ariston RD11, Linn Vector-like DIY

[bonzini]

Good people;

Some of you may have read earlier this spring Art Dudley's account of the Vector mods for the Linn Sondek. For those of you who haven't, check out his recent columns in Stereophile online. Or, the thumbnail sketch :-)

There is a carbon-fibre top plate that replaces the steel top plate.
There is a carbon-fibre / balsa / carbon-fibre subchassis replacement.
There is a carbon-fibre / balsa / carbon-fibre armboard replacement.
There are various motor configurations, including a cool looking one with idler wheels to avoid tugging at the sub-platter. There is a platter mat.

Mr. Dudley liked some of this stuff. It is expensive, I think about as much as the new Keel from Linn.

All come from from the gentleman who provided the Pink Link upgrades to Linns.

OK, I have several questions and I can't find much that directly bears on this on the existing threads.

There is a company called "Dragon Plate" that makes beautiful carbon-fibre / wood composite plates, and these are not expensive. They could be used to make something similar to the Vector mods (speaking conceptually here).

More importantly to me, they could be used to make similar things for my old Ariston RD11.

Has anyone done this kind of thing, with Linns or (shudder) with an Ariston? I think this would be a fun thing to do this winter with my 15 year old son who is kind of ready for a challenge like this.

Any comments, suggestions, advice? Thanks HUGELY in advance.

[AndrewT]

Hi,
Linn had a huge following that would upgrade the old to the new and then the newer. Linn must have got something right to make folk part with all that money.

I have a sneaky suspicion that a suspended chassis is less influenced by the below deck parts than most other styles of rotator. How much experimentation are you prepared to undertake and will you be able to compare before and after and after and after (when you have just one deck to start with)?

[sreten]

Hi,

I have replaced a steel subchassis on a rebuilt suspended design.

I'd say it was definitely worth doing for a RD11 if it has a good arm.

I'd say the top plate linn mod is the most cosmetic.

I'd use an aluminium sheet based composite with a much thicker core.

(than the max 1/4" thick composite referred to.)

/sreten.

[bonzini]

Originally posted by AndrewT
Hi,
Linn had a huge following that would upgrade the old to the new and then the newer. Linn must have got something right to make folk part with all that money.

I have a sneaky suspicion that a suspended chassis is less influenced by the below deck parts than most other styles of rotator. How much experimentation are you prepared to undertake and will you be able to compare before and after and after and after (when you have just one deck to start with)?

As to your question on "how much experimentation", I can see doing three things.

One, replacing top plate, subchassis, and armboard with something "better" - in my case, following Vector, composite. Why? Because this has been shown to be worthwhile (using that word loosely) by Linn, Pink Triangle, Linn again, and now Vector, in terms of what the Linn community thinks. I also think this would be pretty easy to do.

Two, more of one - change the orientation of the subchassis so that it goes corner-to-corner instead of side to side to get a better static balance. Go for a bigger plinth and a longer tonearm. Make the plinth less resonant - a hollow wooden box with a stainless steel top plate? how quaint - at the same time. Maybe put the motor on the subchassis to avoid torquing the spindle all over the place as the suspension moves - ok need a better motor.

Three - build something like the Teres, using at most the bearing and spindle / subplatter / platter.

Remember, I'm doing this with the Ariston, not the Linn - but I'm also boldly assuming that what works for the Ariston might be of interest to people with old Linns just bought off eBay.

How will I judge whether it sounds better? That will be tough, as you say I only have the one deck. However I think it will be worth it for the fun quotient in any case and there are some serious evident defects with the Ariston as it stands anyway, most notably that its completely undamped metal platter / subplatter / spindle / bearing / galvanized-steel subchassis / stainless top plate rings audibly, and the plinth resonates audibly as well. I could easily get rid of these, and possibly make other things worse.

Or I could get lucky :-)

What do you think?

[sreten]

Hi,

You could use the dragon plate composite in two layers
with sheet structural foam core for armboard.

For the subchassis IMO aluminium sheet and structural foam is better.

I would not modify the motor system, I would service it.

I would buy some bitumen spray and damp the springs and the top
plate. Improving fixing of top plate to plinth with damp/ reinforce
both. Bottom plate arrangements I'm not familiar with.
Add the carbon fibre veneer to the top plate if you like.

Bottom of my turntable was a simple hardboard sheet. Sprayed
with bitumen damping and adding high strength baking foil, it
now is a "5 layer triple composite with 2 damping layers".
Good for shielding as well.

All the changes that make it less like a Linn I do not recommend,
you can do it, but IMO you'll get something different, not better.

The dynamic behavour of the subchassis is more important than
its static balance, moving things around depends on spring rates
and possibility of moving there points, with a low mass subchassis
its "orientation" will make little difference, though you can make
it asymmetric towards the arm mounting side.

I've rebuilt several turntables, what is important is knowing what
is important, and not overdoing things that are not important.

/sreten.

[AuroraB]

It is not my intention to intrude in this thread, but I feel my question can be relevant.
I looked at this DragonPlate stuff, which I haven't seen before..interesting!

I have a TD125 without arm and an SME S-II, and I need to make a new armboard...appx 1/2" thick.. any suggestions.. ??
I also have a load of balsa, and different hardwoods with densities close to 1 for the hardest. How about a 5 layer board, - 3 CF and 2 layers of wood.. balsa or the heavy stuff??

[bonzini]

Thanks, Sreten, for your detailed response. I have some questions, if you don't mind.

Originally posted by sreten
Hi,

You could use the dragon plate composite in two layers
with sheet structural foam core for armboard.

Did you visit Dragon Plate's site? Did you notice they have a foam core based product? I will probably contact them with some questions about this material.

One thing that worries me a bit about such material is the idea of clamping a tonearm mounting to such material and compressing it. Doesn't seem like a good idea.

For the subchassis IMO aluminium sheet and structural foam is better.

Not to argue at all with your point of view, but would you mind elaborating as to why you feel that aluminum sheet and structural foam would be better than Dragon Plate carbon/wood/carbon laminate?

Do you have any opinion on the Funk Firm's use of carbon/balsa/carbon in their Linn mods? (here is where my question is coming from: they charge a significant amount for their mods, and I don't think that material costs really come into it; but machining cost or simplicity or related issues might, I suppose).

Here is the article, with pictures of the Funk Firm's mods:

http://stereophile.com/artdudleylist...en/index1.html

I would not modify the motor system, I would service it.

One of the things I find interesting in the Funk Firm's Linn mods is the three-point drive system, with the motor actually on the subchassis. I like the three point system from the principle of reducing the tug on the sub-platter. However, my Ariston motor is sufficiently noisy that I don't think I'd want to move it to the subchassis.

Another option with the Funk mods is to move the motor from behind the subchassis - as you face the deck - to the front. Reason given is to stop tugging the subchassis in a direction perpendicular to the stylus. Again, an interesting idea.

When you say "service" the motor, what exactly do you mean? Cleaning and oiling, or something more?

I would buy some bitumen spray and damp the springs and the top
plate. Improving fixing of top plate to plinth with damp/ reinforce
both. Bottom plate arrangements I'm not familiar with.
Add the carbon fibre veneer to the top plate if you like.

Bottom of my turntable was a simple hardboard sheet. Sprayed
with bitumen damping and adding high strength baking foil, it
now is a "5 layer triple composite with 2 damping layers".
Good for shielding as well.

All the changes that make it less like a Linn I do not recommend,
you can do it, but IMO you'll get something different, not better.

The dynamic behavour of the subchassis is more important than
its static balance, moving things around depends on spring rates
and possibility of moving there points, with a low mass subchassis
its "orientation" will make little difference, though you can make
it asymmetric towards the arm mounting side.

I understand your comment about "making less like a Linn". It seems to me that what I have is a lot like a very old Linn, the sound of which is not particularly venerated any longer and therefore is begging to be "improved"! I've also thought about getting say a Cirkus upgrade...

What I was thinking of in terms of changing the orientation of the subplatter was something like the following. The subplatter long-axis is left-right as you face the deck. I was thinking of making a subplatter with a longer rightward extension - I get your point about needing to reposition the springs as well - both to accomodate a longer tonearm and also to do away with the long armboard that forces the back spring to be tighter than the front in order to achieve leveling, and thus - in my mind, at least - has less than desirable dynamic consequences.

If I then rotated the subchassis counterclockwise by 35° or so, the rightward extension would now sit in the back right corner of the plinth - which would of course have to be enlarged. At that point, the arm could be mounted directly on the subchassis, and the spring tension would be pretty close to the same for all three springs.

Another option to reduce this imbalance - as long as I didn't want a longer arm - would be to avoid all the rotation of the subchassis and instead counterweight the armboard at the front. I've never seen this done, and I've always wondered why it isn't done - ias you say, achieving good dynamic balance is important and I would think that part of that is improving the static balance.

With respect to your comment on bitumen spray on bottom of top plate and top of bottom plate - it would seem that Linn's most recent upgrades provide a bottom plate of aluminum topped with sound deadening material. However, they don't provide a new top plate, and AFAIK their current top plate is not treated. I wonder why?

I've always run my Ariston without the crummy fibreboard bottom plate that was provided. I've read in a number of places that some like the Linn without a bottom plate and some like it better with one.

What are the improvements that a good bottom plate provides? Strengthening / deadening of the plinth? You mention shielding, anything else?

I've rebuilt several turntables, what is important is knowing what
is important, and not overdoing things that are not important.

/sreten.

http://stereophile.com/artdudleylist...en/index1.html

[bonzini]

Originally posted by AuroraB
It is not my intention to intrude in this thread, but I feel my question can be relevant.
I looked at this DragonPlate stuff, which I haven't seen before..interesting!

I have a TD125 without arm and an SME S-II, and I need to make a new armboard...appx 1/2" thick.. any suggestions.. ??
I also have a load of balsa, and different hardwoods with densities close to 1 for the hardest. How about a 5 layer board, - 3 CF and 2 layers of wood.. balsa or the heavy stuff??

I think a lot of the armboards currently available (eg from Linn for the Sondek, from companies like Origin Live) are MDF.

On this forum there seems to be a lot of interest in multi-layer "constrained damping" composites generally.

I haven't yet stumbled on much beyond discussion of the topic - for instance, I have not yet seen anything as definitive as "I have two Linns, one with the original armboard and one made with a composite of aluminum, carbon fibre, and pork tenderloin, and the latter has much more clearly defined bass and midrange".

I think the DragonPlate stuff looks interesting and not too expensive, and you can order it pre-cut and pre-drilled according to their web site. Might be fun to try. I've been thinking of that myself for my Ariston, but then I think I should be more bold!

[sreten]

Hi,

You will have to pardon my healthy dose of cynicism regarding the
fact the Linn "by common consent" needs to be "improved" by
chucking a large wad of cash at it, £3K for a new Linn subchassis ?

I'll note that the dragon plate stuff is already a 3 layer composite,
and mainly the central ply layer, used as the outer layer in a 3 ply
construction most of the benefits of the carbon fibre will be lost.

The dragon plate stuff is not carbon fibre suitable for a laminate.

High quality blockboard, soft wood core, hardwood ply is a good
scheme for a directionally stiff laminate for Linn style armboards.
(The type where each softwood strip is taller than it is wide,
the lower quality stuff each strip is wider than it is tall.)

Consequently for the subchassis, which IMO should be ~ 1" thick,
(I built one out of 3 layers of 1/2" ply, top full size, the other two
layers in reducing size linked the arm to the main bearing.)
Sheet aluminium as the outer layers will be far more effective.
Core should be lightweight and relatively stiff.

The Funk firm stuff is a cheaper version of the old Aerolam principles.

Having rebuilt a number of turntables one principle is if is is not broken,
do not fix it. Trying to turn one design into another rarely works well.

If the spring rates are equal, such that they are all in different
levels of compression for balance, then by all means move them.

One turntable I rebuilt the whole innnards were set up on a
table and the spring moved round for good level and chassis
behaviour, (moving the springs towards the CofG lowers the
rotational and horizontal frequencies, but too close together
and in yaw the top can "fall off" the springs.)

You can greatly improve the RD11 for peanuts, just some work.
Laminates work very well but are somewhat labour intensive.

I would redesign the subchassis but keep the armboard arrangement.

Possibly something like :

/sreten.

[sreten]

Hi,

Possible arrangement for a 2 layer subchassis, araldite in main bearing.

(forget about the cirkus "upgrade")

/sreten.