Thread: Rega Planar 10 TAS Review

Originally Posted by Ritmo

Congrats to Stephen (Puma Cat) on the review of the 10. I guess he liked it, a lot!

Hi Mike,
Many thanks. Yes, I did like it a lot. If I were in the market for a TT, I'd simply get the P10 and call it a day.

Job done.

Originally Posted by Ritmo

Great! I always thought of Rega as well made, very good sounding and reasonably priced components.

At one point, I had a Rega RB300 arm on my Linn LP-12 in the late 1980s.

Hi Mike!

Just my perspective having lived with the P10 for some months...it's not very good-sounding, it's exceptionally good-sounding. The engineering and materials science in that platter, tonearm, and main bearing, for example, is INSANE. This deck is not to be taken lightly: "Oh yeah, Regas are great...for the money." Uh...NO. This is no lightweight; I'd put the P10 up against decks costing $15,000. And...it may well best them in a number of areas, including it's astonishingly low noise floor, neutrality, and ability to extract information from the record groove.

One should not dismiss the new P10 based on its price, with the assumption a more expensive will necessarily sound better. Or worse yet, not considered because of its price point.

It's also the least-fussy and most durable deck I can think of.

Originally Posted by Puma Cat

Hi Mike!

Just my perspective having lived with the P10 for some months...it's not very good-sounding, it's exceptionally good-sounding. The engineering and materials science in that platter, tonearm, and main bearing, for example, is INSANE. This deck is not to be taken lightly: "Oh yeah, Regas are great...for the money." Uh...NO. This is no lightweight; I'd put the P10 up against decks costing $15,000. And...it may well best them in a number of areas, including it's astonishingly low noise floor, neutrality, and ability to extract information from the record groove.

One should not dismiss the new P10 based on its price, with the assumption a more expensive will necessarily sound better. Or worse yet, not considered because of its price point.

It's also the least-fussy and most durable deck I can think of.

which $15,000+ 'tables have you reviewed in your system?

Originally Posted by puroagave

which $15,000+ 'tables have you reviewed in your system?

Mine.

Originally Posted by Puma Cat

Mine.

what is "mine"?

Originally Posted by SimpleSimonSays

The correct title for the Eurythmics song used for the review is "This City Never Sleeps" and not "In the City"...

Could also be named "Kim Basinger is having a good time"...

Thanks, fortunately the orbits of the planets are still correct. And..the Editor should have caught that, as that is in fact, the job of...an Editor! They also incorrectly specified that the arm was the model RB2000 on the lead-in in the front of the magazine.

I'll let 'em know...

Cheers.

Originally Posted by Puma Cat

Thanks, fortunately the orbits of the planets are still correct. And..the Editor should have caught that, as that is in fact, the job of...an Editor! They also incorrectly specified that the arm was the model RB2000 on the lead-in in the front of the magazine.

I'll let 'em know...

Cheers.

Suggestion: Own your mistakes. The Editor will catch many of them. A form of writer best practice is to double and triple check things like that yourself before submitting copy. You should never dump on your editors (TAS has great editors). In most cases, they keep your mistakes from seeing the light of day. A good way to help them is to make sure you have facts like equipment info and song titles correct IF you can.

Dre

Originally Posted by Dre_J

Suggestion: Own your mistakes. The Editor will catch many of them. A form of writer best practice is to double and triple check things like that yourself before submitting copy. You should never dump on your editors (TAS has great editors). In most cases, they keep your mistakes from seeing the light of day. A good way to help them is to make sure you have facts like equipment info and song titles correct IF you can.

Dre

I do. I go through my articles thoroughly, multiple times, including spell check, and grammatical and usage errors. But here is a FACT: there are NO perfect products or processes. They don't exist. This is why publications, journals, and magazines have Editors. That's their job description.

And, I'm not dumping on my Editors, so please do not mis-characterise what I've said. Good editors don't mis-characterize people's comments, either. I simply pointed out a fact that the Editors used the incorrect model specification for the tonearm in the lead-in.

Originally Posted by Puma Cat

I do. I go through my articles thoroughly, multiple times, including spell check, and grammatical and usage errors. But here is a FACT: there are NO perfect products or processes. They don't exist. This is why publications, journals, and magazines have Editors. That's their job description.

And, I'm not dumping on my Editors, so please do not mis-characterise what I've said. Good editors don't mis-characterize people's comments, either. I simply pointed out a fact that the Editors used the incorrect model specification for the tonearm in the lead-in.

It's not as much what you said as it is combined with how you said it. Perception can become a person's reality for those who read what you wrote. This is not criticism, it is a comment for you to take into consideration.

Logically following: Based on your two posts, you still haven't owned the mistake with the song naming. Instead, in the first response to the song title issue, you effectively blamed the editor by saying it's his fault your mistake got through instead of responding with a simple "my mistake" and moving on. Additionally, you then added to the editor issue you brought up with a comment about the intro in the TOC which wasn't even part of the original comment about the song. That progression is how a dump or pile-on can be perceived.

In your second response, you still didn't really admit a mistake in the song title yet bring up the issue you threw on before about the opening TOC.

The combination of these things do form an impression of dumping on an editor instead of just owning the mistake and moving on; This owning of a negligible, IMO, mistake should fit with the part you stated about there being no perfect person or process. Again, perception can become a person's reality for those who read what you say and how you say it. Being savvy, doesn't always come across because many readers are not intently trying to dissect your words in thread posts online.

As stated before, my post was a suggestion for consideration to own your mistake and move on.

Dre

Originally Posted by Dre_J

It's not as much what you said as it is combined with how you said it. Perception can become a person's reality for those who read what you wrote. This is not criticism, it is a comment for you to take into consideration.

Logically following: Based on your two posts, you still haven't owned the mistake with the song naming. Instead, in the first response to the song title issue, you effectively blamed the editor by saying it's his fault your mistake got through instead of responding with a simple "my mistake" and moving on. Additionally, you then added to the editor issue you brought up with a comment about the intro in the TOC which wasn't even part of the original comment about the song. That progression is how a dump or pile-on can be perceived.

In your second response, you still didn't really admit a mistake in the song title yet bring up the issue you threw on before about the opening TOC.

The combination of these things do form an impression of dumping on an editor instead of just owning the mistake and moving on; This owning of a negligible, IMO, mistake should fit with the part you stated about there being no perfect person or process. Again, perception can become a person's reality for those who read what you say and how you say it. Being savvy, doesn't always come across because many readers are not intently trying to dissect your words in thread posts online.

As stated before, my post was a suggestion for consideration to own your mistake and move on.

Dre

It was my mistake.

Now, as you suggested, can we move on?

Originally Posted by Puma Cat

It was my mistake.

That's a more appropriate response than the original, IMO.

Originally Posted by Puma Cat

Now, as you suggested, can we move on?

Of course.

Dre

Originally Posted by nc42acc

I wonder if sitting the P10 in an exotic wood “plinth” with a proper dust cover it would detract from its great sound?

Probably.

Rega originally had a "surround plinth" for the RP8, that you could place around the skeletal plinth so that it would look more like a conventional turntable. The dustcover was placed over this surround plinth, if memory serves.

Bottom line, acc. to Roy Gandy, is that users just took the surround plinth away and used only the core skeletal plinth by itself, so they discontinued the surround plinth idea for the P8 and P10.

Originally Posted by Mikado463

LOL, I was siding with Stephen, I suspect he understood and that's all that matters .........

I did, thanks, Dave.