Rega Saturn. Is it really a giant killer?

I agree with Foster-your ears and the synergy of your system is what matters most. However, I have heard both the Saturn and Apollo hooked up to the same amp/preamp and speakers. Given that equipment, the Saturn was law of diminishing returns. So if it were my money, I would take the advice above and go with the Apollo.

Saxo,

Yeah, that was the review..I went looking for that stereophile last night, but remembered I threw them all in the trash :-) so much for mags and reviews/reviewers opinions eh!

As for the Apollo...I was actually very impressed with it upon initial set up in my system..but, over some time..it seemed forced and rather "digital" to me. The highs in particular were not smooth, and seemed a bit detached. I prefered the NAD 542 that replaced it. Even though the NAD was a bit less dynamic..it seemed better balanced and had more resolution in my set up.Again, this is just my opinion of what I heard in my system...to this day..I actually prefer an older 18bit CAL Icon MkII to them all... but, I have tin ears..so what do I know!///best, ken

Thanks, Kehut. Was the Apollo burned in enough? I know you said, "over some time", but if that was say, 50 hours, maybe it wasn't enough.

I also went to Audioreview.com and read the reviews there by owners. Some were glowing, others were not. I'm glad I went there though, because more than one person said the plastic faceplate and the overall finish was kind of cheap looking. And that the hinged lid didn't inspire confidence either. Curious what others think of these things.

Saxo,

I had the Apollo for about 6 mos. Used pretty often. Im sure it had well over several hundred hours on it by the time I'd had enough of it. My first one had some of the well documented early "glitches" of the programming computer, the dealer took that one back, and the one I had for ~6 mos was without issue.Just not to my liking. Im just not a big fan of Rega stuff.

The more I research these players, the more I find that bothers me. In Stereophile's review, March 2007, p. 27, Tellig quotes Rega's owner: "With the given technology we had to build it as inexpensively as possible." Now, that's a mouthful. It's $1,000, not $300. It really gets me that these manufacturers have to make the maximum profit possible. Now I understand why the unit has a tiny transformer and lacks some in the bass department. Man, can't you spend the extra $5 or $10 for a larger transformer? A plastic faceplate?

Maybe this is why some audiophiles are choosing to turn to Chinese brands, like Shanling and others, because they want something for their money, and not just the bare minimum. In the end, this doesn't help the company's image or popularity. If the parts, chassis and mechanism are all made as "inexpensively as possible", owners discover this and it turns them off to the company. It seems the sonics of this player that have merit are due mostly to the new chipset that is used. Rega had the fortune of discovering this company and convincing them to use Rega as a beta tester for the chipset. In turn, Rega gets to buy the chipsets. Rega, give the customer more for their money. Even the Saturn uses the same transport, chipset, and chassis, with the exception of a metal faceplate, but costs 2.4 times more. Hardly giving the consumer his money's worth either.