a little more obvious in the second recording. Still, the second one wins because of faster attack & decay (Koss titanium headphones and the onboard Mac Pro sound card is my monitor apparatus)
The selection you chose to demo is outstanding, and the perfect grading tool for this comparison (or ANY comparison, for that matter). It seemed to me, the Technics won, given the setup as you have it with the cartridge. I could sense more resonance in the bell dings and drum hits, where the more expensive table seemed more muted.
I came here thanks to Herb's column in the April '20 Stereophile. So you can blame him for dragging this up again. I think RUclips did something to the audio in the process of encoding it, because my first reaction on listening to this on my LG phone with its fancy DAC feeding some vintage Sennheisers through an outboard amp was that both sounded like @$$. I went to the AP column and downloaded the 96/24 files to play on my home system, and those definitely sound better. Certainly the surface noise from the Caliburn was a lot less objectionable in the hires files. But frankly I'm not blown away by either of them. The drum bass from the Technics (S&MTECH.aif) sounds thuddy, whereas the Caliburn (S&MCAL.aif) seems to have more bloom to the bass strikes, but a bit less focus. Although the record looks nice and shiny there's a ton of surface noise on it that detroys the low-level dynamics, and I see Mikey did a follow-up that explains that the record was actually 'seriously defective' ... ehh. Since the two are playing at slightly different speeds it's impossible to time-align the files properly. This means it's easy to game an ABX test to get a perfect score, but I tried a short test without any sort of rapid switching ... and got 6/10, so no better than chance. Still, subjectively I think I'd prefer the track from the Caliburn, as the one-note thudding of the Technics grew annoying. But the real conclusion was that I wouldn't be happy with either system. I think Mr Fremer's performed a great public service here, because I'll save this comparison for those times when I suffer audiophilia nervosa and worry that my modest digital system means I'm losing out. Thanks Michael!
second has much less distortion in the sound that must be accompanied by a sensible price difference no matter what i laughed at the comment at the guy saying hes a pro in calibrated rooms and he cant sense any difference between two youre the pro, cheers
they do sound surprisingly different to me as well considering the same cart being used. Can most of it be attributed to the differences in the way one tonearm resonates compared to another? the highs on the technics seem rolled off compared to yours, among other things - the technics sounds warmer to me, whereas yours sounds more accurate. I probably lack the full vocabulary of a typical audiophile, but this was very interesting
The sonic difference is very discernible. The second clip must be the Caliburn (have not read any comments before posting this, honest) musical and nuanced, wonderful tonality of the skins, dissonance and decay. The attack is more immediate. My computer monitors are my own modified Celestion 3's in near field. (a horrible speaker in stock form but decent drivers, an excellent titanium tweeter, modded to aperiodic w/ classic fiberglass acoustic material, CFAC inductors 2nd order phase aligned, surprised these are far better than expected)
Man, you are funny! I dig your style!!! I still have two 1200s from 1987 and 1993 which have never given me a problem. In fact, the amps , equalisers and speakers all died and have since been changed but my SL 1200 and SL 1210 have never let me down in a cold country and now quite a hot country. Ironically, the Stanton sylus which I used to use back in the day were exceptional but the company no longer make them! The Whafdale & JBL speakers along with the Nad amps no longer exist... I guess the turntable is the heart that keeps on beating and not the amplifiers nowadays! In my house anyway! Exceptional sounds your played in this video, by the way! Any recommendations then?!?
To my ears Technics offers more refined and deeper bas however the dynamics and higher range clarity is far more superior on the second turntable... Also the dynamics presented by the pricier table almost brings the real life performance simply stunning...
As I'd expect the Caliburn has more sustain as the bells decay and the kick drum has more thwack, but its the relative comparison that makes this stand out, in isolation the Technics is a good table. My guess it the beginnings of each clip are matched to audio, just don't ask me where it changed .
No, Michael did not use the same audio for both! While the Technics sounds quite good, the Continuum allows more low-level information to get through from top to bottom.
He has switched them, the first one is Continuum Caliburn the sound is more 'stable' . Technics is more 'dynamic' and louder I would say, I judge from second comparison where vocal from technics had 'a more vibe' Everything is limited by RUclips. Technics sound good too
Wobbles? Like a pair of natural breasts and a nice, full, round ass when a lay-dee! is wearing a g-banger (thong for you northerners) as she casually strolls along the beach. ....If it wobbles I want one...mmm mmm
To be fair, the record is pretty warped. And to be equally fair, the Technics handled the warp better. You can hear the response of the tonearm leading to more artifacts on the second TT than did the Technics. Overall, more detail on the second TT but also more brittle, largely because I don’t think it liked that heavy warp very much.
I can hear LP background noise from both. 1 seems to exaggerate HF response. Initially I thought 1 had more HF extension, but on repeated back and forth, the HF from 1 seemed a bit glassy. 2 seemed lower in volume overall, but more natural sounding, with slightly better air and reproduction of space. Hard to determine after listening to each at length. I resorted to back and forth to really pinpoint differences. Overall I think 2 would be easier to live with long term. Exaggeration of HF in 1 would be fatiguing long term.
The first one was bright and VERY detailed with a wide separation between the instruments. The bells resonated a bit too much. On the second the instruments played tightly together giving a solid sound picture. It was easier to follow the piece. For all that money I hope that the Continuum was the second one.
I just realized it is your voice making all those wise cracks at the beginning of your clips such as "I know what you're hiding behind your back, more reckeds!" They remind me of my youth and are always fun to hear. I just discovered your videos recently when I decided to buy a new turntable. I had sold off some of my records to Amoeba and now regret that,, especially after losing the credit slip they gave me... I still have my favorites and look forward to rediscovering them when the new turntable arrives. I must have looked at hundreds of them, and as many top 5 lists, reviews and comparisons. after about an hour I'd be overwhelmed and put it all away for a day or so. In the past I had a Dual 1229 that I loved but I wasn't playing records at all at the time and gave it to my son. I was a buyer for a 600 store chain and had more CD promos than I could listen to in a lifetime. Someone gave me 2 new matching turntables (I don't even remember what brand they were) which I also donated. The somewhere along the line ended up with a Numark DJ turntable which I've used a couple of times but now that I am interested again I decided to invest in a nice new one.
First turntable is better with firmer sound and less noise, better attack of percussion and cleaner transients. Second is louder but less focused, softer and less open.A significant difference.
I seem to be about 6 years behind the curve, but to me the first sounded great until compared to the second. The second seemed to have notably more definition both in both the bells and in the drum beat and a more open sound. But Id be very happy with the first in my system.
I think the sounds are inverted the first we hear is from the Caliburn and not the Technics cos it has less surface noise in the beginning, and less flutter on the marimbas. The flutter is so intense that it seems like the base of the turntable is being oscillated on purpose.
The audio that goes with the Teknicks (lol!) sounds more open with less intrusion of vinyl artifacts or whooshing noise. The initial steel drum or timbale hit has quite a bit more air and ambience around it than I hear on the second table and overall the instruments sound clearer on the first table to my old ears through a set of Bowers & Wilkins P7 headphones. The final ding of the glockenspiel bell sounded more steady on the first turntables audio IMO too. Otherwise, both tables sound quite good and I wouldn't be too upset having the second best sounding one of the two!
So this Klingon table here made in USSR 1979 from SS20 missiles titanium with an oil filled arm would blow the Continuum out of the universe :-) ruclips.net/video/fXNdRG3GHkM/видео.html
the dust cover should be removed from the sl1200, always. It acts like a giant catalyst for vibrations, going straight into the turntable. This is especially true if the speakers are near the turntable. I was amazed how big a difference it makes on my 1210! For the integrity of the test, this should be redone without the lid on the 1200, and using record clamps (or none depending on the vinyl) with the same cartridges 😘 You got a problem wit dat? 😁
The Continuum Caliburn Plays 1st - the Technics plays 2nd - it's obvious even with laptop speakers.... The 1st rendition is able to dig so deep into the vinyl.... amazing! The 2nd rendition sounds like a Technics 12xx and while the Technics is a quiet TT, it still sounds compressed and lacks any real dynamics... Lyra's sure sound neutral ..... whoosh!
Very close...the second is noticeably more dynamic and resolving with instrumentation brought forward in the sound stage whereas the first sounds slightly more recessed yet a tad more controlled in presentation..
Is it my eye sight or does the spindle on the caliburn turntable look like its moving around as if it's bent perhaps,both sound just fantastic to my ears and I would definitely take the technics given the choice.
Just going by the drum sound the second one had more meat on the bone, more solid sounding. The first sounded more tinny (actually probably closer to what a live sounding kit would sound like) second just had more warmth body and depth.
thegrimyeaper ditto here too. The image on the second seemed not nearly as defined and precise as the first one on images around the instruments to me. But I'm warming up those roller skates to hell if I'm wrong if the first wasn't the reference table!
First reactions, kick drum so much better on the 2nd one, more full and realistic sounding. But I am hearing some wow (or is it flutter?) on the 2nd turntable around 11:30 causing major pitch variations, and when you compare to the same section around 4:13 or so, there is much less of this warbling pitch variation (listening to what I assume is a vibraphone). I have heard similar speed deviations causing trouble in piano sound with some well regarded idler drive tables. Perhaps this was exacerbated by what looks like a warp in the record. None the less the technics handled this much better. If this was due to the wow and flutter specs of the belt drive table, it would drive me crazy. But then let drive has a more organic “realistic” sound in some ways (minus that pitch issue)
Ah Linn LP12 Klimax is like 30 000-40 000 dollars and it's worse in every measureable aspect compared to a bog standard SL-1200MK2 (which you can get for 400 dollars).
Just from hearing from this video: Sample 1 (with Technics movie behind) is more clear, has better spatial separation on instruments and more depth. It is lacking interference between base drum and piano, for example. I would say it is Caliburn.
Si tienes montadas las mismas cápsulas fonocaptoras en ambos platos estos deberían sonar exactamente igual, porque ambos platos son capaces de mantener la velocidad con igual precisión y tienen una construcción lo suficientemente robusta como para que las diferencias entre ambos resida sólo en la cápsula.
Second Turntable sounds better than Technics, sound is more clear and acoustic, in my opinion Technics is more for Dj mixing, I have 2 pair at home in order for me to get a good sound quality from them, had to spend money in a good pair or needles ( Ortofon ) for Dj. Thanks for great video you posted.....
I didn't go through all the comments, but it doesn't look like Michael ever answered as to which was which...too bad. What I am hearing in my studio is the 2nd file has a slightly wider stereo image and it's a touch brighter - but the 2nd file has a tremendous amount of W/F vs the 1st file. Very apparent at the end of the piece. Audible in the piano sustain, but clearly audible in the decay of the glockenspiel. Noise floor is slightly louder in the 2nd file as well. But really need the actual audio files he used to remove any YT encoding BS out of the equation.
The G sounds sluggish and forced compared to some of my TTs .. especially the platine/Morch and continuo w cantus. .. I heard that you can decrease the torque on the top of the line unit from technics. I bet that will make it sound more fluid but still w power.. That arm you have on the c-burn tt there is fantastic Michael. I think your TT is fantastic compared to the Technics.. it sure is worth a house to me if I have that to spend. But I heard you bought the Oswald TT.. what arm are you using with it?
I am still running a Technics SL 120 with SME series 3 pick-up arm in a Technics custom base-plate bought by me in 1977. These just do not wear out (apart from stylus of course).
Through youtube, it is difficult to tell the details, but the second one sounded smoother than the first. Regardless, even if the first one was the SL1200G, it is still very nice.
Kind of what you expect. The Technics has rock solid pitch stability and a more driving sound. Caliburn has more traditional hifi qualities, more tonally rich. I'd take the Technics just based on music taste.
The highs were really starting to grate on me on the Technics but the Caliburn has much more effortless and clean highs but the bouncing of the arm was audible.I modified a 1200 once and it really did start to sound like a high-end audiophile table but I rewired the tonearm and the rest of the wiring including adding an IEC power connector and replacing the mat.Highs were clean and detailed.
You could see a warp/dent in the platter mat on the Caliburn; toward the end of the track you could even hear the wow/flutter effect of the tonearm bounce! It wasn't doing that on the Technics....! Granted, the overall sound was better from the Caliburn, but considering the gulf in the price difference, I would be VERY happy with the new Technics...!! 😀
great comparison Michael I have the Poorman 1200 the audio technica before this year's out I'm going to save and get some thing real nice like a VPI Turntable or a clear audio concept yours is a little out my budget but I luv love your maybe one day Michael I love your channel. lovellandrew
Funny how some people prefer the 2nd recording and describe it as more realistic, which might come back to the old saying "louder means better" personally i think the first recording with the technics picture is the expensive tt as it sounds more open and separated, im noticing more compression/flatness on the 2nd recording. No audiophile here, just a home studio guy with a proper converter, decent headphones/monitors and some experience in critical listening
When comparing turntables (and not cartridges), added noise by the turntable itself should be the main focal point. Not entirely sure, but to my ears it sounds like the SL1200G is a bit quiter in this regard: rumble seems to be a bit less. Everything else can be fixed by changing cartridge. So: SL1200G: marginal winner.
Why don't u put the exact cartridge on both tables, I still think my SL 1210 sounds way better than JL teams roto wanna know why I put the same cart in them
![Coheed and Cambria - Searching for Tomorrow [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hDsYGLbmadg/mqdefault.jpg)
I cheated a bit and looked at the compressed audio of both. While the SL1200G is really good, it can't match what the Caliburn does with the attack, sustain, and delay. The Caliburn table, tonearm, wiring, and suspension/isolation really show the control a top tier system has over the playback but not knowing any better, I would be perfectly happy with the SL1200G. I can only imagine it sounds that much better in person.
Splitting the video into 8 second samples and interweaving the video really demonstrates a clear standout as I find my aural memory can be fleeting. That said, even in the few shootouts I have done via RUclips, folks have been able to hear a clear difference even with the compressed audio. Your set up, even with compression, the difference is even more clear and the Wave data proves it.
Thanks for doing this, I always wondered how other tables would stack up against your reference!
It's always nice when the measurements confirm your ears.
Fantastic job Brother Paul :-D!!!
Hi Martin!!!! :-D
Great roundup! I'd be happy if you evaluate my findings on this, more to see if youtube really can convey the character of the sound, or I just made this all up in my head...
What I heard was that first part had somewhat more neutral, playful approach and wider, more open sound. Where second part was more focused, more... i really lack the words... like the old watchmaker, crunched over his table, working on something - very meticulous and concentrated, but a bit closed up in itself, very detailed and precise nonetheless. FIrst recording was like a young girl playing a piano, very passionate, very immersed in the music, but a bit lacking in the skill, and the second more of an old maestro, immaculate, impeccable on the technical side, but deep inside somehow fed up with it all. And also brighter, second part was definitely brighter.
I'm hoping you switched the audio, (please please tell me you were el swappo).
-but it appeared that the record warps lined up at least as I was watching the CC turntable. Sigh.
I bought two 1200GAE because I always wanted a DJ table that sounded good . Being an audiophile I used to run a high-end DJ Business in New York City as an excuse to buy audiophile gear that could do double duty for PA. I heard the 1200GAE at T.H.E. Show Newport Beach 2016 and decided to buy a sequential serial numbered pair. I still haven't owned up the boxes as I have not gotten Cartridges for them yet. I was thinking of Grado Prestige Gold bodies and being able to swap in the Grado MCZ styli and load them. Lower 11kohms to optimize them, and quickly being able to swap to the Grado DJ200 styli. But wasn't sure if the diamonds are mounted with consistency or if the styli weigh the same or if I would have to change arm height to get the proper SRA ( I know I would have or change VTF). Your thoughts on that? As you can see I am EXTREMELY excited about what this means for both DJ sound and Radio station sound. It really could bring a high fidelity intro to so many others. I sometimes DJ small groups with Genelec s30D (they use Decca derived ribbons) using an E.A.R. 912 tube pre-amp and sometimes a rebuilt Bozak DLC mixer. People flip when they hear grate sound on the dance floor for the first time.
Couple of questions. Shouldn't the tables use the same clamp? The 1200G had no clamp. Also leaving on the dust cover brings more vibration into the system and can rob the 1200G of air.
It sounded like more stylus drag on the 1200, which should not be because they have really worked hard on this dual rotor- the cogging isn't completely gone but it's way down compared to the old 1200 and 1210 series.
I did happen to sit directly behind you at T.H.E. Show Newport Beach 2015 when you were auditioning the Chronos turntable and almost bought that table, really enjoyed it. That particular recording was very good, wish I could remember it because I would like to play it on my 1200GAE
Also the Technics arm, how does that fair in terms of being a good compliance match for that cartridge vs the match on your CC? Which arm is the cartridge biter matched for. Certainly I would expect a Technics arm to be a match for your CC. However I do feel the motor is very very vey good. Which does lead me to think you might have switched the audio, but then again I don't remember hearing those sort of harmonics and detail for the one running an Ortophon 2M black at the show...but then again a 2M black doesn't compare anyway.
I will say this, I thing the 1200GAE is the best sounding audio product ever come out of Technics, it's so good it almost seems out of step quality wise. Hopefully the brand will continue to lift its standard in this promising direction.
Also what geometry did you use for each turntable ? The Technics recommends a set up with a 52mm overhang (modified Stevenson Geometry) was that the same on your CC? I have heard both sides some love the MINTLP protractors made for the Technics 1200 , and some prefer the standard 52mm. I'd assume the 52mm mounting scheme didn't care as much about Inner groove distortion since DJs playing 12" singles rarely get that close to the inner ring?
If anyone might know , Mr. Fremer, why did Technics use that 52mm mounting distance and not use a longer arm or headshell or change headshell angle? And those Ortophon carts made the the 1200s appear longer than 52mm, do they use a different geometry?
I know it's a ton to ask, but that's what these comment sections are for. I just wanted to know the testing conditions.
I saw some CH gear next the table- well made stuff. I just packed a system of all CH Swiss Precision (2) AI, C1,D1. And well all of that digital ($65k ) still falls short of above average analog.
Keep up the great work, I think it's so much fun to see you taking the ball and running with it. You make many an audiophile excited about the music and keep the reviews engaging.
The 1200 is an amazing bargain compared to the caliburn. I agree most people don't need more that.
I'll take the first one *Technics* and still keep my house 😂
I liked this post! I own the SL1200G and know it´s actually pretty good, but, of course, the price range can never be ignored. The Continuum sounded clearer and more consistent, but it would be a logical absurdity if it were not so. Only by the arm, this is already justified! But, the mere fact that a US$4.000,00 turntable is being compared with one of around US$100.000,00, already shows the incredible quality of the first one.
I don't think its so much the quality of the first one being shown off so much as it is demonstrating how far into diminishing returns the second one is.
just want to add my 2 cents. listening tests like this are very difficult. i've gone through the golden ears series and reliably ID-ed 1/3 octave bands by ear and a bunch of other things (compression settings, delay times). I'm also listening on mixing monitors in a treated room which gives me almost as much detail as my DT 880 beyerdynamics headphones. And I mix records semi-professionally. I've done lots of critical listening.
I can't say that i hear any difference at all.
there are a few things to know about listening tests like this. first off, professional mixers swear they hear plugins and then realize they were bypassed. in other words, even pros get fooled because they expect to hear something. Second, a long passage like this makes it very hard to compare. I take maybe 5 seconds of identical passages and switch back and forth. you may hear a particular drum hit in A that sounds fuller then a different hit in B. I've had people swear they heard a difference only to find out that A was an exact copy of B.
I'm not sure wave forms tell you anything meaningful. I mean, they might, but they might not. they certainly don't tell you how the brain perceives the music.
Some things just sound different, not better. I've compared mics, and preamps, and converters and you can hear differences but many times i couldn't say which was "better".
lastly i think there is a lot of BS and hype around audio gear especially in the home hi-fi market. i'm from the pro audio world and it's a little more reality based. If you want things to sound good the room is probably the number one place to sink your money. not sexy. i know. but go into a pro studio and see what they do.
Agreed 100%. Well say
@@pking39 ,
The majority of audiophiles are wannabe engineers but in reality they did not go to any form of audio engineering school, play instruments at a professional level, or in any other way qualify themselves to be "golden ears." As someone who has studied psychology on a formal basis, I have learned that you are bang on when you describe just how easy it is to fool one's self and to be fooled by others into observing what one is told to or expected to observe. Many audiophiles fall victim to their own insecurities and automatically assume that the super expensive model sounds better, when oftentimes it only sounds a tiny bit different. Only through double blind or at least single blind tests with familiar acoustic source material can one really know when one component really sounds more accurate.
In this case, any sonic differences between the two turntables which favor the more expensive one are only worth the hundred plus thousand dollar difference to a person with money to burn. That is why Technics stayed in business building millions of their mass market turntables for DJs, radio stations, audiophiles on a budget, and normal people who just wanted a reliable turntable to play their music on. The Thorens models and their derivatives from the same era mostly fell by the wayside because they were less user friendly, even though they had potentially better sound if set up properly. Thorens still had a great run of over a hundred years and is back in business. And some users preferred the sound of the Technics to boot, especially in the mid bass impact zone. In the end, the cartridge counts just as much as the turntable, and perhaps more. And just like turntables and all other audio components, there are laws of diminishing returns by the time a component costs more than a few thousand dollars. Those tiny difference don't always favor the more expensive component. And one will never know unless the listening room is top notch.
@@AMERICANPATRIOT1945 you'll find that a lot of audiophiles are the reverse. Just that the stereotype audiofools have become the poster boys of the hobby because of controversial price tags and dodgy science explanations plus being the most vocal. All of these encouraged by the audio components market.
The audio hobby splits broadly in to Audiophiles, Audiofools and Gearsluts.
The last is easiest to spot. They are focused solely on their rig and tend to listen to equipment which seem to only sound best to them when it has something new and expensive. They go on endless upgrade quests and spend more time reading reviews and seeking affirmation in forums for something they want to buy rather than sitting enjoying music. They mostly dont understand electronics but can spout tech specs, data and topology theory. They make basic errors like put a speaker way too big for their untreated room based solely on audio buzz and rave reviews. They are the lifeblood of the market place. Having the upper range of their price bracket for kudos is important to this group.
Audiofools tend to be experienced gearsluts but think they know more. They'll tend to have better set ups including room treatment. Better chosen complimentary gear. They think they have golden ears and swear to hear frequencies that only babies and dogs can. They thrive on the esoteric and 'exclusive' component and/or understanding of audio. Their knowledge of electronics seem at first to be better until one realises that either they misapply scientific principles, exaggerate effects of natural phenomena or be downright deluded with pop sci or faux science. (A lot of reviewers and their groupies seem to fall in to this category...). They also tend to listen to recordings that make their set up sound good rather than recordings they normally like. They are the main market for snake oil. Kudos is also very important for this group.
Audiophiles on the otherhand spend more time listening to music. They'll make smart purchases, make incremental upgrades and treat or not their rooms. Why? To spend most of their time and money on music. Their brains are so in to the music that it fills out the gaps of their equipment. (A lot dont even notice how un-hifi their systems have become with time.) Their quest for 'hifi' ideals are slower, they'll own equipment for years. Their understanding of electronics coincides only to their interest levels towards it. They tend to understand more about the recording process. They are not insecure about the music genre they prefer and their systems reflect this preference even if it gets denigrated as not being 'audiophile'.
All three want the best high fidelity playback. Each though define this quite differently...
@@ememe1412 ,
You are bang on!
If I didn't know any better, I would say that I just described gearsluts and audiofools. It is refreshing to hear (pun intended) that there are still genuine audiophiles who enjoy listening to recorded music, even on less than perfect audio systems. I remember a time when most people had something descent at home to listen to music on, even if it was less than ideal or state of the art. I fall into the last category of audiophiles. I always prefer to trust my own ears before buying anything new. I only buy new when I have to in order to replace something broken or so obsolete that it is no longer compatible with the available standards. This applies mainly to digital gear.
Those were the days of Tech Hi Fi and other retailers of gear which appealed to a wide range of budgets and listeners. Then the middle class was destroyed, home theater came into its own, the spouse and the interior decorator took over while the hobbyist became pussified, and audio changed forever. It would be nice if the public at large would rediscover that one does not need a huge budget to enjoy recorded music.
I have had the good fortune to compare so called class C turntables such as the SL 1200 and its Thorens colleagues to much more expensive class A level 'tables with equal excellent cartridges on the same very revealing systems, and have found, along with other listeners in the same room at the same time that the cartridge makes the biggest difference once one is at that basic level of 'table. I would pit the SL 1200 or a vintage Thorens against any ultra high end 'table with the right matching equipment any day on very revealing associated equipment with real musicians and/or live audience members in the room, as I have. As on this thread, only the gearsluts and audiofools would hear any real differences, and only if the tests were not conducted blind.
A few more things I would like to add, as well. The listening room makes a huge difference. So does the setup of the gear. All of the components in the chain make an equal contribution, including the recording. Cables count, but do not have to cost an arm and a leg to be fully transparent. And yes, the laws of physics have not changed. Tiny subs and even full range speakers which claim high performance and full range output are full of baloney, and distortion. Even in a small room, one can sacrifice a few cubic feet for speakers big enough to have meaningful range, efficiency, and output capability. Most normal people can afford to spend a thousand or two to put together a system they will be proud to listen to music and film on for a large fraction of their lives. It only has to be done one component at a time, and can start with used or garage sale items if they learn what to look for. That is what makes audio and the enjoyment of recorded music so exciting.
90% of the music i hear in a day is from headphones
i have a pretty good ''room'' to go with those
I prefer the first sound test , I also like the look of the technics turntable better, I'm sure both systems are great though 👍
As different in sound as two pieces of equipment could ever be. It's honestly amazing to hear how good a turntable can sound!
My 39 yrs a DJ ears say yours sounds better. I can actually hear the grooves in the vinyl as the needle floats over it. Amazing.
I honestly cant tell the difference... Im 28... My ears should be fine... Listening through ha pair of SR40 STAX headphones... What exactly am I listening out for?
@@joshholmes5446 Listen to the bells. With the Technics it sounds a lot more congested and boxy but with MF's turntable it sounds SO free and alive.
After hearing the track you played here, I'm going to have to pick up this LP. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Oh, and I'm a big Tech 12 fan.
batman144 me too
It seems the first one sounds better so I think you switched the audio. Either way they both sound good.
Clearly and if not that 1200 is one hell of a bargain.
The audio must be swapped because the Technics sounds better. I can also hear the motor on the Continuum’s audio.
same hear, i heard much less surface noise & better handling of the high-pitched bells especially when their recording-velocity increases as the track progresses. I see it's a 3 years old vid now & i'm expecting this has maybe been revealed as a set-up where the mobster-talking gangster maliciously framed the Caliburn to be a Patsy for the Technic's half-assed work. Or, phono cartridge's subtle variation between the same model cannot be that much ...it's pretty shoddy quality control if ....no no no, it's a set-up job
@@enzokayson8732 Yo I love bots pushing a website
@@amosmitchell2130 fkoff
@@thespotlightkid4138 Just accept the Technics is less noisy.... Better
u must be deaf
WOW the quartz lock on that Technics is strong, didn't see any drifting at all.
Are we comparing turntables or cartridges, I mean really folks......
And that's where this simply becomes a 'madness of the few'...to say one "turntable" sounds better than the other is borderline preposterous.
Placebo effect is strong in force here. Nothing more nothing less.
Starting points 1:59 and 9:15
Christian Goergen aka AstraOovier thanks ! I didn’t herd dramatic difference (RUclips) .
ramstopgun neither did I
Excellent record choice first off... You can absolutely hear the difference. It's slight... but a difference none the less.
Waaaaaaaa! the SL1200G gave me a shock ! the playback sounds so good !
For those who like to A / B
1:58 / 9:14
2:32 / 9:49
3:08 / 10:24
3:41 / 10:57
6:37 / 13:52
7:15 / 14:30
(HD 720p and up gives a higher bitrate. Would recommend.)
Every time you do one of these Michael I laugh when I get to your turntable because it is so much better. The bass drum is fuller, tom toms sound real as does the glockenspiel which sounds like bells ringing. So much more realistic with your turntable every time.
They sound different but I can't say one sounds obviously better. The second seems somewhat louder and brighter, more up front and richer in the bass but also a bit less tight. The first is somewhat more laid back and dynamically restrained but that could be because the gain is a bit lower. However listening to compressed files over RUclips it's difficult to compare analog nuances as they tend to get swamped out by compressed digital degradation. Listening to them in person and over an extended period I predict will reveal the differences more noticeably.
Without a doubt the sound playing while we were watching the Continuum turntable was better. The sound was more pure, and the ringing of the drums was very real sounding. Obviously, the Technics TT is the better value.
FYI the sound was switched.
It is not pure, but rather tough. Like a sand over a glass.
@@kacperuminski1547 haha 🤣 obviously it was switched. A video like this really exposes all the ignorant people who are just talk
I really like my SLQ200 and have had it for 35 years plus. Stuck an inexpensive Shure cartridge in it when I bought it and it has been bullet proof with no change in rpm all these years. Hard to justify anything more expensive when playing vinyl which is the real weak link.
Maybe you are the missing link ......?
Just ordered the sl-1200g today. Can't wait to get it. It will be joing the technics su-r1000 I also ordered.
Man, your pocket is really fat
I prefer the first one.
I do too. Despite there is more detail in the second one, first one gave me more excitement somehow. Can't wait to find out the truuth! :)
For me, the first one presented a much greater sense of space and air around the musicians. The second one may have sounded more detailed because everything sounded very forward and in your face which to me sounded unnatural compared to the first one.
When do we find out which turntable was first and which one was second??? I am really curious.
They were as shown.
A lot of these newer audiophile tables (not Technics) seem like they push the volume louder. The Technics SL-1200 MK2 in my opinion is the perfect output for a turntable (which gives us more room when editing). Especially for audiophiles or DJ's that record there records to CD or Files. We have to remember the Technics SL-1200 MK2 came out in 1978 and at that time, recording engineers were not corrupting music, making it so loud it is distorted. The Continuum Caliburn is a great turntable but it obviously is pushing the sound a little to much and it is not holding the pitch as well either. Technics SL-1200's hold the pitch better than any table on the market. Wow and Flutter is 0.01%.
No idea if you switched the audio or not but for me the second one at 10:05 sounds better than the first at 2:49. But the difference of sound quality vs price (Technics $4,000 vs Continuum Caliburn $100,000) is not worthy for most people unless you are an extreme audiophile with money to burn.
More air at 10:05 - but is it worth 25x money for a "normal" person. Of course not. For a high end enthusiast? I'm sure there are people who buys turntables for more than that...
For someone like me that likes raw music such as Garage or Punk I think I'll go with the Technics.
I don't think I would spend $4000 on the Technics(which, I thought, was the 2nd recording), if I heard this comparison first.
Anyone can be an Audiophile, not everyone can buy a 100k turntable.
I'm listening through PSB Alpha PS1/SubSeries 100 I agree the second track has more warmth and is fuller sounding both are very detailed though with the first more micro detail but less midrange fullness. I'd be happy with either but on my computer system i'd take the second track it sounds fuller smoother to me more musical lets say.
They both sound like the speakers on my laptop!
What an amazing coincidence, they sound exactly like mine, too!
Analog Planet : Difference was obvious , on my smart phone. Your Caliburn is fabulous ! Some other people have untrained audio palates / haven't listened to good systems much. Thx a lot Michael. Appreciated.
TECHNICS SOUNDS BETTER
I don't have junk speakers, mine are PSB (modified with HiVi drivers) and the amp is a Parasound, and if I'm correct he transferred the sound at 24bit/96khz. The sound is so much different, the bells on his fabulous turntable and cart sound like you're in the room with them. That is not the case with the Panasonic, and if I may say so, the sound is about the same as my Rega RP1 with a Audio Technica AT-7V (or maybe not that good).
The 1200 isn't even a 1200, it just looks like one and has the name. Thing is a top notch piece of work from Technics.
There is a difference--I preferred the first, but I don't know if that is the "correct" answer.
To some extent, the issue with turntables is reliability. I had a Linn Sondek for years, and when it was tuned properly, it sounded wonderful to me. But it slipped out of tune a lot, and so needed to be fussed with. I moved on to a SL-1200, and while at its best does not sound as good to me as a Linn at its best, on an average day, it sounds better to me. When I want to listen to music, I want to listen to music--I don't want to fuss with equipment. The SL-1200 with a Denon DL-110 provides me with enjoyment time after time. But then, there is a reason I drive a Honda Accord, too.
I'll have the Technics and a BMW M4 and still enough cash left over to take a nice trip.
Both sounded great to me as they were great in detail considering the excellent cartridge you used.
That one turntable looks like it was made out of old car parts. How could it possible sound better than a spiffy, brand new one ?
Richard Riley very funny! Obviously the SL is good but no mach for the other one!
for me technics sounds better
Hahahahahahahaha........waiting for your next comment hahahahahaha !
So this Klingon table here made in USSR 1979 from SS20 missiles titanium with an oil filled arm would blow the Continuum out of the universe :-) ruclips.net/video/fXNdRG3GHkM/видео.html
I thought the Technics recording was wonderful, very vibrant, dynamic, a great variety in tones and colors to the music. Then the Continuum begins and immediately blows it out of the water: far more air and resonance to the bells, more color and punch to the drums, you can hear the air in the recording studio and get a spatial sense of where everyone is playing. It's quite remarkable. The sound of the record itself is quieter on the super-turntable, but we should expect that, given its price. Heck, for the kind of money this beast commands, I'd probably just hire some musicians to come play at my house, hah.
Anyway, this is a great demonstration and I am thankful to have heard it.
I do not know which was which but the first was way more deeper, had more weight, more energy. The second was more brilliant, more intense in the upper highs, more loose, more free from the ground, more at ease, more spacious.
Interesting. Also lighter but no thinner. Whatever did contibute to that. I do not even know what would deliver greater joy to me. Somehow the second is more fascinating but is lacking warmth and impact.
The first one sounds more natural to me, the second is way more resolving or just highlighting the highs, given greater sense of microdynamics but at the expense of body and soul.
Since I am watching and listening to this at work, using the speakers in my freakin monitor, I doubt I could make a fair comparison. I do, however, wonder about a couple of things. Why use a record clamp on the fancy turntable, not on the SL1200? Even still, why is the tonearm jumping up and down with the Continuum? Is it a different record? Or is that ungodly expensive TT mat uneven? Also, I would like to know more about the setup for the two decks. What is the tracking force and anti-skate, if any? Truly, if you want to A-B the two decks on You-tube, why not just show a blank screen or a screen showing an old Dual TT playing the same record? The visuals in this comparison are very powerful, no matter the true source of the sound. No matter if the sound is swapped. Full disclosure: I think the old SL-1200 drive system was pretty good. I think the drive system on an AR XA was pretty good. And I think the Continuum drive system is pretty good.
Joseph Mooney nice!! I am glad you bought up all these points
So this Klingon table here made in USSR 1979 from SS20 missiles titanium with an oil filled arm would blow the Continuum out of the universe :-) ruclips.net/video/fXNdRG3GHkM/видео.html
Yeah, he did did not use a record clamp on the G so that that Continuum could sound a bit better & tighter obviously, He could have used a more fancy headshell for the Technics.
The Continuum uses a vacuum. Hence the clamp . The actual continuum clamp is screwed on, not sure what this clamp is. The record is warped on the Technics as well. Cartridge on both is worth about $10,000. There is less of the table showing thru with the Continuum which will give you a lower noise floor and more natural dynamics.
Mike you have the best videos and are the best advocate for vinyl period. Keep it up!
When the piano comes in here: 3:40 vs. 10:56, the Caliburn system has more distinction between notes on piano, letting the low notes come through more, and everything has more presence and liveliness. Not a night and day difference, as would be expected given the price points, but I'm sure those all come through much more in the room.
Sorry, but the first one sounded little more clear to me, the drums, bells the piano... it was sort of like the group playing live in front of me, but what did I know I'm just a poor punk rocker who doesn't have money to buy an old Technics and can only dream for something like this and of course I can be wrong
Cheers from Macedonia
Michael F. you are such an entertaining personality. This is a magnificent review!
I honestly would have liked to hear the 1200g with a better headshell, maybe silver headshell wires and better isolation like the caliburn is isolated. I bet it would have been even closer. The headshell and platter mat are the weaknesses with the 1200g which are easily tweaked to ones satisfaction.
Thanks Michael......wonderful comparison. Even though it is You Tube and I am not there it is rather obvious. One the Technics SL 1200 G is really really good and if I never heard the Continuum Caliburn I would have been happy and content. So said when you played the Continuum it had a much more real tone with more harmonics and felt natural and well what's the point I cannot afford either one but thanks!
Both sounds great. Maybe the Caliburn is a bit better on the depth of the sound, but it can be the recording.
Great channel.
2nd recording is far more musical, if everything else is the same, then it’s no contest. The key here is to turn the volume down and you can hear the space/air around the 2nd recording even via crappy RUclips playback. The first recording sounded thin and a bit edgy imo. Thanks for doing this. Kudos mate. If the 2nd recording is the Technics I’m so selling my gear and buying it.
Even via the crappy YT replay .......YES!
Some people are not deaf.....and listen to music instead of hifi ..
I too like to hear/judge with volume turned down. It's one technique I use producing radio commercials. In the studio, when volume is high it reveals every subtlety but it's at lower volume those subtleties need to come through for the S/X to have the desired impact with a passive listener. At low volumes dynamic range is also revealed.
The music in this music is more musical than the other music recording of the same music.
Way more space between the instruments on the first one. Second gets a little brighter, thinner and muddier. Both are better than what I have, though.
The first track wins hands down. More transparent more dynamic, more extension of ranges, and more musical! Minus the dullness of a direct drive sound signature! Final diagnosis, the tracks were swapped 😅✌️
Hey Michael, are you ever going confirm/deny the status of the audio files?
there was way more air / space in the second recording, making the first recording sound dynamically restricted by comparison - but it also seemed that the groove noise was a little more obvious in the second recording. Still, the second one wins because of faster attack & decay (Koss titanium headphones and the onboard Mac Pro sound card is my monitor apparatus)
When I looked at the Technics I immediately wanted to change the headshell...
My thughts also I always swap my headshell for something better. i like wood with quality silver cable
Caliburn has blown away Technics!! So much opened,detailed and much more musical!!
The selection you chose to demo is outstanding, and the perfect grading tool for this comparison (or ANY comparison, for that matter). It seemed to me, the Technics won, given the setup as you have it with the cartridge. I could sense more resonance in the bell dings and drum hits, where the more expensive table seemed more muted.
That's precisely the way that I felt while listening to this too.
Hell, I'll stick with the Technics and be very happy about it.
Ha ha that’s the Contin’ recording!
I came here thanks to Herb's column in the April '20 Stereophile. So you can blame him for dragging this up again.
I think RUclips did something to the audio in the process of encoding it, because my first reaction on listening to this on my LG phone with its fancy DAC feeding some vintage Sennheisers through an outboard amp was that both sounded like @$$. I went to the AP column and downloaded the 96/24 files to play on my home system, and those definitely sound better. Certainly the surface noise from the Caliburn was a lot less objectionable in the hires files.
But frankly I'm not blown away by either of them. The drum bass from the Technics (S&MTECH.aif) sounds thuddy, whereas the Caliburn (S&MCAL.aif) seems to have more bloom to the bass strikes, but a bit less focus. Although the record looks nice and shiny there's a ton of surface noise on it that detroys the low-level dynamics, and I see Mikey did a follow-up that explains that the record was actually 'seriously defective' ... ehh.
Since the two are playing at slightly different speeds it's impossible to time-align the files properly. This means it's easy to game an ABX test to get a perfect score, but I tried a short test without any sort of rapid switching ... and got 6/10, so no better than chance. Still, subjectively I think I'd prefer the track from the Caliburn, as the one-note thudding of the Technics grew annoying.
But the real conclusion was that I wouldn't be happy with either system. I think Mr Fremer's performed a great public service here, because I'll save this comparison for those times when I suffer audiophilia nervosa and worry that my modest digital system means I'm losing out. Thanks Michael!
second has much less distortion in the sound
that must be accompanied by a sensible price difference no matter what
i laughed at the comment at the guy saying hes a pro in calibrated rooms and he cant sense any difference between two
youre the pro, cheers
they do sound surprisingly different to me as well considering the same cart being used. Can most of it be attributed to the differences in the way one tonearm resonates compared to another? the highs on the technics seem rolled off compared to yours, among other things - the technics sounds warmer to me, whereas yours sounds more accurate. I probably lack the full vocabulary of a typical audiophile, but this was very interesting
The sonic difference is very discernible. The second clip must be the Caliburn (have not read any comments before posting this, honest) musical and nuanced, wonderful tonality of the skins, dissonance and decay. The attack is more immediate. My computer monitors are my own modified Celestion 3's in near field. (a horrible speaker in stock form but decent drivers, an excellent titanium tweeter, modded to aperiodic w/ classic fiberglass acoustic material, CFAC inductors 2nd order phase aligned, surprised these are far better than expected)
TheFRiNgEguitars CELSTION 3 lol and it's still RUclips!
Man, you are funny! I dig your style!!!
I still have two 1200s from 1987 and 1993 which have never given me a problem. In fact, the amps , equalisers and speakers all died and have since been changed but my SL 1200 and SL 1210 have never let me down in a cold country and now quite a hot country.
Ironically, the Stanton sylus which I used to use back in the day were exceptional but the company no longer make them!
The Whafdale & JBL speakers along with the Nad amps no longer exist...
I guess the turntable is the heart that keeps on beating and not the amplifiers nowadays! In my house anyway!
Exceptional sounds your played in this video, by the way!
Any recommendations then?!?
Yours sounded better. Like the bells were in the room with you. Not WAY better. Just more realistic.
Interesting test but I knew the outcome before it even started.
Nice to be right technics is ok but boy that caliburn is completely majestic
Lol no
To my ears Technics offers more refined and deeper bas however the dynamics and higher range clarity is far more superior on the second turntable... Also the dynamics presented by the pricier table almost brings the real life performance simply stunning...
As I'd expect the Caliburn has more sustain as the bells decay and the kick drum has more thwack, but its the relative comparison that makes this stand out, in isolation the Technics is a good table. My guess it the beginnings of each clip are matched to audio, just don't ask me where it changed .
No, Michael did not use the same audio for both! While the Technics sounds quite good, the Continuum allows more low-level information to get through from top to bottom.
He has switched them, the first one is Continuum Caliburn the sound is more 'stable' . Technics is more 'dynamic' and louder I would say, I judge from second comparison where vocal from technics had 'a more vibe' Everything is limited by RUclips. Technics sound good too
thank you for the music ,really relax me after a crappy day of work /technics sounds better...
the ref turntable platter wobbles....?
however the slipmat... warp is more evident in there than the Technics
Look at the tonearm and the cartridge. The cartridge is jumping!
Wobbles? Like a pair of natural breasts and a nice, full, round ass when a lay-dee! is wearing a g-banger (thong for you northerners) as she casually strolls along the beach. ....If it wobbles I want one...mmm mmm
To be fair, the record is pretty warped. And to be equally fair, the Technics handled the warp better. You can hear the response of the tonearm leading to more artifacts on the second TT than did the Technics. Overall, more detail on the second TT but also more brittle, largely because I don’t think it liked that heavy warp very much.
The center spindle on the continuum is showing some runout. Not good.
I can hear LP background noise from both. 1 seems to exaggerate HF response. Initially I thought 1 had more HF extension, but on repeated back and forth, the HF from 1 seemed a bit glassy. 2 seemed lower in volume overall, but more natural sounding, with slightly better air and reproduction of space. Hard to determine after listening to each at length. I resorted to back and forth to really pinpoint differences. Overall I think 2 would be easier to live with long term. Exaggeration of HF in 1 would be fatiguing long term.
Brilliant stuff!!
Techinics is a bargain.
better unpack my 30 year old Mk2 version!!!
thanks for upload.
subscribed
He Second turntable has the better sound by far. It fills the room with life. It resonates so much Wow!!!
Love you Mike... Awesome as ever
The first one was bright and VERY detailed with a wide separation between the instruments. The bells resonated a bit too much. On the second the instruments played tightly together giving a solid sound picture. It was easier to follow the piece. For all that money I hope that the Continuum was the second one.
I just realized it is your voice making all those wise cracks at the beginning of your clips such as "I know what you're hiding behind your back,
more reckeds!" They remind me of my youth and are always fun to hear. I just discovered your videos recently when I decided to buy a new turntable. I had sold off some of my records to Amoeba and now regret that,, especially after losing the credit slip they gave me... I still have my favorites and look forward to rediscovering them when the new turntable arrives. I must have looked at hundreds of them, and as many top 5 lists, reviews and comparisons. after about an hour I'd be overwhelmed and put it all away for a day or so. In the past I had a Dual 1229 that I loved but I wasn't playing records at all at the time and gave it to my son. I was a buyer for a 600 store chain and had more CD promos than I could listen to in a lifetime. Someone gave me 2 new matching turntables (I don't even remember what brand they were) which I also donated. The somewhere along the line ended up with a Numark DJ turntable which I've used a couple of times but now that I am interested again I decided to invest in a nice new one.
First turntable is better with firmer sound and less noise, better attack of percussion and cleaner transients. Second is louder but less focused, softer and less open.A significant difference.
I seem to be about 6 years behind the curve, but to me the first sounded great until compared to the second. The second seemed to have notably more definition both in both the bells and in the drum beat and a more open sound. But Id be very happy with the first in my system.
Imagine taking that second one to a nightclub to DJ, it would fall apart lol.
I think the sounds are inverted the first we hear is from the Caliburn and not the Technics cos it has less surface noise in the beginning, and less flutter on the marimbas.
The flutter is so intense that it seems like the base of the turntable is being oscillated on purpose.
The audio that goes with the Teknicks (lol!) sounds more open with less intrusion of vinyl artifacts or whooshing noise. The initial steel drum or timbale hit has quite a bit more air and ambience around it than I hear on the second table and overall the instruments sound clearer on the first table to my old ears through a set of Bowers & Wilkins P7 headphones. The final ding of the glockenspiel bell sounded more steady on the first turntables audio IMO too. Otherwise, both tables sound quite good and I wouldn't be too upset having the second best sounding one of the two!
So this Klingon table here made in USSR 1979 from SS20 missiles titanium with an oil filled arm would blow the Continuum out of the universe :-) ruclips.net/video/fXNdRG3GHkM/видео.html
the dust cover should be removed from the sl1200, always. It acts like a giant catalyst for vibrations, going straight into the turntable. This is especially true if the speakers are near the turntable. I was amazed how big a difference it makes on my 1210! For the integrity of the test, this should be redone without the lid on the 1200, and using record clamps (or none depending on the vinyl) with the same cartridges 😘 You got a problem wit dat? 😁
The Continuum Caliburn Plays 1st - the Technics plays 2nd - it's obvious even with laptop speakers....
The 1st rendition is able to dig so deep into the vinyl.... amazing!
The 2nd rendition sounds like a Technics 12xx and while the Technics is a quiet TT, it still sounds compressed and lacks any real dynamics...
Lyra's sure sound neutral .....
whoosh!
IMO, The first sample was the Caliburn (more extended, life-like, and way more musical) the second was the Technics (less of everything).
Very close...the second is noticeably more dynamic and resolving with instrumentation brought forward in the sound stage whereas the first sounds slightly more recessed yet a tad more controlled in presentation..
Is it my eye sight or does the spindle on the caliburn turntable look like its moving around as if it's bent perhaps,both sound just fantastic to my ears and I would definitely take the technics given the choice.
I love the record, it’s all about the music!
Just going by the drum sound the second one had more meat on the bone, more solid sounding. The first sounded more tinny (actually probably closer to what a live sounding kit would sound like) second just had more warmth body and depth.
I hear the complete opposite. :P
opposite for me also
thegrimyeaper ditto here too. The image on the second seemed not nearly as defined and precise as the first one on images around the instruments to me. But I'm warming up those roller skates to hell if I'm wrong if the first wasn't the reference table!
The first one is everything an expensive table does well. If the first one is not the most expensive table, Michael has to sell it.
thegrimyeaper I know.
....I love you, Mike. Dont change you nut you.
First reactions, kick drum so much better on the 2nd one, more full and realistic sounding. But I am hearing some wow (or is it flutter?) on the 2nd turntable around 11:30 causing major pitch variations, and when you compare to the same section around 4:13 or so, there is much less of this warbling pitch variation (listening to what I assume is a vibraphone). I have heard similar speed deviations causing trouble in piano sound with some well regarded idler drive tables. Perhaps this was exacerbated by what looks like a warp in the record. None the less the technics handled this much better. If this was due to the wow and flutter specs of the belt drive table, it would drive me crazy. But then let drive has a more organic “realistic” sound in some ways (minus that pitch issue)
As much as I love direct drive turntables, I wouldn't think a $4K TT would beat one that costs as much as a house.
Ah Linn LP12 Klimax is like 30 000-40 000 dollars and it's worse in every measureable aspect compared to a bog standard SL-1200MK2 (which you can get for 400 dollars).
Just from hearing from this video:
Sample 1 (with Technics movie behind) is more clear, has better spatial separation on instruments and more depth. It is lacking interference between base drum and piano, for example. I would say it is Caliburn.
Si tienes montadas las mismas cápsulas fonocaptoras en ambos platos estos deberían sonar exactamente igual, porque ambos platos son capaces de mantener la velocidad con igual precisión y tienen una construcción lo suficientemente robusta como para que las diferencias entre ambos resida sólo en la cápsula.
Great open Michael!
Second Turntable sounds better than Technics, sound is more clear and acoustic, in my opinion Technics is more for Dj mixing, I have 2 pair at home in order for me to get a good sound quality from them, had to spend money in a good pair or needles ( Ortofon ) for Dj.
Thanks for great video you posted.....
I didn't go through all the comments, but it doesn't look like Michael ever answered as to which was which...too bad. What I am hearing in my studio is the 2nd file has a slightly wider stereo image and it's a touch brighter - but the 2nd file has a tremendous amount of W/F vs the 1st file. Very apparent at the end of the piece. Audible in the piano sustain, but clearly audible in the decay of the glockenspiel. Noise floor is slightly louder in the 2nd file as well. But really need the actual audio files he used to remove any YT encoding BS out of the equation.
I will have the second yours sounds amazing huge soundstage and you hear everything as it is love it
The G sounds sluggish and forced compared to some of my TTs .. especially the platine/Morch and continuo w cantus. .. I heard that you can decrease the torque on the top of the line unit from technics. I bet that will make it sound more fluid but still w power..
That arm you have on the c-burn tt there is fantastic Michael. I think your TT is fantastic compared to the Technics.. it sure is worth a house to me if I have that to spend. But I heard you bought the Oswald TT.. what arm are you using with it?
I am still running a Technics SL 120 with SME series 3 pick-up arm in a Technics custom base-plate bought by me in 1977. These just do not wear out (apart from stylus of course).
as much as I love your channel, I prefer you after taking this morning's medication
Through youtube, it is difficult to tell the details, but the second one sounded smoother than the first. Regardless, even if the first one was the SL1200G, it is still very nice.
Mike, now the review is up can you comment as to any effect the internal switch mode power supply may be having on the SL1200G?
Kind of what you expect. The Technics has rock solid pitch stability and a more driving sound. Caliburn has more traditional hifi qualities, more tonally rich. I'd take the Technics just based on music taste.
The highs were really starting to grate on me on the Technics but the Caliburn has much more effortless and clean highs but the bouncing of the arm was audible.I modified a 1200 once and it really did start to sound like a high-end audiophile table but I rewired the tonearm and the rest of the wiring including adding an IEC power connector and replacing the mat.Highs were clean and detailed.
You could see a warp/dent in the platter mat on the Caliburn; toward the end of the track you could even hear the wow/flutter effect of the tonearm bounce!
It wasn't doing that on the Technics....!
Granted, the overall sound was better from the Caliburn, but considering the gulf in the price difference, I would be VERY happy with the new Technics...!! 😀
great comparison Michael I have the Poorman 1200 the audio technica before this year's out I'm going to save and get some thing real nice like a VPI Turntable or a clear audio concept yours is a little out my budget but I luv love your maybe one day Michael I love your channel. lovellandrew
i think listen to it in person makes a bigger diffrence than youtube .. but i really like this
Funny how some people prefer the 2nd recording and describe it as more realistic, which might come back to the old saying "louder means better" personally i think the first recording with the technics picture is the expensive tt as it sounds more open and separated, im noticing more compression/flatness on the 2nd recording. No audiophile here, just a home studio guy with a proper converter, decent headphones/monitors and some experience in critical listening
Going back to this, I notice that the record on the Caliburn seems warped (which affects the sound)!
When comparing turntables (and not cartridges), added noise by the turntable itself should be the main focal point. Not entirely sure, but to my ears it sounds like the SL1200G is a bit quiter in this regard: rumble seems to be a bit less. Everything else can be fixed by changing cartridge. So: SL1200G: marginal winner.
Why don't u put the exact cartridge on both tables, I still think my SL 1210 sounds way better than JL teams roto wanna know why I put the same cart in them
I meant JL trans roto
all the Technics tables I have seen ( I used to own a 1200 MK5) they recommend Stevenson alignment, do you think it change the sound using that?
kwd kwd Slightly, but yes it will change the sound.
He used the exact same cartridge on both.