I would like to give my Linn history.
I know Ivor T. very well, we were once good friends, I even came up to visit him in Glasgow and stayed a few days, back in 1976.
It was VERY difficult to get any real information about the Linn turntable from Ivor, even over drinks. But in visiting his factory, I learned a few things.
First, his father had the majority of the factory and he even made parts for Rolls Royce.
This gave Ivor an edge in having 'experience' with first class machining, and some of the equipment in his father's shop was 2 stories high. Very impressive.
His factory was a small offshoot, relatively speaking, of the big factory, at the time.
In his hallway I saw a number of partially finished turntables 'aging' before further machining was done. I know that I was impressed at the time. The biggest thing that Ivor would talk about was the 'single point bearing' that he used, virtually exclusively. He seemed to put a lot of time and effort into that bearing.
At the time, I had used a Linn for about 2 years. Before that I had a TD-150, and before that a Rek-o-cut Rondine (rumble-cut) we all called it. I had also used a German quality changer for a year or so, at the place I lived.
At the time I visited Ivor, I worked for Gale and they had a direct drive phase locked servo driven turntable, that was beautiful to behold, which I used while listening at the office. As I previously designed a phase locked servo driven capstan for Ampex, back in 1968, I thought that direct drive was the right way to go. However, Ivor scolded me about the difficulty of getting the motor garbage out and he made a good point. All else being equal, belt drive could give lower rumble. I asked him why he used such a weak AC motor, and he said it was deliberately 'weak' to reduce the vibration energy generated by the motor. That really 'hit' me, because my earlier Rondine turntable was VERY noisy due to rumble, and it had this relatively large Pabst motor driving it. Now I thought I understood why.
Direct comparison to the TD-150, one of which I still have today, is that the TD-150, while better and heavier built, than the original AR, was equally inferior to the LP-12 in mass, and execution, WHERE IT COUNTED.
I also asked Ivor, about why his turntable board and such was so light, almost cheesy. He told me that he was attempting to get the arm and the platter to move together in unison, so that the DIFFERENTIAL vibration between the turntable and the stylus tip would be minimum. This really 'hit' me because I recently had seen a BBC video program of how they used to micro-photograph with a movie camera (heavy vibration). They used the same principle to get the specimen vibrating in sync with the camera with a very similar arrangement. This makes sense.
Finally, whatever turntable you have, just 'ding' the side of the turntable platter with your fingernail. Does it go DING, or does it go DUNK? This is important. I bet that the Empire, like the Marantz (that I have) rang like a bell. Many others do too.
However, over the many years that I have used a Linn, I have found it one of the easiest turntables to just play a record, with reasonable quality. No air pumps, clamping, super static removal, etc. Just play, and this I like. And that is another story as to why the Linn is so successful.
I know Ivor T. very well, we were once good friends, I even came up to visit him in Glasgow and stayed a few days, back in 1976.
It was VERY difficult to get any real information about the Linn turntable from Ivor, even over drinks. But in visiting his factory, I learned a few things.
First, his father had the majority of the factory and he even made parts for Rolls Royce.
This gave Ivor an edge in having 'experience' with first class machining, and some of the equipment in his father's shop was 2 stories high. Very impressive.
His factory was a small offshoot, relatively speaking, of the big factory, at the time.
In his hallway I saw a number of partially finished turntables 'aging' before further machining was done. I know that I was impressed at the time. The biggest thing that Ivor would talk about was the 'single point bearing' that he used, virtually exclusively. He seemed to put a lot of time and effort into that bearing.
At the time, I had used a Linn for about 2 years. Before that I had a TD-150, and before that a Rek-o-cut Rondine (rumble-cut) we all called it. I had also used a German quality changer for a year or so, at the place I lived.
At the time I visited Ivor, I worked for Gale and they had a direct drive phase locked servo driven turntable, that was beautiful to behold, which I used while listening at the office. As I previously designed a phase locked servo driven capstan for Ampex, back in 1968, I thought that direct drive was the right way to go. However, Ivor scolded me about the difficulty of getting the motor garbage out and he made a good point. All else being equal, belt drive could give lower rumble. I asked him why he used such a weak AC motor, and he said it was deliberately 'weak' to reduce the vibration energy generated by the motor. That really 'hit' me, because my earlier Rondine turntable was VERY noisy due to rumble, and it had this relatively large Pabst motor driving it. Now I thought I understood why.
Direct comparison to the TD-150, one of which I still have today, is that the TD-150, while better and heavier built, than the original AR, was equally inferior to the LP-12 in mass, and execution, WHERE IT COUNTED.
I also asked Ivor, about why his turntable board and such was so light, almost cheesy. He told me that he was attempting to get the arm and the platter to move together in unison, so that the DIFFERENTIAL vibration between the turntable and the stylus tip would be minimum. This really 'hit' me because I recently had seen a BBC video program of how they used to micro-photograph with a movie camera (heavy vibration). They used the same principle to get the specimen vibrating in sync with the camera with a very similar arrangement. This makes sense.
Finally, whatever turntable you have, just 'ding' the side of the turntable platter with your fingernail. Does it go DING, or does it go DUNK? This is important. I bet that the Empire, like the Marantz (that I have) rang like a bell. Many others do too.
However, over the many years that I have used a Linn, I have found it one of the easiest turntables to just play a record, with reasonable quality. No air pumps, clamping, super static removal, etc. Just play, and this I like. And that is another story as to why the Linn is so successful.
I don't doubt that the Linn was a good turntable. The problem is that as in the 1960's nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM (whether that was the right answer in each case or not), so in the 1970's every UK mag seemed to tell its readers that they could solve all their problems by buying an LP12. Those with different tastes or smaller wallets were left feeling out in the cold. Ivor's eccentricity seemed to add some mystique; he could tell a good story and the journalists were hooked.
Nope, it was pretty dead. Likewise the AR, if and only if the two parts of the platter were assembled together. I would suspect that the lead-filled acrylic platter on my table is a bit deader than the Linn.
At least as important as the resonance is the mechanical impedance, one great attraction of weighted plastic platters.
2.1 to 1 mass ratio
If you take a Linn or TD 150 platter off and tap it rings like a bell . On the turntable it stops ringing . That's clever . Thorens spoiled it by having points to clamp to a lathe .
At Linn it said in the toilets ( 1976 ) . " Remember young mothers have to use these facilities " . I was impressed by that . I also saw my first ever hard-drive computer and a submarine engine sump . Castle Milk was one of the most dangerous places in Britain then ( I was told ) . Linn was a special place . Ivor told me he owed everything to his staff and provided something in Castle Milk that was if you like a beacon of hope . Glasgow was a very broken place then . His admiration of his staff was I am sure part of Linn's success .
Ivor told me without hesitation the story of the turntable . He bought a direct drive and didn't like it . Dad would not make just 1 . It was 50 or nothing . First were sold as Ariston . £56 chassis or £78 in ( Lenco made ) plinth . Jack his father said to do a very special bearing . It is very special I can tell you . Surprisingly Dual can do equal and sometimes on cheap stuff . Dual is always a bit light weight .
Ivor was more proud of Isobariks if you ask me .
One of the nicest and most intellectual people I have known . He was a captain in an army before that I beleive ( decorated ? ) .
He also told me he refused an export order to the USSR . The Labour government was furious ( LP12 SME Quad Spendor if I remember correctly ) . Ivor said it would mean a years production when his story was just being told . I still tell my boss if it sounds better it is better . Now who taught me that ?
If you take a Linn or TD 150 platter off and tap it rings like a bell . On the turntable it stops ringing . That's clever . Thorens spoiled it by having points to clamp to a lathe .
At Linn it said in the toilets ( 1976 ) . " Remember young mothers have to use these facilities " . I was impressed by that . I also saw my first ever hard-drive computer and a submarine engine sump . Castle Milk was one of the most dangerous places in Britain then ( I was told ) . Linn was a special place . Ivor told me he owed everything to his staff and provided something in Castle Milk that was if you like a beacon of hope . Glasgow was a very broken place then . His admiration of his staff was I am sure part of Linn's success .
Ivor told me without hesitation the story of the turntable . He bought a direct drive and didn't like it . Dad would not make just 1 . It was 50 or nothing . First were sold as Ariston . £56 chassis or £78 in ( Lenco made ) plinth . Jack his father said to do a very special bearing . It is very special I can tell you . Surprisingly Dual can do equal and sometimes on cheap stuff . Dual is always a bit light weight .
Ivor was more proud of Isobariks if you ask me .
One of the nicest and most intellectual people I have known . He was a captain in an army before that I beleive ( decorated ? ) .
He also told me he refused an export order to the USSR . The Labour government was furious ( LP12 SME Quad Spendor if I remember correctly ) . Ivor said it would mean a years production when his story was just being told . I still tell my boss if it sounds better it is better . Now who taught me that ?
Last edited:
With all due respect, John, the first and foremost reason why Linn is so successful is that the entire British press stood and stands behind it.
I do NOT dispute the fact that it is a good product, with some serious thinking built into it, and that it was and is way better than most out there, some costing more than it does.
But from British mags, you just have to conclude that there are a few so-so products out there and that there's Linn. All in a class of its own, and this is simply not true.
BF96 and Nigel are right, it has been blown out of all reasonable proportion. It has come to the point that no-one in Britain DARES disagree on Linn and Naim. You just have to take their word for it that there is no better for the money.
Well, they've just lost Naim to France's Focal, let's see how long Linn can hold out.
I've always held that Britain is the only country in the world which has an organized chaos - everybody and their dog have the exclusive rights to the best ever. In the wild days of audio, this did work, but soon fell victim to organization from Japan. The Brits could never find a way to cooperate, it had to be every man for himself. That means small series, and that ends up as overexpensive products. Meanwhile, Japan, Inc. was consolidating, so my Sony cassette deck has its mecahnical assembley from Alps - big series, cheaper unit, cheaper products.
And it's not just audio, this is everywhere in Britain. For example, when British Leyland was formed, did they do the logical thing and centralize engine manufacturing? Of course not, Rover made their, and Triumph made their 2 litre engine, Rover with 4 pots, Triumph with 6 pots. Instead of making their products cheaper to make without sacrificing their individual views on how it should be done, they simply added another layer of joint company costs on top of their own. They simply had to fail.
And this is crying shame of it. This is how Britain lost its auto and is now losing its audio industry. With them, we all also lose the individual talents of some very gifted people, now lost in globalism.
I still can't get over the loss of Triumph Motors cars - for a reason I cannot identify, I was really in love with some of their models, from TR4 and TR5, via the Spitfire, to the Stag. I miss them so much.
I do NOT dispute the fact that it is a good product, with some serious thinking built into it, and that it was and is way better than most out there, some costing more than it does.
But from British mags, you just have to conclude that there are a few so-so products out there and that there's Linn. All in a class of its own, and this is simply not true.
BF96 and Nigel are right, it has been blown out of all reasonable proportion. It has come to the point that no-one in Britain DARES disagree on Linn and Naim. You just have to take their word for it that there is no better for the money.
Well, they've just lost Naim to France's Focal, let's see how long Linn can hold out.
I've always held that Britain is the only country in the world which has an organized chaos - everybody and their dog have the exclusive rights to the best ever. In the wild days of audio, this did work, but soon fell victim to organization from Japan. The Brits could never find a way to cooperate, it had to be every man for himself. That means small series, and that ends up as overexpensive products. Meanwhile, Japan, Inc. was consolidating, so my Sony cassette deck has its mecahnical assembley from Alps - big series, cheaper unit, cheaper products.
And it's not just audio, this is everywhere in Britain. For example, when British Leyland was formed, did they do the logical thing and centralize engine manufacturing? Of course not, Rover made their, and Triumph made their 2 litre engine, Rover with 4 pots, Triumph with 6 pots. Instead of making their products cheaper to make without sacrificing their individual views on how it should be done, they simply added another layer of joint company costs on top of their own. They simply had to fail.
And this is crying shame of it. This is how Britain lost its auto and is now losing its audio industry. With them, we all also lose the individual talents of some very gifted people, now lost in globalism.
I still can't get over the loss of Triumph Motors cars - for a reason I cannot identify, I was really in love with some of their models, from TR4 and TR5, via the Spitfire, to the Stag. I miss them so much.
That's true. For reasons which escape me, I never understood why Dual didn't offer as an option a different and more seriously made plinth, for exampe.
Out here, our first job was always to weight the plastic bottomed plinth down. Made a LOT of difference, 3 point floating suspension notwithstanding.
My understanding is that the infamous connectors were developed for a very cheap internal cabling system in TV sets. They were never intended for use as interfacing to the outside world, and never expected to have many plug-unplug cycles.
Brad
Brtiain
D V V you are right except the link below . It can be done . However I feel Japan showed John Bloor how .
Triumph Motorcycles
BTW Dual 4 point in my day not 3 .
Triumph website is a bit tragic if people will forgive .
D V V you are right except the link below . It can be done . However I feel Japan showed John Bloor how .
Triumph Motorcycles
BTW Dual 4 point in my day not 3 .
Triumph website is a bit tragic if people will forgive .
Good to see Triumph.
Nige, my Dual CS604 does have a 3 point spring suspension, and I hope you do trust me to be able to count to 3.
I did say in my day and forgive me and I am sure you are right . I stopped looking at Dual by then . Recently I have become involved again as someone said if offered the right contract they would be happy to produce . I have no idea if that is true . Like to think it is . The source was very reliable and family friend of those people . D V V it's you who should do it . Money ...,. I know . Why not the direct drives and nice plinth . I bet they still have the tooling .
John's not doing too bad himself, love it , now where's the Milo ....................
That may or may not be true, But the LP12 was a serious table, then and Now, Over hyped , maybe , One of the best .. absolutely !!!
Anyway , some software , No affiliation, like the process and music ...
http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/index.htm
British Hi-Fi...
Mostly for the speakers, Celestion, Leak, Goodmans, Vitavox,Quads, Fane, Is what i recall using mostly from the UK, amplifiers, Nah, never owned one, Jap and American amplifiers only, there was a Tanberg once , opps , wrong country..
Pano,
Amp ringing should be at a different higher frequency than any ringing you see caused by the input.
Hope this helps
-Antonio
British Hi-Fi...
Mostly for the speakers, Celestion, Leak, Goodmans, Vitavox,Quads, Fane, Is what i recall using mostly from the UK, amplifiers, Nah, never owned one, Jap and American amplifiers only, there was a Tanberg once , opps , wrong country..
... and B&W, Spendor, Wharfedale, Monitor Audio, ATC, Tannoy, etc in the speaker arena, where the Brits were a strong force. In my view, remembering a few models like B&W DM6, or Spendor BC3, rightly so.
Who do you want me to kill for a Spendor BC3 in good condition?
In electronics, I am not so hot on them, I find most British amps sound lazy and disinterested and uninteresting. As ever, there are exceptions - Boothroyd Stuart Meridian, Bob Stuart's Lecson design days, and Armstrong (now gone, most unfortunately).
But as ever, this is a very personal list, just my own taste. Like you, Wayne, I also preferred American made amplification and loudspeakers, Japanese here and there, and in loudspeakers nowhere with the notable exception of Yamaha's 1000 monitor (but then, I never listened much to Jap speakers, so I could have missed a few goodies).
Another thing you might want to try: put some additional resistance in series with the speaker loads (say a few ohms) and note the effect if any on sound quality. So often what we hear and in many cases misattribute to specific factors is a change in frequency response (see dvv's remarks earlier about the highish output impedance shifting the crossover response, for example).
I recall a very old article in TAS by Bascom King about a big Jadis tube power amp. It was one of the rare cases where some technical specifics, even some of Bascom's measurements, were included in the review. He saw some oscillatory instability, iirc at high levels, even remarked something like "horrors!" --- but overall he liked the amplifier very much, and was more-or-less at a loss to explain why, based on the technical details.
British Hi-Fi...
Mostly for the speakers, Celestion, Leak, Goodmans, Vitavox,Quads, Fane, Is what i recall using mostly from the UK, amplifiers, Nah, never owned one, Jap and American amplifiers only, there was a Tanberg once , opps , wrong country..
A.Wayne: Many folks, myself included, consider the word "Jap" to be an insulting expression. Why not think twice before you use that term.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.