|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
67.72.98.85
So, We went window shopping today, 'Father's Day' on the way to a restaurant. We walked by an audio shop that had some Rega tt's in the window, a P3 and a P5 to be exact. What got me is on the P5 they have that metal 'frame' around the plinth. Tell me please, why this cheap looking 'picture frame' around the plinth? It makes the whole turntable look cheap. Does it have any function??? Now my P25 has a nice wooden frame around it's plinth, but it looks good and adds to the appearance in a positive way. Actually it doesn't have any function either except it at least isn't distracting and it doesn't makes the turntable look gaudy and cheap looking. The P3 that was in the shop window had no cheap metal frame around it and it looked far better then the P5.
What are the supposed advantages of a P5 over the P25 anyway?
There are a lot of very attractive turntables on the market right now selling for around the price of a P5. I could name a few, -like the entry level Champion or Emotion by Clearaudio, Funk, Nothingham Horizon, ProJect and the ProJect made Thorens, and Morantz, and even Music Hall.
So, you P5 lovers, why did you settle on something cheap and unsightly when you had so many other options?
Follow Ups:
It is definitely not necessary to get it with the aluminum, as other posters have said, there are at least two other options. Mine is wood. As far as the sonic merits over the P25. the arm is quite a bit better for starters, also as others have mentioned, the better plinth makes a big difference. And if you are buying it with a Rega cartridge, the Exact 2 that comes with the P5 is quite a bit better than the Elys that comes on the tables below the P5 in their line.
The P5 will throw a much bigger soundstage than the ones below it in the line in particular, a very noticeable difference. I have compared both in my system, and the P5 is definitely worth the extra money from the sonic perspective. Better resolution of instrumental timbres as well. The Rega line is very well known for their inexpensive but very good designs. IMO definitely the best of the more inexpensive high-end tables (compared to Project, Music Hall, Technics, Nottingham, all of which I have heard) Great sound without alot of fuss.
I don't think the P5 is better than the P25, after having spent much time with both. They both use plastic subplatters, glass/felt mat platter, similar tonearm (they are very similar other than three-point mounting), similar plinth material.
Add to that that the P5 is BUTT ugly in any form. While the P25 is very nice to behold. This stuff is important. The P5 looks like it was framed at one of those cheap NYC frame shops.
And on lightweight surrounds, etc. Look... Rega will skimp wherever they can. If you don't believe me look at that plastic subplatter that extends all the way to the P5. Or all the plastic on the RB301 compared to the former RB300. Or how cheap the dust covers feel compared to the older ones.
If I could pick up a New-Old-Stock P25 today, for say, $400 - $500 less than a new P5, I'd go for it. I'd add all the Groovetracer upgrades, and maybe a Pro-Ject Speed Box and call it day, resting easy that I had something not only exceeding the performance of the P5, but also something that doesn't look cheap as a can of beans on my rack.
You can get a cherry wood trim for the P5 also. The trim is for looks as well as function.
Originally, the P9 used a wood trim for dress and also because it allowed them to make the main plinth a very skeletal section and cover that with a thin skin. This allowed the table to be as light and as rigid as possible while still featuring a dust cover and sporting a furniture quality trim. The P25 followed that suit. As Rega developed their ideas about how to dress a more simple, frameless plinth, they came out with the P3 which had one plinth base and beveled edges without a separately attached trim. The P3 2000 as it was referred to was the basics of the P25, with the P25 actually just being a well dressed P3. The P25 was released first and so introduced the new features of the P3 to the world (rigidly mounted motor and aluminum motor pulley).
On the P5, the trim serves to provide a place for the the dust cover to rest while further lowering the weight and increasing the overall rigidity of the table. It is a hollow, aluminum extrusion and admittedly it looks better in person than in photos. The rubber joints were a way of easily joining the light, extruded sections while providing a non-resonant interface with each other and the dust cover. The P5 has a better tonearm and a better surround design than the P25 had. The cherry wood surround of the P5 is machined on the inside to route it out, creating a lighter weight and hollow material, much as the aluminum does so that you don't lose too much of the weight advantage by choosing the wood finish. The old P25 and even the P9 trim was solid wood and joined with very strong finger joints. The new P9 has a similarly routed wood surround as the P5 and as Rega explains it:
"New technologies in CNC woodworking machinery have allowed Rega to produce its first technologically complex surround. The new P9 surround is considerably more attractive than its predecessor and externally much larger although through clever machining the new surround is lower in mass than the old which gives a performance improvement."
-Bill
1
They actually have engineering degrees and try their designs out over there before they release it for sale. ;-).
-Bill
I don't find my P7 butt-ugly. :-)
You can get the P5 with cherry wood surround instead of aluminium.
P9 sure is the most elegant in the line-up by far.
It looks better with the wood surround, but still not as nice as the P25 because of the prominent seams. There is probably some sonic advantage to doing it like that, but visually the results are not my cup of tea (butt ugly is probably too harsh). The P25 looked more elegant. I agree the P9 looks nice, bet it sounds good too!
I have no idea if the frame on the P5 is a sonic improvement over what was on the P25, but it sure is ugly. The P25 is an attractive table, the kind of thing I would feel proud to own. The P5 is butt ugly, and, let's face it, aesthetics count for something. There are tons of aftermarket tweaks that I bet could take the P25 to the same level of performance as the P5 or better.
"There are tons of aftermarket tweaks that I bet could take the P25 to the same level of performance as the P5 or better."
I don't agree with that at all. Most of the aftermarket "tweaks" actually worsen the sound to my ear. It's certainly a big business but not a very honest one.
The P5 has a better arm and the motor is better. The P5 and the latest P3-24 both have 24v motors and can accept the TT-PSU regulator. That makes for a huge improvement. You get real engineering improvements from the new models, not just a change in appearance or a flavor of coloration.
-Bill
I sold it mainly because I have to other better tables. A linn LP12 and an Oracle Delphi II to more precise. While I very much enjoyed the P25, I just did not have room for 3 tables, so that is the one I chose to sell. It was an great sounding table, and if I had only the money for it, I would have been happy all things considered. The Linn and Oracle both are better tables, but both are more tweeky than the Rega was. While I do not think there is much difference between a P5 and a P25, I have not listened to a P5. If I ever simplify and not wish to tweek any more, I think I would go to a Rega P9.
Tim
I had a P25 some years ago and it was a really good looker. Simple but effective. Though I hadn't thought of the unappealing plinth on the P5 as a picture frame, it does look like one now that you mention it. I don't know what function it serves but it sure ain't pretty. We audiophiles suffer enough with the tedious ritual of cleaning vinyl, properly setting up a turntable, swapping tubes, no remote controls, ridiculously heavy equipment, many things expensive, etc. You'd think at least these things should look good.
...that the P5/P7 frame is acoustically superior (in the Rega tradition of light and rigid)--but then you have to wonder why, in that case, the P9 uses a wood frame. I didn't ask. I'm sure there's a cost-vs-performance calculation in there somewhere.
Still, I sold my P25 and got a P7. The P7 is better. Don't know about the P5.
Jim
and/or transfers resonances and it's the plinth to which the feet attach. The outer frame is just for show, more or less, I'm told.
Opus
Certainly it makes sense to me that the plinth is more important. But I was told that the P5/7 frame was superior, acoustically. Could be just marketing, but there you go.
Jim
Told that by a Rega dealer whom I trust.
Opus
Opus
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: