Planar 3 vs P3

Bosh,

I currently have a Planar 2 in my second system and have directly compared it to an original R200 and later RB300 equipped Planar 3 and indirectly (dealer dem) to the current P3.

When well sited, the Planar 2 loses little to the Planar 3/P3 on most counts. If anything, I'd say that the 2 is a bit less authoritative (i.e. less slam) but counters that by being ever so slightly more responsive to the starts and stops in the music.

In any case, I have yet to hear a well sited 2 that sounds very far removed from a similarily setup 3. You just can't go wrong with either deck.

Craig

Craig

From what you say the 2 to 3 upgrade cost £100-175 is probably better spent on a replacement for the super bias. A Super Elys perhaps?

Although I haven't heard the Super Elys, I would be inclined to go for something like the high output Dynavector DV10x4 Mk2 if I were to upgrade from my Elys.

Although Rega consider the Super Bias to be the top choice for the 2, I have heard what better cartridges can do for the bottom of the line Planar (including Grace F9E, Ortofon MC20 and MC200). After all, cartridge matching/optimisation is more a tonearm compatibility issue although the table certainly makes a very fundamental difference. There is little doubt in my mind that the RB250 is a great arm irrespective of cost.

Just make sure that you fully optimise the siting of the deck and it will easily show the benefits of a better cartridge.

All IMO of course,

Craig

[This message was edited by Craig Best on TUESDAY 22 October 2002 at 21:38.]

Bosh

Having owned both decks my experience was that the 3 was really worth the extra cash. I bought the 2 first and almost immediately regretted it as the 3 clearly had an advantage when demmed at the dealers. After moving up to a three I was much happier with the balance of the sound ( fuller, more dynamic). I think the difference is worth the fairly minimal cash difference in the context of a good system. Just my 2p's worth.

When I first decided to get a proper gramophone in '87 I demmed the 2&3 against a number of CD players. I quickly decided that vinyl was better and ultimately chose the P3 since it sounded (relying on hazy memories) more open, clearer, punchier and more dynamic (PRaT wots that?). The P2 seemed softer and more 'analogue' sounding whatever that is, and a bit less detailed. Then I spent hours deciding between an AR E77? P77 and a K9. Happy days. The K9 won.

A well cared for Axis should better the Planar3, it was well regarded in its day and quite a lot more expensive than the Rega. Don't know how well they last though, possibly a bit more fragile than the 2/3? I went from a Planar3 to an LP12 but I absolutely forbid you to even think about such a move. In any case, nobody deserves two LP12's, at least until I have a spare one.

Regards
Steve

I still have my old Axis spinning vinyl in my main setup. I did have a tatty LP12 for a while until an opportunity to ditch it without loss arose. Rather than spend money replacing more parts than I had bargained for, I decided to hold out for a better example.

Anyway, I have had the Axis for near on 10 years now and do believe that I have come to terms with its potential.

The Axis does some things better sonically than the Planar 3 and, as a bonus, does 45 rpm via holding down the power switch on start up rather than lifting the platter and shifting the belt manually. For one thing, motor noise effects are virtually none existent as the p/s is essentially a scaled down Lingo (Lingo predecessor in fact). In this respect the Axis is actually better than a Valhalla equipped LP12 by far. The motor is dead quiet.

In comparison to say, the Planar 3, the Axis can fall behind on some important points. For example, the deck can be quite microphonic which is ironic really as Linn obviously put a lot of effort into developing the suspension feet to make the deck as plug and play as possible. I do believe that, although the feet could do a reasonable job, the deck itself would have benefited from a more 'solid' Rega-like plinth construction. The microphony test (i.e. a good rap on the siting surface and on the plinth itself) reveals the kind of microphony that one experiences with decks of flimsy plinth construction. In practice this means that under certain circumstances, with certain program material, playing at louder than average levels, the Axis essentially gives up and goes all sloppy, loosing its ability to follow the tune and so creating a cacophony of noise. It is alarming when this happens but these instances can be minimised by careful siting on a decent support that is well away from loudspeakers on a good solid floor space adjacent to a load bearing wall. A dedicated wall shelf also works well if one has a suitably solid wall to mount it on (I ran mine on a SO Wall Stand for years).

Another area where the Axis fails to meet the Rega standard is in tonearm performance. The Akito I that was fitted to later models still wasn't quite up to the standard set by Rega's RB300 some ten years before. Midrange dynamics and the ability to keep instruments sounding like separate instruments being played by separate musicians isn't in quite the same league, although still somewhat better than what the old Basik LV-X and Plus could manage.

Still a working* Axis can do the tune thing better and sounds closer to the LP12 than does a Planar 3. If the price is right, the Axis is still a good investment for a second setup when one runs an LP12 in the main system.

Craig
*early Axis' p/s' were prone to failure by spontaneously starting up during power surges and cooking the electronics. Also, the original deck was equipped with the less good Basik LV-X (initial batch) or Basik Plus tonearm, rather than the later variants Akito I. Look for a late version with a top plate mounted power switch and Akito I tonearm (apparently the plinth was improved somewhat on these versions).

Interesting post from Craig, as usual.

Some mag should hire him to do those history pieces.
Again, too bad Listener's no more.