advertisement


Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - Audio product which really floats your boat !

Tony L said:
Definitely Rega, it is the same as the original Planar 2. I really like it, though they look more subtle/muted in real life. Never seen one with a Planet platter though.
Click to expand...

Hmm - I guess at that time it appealed to the same demographic who preferred their Quad 33/FM3 tarted up with the wooden sleeve doodah.
Each to their own, etc.

Obviously still appeals which is why Quad offered the same concept when they brought out the Vena (an option I didn't buy into ... particularly at that price)
 
cjarchez said:
Project 2.9 Cherry classic, simple, clean lines and right purdy. Sounds good too.

20d6a028690fa4374a731c5eded55d593a99ddbee9cc3cea9653ea5849bb329f


Older Chord Electronics, before they went silly!

9555991726_1_g.jpg


Quad 34/306/FM4

1460381688_7627.jpg


A host of Japanese 70s/80s stuff

Meridian from 200 series to before G series.

Sorry, I like the solid state McIntosh range.

Many others I can't recall right now...
Click to expand...
Wow ! This Quad combo is my number one now !
 
Bob McC said:
Definitely not after market.
The Planar 2 and 3 had the same trim when they came out too.

Planar 2
http://www.vinylengine.com/turntabl...id=b3f5db8b08dcb2de0997149c8ae55ea6&mode=view

Planar 3
https://darklanternforowen.wordpress.com/2018/07/13/rega-planar-3-restoration/

I much prefer them with the trim.
Click to expand...


I think TonyL already confirmed they were fitted to the subsequent Planar models ... whether they also came with Planets from the off remains a mystery :)

Ah well .....
 
No it isn’t!
They were.
Tony only confirmed the Planar 2.
I put your incorrect post right on all counts.

( in fact your Planet photo was the first I had ever seen WITHOUT the wood surround.)
 
miktec said:
... almost forgot - the original Rega Planet off of the 70s - I tried to nick my mates but he caught me walking out with it under me coat.

743qWoKVTAp3uhRxdvbWXX-970-80.jpg
Click to expand...

I'm I right in the record is only supported in four places?

If that's the case some of the really thin vinyl that was around in the 80's wouldn't have stayed flat, or would it?
 
fegs said:
I'm I right in the record is only supported in four places?

If that's the case some of the really thin vinyl that was around in the 80's wouldn't have stayed flat, or would it?
Click to expand...

I guess that's one of the reasons they dropped the 'satellite' design in favour of a conventional platter (and stayed in business...)
 
@Waxxy

Can't disagree with that!

d8P0dq3.jpg


Excuse the plain timber stand leg. Just moved to another room and guaging ideal height, position blah, blah.
 
fegs said:
I'm I right in the record is only supported in four places?

If that's the case some of the really thin vinyl that was around in the 80's wouldn't have stayed flat, or would it?
Click to expand...

Probably just three places as I’d expect the centre label area to be recessed. There was a discussion about this recently and my suspicion is a three-area support for a record is likely better overall than the current flat platters, especially the hard ones without mats. Basically no record is flat, most aren’t even remotely flat. Even the slightest barely visible ‘dishing’ to a record usually results in the vast majority (probably about 85%) being entirely unsupported by a flat platter on the ‘up’ side and supported only by the run-in area on the ‘down’ side. A three-area support like the Planet or something like a Transcriptors Reference would support and level such records far better IMO.

Even with the thinnest 1970s RCA Dynaflex vinyl you’d have to track at a crazy downforce to have any issue with flex. I’d not want to play a magazine flexy disk with say an SPU tracking at 6.5g or whatever, but any normal record with a normal cartridge will be fine.
 
Tony L said:
Probably just three places as I’d expect the centre label area to be recessed. There was a discussion about this recently and my suspicion is a three-area support for a record is likely better overall than the current flat platters, especially the hard ones without mats. Basically no record is flat, most aren’t even remotely flat. Even the slightest barely visible ‘dishing’ to a record usually results in the vast majority (probably about 85%) of a record being entirely unsupported by a flat platter on the ‘up’ side and supported only by the run-in area on the ‘down’ side. A three-area support like the Planet or something like a Transcriptors Reference would support and level such records far better IMO.

Even with the thinnest 1970s RCA Dynaflex vinyl you’d have to track at a crazy downforce to have any issue with flex. I’d not want to play a magazine flexy disk with say an SPU tracking at 6.5g or whatever, but any normal record with a normal cartridge will be fine.
Click to expand...

some good valid points there that I'd not considered, interesting set up all the same

As for magazine flexi's I'd forgot about those!
I remember some of them even having an outline of a coin so you could add some "weight" in case of slippage
 
S-Man said:
Most hifi is not attractive, anything that is too big for the job is very ugly.

If I was going to go for something, it would be something cute:

2184-CAS4040.jpg


Hi fi should be heard and not seen!!
Click to expand...

Along those lines I still love mid 90's NAD with it's no frills gray faceplates. Not as minimal as some (Naim), but a nice sounding preamp (1000) with tone controls. I also love the tuner (4300) with a weighted tuning knob and minimal digital readout. The CD is a little cluttered but not as bad as many from the era.

48029469967_1c02ea3601_c.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top