I've seen exactly the same on a couple of mod'd Rega decks.
Rega Planar 3 2016 worthwhile upgrades
- Thread starter Allaboutmusic
- Start date
Craig B
Re:trophile
Actually, the subject was related to the OPs own request for information from post 6 on page 1.
Admittedly, that was back in October 2019, however, the subject of aftermarket sub-platters was re-upped by new member @Greyandy this past Thursday.
Conversations do drift, but, thankfully, we have you to keep us on topic as to your own opinion (this one of which I happen to agree with, BTW).
Last edited:
Hazelberry
sister
My Tangospinner is solid and significantly heavier than my Rega sub.
Mr Pigs statement 'I don't think the weight difference between an alloy and plastic Rega sub-chassis is significant.' was in the context of its effect on MOI.
The TS is undoubtedly heavier than the stock Rega part and one would assume is stiffer so will have different acoustic properties. It will be this that changes the sound of the TT plus some potential small changes to MOI and the surface the belt runs on.
Question is, how does this stiffness improve the sound? My explanation would be that it's improves coupling between the platter and the cart, which is essentially made up of the chain of: Platter, Sub-platter, Bearing, Plinth, Arm, Cart.
I would say change the sound as improvement isn't a forgone conclusion.
Manufacturers design a turntable to give a balanced sound. Changing parts of the design add hock may upset the balance, even if the part fitted is technically better. The upgrades may work perfectly well, just saying it's not guaranteed.
Craig B
Re:trophile
If we are referring to Tangospinner then stiffness should not be considered as a foregone conclusion, nor should any assumption re 'improved coupling between the platter and cart' be made.
The outfits own marketing speak for each of their subplatter offerings begins with 'metal subplatter with silicone isolator decoupling stages' (the least expensive model is described as having 'butyl rubber decoupling'). One would think that they are attempting to convince the prospective customer that introducing decoupling between platter and bearing contact point is somehow a step in the right direction, rather than an admission that they haven't the technology/ability to machine three raised platter support points in an effort to actually provide this 'stiffness' that one assumes to be the case based upon the metals used.
It is rather ironic that they throw in a stainless steel ball, they may just as well have made it a plastic one to maximize on their supposed 'decoupling' advantage.
Last edited:
I suppose that we can debate the supposed pros and cons of design until the cows come home... In reality there are probably very few of us who know or understand exactly what these different designs achieve and how. Its always fun to speculate though! The simple fact of the matter is that (to my ears at least) it sounds better. So, somehow it's inclusion into the system and the changes that has made are an improvement.
It's useful to remember that Rega has a very strong and distinct hierarchy of TT products which is reflected in their price and you would also hope their performance, though there is also the laws of diminishing returns to consider.
It may be financially viable for them to put a 'better' sub-platter into a P3 and sell it for the same price, but if this brings it closer to the performance of a P6 then it gives them a bit of a marketing problem.
The whole range is designed to hit distinct price and performance points and their TT's will be designed and developed to put enough 'clear air' in-between relative models to justify their price difference.
The P6 has a metal sub-platter which we can only assume is an improvement over the P3 plastic part... it would be very interesting to put a P6 sub-platter onto a P3 and vice versa.
Hazelberry
sister
Yes. I was merely pointing out, is all.
The rest - yours and others' - I don't know. Re the TS, I feel the high mass and silicone ring may be key; possibly also the slightly smaller spindle diameter. I have no experience with other aftermarket subplatters.
I agree with Mr Pig: "I would say change the sound as improvement isn't a forgone conclusion." That seems to match my personal experience.
Some of the mods for Rega decks cause head scratching for pigs as they work against the design philosophies Rega employ. Acrylic platters for one and the rubber decoupling rings on aftermarket alloy sub-platters. Rega don't use these things on any of their turntables at any price. I'm sure they would if they thought they were a good idea.
I heard a couple of modded LP12s years ago and I just thought 'doesn't sound like an LP12 so..what's the point?'.
trick cyclist
pfm Member
Have to agree with all you have said, and if you could achieve P6 performance in a P3 by simply changing a few key parts and adding a neo ps then P6 pricing is hard to justify, but as in all these things, pretty much the only common part between the two is the lid, everything from the feet, plinth, bearing, platter, sub platter, and arm are entirely different products in both materials and design, which I would guess you know. It would be an interesting exercise though to see what it would take to significantly 'close the gap' before it just makes more sense to buy the better model.
Craig B
Re:trophile
I agree that it would be interesting to swap hubs/platters between them, with the simplest and most telling comparison likely to be placing RP6 alloy hub cap and layered glass platter upon P3 hub. This would isolate the affect of the increased rotational energy of the layered glass flywheel over that of the standard glass, without diluting those results via any significant increase in the mass of the hub (in fact, the latter will effectively be reduced due to the redistribution of glass).
Actually the P6 lid is different from the P3!... but that aside, the P3 and P6 share the same arm (RB330). From what I can gather the main differences are the plinth, platter, sub-platter, feet and the Neo PSU
Sure? As far as I can tell all Rega lids are the same apart from colour.
Yep, should have been clearer. The colour is different... me being unnecessarily pedantic!
It's an issue as the lid was designed before the decks had braces so the arm is now higher relative to the lid. There is very little clearance now.
Interesting point for discussion... does the lid have an impact on the sound? Just given mine a light tap and it has a small but distinct resonance. Presumably if the lid gets 'excited' at certain frequencies then this vibration will be transferred directly into the plinth and then arm, platter etc. I might have a play around with lid on/off later on today and see if I can hear any differences. Has anyone tried damping a plastic lid with any noticeable results?
Yes. Very easy to confirm. Just play the deck with and without it. Even on the RP10, which has an isolated outer plinth, you can hear the difference if the lid is removed. It's why Rega did away with it all together for the P8/P10.
I leave it on but open. Closed sounds bad but open adds a bit of body (distortion) which I like.
trick cyclist
pfm Member
Not bothered damping the lid, but always play with it up.
Regarding the arm, the P6 has a RB330 on it, afaik P3s have the very similar RB303, I think the difference is in the quality of bearings?
Regarding the arm, the P6 has a RB330 on it, afaik P3s have the very similar RB303, I think the difference is in the quality of bearings?
Darren L
Egalitarian
Yes, IME a Rega deck sounds best with the lid removed although I mostly used mine in the raised or open position mainly for convenience and practicality.
Most turntables do but the RP10 already sounds lean so I prefer the extra colouration. The LP12 sounded best with the lid off but it was marginal so I rarely bothered. Typically only when showing off ;0)