Rega Planar 3/2 - Significant modifications - Page 5 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Source & Line > Analogue Source

Analogue Source Turntables, Tonearms, Cartridges, Phono Stages, Tuners, Tape Recorders, etc.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 23rd January 2013, 08:45 PM   #41
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrPig View Post
Yes.



Brilliant mate, really :0)

Look, you can think what you want. I know how the arms are constructed and I gave you a quote from Rega telling you how they are constructed. I could explain it at length but that would just come across as patronising, and I really can't be bothered.
Dont know why this is such an important issue to you; but the fact is, that the RB250 is a much more precisely made arm with regards to bearing assembly support on both sides equally secure than the spring assembly side on the RB300, which is 'bolted on' but nowhere near as well to precision in comparison;

... most will agree with this, and reputable sites have reflected this point as well !!!

Last edited by TigerScent; 23rd January 2013 at 08:47 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd January 2013, 09:12 PM   #42
MrPig is offline MrPig  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerScent View Post
but the fact is, that the RB250 is a much more precisely made arm with regards to bearing assembly
I'm sorry, but this is rubbish!

Have you thought what you are saying through? Rega use the best configuration they can come up with on their cheapest product and lumber their best arms with a poorer system. Why would they do that?

Man, these guys must be idiots! I think you should give Rega a call and tell them they're doing it all wrong. Ask to speak to Paul Darwin as he clearly hasn't got clue one.

Let me know how you get on will you?
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd January 2013, 11:31 PM   #43
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: sheffield
Send a message via MSN to sq225917
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerScent View Post

Are you suggesting that the 'Geddon' single transformer as a 'large one' of about 1000 VA is preferrable to the Norton Air Power which uses 2 of differing voltages each 500 VA?

...and what would the more correct capacitor value be instead of 0.22uf ???

...also, on your 'Geddon', what values are the 'phase shift capacitors'? and what is the 'return' part of the ciruit - it must be the earth or ground wire ?
I'm suggesting that 2 identical rail voltages fed to the motor with the correctly chosen capacitor value is better than one high and one low voltage and a 0.22uf cap.

You'll have to find that by trial and error it will be very slightly different for each motor, (even assuming they are nominally identical) You'll find the correct value somewhere within +/- 20% of 0.22uf depending on how the coils on the motor were wound. Use a trimmer cap to dial it in and hold the motor in your hand, you will feel the vibration increase and decrease as you adjust the trim cap.

The chassis is earthed back to the IEC inlet.
__________________
hoping to pick up some things.
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th January 2013, 03:56 PM   #44
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by sq225917 View Post
I'm suggesting that 2 identical rail voltages fed to the motor with the correctly chosen capacitor value is better than one high and one low voltage and a 0.22uf cap.

You'll have to find that by trial and error it will be very slightly different for each motor, (even assuming they are nominally identical) You'll find the correct value somewhere within +/- 20% of 0.22uf depending on how the coils on the motor were wound. Use a trimmer cap to dial it in and hold the motor in your hand, you will feel the vibration increase and decrease as you adjust the trim cap.

The chassis is earthed back to the IEC inlet.
yeah, its much easier anyway to use the one transformer which I would rather do.

What value caps do you use in yours? Its most likely I will build one like that...
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th January 2013, 04:20 PM   #45
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrPig View Post
I'm sorry, but this is rubbish!

Have you thought what you are saying through? Rega use the best configuration they can come up with on their cheapest product and lumber their best arms with a poorer system. Why would they do that?

Man, these guys must be idiots! I think you should give Rega a call and tell them they're doing it all wrong. Ask to speak to Paul Darwin as he clearly hasn't got clue one.

Let me know how you get on will you?
Well, you are one of the very few that appear to think so that I have seen (the only one I have seen) on forums commenting on working with these 2 arms. I do not agree period. I know I will get more performance from the RB250 arm; and be able to justify using a much higher quality MC cartridge in turn. As it stands, I would only use a MM on the stock RB300 - although it does sound phenomenal vs standard due to the mods I made, and feel that a MC would work well, but much more so on a modded RB250.

I don't want to keep repeating my comments, (you should re-read my previous posts) however companies make many of their decisions based on business, and ease of use, cost cutting etc. I don't need to ask anyone what I can see for myself, and in addition is reflected over 99.99% of the audio vinyl forums. Why do you think Michell uses the RB250 for their tecnoarm, and not the RB300. You can bet if they approached Rega, they could easily get a shipload of RB300's to work on...I find it difficult to believe Rega would not supply them.

This modded RB250 arm will obliterate the RB300 sonically hands down by all reports...

http://www.michell-engineering.co.uk...rms/technoarm/
Michell Tecnoarm [English]

Some have also commented that even the stock RB250 has a better sound, others noticed improvement over the RB300 with just the counterweight changed etc...

You go ahead and believe what you will --- however the vast majority of audiophiles in the know, are aware of the more solid build and performance characteristics of the RB250 when modified, to the RB300 stock or modified.

Some simple google searching will reveal the truth of what I have been stating...I quite like my RB300 arm modded, but the RB250 modded with be a much greater improvement...

Last edited by TigerScent; 24th January 2013 at 04:48 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th January 2013, 05:17 PM   #46
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: sheffield
Send a message via MSN to sq225917
I use 2x 0.1uf the actual compound value is 0.205uf
__________________
hoping to pick up some things.
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th January 2013, 08:10 PM   #47
MrPig is offline MrPig  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerScent View Post
....As it stands, I would only use a MM on the stock RB300...
Hi there,

It seems that you'll do anything other than admit you made a mistake. All I am trying to do is clarify what the facts are, rather than 'impressions', for the sake of the other people who might read this thread.

You said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerScent View Post
The additional features on the RB300 arm, such as spring assembly for adjustment replaces one side with no bearings, so that the RB300 only has one side with bearings - the RB250 does not have this useless feature, and has 2 bearings instead, giving greater alignment and stability.
I pointed out to you that this is wrong and you've bleated and digressed and done everything possible other than simply admit you were wrong. What you do with your arms is of no concern to me, but I am interested in other forum users getting accurate information rather than error and opinion presented as fact.

The arm tube on the RB250 and RB300 are exactly the same. They are the same casting out of the same mould. Then things get different.

The vertical bearings on the RB250 are pressed directly into the sides of the, relatively soft, alloy tube.

The RB300 uses smaller, better quality bearings, two of them, which fit inside a stainless steel carrier-tube which a press pushes into the arm-tube. This results in a more rigid structure and ensures correct alignment of the two bearings. They are the same bearings as were used on the Linn Ittok incidentally.

On the RB250 the bearings are held in the yolk by two small stub-axles which screw in from ether side. I think they are made of brass, I can't remember now, maybe not.

On the RB300 the bearing shaft passes through both bearings, unlike on the RB250, and is made of stainless-steel. Again, this ensures correct alignment of the bearings retaliative to the shaft. The bearing shaft is conical at the end and is torqued into the main yolk casting resulting in a very solid and well-aligned assembly. Even if the shaft was only supported by this end it would work fine, The Linn Ittok/Ekos work this way. It isn't though. The cast plate at the other side of the arm is bolted to the end of the bearing shaft then bolted to the main bearing yolk, supporting the dial side of the shaft!

Both arms use the same horizontal bearings but the bearing pillar on the RB300 is stainless-steel as opposed to brass on the RB250. As well as being a lot stronger, using steel for both the bearings and their housings keeps their thermal expansion coefficients the same so the assembly is generally stronger and more stable. I beleive Michell fit a stainless-steel pillar to their Tecnoarm but don't quote me.

The counterweight stubs everyone knows about, stainless steel on the RB300 and plastic on the RB250, and again, differences in quality where the weights are concerned too.

Generally speaking, the RB300 uses better quality parts and is assembled to higher tolerances. Building the RB300 is a more skilled job than building the RB250. It takes about forty-minutes to make an RB250 where as the lady who makes the top arm, the RB1000, only makes about two a week!

Both arms will handle moving coil cartridges perfectly well but the RB300 is the better quality arm and will handle very high quality moving coil cartridges.

Rega do not supply all of their products and parts to anyone who asks and there are other reasons why the RB250 is the darling of the modders. Firstly, it's cheap! It's the cheapest way to get that great arm-tube and a stack of other parts you'll need. Which counts for a lot if you're going to change a lot of parts anyway and still need to put your profit margin on the top. Secondly, it's simpler, easier to take apart, assemble and work on.

Of course, if you mod an RB250 using higher quality parts and assemble it to a high standard then yes, it might well better a standard RB300 significantly. But then so it should as it will have cost you a lot more! But that's not the point. The point is that the RB300 is a better quality arm in stock form than the RB250 and there is no merit in deliberately choosing an RB250 over it unless you are planning very major modifications, like maybe the AudioMods conversion, where most of the arm parts are being replaced anyway and you want to be able to disassemble your donor arm easily.

Sorry for the long post, I hope that someone found it useful! ;0)

Last edited by MrPig; 24th January 2013 at 08:14 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th January 2013, 12:31 AM   #48
6L6 is offline 6L6  United States
diyAudio Member
 
6L6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Denver, Colorado
MrPig,

Thank you for the very nice post. All sorts of neat info that I wasn't familiar with, I love that kind of thing!!

I have been a very happy owner of a RB600 on my Planar25, and think very highly of it. There is no doubt that the Rega turntables are little more than simple spinny frames for thier fantastic arms - and that combo works very well, as we all know.

This is a neat thread with all sorts of neat information in it, thanks to everyone for posting, I have learned a lot!
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th January 2013, 01:36 AM   #49
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Blog Entries: 1
Default Serious Rega Updating

Hi, Anyone who is really Serious at updating a Rega should consider the arm mods from Website: audio mods Rega arm conversion kits and DIY mods
and the turntable mods from Home
__________________
tabarddn
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th January 2013, 02:00 AM   #50
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrPig View Post
Hi there,

It seems that you'll do anything other than admit you made a mistake. All I am trying to do is clarify what the facts are, rather than 'impressions', for the sake of the other people who might read this thread.

You said:



I pointed out to you that this is wrong and you've bleated and digressed and done everything possible other than simply admit you were wrong. What you do with your arms is of no concern to me, but I am interested in other forum users getting accurate information rather than error and opinion presented as fact.

The arm tube on the RB250 and RB300 are exactly the same. They are the same casting out of the same mould. Then things get different.

The vertical bearings on the RB250 are pressed directly into the sides of the, relatively soft, alloy tube.

The RB300 uses smaller, better quality bearings, two of them, which fit inside a stainless steel carrier-tube which a press pushes into the arm-tube. This results in a more rigid structure and ensures correct alignment of the two bearings. They are the same bearings as were used on the Linn Ittok incidentally.

On the RB250 the bearings are held in the yolk by two small stub-axles which screw in from ether side. I think they are made of brass, I can't remember now, maybe not.

On the RB300 the bearing shaft passes through both bearings, unlike on the RB250, and is made of stainless-steel. Again, this ensures correct alignment of the bearings retaliative to the shaft. The bearing shaft is conical at the end and is torqued into the main yolk casting resulting in a very solid and well-aligned assembly. Even if the shaft was only supported by this end it would work fine, The Linn Ittok/Ekos work this way. It isn't though. The cast plate at the other side of the arm is bolted to the end of the bearing shaft then bolted to the main bearing yolk, supporting the dial side of the shaft!

Both arms use the same horizontal bearings but the bearing pillar on the RB300 is stainless-steel as opposed to brass on the RB250. As well as being a lot stronger, using steel for both the bearings and their housings keeps their thermal expansion coefficients the same so the assembly is generally stronger and more stable. I beleive Michell fit a stainless-steel pillar to their Tecnoarm but don't quote me.

The counterweight stubs everyone knows about, stainless steel on the RB300 and plastic on the RB250, and again, differences in quality where the weights are concerned too.

Generally speaking, the RB300 uses better quality parts and is assembled to higher tolerances. Building the RB300 is a more skilled job than building the RB250. It takes about forty-minutes to make an RB250 where as the lady who makes the top arm, the RB1000, only makes about two a week!

Both arms will handle moving coil cartridges perfectly well but the RB300 is the better quality arm and will handle very high quality moving coil cartridges.

Rega do not supply all of their products and parts to anyone who asks and there are other reasons why the RB250 is the darling of the modders. Firstly, it's cheap! It's the cheapest way to get that great arm-tube and a stack of other parts you'll need. Which counts for a lot if you're going to change a lot of parts anyway and still need to put your profit margin on the top. Secondly, it's simpler, easier to take apart, assemble and work on.

Of course, if you mod an RB250 using higher quality parts and assemble it to a high standard then yes, it might well better a standard RB300 significantly. But then so it should as it will have cost you a lot more! But that's not the point. The point is that the RB300 is a better quality arm in stock form than the RB250 and there is no merit in deliberately choosing an RB250 over it unless you are planning very major modifications, like maybe the AudioMods conversion, where most of the arm parts are being replaced anyway and you want to be able to disassemble your donor arm easily.

Sorry for the long post, I hope that someone found it useful! ;0)
...'mistake'??? I don't admit any mistake whatsoever - nor do I believe that, but know I am correct...
...'bleating & digressing' ??? your condescending remarks indicate you are relying on emotive response rather than using a respectful intellect in debate...!!

For those who need to know, firstly, google and look for this info yourself, and you will clearly see that the RB250 is the better arm overall - structurally and by its simple design....Read the following review by StereoTimes as one example of many.

Take note that this was known a long time ago, and is a consistent observation. How it can escape anyone claiming to have some knowledge of the two tonearms is difficult to comprehend...

"The difference between the OL RB300 and OL RB250 is quite marked, and most obvious on well-recorded acoustic and classical music. The 250 eliminates a slight metallic coloration of the 300. Violins sound sweeter, more organic and closer to live, as do cellos and double basses, their harmonics and richness of tone are more in evidence. The OL RB300 can sound a tad more exciting on pop and jazz, but close listening and comparison to what instruments sound like live will reveal that the addition liveliness is coloration and indeed the result of resonance. A slight electronic-sounding sheen rides on top of transients and harmonics, particularly in the upper midrange and high frequencies. This can get annoying over time. Whatever the cause of this coloration (Mark Baker of OL attributes it in part to the resonance of the tracking weight spring, the bearing support and the material of the arm support of the RB300) it is a flaw. Once its absence from the OL RB250 is noted, going back to the OL RB300 is hard. The superiority of the OL RB250 over the OL RB300 lies in its truth of timbre, nuance and subtlety--an overall naturalness, not to mention its considerably more convincing stereo effects. I don’t normally subscribe to the audiophile values of enhanced stereoscopy as absolute indicators of improvement, unless the musical communication and naturalness is also improved. Imaging, depth, placement and resolution of soundstage minutiae are, after all, adjuncts of the musical experience and supplementary to it. This dichotomy is perhaps flawed--true higher resolution should enhance imaging effects as well as musical values--but there’s no point in gaining a better sense of where an instrument is if you can’t tell what it’s playing. Both the stereo illusion and the musical performance on classical music with the OL RB250 is mighty convincing and orienting, requiring very little willing "suspension of disbelief" to accept the illusion as a reasonable facsimile of reality. This is as welcome as it is rare.

While the increase in low level resolution and detail most striking, the clarity gained in crescendos and tuttis is magnificent, the OL RB250 controlled dynamic shadings and maintained clarity far better than the OL RB300, and, of course, the stock Rega arms. The overall musical and sonic performance of the Origin Live RB250 is simply astounding. Considering its sub-$500 price, the only appropriate reaction is to yell, "Eureka!" Running naked down the street is optional.

The OL RB250 has been touted as equaling the capabilities of the "superarms"--the $2500 and up arms that have become the darlings of the audiophile world."

StereoTimes -- Rega RB300 and RB250 Tonearms

Other reputable sources clearly indicate there is no or negligible quality difference between the manufacturing standards of the 2 arms, ie:

"It's often said that Rega's OEM arms are built to lower standards than Rega branded arms. While this may be true of the Goldring GR1 arm, which is not an RB250 clone but a completely different product (although still manufactured by Rega), OEM distributors on the whole claim that the OEM 1 and OEM 2 tonearms are built to the same tolerances and on the same production lines as Rega's versions of the arms. Rega appear unwilling to confirm or deny this, but I have noticed little difference in quality across the various brands of RB250/300 I've encountered, although this does not mean that there aren't problem arms out there."

AND

"The arm stub and lateral bearing housing are both made from stainless steel. Unlike the RB250, the RB300's vertical bearings are supported on just one side of the bearing housing to make room for the VTF adjuster on the opposite side."

http://www.vinylengine.com/a-guide-rega-tonearms.shtml

...seems like many others are in your words - "bleating and digressing' from your personal points of view also....

Last edited by TigerScent; 25th January 2013 at 02:28 AM.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rega Planar 2 turntable Mungo Park Analogue Source 9 5th December 2011 01:25 AM
US Power for Rega Planar 3 AndyRoo99 Analogue Source 5 10th May 2011 04:47 PM
Rega Planar 3 whitelabrat Swap Meet 1 1st September 2010 04:08 PM
FS-Rega Planar 3 nicoch58 Swap Meet 25 6th October 2009 05:13 PM
Rega Planar 3 owners Sarchi Analogue Source 6 19th May 2006 03:44 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:14 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2