|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
[ Asylum Support ] [ Rules ] |
Model: | P3 2000 |
Category: | Turntables |
Suggested Retail Price: | $750 |
Description: | New version of the classic Rega Planar 3, with RB300 tonearm |
Manufacturer URL: | Rega |
Review by Don T (A) on April 29, 2007 at 23:07:38 IP Address: 72.208.129.48 | Add Your Review for the P3 2000 |
I've owned two Rega Planar 3s and one P3. This review is on the P3 that I currently own. No I haven't compared a P3 directly with a Planar 3. I did own and use a Planar 3 for almost 10 years and have a P3 for the last two years. I consider my comments applicable to either the Planar 3 or the P3. If someone wants to differentiate between the two in a response that would be great.I've used these decks in a variety of different rooms and different systems. I'm going to attempt to comment on the sound of this deck below but right up front I admit it's one of the best turntables I've ever owned regardless of price.
It's not so much about how the P3 sounds, it mostly about thow the P3 and the Planar 3 portray music. In all my experiences with this table the table allow music to flow with purpose. I'm not sure I can verbalize this quality but in a nutshell, music, at least how I expect it to be, is reproduced with drive, swagger and propulsion. I've never heard another TT do this better than the Rega, not even my much more expensive Roksan Xerxes DX2 combination. The Roksan, like many other TT even those at the P3 price, is much more articulate and detailed than the P3. The Roksan however, is the only TT that I'm familiar that arranges/organizes it's articulation and detail in such a way to that puts propulsion, drive, artistic intent and conviction at the forefront. The P3s ability to convey the drive and propulsion of music, from instant to instant is not only better than every TT I've heard it's also better than every CD player I've heard. I think in general most CDPs do this better than most TTs, the Roksan and the Rega are in my experiences exceptions to the rule. I'm sure there's other exceptions - I just haven't heard them. Maybe the LP12 but IMO it, at least the pre-cirkus model I owned, achieves a similar effect through a crafted frequency response. I don't know for sure that the Rega and Roksan aren't doing a similar thing but with a less obvious and more effective frequency balance. I really can't explain this quality but I know I hear it.
Compared to more expensive, and some similarly priced decks the Rega might sound somewhat harmonically threadbare, and thin with a soft bass. Don't get me wrong the P3 is harmonically colorful but not at the expense of musical drive and propulsion - a tradeoff I think many TTs make, even some very expensive one. It's also not as rich or as full bodied as some TTs though the first time I heard one I thought it was all midrange. The bass is relatively deep and articulated though not as extended or powerful as I've heard from other players at it's price. Then again everything is relative and based on one's experiences. These are mine.
Someone in another review thinks it does soundstage well. I don't think so. I think, compared to better decks, images are somewhat diffuse. Yea there's a reasonable attempt at side to side placement but not up to the standards I've heard on other decks. I'm not even going to comment on front to back depth. These things hardly matters to me at all - and I admit it's possible that deck could be a champion at these things but the rest of my gear isn't up to it's standard. Maybe? Like said I don't really care.
The P3 sounds like whatever it's resting on. It's a suspensionless design and not isolated from its perch. If you put it on a big wooden entertainment center then that's what it will sound like. Over the years I've had it on some pretty poor supports. It rewards the owner who gives it a nice support. This isn't expensive, the best, IMO again, is the dedicated Rega wall mount.
My favorite cartridges on this table were a Grado Signature 8, a Dynavector 10x4 and my current Denon 103. The Elys also worked well but was more system dependent than the other 3. There was a plethora of other cartridges I tried that aren't worth mentioning. The RB300 is a great cost effective arm and I'm going to be mounting a Dynavector 20L on it in a couple of months. I wouldn't take it much beyond. If I wanted to invest in more expensive cartridges I'd do a table upgrade - the Roksan Xerxes DX2 or a full out Orbe for example with arms in the 2K+ range. This is just me - a dealer I know thinks all one needs to enjoy expensive carts is a P3 on a wall mount. Me, I think you'll be selling your high dollar cartridges short.
All and all a great product for the money. An affordable TT that can hold it's own in systems consisting of components far more expensive than itself.
Product Weakness: | Needs dedicated stand. As great as it the RB300 is somewhat overrated. Way too many "upgrades" available that more than likely screw up the TT than help it out. |
Product Strengths: | Great music for the money. If someone likes it's take on music it might be all someone ever needs. If it works for you like it works for me, there is never going to be a real need to replace it and good luck maintaining it's virtues when you go to try to "upgrade" it. |
Associated Equipment for this Review: | |
Amplifier: | Melody i2A3, NAD 352, Exposure XV, Exposure DR4 and XVII |
Preamplifier (or None if Integrated): | Exposure 6/7, Exposure 21 |
Sources (CDP/Turntable): | HK T20, Sota Sapphire, Linn LP12, Roksan Xerxes |
Speakers: | Living Voice Avatars, Spendor SP100s, PSB Stratus Golds, Polk Monitor 10B |
Cables/Interconnects: | lots |
Music Used (Genre/Selections): | pop/rock |
Room Size (LxWxH): | 1 x 1 x 1 |
Room Comments/Treatments: | none |
Time Period/Length of Audition: | 12 years |
Other (Power Conditioner etc.): | none |
Type of Audition/Review: | Product Owner |
Your System (if other than home audition): | see my profile |
Follow Ups:
This is one of the best reviews I've read at AA. If the audio press followed your lead and focused first and foremost on how well an audio widget reproduces music , rather than droning on endlessly about vapid mechanical sound effects while rhythmic competency is entirely ignored, perhaps the P3's involving, energetic presentation wouldn't be such a rare commodity these days."...propulsion, drive, artistic intent and conviction..."
Nice work!
This is one of the best reviews I've read at AA. If the audio press followed your lead and focused first and foremost on how well an audio widget reproduces music, rather than droning on endlessly about vapid mechanical sound effects while rhythmic competency is entirely ignored, perhaps the P3's involving, energetic presentation wouldn't be such a rare commodity these days.Thanks. I've heard, on several occasions here on AA, audiophiles claim the qualities of pace and rhythm were nothing more than a marketing ploy. Can you believe that? Something about Linn (or Naim) I think - as if Ivor invented the concepts? LOL! Sounds more than preposterous to me.
Some of the audio press does look at music first and alot more today than 20 years ago. Some reviewers, Art Dudley for example, seem to mostly focus in on the music. Several years ago an article was published in Stereophile about the beauty of music (based on rhythmic ability) and how as audiophiles we often neglect this beauty.
There's always been alot of different niche markets within the audio market place. It's impossible for the press to focus on any individual niche and IMO that's a good thing. I don't think as a whole we've recovered from that absolute sound / live reference knee jerk of a few years back. But AFAIK the Rega Planar 3 and the P3 have almost always garnered good press so all is not lost.
"I've heard, on several occasions here on AA, audiophiles claim the qualities of pace and rhythm were nothing more than a marketing ploy. Can you believe that?"Even more laughable; some "inmates" - and here the term becomes more apropos than usual - claim that accurately preserving the music's rhythmic vigor, pacing energy, and timing precision; i.e., good PRaT, is actually a distortion! Meanwhile, these selfsame sound-lovers tout some of the most flaccid, rhythmically confused gear I've ever heard for its so-called "accuracy."
"I don't think as a whole we've recovered from that absolute sound / live reference knee jerk of a few years back. But AFAIK the Rega Planar 3 and the P3 have almost always garnered good press so all is not lost."
I think the Obsolete $ound and their ilk actually did a lot of damage. Who cares whether a system reproduces the sound of live music - a brass ring that's always juuuuust out of reach - when the performence elements that gave the music its soul, energy, and excitement are distorted, sometimes beyond recognition?
I'd happily live with a well-supported stock P3 over the best that Sota, Clearaudio, Basis, VPI, or Teres, etc. have to offer. Not because it's sonically superior - it isn't! - but because it simply plays music more convincingly and engagingly than most of those PRaT-deficient audiophile cupcakes.
BTW, if you run a VA search on the P3, you'll find that it receives quite a bit of negative "press" from those who fail to recognise that its light, rigid design implementation has nothing to do with a lack of "build quality," which the critics seem to feel ought to be measured by the pound, rather than the sound.
" Even more laughable; some "inmates" - and here the term becomes more apropos than usual - claim that accurately preserving the music's rhythmic vigor, pacing energy, and timing precision; i.e., good PRaT, is actually a distortion! Meanwhile, these selfsame sound-lovers tout some of the most flaccid, rhythmically confused gear I've ever heard for its so-called "accuracy." "A distortion? That's pretty damn funny. Probably the same bunch that thinks a hallmark of a good stereo it's ability to let you know how "bad" your recordings are by sounding bad itself!
"I think the Obsolete $ound and their ilk actually did a lot of damage. Who cares whether a system reproduces the sound of live music - a brass ring that's always juuuuust out of reach - when the performence elements that gave the music its soul, energy, and excitement are distorted, sometimes beyond recognition?"
How convenient for the industry - that brass ring will always be "just" out of reach. Until next year when we'll get just a little bit closer. (sarcsasm intended)
I agree with the damage. Can't believe how often I hear pop/rock music fans crying about how bad their recordings sound. What planet are these people from? But of course they'll accuse my systems of being to colored or distorted to sound as bad as it should.
Not much freaks me out more than some guy with a ClearAudio TT complaining about the excessive subilance in Robert Plants voice on Led Zeppelin II in post over on the Rocky Road. That's too freeking weird even for me.
Those kind of concepts are just to queer for general consumption - but lo and behold they took root in the audio world.
I'd happily live with a well-supported stock P3 over the best that Sota, Clearaudio, Basis, VPI, or Teres, etc. have to offer. Not because it's sonically superior - it isn't! - but because it simply plays music more convincingly and engagingly than most of those PRaT-deficient audiophile cupcakes.
Agree!BTW, if you run a VA search on the P3, you'll find that it receives quite a bit of negative "press" from those who fail to recognise that its light, rigid design implementation has nothing to do with a lack of "build quality," which the critics seem to feel ought to be measured by the pound, rather than the sound.
LOL! The P3 is a fully realized design for it's price point. Ones really got to wonder about these striped down designs others are selling, at close to the price of a P3, that can be upgraded simply by screwing and unscrewing different parts onto the chassis. What the heck! Par for the industry course, these half assed implementations should and do sell for a couple a hundred more than the Rega because they are upgradeable(more sarcasm)! Go figure!
What do you mean by all of this, Don T? If it weren't for how crappy many, many rock (and some classical) CDs sounded over a pair of brand new B&W Matrix speakers, I never would have discovered the joy of records, via the Planar 3.Why is someone "from another planet" for thinking their recordings suck, or for not liking Led Sibilance? No entiendo.
You wrote:
Can't believe how often I hear pop/rock music fans crying about how bad their recordings sound. What planet are these people from? But of course they'll accuse my systems of being to colored or distorted to sound as bad as it should.
Not much freaks me out more than some guy with a ClearAudio TT complaining about the excessive subilance in Robert Plants voice on Led Zeppelin II in post over on the Rocky Road. That's too freeking weird even for me.
Those kind of concepts are just to queer for general consumption - but lo and behold they took root in the audio world.
What do you mean by all of this, Don T? If it weren't for how crappy many, many rock (and some classical) CDs sounded over a pair of brand new B&W Matrix speakers, I never would have discovered the joy of records, via the Planar 3.I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make with this comment. But if you are talking about most CD reissues of older pre CD era releases, or even CD release up until the early 90s, I suspect bad CD mastering is why the CDs sound so bad.
As far as new release vinyl goes I still like grundgy, garage or noisy rock that way. Otherwise newer music on CDs sound pretty good to me and more often than not I think they are better produced and mastered than the vinyl. And even my favorite TTs can't overcome CDs that are more well produced than their vinyl counterparts.
Why is someone "from another planet" for thinking their recordings suck, or for not liking Led Sibilance? No entiendo.
All recordings "suck". I'm not into the that special production stuff as the musical selection doesn't interest me. In general most audiophile reissues don't even sound as good as the orignal, ie. they suck worse than the originals. Though often I sense they are manufactured to sound better on bad stereos.
Why in the heck would someone own a TT or a system for that matter that makes Led Zeppelin sound like Led Sibilance if they are interested in listening to Led Zeppelin records. It's just stupid and there's no sane reason or justification for it whatsoever. But sure a heck there's reasons and justifications given all the time here in the asylum.
I've listen to several Led Zeppelin records in the past month on both my systems. Need I apologize that the records sound freeking awesome?
IMO a good stereo will let you know a whole lot about the recordings you are listening to. However why do you and others assume a correlation between "bad sound" and recording quality. I don't buy that at all. The correlation is between bad sound and system quality. It's just too easy to blame the record industry (most surely at some audio dealers insistance) for bad sound, ie. bad component match, bad gear, poor setup or something really not subjectively in line with the listeners interests. IME bad sound is much more a function of a bad system than it is of recording quality.
If someone does an upgrade and not every recording of interest sounds better they've made a mistake. It's just that simple - they bought an upgrade meant for someone else.
So yea - someone is living on another planet than me if they don't realize that it's the stereo that makes a recording sound bad AND that most recordings are bad not just the one's that sound bad on his/her system.
What do you mean by all of this, Don T? If it weren't for how crappy many, many rock (and some classical) CDs sounded over a pair of brand new B&W Matrix speakers, I never would have discovered the joy of records, via the Planar 3.I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make with this comment. But if you are talking about most CD reissues of older pre CD era releases, or even CD release up until the early 90s, I suspect bad CD mastering is why the CDs sound so bad.
As far as new release vinyl goes I still like grundgy, garage or noisy rock that way. Otherwise newer music on CDs sound pretty good to me and more often than not I think they are better produced and mastered than the vinyl. And even my favorite TTs can't overcome CDs that are more well produced than their vinyl counterparts.
Why is someone "from another planet" for thinking their recordings suck, or for not liking Led Sibilance? No entiendo.
All recordings "suck". I'm not into the that special production stuff as the musical selection doesn't interest me. In general most audiophile reissues don't even sound as good as the orignal, ie. they suck worse than the originals. Though often I sense they are manufactured to sound better on bad stereos.
Why in the heck would someone own a TT or a system for that matter that makes Led Zeppelin sound like Led Sibilance if they are interested in listening to Led Zeppelin records. It's just stupid and there's no sane reason or justification for it whatsoever. But sure a heck there's reasons and justifications given all the time here in the asylum.
I've listen to several Led Zeppelin records in the past month on both my systems. Need I apologize that the records sound freeking awesome?
IMO a good stereo will let you know a whole lot about the recordings you are listening to. However why do you and others assume a correlation between "bad sound" and recording quality. I don't buy that at all. The correlation is between bad sound and system quality. It's just too easy to blame the record industry (most surely at some audio dealers insistance) for bad sound, ie. bad component match, bad gear, poor setup or something really not subjectively in line with the listeners interests. IME bad sound is much more a function of a bad system than it is of recording quality.
If someone does an upgrade and not every recording of interest sounds better they've made a mistake. It's just that simple - they bought an upgrade meant for someone else.
So yea - someone is living on another planet than me if they don't realize that it's the stereo that makes a recording sound bad AND that most recordings are bad not just the one's that sound bad on his/her system.
A nice review of a (my) nice turntable, Don T.I use a Super Elys cartridge, and though I wouldn't have thought to say it as well as you did, I too love the way the P3 "portrays music," ... "allows it to flow with purpose " (italics mine).
The P3/Super Elys combo returns rock music to the important place it had in my life when both the music and I were young--a place not shared with 98% of rock CDs (I really only like classical on CD).
I too have a Rega P3, with the Super Elys cartridge. The table is integrated into an all Rega kit. This system is minimalist in its features, yet very musical.
The next P3 should be with us in May.Thanks for the review.
MK 24... puts Rambo and even Rocky to shame!
Thanks for your very nice review. I agree with everything you say except the following. With a DV 20XH and an ARC PH5 phono stage playing through Vandersteen 5 speakers, I get a wonderfully deep and wide soundstage with great air around the instruments. Though I don't care that much about accurate imaging, I have it to a high degree. Also, I don't find it the least bit lacking in bass, but the support it sits on is all-important, as you say. I worked hard on the support.The P3 is what brought me back to vinyl. As you have, I have compared it to TTs costing far more and have yet to have any urge to make a change. For some reason, it gets bad-mouthed a lot around here, but I think anyone who has heard it set up properly with a good cartridge in a good system would come to similar conclusions that you and I have. I will say it isn't much to look at and appear a bit on the flimsy side, but that doesn't matter to me. It's worked flawlessly for three-plus years I've had it.
My criticisms about the Planar 3 / P3 are made mostly from comparisons with vinyl systems costing much more.As far as the imagine/soundstaging issue goes it's not a high priority with me. I never have considered evaluating those things a high priority so, like I said in the review, it could be that it's my other gear that leads me to that conclusion. I don't know and I'll take your word for for the P3's performance in that area. Though it's clear to me it's not up to the standard set by my previous Sota Sapphire or my Roksan Xerxes DX2.
Yesterday I was listening to my recently acquired Raysonic CD128 ($1800 retail) - totally amazed and blown away with how well it worked in my newly updated second system. After a couple a CDs I put on an LP on the P3/103/pp2 combo and my first thought was the CDP sounded much better than the P3. Well heck I thought the CDP does cost twice as much as the whole vinyl rig! After my second LP I concluded the P3 was was as musically involving and good sounding as the CDP. This is how my analog v. digital conclusions have been going now for some years - which ever one I listen to last is usually the best - and switching media does require a short period of transition. That being said I can get more from my P3 - planning on a new phono section and a new cartridge within the next couple of months.
I have an Ayre CX-7e, which goes for a list of around $3K. My P3 + DV 20XH + ARC PH5 cost in total about the same. The CX-7e is superb. I have only heard one CD player that I liked better, and it cost more than $40K; it certainly wasn't that much better.For me, the CD vs. vinyl comparison is completely a function of the quality of the recorded material. The very best CDs and the very best vinyl both sound superb, and I'm not sure I would pick one over the other as being my favorite, though they do sound different by nature. The problem for me is that CDs of the highest quality are far rarer than vinyl recordings with excellent sound. I am only talking about classical music here. Simply put, the quality of the production of most classical CDs out there leaves a lot to be desired, but there are many fine vinyl recordings from the mid 50s and on, and they are real treasures. I believe the problem with the sound of most CDs is not the RBCD standard, but how they are produced and mastered.
Joe
with your comments about the sound of LPs snf the sound of the CDs both being capable of sounding really good and with your comments on the importance of production and mastering.Both my CDPs, the Exposure XX3 and the Raysonic CD128 costed me around $1500. I enjoyed the heck out of a $300 NAD 521 BEE! The entry level admission to good CD sound is much lower than for vinyl.
I had an AR phono section at home when I was building the main - of course though I chose the similarly priced Exposure which worked best with that system (almost exclusively Exposure gear), my main, which is with the SP100s and now is in my bedroom.
I'm not ready to spend $2K on a phono section for the system the Rega is in so I'm going to give the Dynavector phono pre a try.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: