New Rega RX Series speakers

Back to the topic here. I haven't been a huge fan of the Rega speakers I've heard, but these sure appeal to my aesthetic. Love the simplicity of them. And those stands are really cool looking too.

- Woody

Maybe they sound great but they look so-so to me,
I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder :D
 
I have listened to them but not in my home. Under conditions of necessity I could be content with a number of different speakers. Heck I really like the Quad 11L Classics. Very good speaker.
I really like the Quads myself....very close to the balance of my Diamond 8.1's but better everywhere...there not overly warm like the 9.1's with a proper upperbass balance....
 
love the precision in the construction and the finish. my current speakers have tweeter under the midrange and it works very well (i'm 6'-2 and ears are well above tweeter at seated listening position). depends on the tweeters power response.
what i cannot get past is the side mounted bass drivers. imaging was horrid when i listened to the previous gen regas with this design.
i would also be careful of enclosure resonances and driver internal reflections. the best of the modern manufacturers make it a point to avoid parallel surfaces to increase rigidity and reduce internal reflections.
 
The new Rega's are showing some nice looking veneer ! I have some Jura's that would look good like that. Hoping they are as easily driven too.
 
Art, how would you describe the sound of a Rega floorstander? I know you said the sound is on the thin side, but do they have enough guts to play significantly louder before reaching their limits than the typical standmount speaker can? One would think with the extra woofer the speaker shouldn't be too thin sounding and could crank a bit.

I have my eye on the RS5 (or RX3/RX5). Ever since I tried the PSB T55 in my system, I realize I am missing the ability to turn up the volume to levels that really pressurize the room. But I'd like something a little nicer than the T55 in my stereo setup.

At the end of the day, I will likely stick with my 118's. While I'd like that extra oomph, they fill the room fine and they do everything else amazingly well. Plus, augmenting with a sub will do the job. But Rega floorstanders have me intrigued. I may try to get a demo at a local dealer.
 
Art, how would you describe the sound of a Rega floorstander? I know you said the sound is on the thin side, but do they have enough guts to play significantly louder before reaching their limits than the typical standmount speaker can? One would think with the extra woofer the speaker shouldn't be too thin sounding and could crank a bit.

I have my eye on the RS5 (or RX3/RX5). Ever since I tried the PSB T55 in my system, I realize I am missing the ability to turn up the volume to levels that really pressurize the room. But I'd like something a little nicer than the T55 in my stereo setup.

At the end of the day, I will likely stick with my 118's. While I'd like that extra oomph, they fill the room fine and they do everything else amazingly well. Plus, augmenting with a sub will do the job. But Rega floorstanders have me intrigued. I may try to get a demo at a local dealer.

No you would never want to go real loud with either the R or RS series as the RR125 midrange driver is not particularly robust....i.e. it breaks very easily. If the new RX series midrange driver is a modified version of the RR125 then I would guess it isn't very robust either.
 
No you would never want to go real loud with either the R or RS series as the RR125 midrange driver is not particularly robust....i.e. it breaks very easily. If the new RX series midrange driver is a modified version of the RR125 then I would guess it isn't very robust either.

Thanks, that 's good to know. I don't really go that loud to be honest (small room), but occasionally I want to crank things up louder than any of the standmounts I've had can go (not to mention the couple of floorstanders I've had too). I'll still try to give the Rega's a listen, as I've never heard a Rega speaker before and I am certainly curious.
 
I'm 6'2" and my favourite speakers recently are ones where the tweeter is below the mid bass driver. The others are D'appolito style and/or twin bass/mid with a central tweeter.
I always thought they looked silly, but I like the sound now.
Maybe I've just got used to it.

The regas look very much inspired by Mission's ranges that used a common bass/treble unit and put it in various cabinets with and without extra bass drivers.

The main reason why companies would do this is that it flips the vertical radiation pattern. A typical TM arrangement often has a suckout in the crossover region a few degrees above the listening axis but much better performance below. Reversing the arrangement to an MT makes for better vertical dispersion, since many people will get up and walk around when listening, but few people sit on the floor. You place the more even response facing up and the suckout facing down.
 
The main reason why companies would do this is that it flips the vertical radiation pattern. A typical TM arrangement often has a suckout in the crossover region a few degrees above the listening axis but much better performance below. Reversing the arrangement to an MT makes for better vertical dispersion, since many people will get up and walk around when listening, but few people sit on the floor. You place the more even response facing up and the suckout facing down.

great info.
my speakers are MT config and I love the midrange and imaging- the vocals originate about a foot above the top of the speakers dead center.
seems to make sense based the radiating pattern.

do you know what the vertical radiation is for a coaxial like the KEF uni-Q?
 
great info.
my speakers are MT config and I love the midrange and imaging- the vocals originate about a foot above the top of the speakers dead center.
seems to make sense based the radiating pattern.

do you know what the vertical radiation is for a coaxial like the KEF uni-Q?

Because it is a coaxial and the tweeter sits in the middle of the midrange/midwoofer, you end up with the same radiation pattern in both the vertical and horizontal plane.

With a typical MT or TM, and this is all assuming the tweeter and woofer are both aligned dead center on the cabinet's vertical plane, you can have (CAN but not always the case depending on matching directivity of the drivers) a wide horizontal dispersion with no suckout at the crossover. When you move horizontally, you aren't changing the relative distance between the mid and tweet, so you are only seeing the affects of directivity, which if well matched will lead to a smooth downward slope, and if not well matched will lead to a bit of a dip (but not the same kind of huge suckout) in the crossover region due to the woofer rolling off faster than the tweeter off-axis at the crossover frequency.

Once you start moving vertically, you change the distances between the woofer and tweeter. This is what causes the suckout, which will likely be much larger than even a poorly designed speaker on the horizontal axis, as it changes the phase relationship between the drivers.

With the KEF uni-Q, you have wide dispersion with no suckout since everything is in line both horizontally and vertically.
 
Back
Top Bottom