Thorens TD 160 or 126? Which better?


Hi All-
Ok, so a friend's family is doing a house clearance-and there are a couple of tables up for grabs-
Choice of a Thorens TD 160 or TD 126..Not sure if Mk1 2 or 3 though.
The 126 might have a Stanton cartridge as i recall... I have to verify they are in working order, but assuming both operate, what is the better deck?
I already have a nice table (but modern) and am intrigued if a Thorens would be a good back up...Which one to go for!!!?
Also a NAD 3120 available too..(I have a 320 BEE right now)
Thanks
R
128x128britishmuzik
Nothing wrong with using a Rega RB300 with the TD160 especially since you can get solid aluminum adapter plates for them from England or from Artisan Fidelity.

Better yet, use a modded RB251 with better internal wire and upgraded end snub/counterweight.

Some of those vintage arms mentioned are low mass anyway and less compatible with many modern cartridges.

imo
Jeremy 72, I agree with your first statement. I also bought
this solid aluminum adapter on ebay. uk. The other two statements are questionable. Because of the Rega construction it is easy to rewire the arm by yourself.
This should be cheaper then the modded RB 251.
Your latst statement is unclear because 'some' is not a name . Think of: some(one) has stolen my car. The problem seems to be obvious.
Regards,
Guys-is the stock arm on the TD 160 dreadful? It looks pretty gnarly, but how does it perform?
My main t/table has a modded RB300, but I really would be getting this as a back up-I imagine the cartridge is either shot -or possibly missing...
What would be a good budget (sub $100) one to fit on the stock arm?
Ortofon? Denon perhaps??
R
Nandric, come on I don't need your chiding; what do you think the IMHO in my post means? You are free to disagree but spare me the drama.

As to the reason that IMHO the Rega is a poor choice, the rather over controlled upper midrange in the RB-300 is a bad match to the conceit in the upper bass/lower midrange of the TD150/160 series, leading to an overall dark sound leading sparkle, again IMHO. I-M-H-O. Additionally, the arm is too heavy for the standard springs leading to a lower primary resonance in the suspension and a further increase in the loseness in the same upper bass-lower midrange region. Again IMHO. I-M-H-O. I-M-H-O. IMHO.

And completely agree with Jeremy72 that many of the arms that I mentioned are not compatible with medium/low and low compliance cartridges, however very few arms are compatible with all compliances of cartridge and I don't think that it is justified putting an arm on the table that is too heavy for the suspension just to match a cartridge. Usually the cartridge is purchased to match the arm, not the other way around. The RB300 is also not compatible with many modern cartridges, so I am not sure of the point here, IMHO. I-M-H-O. IMHO. IIIMMMHHHOOO.