new Rega RP6 in december!

[Cyreg]

Thanks for the poster in my RP5? thread, here's a new beginning

http://www.decoaudio.com/deco_audio_turntables2.html

http://www.homemedialimited.co.uk/rega- ... table.html

[Erocka2000]

Seems just like a nicer finished RP3. What happened to the RB700 tonearm and the wood surround?

[c-wilson]

ooo look, its the rega RP meccano

[gabriel1998]

Meh...Looks like a Music Hall Turntable..

[Cyreg]

This is a copy of a reply found on PFM.
It's just to see if anyone here on VE is still interested?
Not much response here by Rega fans on the Rega thread


Also I found this on another forum:
"Subject: Re: Rega RP6 Thu Nov 17, 2011 3:41 pm
It seems from what I have read these are some of the main changes.

The new RP6 is a replacement for both the P5 and the P3-24 Colour "full kit" (which included TT-PSU and gloss plinth finish). The RP6 will include a TT-PSU. The RP6 is not a replacement for the P7.

The plinth on the RP6 is not "the same as" that of the RP1 although it looks similar as do all Rega plinths.

The platter will be a heavier, thicker version of the current P5 glass platter. It is not clear (pun intended) if there will be any damping layer or if that is handled by the subplatter although from the photo presented, it appears that the subplatter was designed using constrained layer damping.

The tonearm will be a version of the RB303. It's not clear here either if it will be exactly like the RB303 on the just released RP3 or if it will have some modifications to it. The arm on the RP6 in the photo shows what appears to be a stainless counterweight. The RB303 as I have seen on the new RP3 is a black, steel weight but using the o-ring mount on the stainless stubshaft as do Rega's other stainless and tungsten counterweights. My bet is stainless but it's just a hunch. The verdict is not out as to whether the RB303 is in and of itself a better arm than the RB700 however, those who have listened (and this does come from Rega reps) state that the new RP6 outperformed both the RP3 and the P5. The RB303 is the first arm to use the new, improved arm tube casting as just developed by Rega. So it may very well be a better performing arm. I can say from use on the RP3 that it has extremely low friction and excellent tracking ability.

The hub has been improved and is a hybrid of materials featuring both metallic and phenolic components.

The brace on the plinth is a magnesium alloy...."
http://mundoaudiofilo.**********.net/t2207p15-rega-rp6

[c-wilson]

Probably not a lot of interest as the information appears to be best guess.
Looking at it I can not see what Rega are doing with this model. OK its a RP3, with a different stiffener, come construction aid across the plinth. It has a composite sub platter, but the drive belt still runs on the phenolic resin part. As that is the bit that most tweekers change, to a fully machined metal one, why have rega not done that on this deck? have they improved the tolerances on the resin section so they don't need to. Why has the deck gone back to the plain black base? The P25, P5 etc had the wood trim option. This at least helped the appearance. If the arm is the same as the RP3, then there needs to be more than a tin cap on the subplatter to justify the extra cost over the RP3. It will be interesting to see the real engineering spec, and most of all of course, hear it.

[bacobits]

Some strange decisions by Rega indeed, especially that sub platter.
Kind of looks like they went backwards doesn't it?

[pulsetsar]

Too strange-looking and untested for me. I ended up getting a demo P5 for $800 instead and took my Groovetracer upgrades from the P1 to the P5. Couldn't pass up that deal just to wait on the RP6! I talked with Frank from Groovetracer and he wasn't sure if the upgrades would work with the RP6 given the new platter/subplatter design.

[KT88]

Also I found this on another forum:
"Subject: Re: Rega RP6 Thu Nov 17, 2011 3:41 pm
It seems from what I have read these are some of the main changes.

The new RP6 is a replacement for both the P5 and the P3-24 Colour "full kit" (which included TT-PSU and gloss plinth finish). The RP6 will include a TT-PSU. The RP6 is not a replacement for the P7.

The plinth on the RP6 is not "the same as" that of the RP1 although it looks similar as do all Rega plinths.

The platter will be a heavier, thicker version of the current P5 glass platter. It is not clear (pun intended) if there will be any damping layer or if that is handled by the subplatter although from the photo presented, it appears that the subplatter was designed using constrained layer damping.

The tonearm will be a version of the RB303. It's not clear here either if it will be exactly like the RB303 on the just released RP3 or if it will have some modifications to it. The arm on the RP6 in the photo shows what appears to be a stainless counterweight. The RB303 as I have seen on the new RP3 is a black, steel weight but using the o-ring mount on the stainless stubshaft as do Rega's other stainless and tungsten counterweights. My bet is stainless but it's just a hunch. The verdict is not out as to whether the RB303 is in and of itself a better arm than the RB700 however, those who have listened (and this does come from Rega reps) state that the new RP6 outperformed both the RP3 and the P5. The RB303 is the first arm to use the new, improved arm tube casting as just developed by Rega. So it may very well be a better performing arm. I can say from use on the RP3 that it has extremely low friction and excellent tracking ability.

The hub has been improved and is a hybrid of materials featuring both metallic and phenolic components.

The brace on the plinth is a magnesium alloy...."

This was posted by me although no credit was given. The subplatter will be a composite of both aluminum and phenolic construction. In my experience with the Rega tables with glass platters, the the addition of aftermarket all metal subplatters resulted in a brighter sound. The additional mass did make the bass subjectively a bit deeper and tighter but the top end was rather thin and so the result was a cleaner but colder overall presentation. The Rega designed aluminum subplatters as used on the P7 and P9 are not designed to be used with glass platters and their only function was to allow the precise fit of the ceramic platters that those tables sport. It's a different animal altogether. There is no benefit to improving the circumference precision of any subplatter, phenolic, aluminum, steel, whatever by .001 inch. That's a loaded sales pitch provided by the maker. The reason is simple and irrefutable. The drive system is composed of three items, the motor (which also includes the pulley and the mount), the belt, and the subplatter (which also includes the bearing and mount). The weak link for any system of this type will always be the belt. It will stretch and slip along its path in the best of designs. This is considerably greater than any .001 inch of tolerance against the largest mating surface (about 9 full linear inches) and renders such a suggestion silly. The deeper bass can be achieved with the stock phenolic platter simply by mass loading it. I have done this in my shop as well as many other experiments with Rega tables over the years. I have an aluminum aftermarket subplatter here for direct comparison. Actually, when mass loading the phenolic subplatter, the results are best. The bass is deeper but the top end and midband does not thin-out and get brighter. It retains it's weight and warmth and yet the bass becomes more powerful and subjectively deeper. So my experiments lead me to find the approach by Rega of using a composite very interesting. It might provide similar results to what I found and that would be improvement across the board without trade-off.

-Bill
http://www.uptownaudio.com

[KT88]

I also have heard that the main glass platter will indeed include constrained layer damping. It features a clear layer of material bonded to the perimeter of the underside of the platter. So we'll hear the benefits of more mass to the platter, damping of the platter and subplatter. Also there is increased rigidity in the plinth and the arm tube.
-Bill
http://www.uptownaudio.com

[Frank_Sm]

Also I found this on another forum:
"Subject: Re: Rega RP6 Thu Nov 17, 2011 3:41 pm
It seems from what I have read these are some of the main changes.

The new RP6 is a replacement for both the P5 and the P3-24 Colour "full kit" (which included TT-PSU and gloss plinth finish). The RP6 will include a TT-PSU. The RP6 is not a replacement for the P7.

The plinth on the RP6 is not "the same as" that of the RP1 although it looks similar as do all Rega plinths.

The platter will be a heavier, thicker version of the current P5 glass platter. It is not clear (pun intended) if there will be any damping layer or if that is handled by the subplatter although from the photo presented, it appears that the subplatter was designed using constrained layer damping.

The tonearm will be a version of the RB303. It's not clear here either if it will be exactly like the RB303 on the just released RP3 or if it will have some modifications to it. The arm on the RP6 in the photo shows what appears to be a stainless counterweight. The RB303 as I have seen on the new RP3 is a black, steel weight but using the o-ring mount on the stainless stubshaft as do Rega's other stainless and tungsten counterweights. My bet is stainless but it's just a hunch. The verdict is not out as to whether the RB303 is in and of itself a better arm than the RB700 however, those who have listened (and this does come from Rega reps) state that the new RP6 outperformed both the RP3 and the P5. The RB303 is the first arm to use the new, improved arm tube casting as just developed by Rega. So it may very well be a better performing arm. I can say from use on the RP3 that it has extremely low friction and excellent tracking ability.

The hub has been improved and is a hybrid of materials featuring both metallic and phenolic components.

The brace on the plinth is a magnesium alloy...."

This was posted by me although no credit was given.

-Bill

You were also the guy who posted that it was going to be called the RP5, hmmm.
You speak as if you were Roy Gandy's right hand man KT88. I believe Jeff Dorgay has spoken and met with Roy Gandy on more than one occasion and has corrected your errors many times in the past, perhaps Jeff could post here too.

I think you are violating forum rules. They don't allow you to promote your business by putting a link on the sig. line.
"Trade members are not permitted to have images, videos, addresses, taglines or website links in their posts or signatures that could be considered to be an advertisement or promotion of a commercial site."

[Etnier]

I think you are violating forum rules. They don't allow you to promote your business by putting a link on the sig. line.
"Trade members are not permitted to have images, videos, addresses, taglines or website links in their posts or signatures that could be considered to be an advertisement or promotion of a commercial site."

All other issues aside, Frank, and with greatest respect- given what you state here, your "GrooveTracer" avatar should not be appearing in your posts, either.

[Frank_Sm]

I think you are violating forum rules. They don't allow you to promote your business by putting a link on the sig. line.
"Trade members are not permitted to have images, videos, addresses, taglines or website links in their posts or signatures that could be considered to be an advertisement or promotion of a commercial site."

All other issues aside, Frank, and with greatest respect- given what you state here, your "GrooveTracer" avatar should not be appearing in your posts, either.

Your point is well taken. If the moderator feels that I'm acting in any way against forum rules, I will remove it. It's simply a way of stating that I am in the business, full disclosure if you will, to identify myself when posting.

[Laudanum]

All I know is that if Rega was Catholicism, one particular poster in this thread would claim to be the Pope