Rega Planar 3 2016 worthwhile upgrades

[Craig B]

I’m sorry but I just don’t see why an aftermarket part wouldn’t be made to at least as good tolerances as a factory mass-produced, Rega part?

When one considers that a small industry has grown up around manufacturing and supplying aftermarket LP12 parts, I can’t see why it should be different for after-market Rega parts? Except for maybe the respective asking prices...

I suspect that some are better toleranced than others, and/or their own spindles happen to fit their own produced bearing wells better than they do Rega's.

One thing is for certain, with spindle diameter, one is far better off erring on the side of smaller rather than larger.

 

[Hazelberry]

I’ve had a turnaround. As above I had a Tangospinner on my 80s-00s Rega 3 for years. A discussion here last year got me trying to a late model Rega subplatter and preferring it.

I believe the difference in sound related to the TT support. On the heavy steel rack I used to have the Rega on (I know!) the TS worked well. After I moved house I changed the support to a light coffee table. Here, it turned out the stock sub worked much better. The sound became as coherent, dynamic, and confident as a Rega should make it.

 

[Greyandy]

I think a good phono stage is more important than the type of cartridge.

A heck of a lot of people seem to assume a MC is the pinnacle of cartridge performance and can't wait to get one. My experience is that a decent MM into a good phono stage is better than a MC into a lesser one. Distortions you assumed were the cartridge suddenly disappear.

Not saying don't buy a MC. Just don't think you'll get the best out of it is you compromise your phono stage.

I think that the Kairn MM phono stage is pretty decent from what I've read though I'd be very interested to hear it against another phone stage.
Interesting comments by others on the issues with spindle diameter on after market sub-platters. I've not measured the TS spindle (interestingly TS state that their spindle diameter is 1/100mm smaller than the Rega) but from feel when dropping it into then bearing it's very similar to the stock part and has no noticeable play. The proof of course is always in your ears and with my current set-up it's a big improvement.
I think on balance the next step is a Rega wall bracket before I go down the MC route.

 

[Darren L]

I’m sorry but I just don’t see why an aftermarket part wouldn’t be made to at least as good tolerances as a factory mass-produced, Rega part?

...

⁹

Absolutely no reason as to why an aftermarket subplatter for a Rega couldn't be turned and machined to the correct dimensions & tolerances, it just really depends upon the individual doing the measurements and work. The aftermarket aluminium subplatter that I used on a RP3 had tighter tolerances than the stock Rega subplatter, it took ages to drop and settle into the bearing.
All of the items I changed on the RP3, including TTPSU, subplatter, platter brought very worthwhile improvements .

 

[Luceo non uro]

I have the tangospinner too, and can confirm a small but noticeable improvement. The biggest changes/improvements I made to my P3 were changing from the Elys to the Exact, and using the Fono MM instead of the Elex phono stage. Those were 'lifting the veil' changes. I've done lots of other tweaks over the years; belts, Neo, feet, clamps etc, but those two had the biggest improvement in sound to my ears.

All the money I've spent on extras are probably more than the table is worth, but at the time I bought it I only had the budget for a P3 and these changes were done incrementally when I had spare cash. Also... it's fun to tweak and experiment! My next upgrade will be P8/Apheta or perhaps a s/h RP10 - not sure which is the better table, but the conventional lid of the RP10 is more practical for me (cat!).

 

[Craig B]

I’ve had a turnaround. As above I had a Tangospinner on my 80s-00s Rega 3 for years. A discussion here last year got me trying to a late model Rega subplatter and preferring it.

I believe the difference in sound related to the TT support. On the heavy steel rack I used to have the Rega on (I know!) the TS worked well. After I moved house I changed the support to a light coffee table. Here, it turned out the stock sub worked much better. The sound became as coherent, dynamic, and confident as a Rega should make it.

That is interesting, Durmbo.

Something that has crossed my mind over the years with these aftermarket hubs is that many employ polymer O-rings or polymer pips round the top that the platter interfaces with, as well an O-ring round the centre boss that interfaces with the platter hole. These would introduce compliance which one would suspect to gloss over any audible affects of material hardness differences between these and the original moulded hubs. The aftermarket producers of these appear to like to boast about their metals used, despite them being damped down into being more compliant than the naked Rega item.

Should we then discount material hardness difference (or agree that Rega's bare mouldings would be superior in this respect), we are left with a very similar spindle (possibly a fraction of a mmØ smaller) and possibly a very slightly truer concentricity running surface for the belt. The former (spindle) essentially cancels itself out, whilst the latter is of lesser importance than a superior concentricity pulley (like Rega's current metal one), as the far longer length of belt round the hub (relative to that round the pulley) averages out any minor none concentricity.

My contention here is that what is left is slightly superior belt grip on well finished metal vs. on Rega's moulded plastic; somewhat akin to what a fresh belt (or a good cleaning of an existing one) plus belt path cleaning is likely to achieve with the original parts FOC.

Another thing that comes to mind is that a heavier hub actually reduces flywheel affect by bringing the centre of gravity of the complete platter plus hub rotating mass inward. This needs countering by a commensurate amount of outer platter rim mass gain. I am reminded here of a YouTube video where the designer of a knock-off hub and bearing attempts to prove the superiority of his hub/spindle by spinning it freely on his desk vs. spinning the Rega item.* What he fails to realize is that his heavier hub will actually reduce the flywheel affect of the complete Rega glass on hub by shifting the combined centre of gravity of the rotational mass inward toward the pivot, essentially reducing moment of inertia. The difference wouldn't be massive (pun), mind, but is easily calculated.

P.S. Rega would be too polite to say so, however, their metal crowned moulded RP6 hub was essentially them holding two-fingers up to the aftermarket hub/spindle makers.

* Also, a bit of a con, as his also had a captive ball within the spindle end.

 

[Mr Pig]

Absolutely no reason as to why an aftermarket subplatter for a Rega couldn't be turned and machined to the correct dimensions & tolerances..

Well, there kinda is.

On the lower end decks especially but on all of the decks there will be variations in the spindles and the bearing housings. On the cheapest decks the tolerance might not be very tight but as you go up the range they start matching spindles to bearings. The two are a set and are a more exact fit than bearings on cheaper decks.

If you make an aftermarket sub-platter you are only building half of the assembly and do not have access to the other half for reference. Your product has to fit into any of the bearings Rega has used so you have no choice but make the spindle on the small side. If you don't, and a few buyers find it binds on their decks, I reckon you're out of business once it gets around.

The one my friend bought isn't slightly too loose, it rocks. It still works but no way it's as good as a Rega bearing that has both parts matched to each other.

 

[Greyandy]

Another thing that comes to mind is that a heavier hub actually reduces flywheel affect by bringing the centre of gravity of the complete platter plus hub rotating mass inward. This needs countering by a commensurate amount of outer platter rim mass gain. I am reminded here of a YouTube video where the designer of a knock-off hub and bearing attempts to prove the superiority of his hub/spindle by spinning it freely on his desk vs. spinning the Rega item.* What he fails to realize is that his heavier hub will actually reduce the flywheel affect of the complete Rega glass on hub by shifting the combined centre of gravity of the rotational mass inward toward the pivot, essentially reducing moment of inertia. The difference wouldn't be massive (pun), mind, but is easily calculated.

I'm not sure if I buy this... Adding a rotational mass (i.e. a heavier sub-platter) can only increase the moment of inertia rather than decrease it. The centre of mass may move inwards but the nett effect is an increase in moment of inertia and therefore 'flywheel effect'.
If you calculate the moment of inertia of a plastic (lighter) sub-platter and a steel (heavier) sub-platter then the metal one will be greater and therefore have a greater MOI amusing a relatively similar distribution of mass across it's cross section. The only way a plastic sub-platter could have a greater MOI than a steel one would be if for a given diameter, it had considerably more volume towards it's outer diameter - highly unlikely as plastic sub-platter tend to have a skeletal design and steel ones are solid.

 

[Mr Pig]

I'm not sure if I buy this... Adding a rotational mass (i.e. a heavier sub-platter) can only increase the moment of inertia rather than decrease it.

I think he's right. You're not redistributing the mass, you're increasing it.

 

[Craig B]

I think he's right. You're not redistributing the mass, you're increasing it.

He, who?

Let us not forget that inertia is the property of a body that resists any change to its uniform motion; equivalent to its mass.

On the other hand, moment of inertia is a property of the distribution of mass in space that measures resistance to rotational acceleration about one or more axes. Newton’s first law, which describes the inertia of a body in linear motion, can be extended to the inertia of a body rotating about an axis using the moment of inertia. An object that is rotating at constant angular velocity will remain rotating unless it is acted upon by an external torque; therefore, the further out from the rotational axis that the mass is distributed, the more torque that is required to act up it.

 

[Yank]

I'm not sure if I buy this... Adding a rotational mass (i.e. a heavier sub-platter) can only increase the moment of inertia rather than decrease it. The centre of mass may move inwards but the nett effect is an increase in moment of inertia and therefore 'flywheel effect'.
If you calculate the moment of inertia of a plastic (lighter) sub-platter and a steel (heavier) sub-platter then the metal one will be greater and therefore have a greater MOI amusing a relatively similar distribution of mass across it's cross section. The only way a plastic sub-platter could have a greater MOI than a steel one would be if for a given diameter, it had considerably more volume towards it's outer diameter - highly unlikely as plastic sub-platter tend to have a skeletal design and steel ones are solid.

One would hope none of them are made from steel. At least not if anyone wishes to use a MC cartridge.

 

[Craig B]

One would hope none of them are made from steel. At least not if anyone wishes to use a MC cartridge.

Yes, not so much a steely sound; more like a plastic wheelie bin being dragged down the lane on its side, but coming through the speakers!

 

[Greyandy]

One would hope none of them are made from steel. At least not if anyone wishes to use a MC cartridge.

Apologies, for 'steel' read 'metal', in the cast of GT and TS, aluminium, though to be more precise the term 'alloy' should be used!
However, the spindle is steel...
It's also useful to remember that not all steel is magnetised, so does not automatically interact with the cartridge, be it MC or MM. This is something that watchmakers have a good grip on and all the steel parts are de-magnitised.

He, who?

Let us not forget that inertia is the property of a body that resists any change to its uniform motion; equivalent to its mass.

On the other hand, moment of inertia is a property of the distribution of mass in space that measures resistance to rotational acceleration about one or more axes. Newton’s first law, which describes the inertia of a body in linear motion, can be extended to the inertia of a body rotating about an axis using the moment of inertia. An object that is rotating at constant angular velocity will remain rotating unless it is acted upon by an external torque; therefore, the further out from the rotational axis that the mass is distributed, the more torque that is required to act up it.

And therefore a higher mass sub-platter will have a higher MOI.

 

[Craig B]

And therefore a higher mass sub-platter will have a higher MOI.[/QUOTE]
Yes, however, in this case, the sub-platter is not acting alone.

Were we talking Ed Mietner's old Museatex AT-2, then I would be the first to agree...

 

[Mr Pig]

Yes, however, in this case, the sub-platter is not acting alone.

Honestly, I don't know what you're on about?

If two assemblies were of the same weight but one had more mass towards the center then yes, you might have a point but that's not the case so you don't. If the outer platter is the same and the inner is heavier there won't be a loss of inertia. It'll still increase, just not as much as it would if the extra weight was out at the edge.

Turntable platters that have weight biased towards the outside do so to maximize inertia for the desired overall weight. Extra weight towards the center would not reduce inertia but might make the platter heavier than the designer wants for the given bearing or drive design.

None of this is very relevant as I don't think the weight difference between an alloy and plastic Rega sub-chassis is significant.

 

[Craig B]

Honestly, I don't know what you're on about?

If two assemblies were of the same weight but one had more mass towards the center then yes, you might have a point but that's not the case so you don't. If the outer platter is the same and the inner is heavier there won't be a loss of inertia. It'll still increase, just not as much as it would if the extra weight was out at the edge.

Turntable platters that have weight biased towards the outside do so to maximize inertia for the desired overall weight. Extra weight towards the center would not reduce inertia but might make the platter heavier than the designer wants for the given bearing or drive design.

None of this is very relevant as I don't think the weight difference between an alloy and plastic Rega sub-chassis is significant.

I'm not sure, but I think you have just argued my case for me here, Colin.

IOW, any extra mass at the hub doesn't make as much difference as the same mass distributed about the periphery of the platter.

I won't bother posting pedantic math equations here, only to say that whenever mass (m) and radius (r) come up, one half of m is multiplied by r squared.

 

[Greyandy]

The increase, and therefore effect of the moment of inertia by fitting a heavier sub-platter is probably quite minimal. I'd suggest that the improvement of the TS sub-platter from the standard is probably down to it's increased stiffness and possibly differences between the belt running on metal and plastic.

 

[Mr Pig]

I think you have just argued my case for me here..

No, I'm not but let's just leave it shall we as it's just becoming thread pollution.

Back of topic, the bottom line is that would only carry out minimal upgrades to a P3, except ones that you can carry over like a phono stage. My friend who has upgraded his has so far added a brace, the 24v motor, white belt and an alloy sub-platter. He's talking about a Neo, phono stage etc. What I'm trying to get though to him as that pretty soon he'll have spent more than the cost of a deck that would be better straight out of the box.

And that's the fundamental problem with these upgrades. Everyone I've heard of who's put money into a P3 or cheaper Rega deck and has eventually bought a better Rega deck has admitted that the upgrades did not make the cheaper/older deck beat the more expensive one. Which is fine, unless you've spent the value of the better deck.

 

[Craig B]

No, I'm not but let's just leave it shall we as it's just becoming thread pollution.

Nicely dismissive way of changing the subject, Colin.

 

[Mr Pig]

Nicely dismissive way of changing the subject..

It's off topic, of no relevance and done with.