My recent thread “ rega rp10 rigid feet” had not the appropriate title for my question.
I am not wondering if the rigid feet are good or not.
I have the rp10 since yesterday. I sold it to my dealer 1 year ago and bought it again. It’s an ex demo one. I fortunately didn’t loose any money…
Before i was using the rp10 with the lid, with the outer frame and circular feet. But the rigid little feet were under the circular feet.
Yesterday i installed the rp10 on the circular feet. But this time there is absolutely no little feet under the circular ones. See the photos.
Some said that i should have the little feet under the circular ones, but i seems to work like that. It’s even more stable.
But i am not sure that it is the optimal way?
( my rigid feet are on my ex rp8 , at my dealer place. They had no time to remove them).
With my P8 I noticed a marked improvement in sound when standing on sorbothane feet
The deck is on a tiger paw valkan wall shelf so is well isolated anyway
For a none suspended deck …the standard feet seem a little hard for maximum performance to me …and the sorbothane seems to support that theory
Hello Japtimscarlet, it was not my question. Please read carefully what is my wondering.
However i am glad you enjoy your sorbothane feet.
Thank you …I am pleased with them
If you have time… maybe you would like to try a set out…they are easily available on auction sites and take seconds to fit …
i use the rp10 with the outer frame and lid. So no feet optional can be add.
I just wonder if i can use the circular feet without the little feet hidden inside it ?
The middle part of the deck has three small feet, as in the picture. These small feet sit inside the large feet that are attached to the main plinth.
yes, the middle part can be use only with the little feet.
But the whole part , as in my photo, sits on the circular big feet. Actually i have no inside little feet. So i wonder finally if i can use the rega rp10 that way, the whole deck on only the circular feet.?
You must use the small feet. They fit in the holes in the bottom of the big feet, so that they support the turntable itself. This ensures that the main turntable is completely isolated from the outer plinth. The outer plinth is for cosmetic reasons only.
you are absolutely sure? because it seems stable like that. I will have my little feet back in a couple of days.
It will be stable, because with the feet removed, the inner plinth is sitting on the edge of the big feet. It should not do that. It needs to sit on its own little feet.
Absolutely the TT itself has to sit on its own feet so it’s isolated from the outer plinth (which as Nigel says is purely cosmetic and to allow for the dust cover to be used). I’m not sure how one could think it was ok not to?
FR, it’s the smaller feet that are designed to actually support the turntable itself. The outer larger feet are there only to support the outer plinth and give some “big foot” aesthetics. The outer plinth and feet should be completely decoupled from the inner deck.
i finally found the original little cone feet of the rp10. They were in another box in my home. So i installed them and now the skeletal plinth is indeed a bit higher standing now.
But now i have another question Richard: my dealer installed me the cartridge on the rega sitting only on the circular plinth. It can be a problem? because now the platter is higher level.
It should make no difference as the arm is mounted on the same inner plinth as the platter bearing.
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.