Two things matter. Noise transmitted to the stylus during playback, you want as little as possible.
Absolute geometric stability between arm pillar and platter spindle, you want this as high as possible in all degrees of freedom.
The various different possible methods of achieving these two in parallel might not always be 100% compatible In a suspended deck.
You can prove this easily by recording a white/ pink noise track and then tightening the old linn armboard screws, you'll see changing peaks and troughs in the recorded output. That's what lead people to trial different subchassis setups.
Absolute geometric stability between arm pillar and platter spindle, you want this as high as possible in all degrees of freedom.
The various different possible methods of achieving these two in parallel might not always be 100% compatible In a suspended deck.
You can prove this easily by recording a white/ pink noise track and then tightening the old linn armboard screws, you'll see changing peaks and troughs in the recorded output. That's what lead people to trial different subchassis setups.
Thanks for that.
The recording bit sounds like something I can definitely try quite easily with both set ups (solid and sorbothane mount).
I understand regarding geometric stability, thanks for that also.
I'm stripping the Linn tomorrow so I'll build with the arm board solid first and give that a try.
I'll post a report after a few days of settling and fettling.
Thanks again.
I would've thought the evidence was crystal clear!
1. Solid-plinthed decks (where the arm is rigidly coupled to the platter) have long been known to have detailed retrieval.
2. Linn's Keel - which did away with the lossy connection between armboard and subchassis (which was required with the pressed-steel subchassis) - at last delivered low-level detail retrieval ... and made the LP12 sound much better (than a pressed-metal subchassis equipped deck).
If you want to take to the extreme, the concept of a 'lossy connection' between arm and platter degrading the sound ... simply mount an arm on the benchtop beside an LP12! 🙄
I'm not sure you do, actually - as you seem to reject any 'arguments' offered to you.
But as you said you are going to "try both anyway, soon" ... hopefully, your ears will tell you that - somehow - a rigid connection between arm and platter is better!
I became convinced of this when I bought a Cetech carbon-fibre laminate subchassis, back in the early 2000s. The concept with this was that the armboard was bolted to the subchassis ... providing a rigid connection. I thought my LP12 sounded much better with the Cetech (compared to the pressed-metal subchassis) - but the Cetech got a bad rap from a lot of people because you had to be careful how hard you tightened the bolts holding the armboard to the subchassis. (Too hard and you stressed the skins of the armboard - this stress put a hard 'metallic' edge on the sound.)
I'm not sure I rejected anything that was said to be honest with you, I just questioned the reasoning. You actually seem to resent that in my opinion. Read my last reply to Simon1972.
Really! That means to you I'm guessing?
And the evidence of this is where? On your deck? Which isn't mine!
And that's just being a total ----!
I actually went to listen to a fellow's system and found he had done this ... with an SME20. Which is a suspended deck - not with springs but O-rings.
Well Andyr,
I've tried the solid arm board connection, using my Mk 2 sub chassis as I know what that already sounds like. Quite a few adjustments to carry out with arm height, springs levelling etc. but got a nice temporary set up that I can work on before dropping it back down on to the base again.
You were correct.
I listened to Pink Floyds "Wish you were here" side 1, so I could hear Dave Gilmour's guitar playing ( I really know this Lp) but even before that I noticed quite a bit more detail in the chimes and overall depth at the start. The hard connection provides more depth and space within the sound stage, but sounds harder/sharper on the tone which isn't a surprise as it's working at the moment without any of the absorption platforms on my maintenance shelf. I can adjust the tone down a bit without much difficulty anyway. It also brings the soundstage a bit more forward with authority and clarity.
I got my wife up to listen and she said the same without any prompting, (shes was an orchestral musician), she also mentioned better resonance and clarity overall to the sound and deeper soundstage.
So. Thank you for your input.
And listen, despite my hard questioning nature, I'm an experimenter, but like to have some idea of where I'm heading and why, that's why I maybe come over as not paying heed and just questioning all the time. I am paying heed to everything, from everyone. When I use it, I'll tip my cap and say so as honestly as I can.
Thanks for your patience and advice.
I've tried the solid arm board connection, using my Mk 2 sub chassis as I know what that already sounds like. Quite a few adjustments to carry out with arm height, springs levelling etc. but got a nice temporary set up that I can work on before dropping it back down on to the base again.
You were correct.
I listened to Pink Floyds "Wish you were here" side 1, so I could hear Dave Gilmour's guitar playing ( I really know this Lp) but even before that I noticed quite a bit more detail in the chimes and overall depth at the start. The hard connection provides more depth and space within the sound stage, but sounds harder/sharper on the tone which isn't a surprise as it's working at the moment without any of the absorption platforms on my maintenance shelf. I can adjust the tone down a bit without much difficulty anyway. It also brings the soundstage a bit more forward with authority and clarity.
I got my wife up to listen and she said the same without any prompting, (shes was an orchestral musician), she also mentioned better resonance and clarity overall to the sound and deeper soundstage.
So. Thank you for your input.
And listen, despite my hard questioning nature, I'm an experimenter, but like to have some idea of where I'm heading and why, that's why I maybe come over as not paying heed and just questioning all the time. I am paying heed to everything, from everyone. When I use it, I'll tip my cap and say so as honestly as I can.
Thanks for your patience and advice.
A pleasure, mate. 👍 And kudos for reporting back.
Just another reference to the d!ckhead I mentioned, who had mounted his 12" UP arm on the bench beside his SME20 - instead of on its plinth. When I heard the result, I had to have the arm as I knew it would sound even better, when mounted on a plinth. But I realised pretty quickly that a 12" arm wasn't going to fit on my LP12, without some severe butchering - so I designed my own version of an LP12 (my 'SkeletaLinn') ... which kept the things I liked about the LP12 (springs, belt drive and the bearing) but a. would enable me to mount a 12" arm and b. have a rigid connection between arm and platter! 😵
I had to get back to you as you were absolutely correct and my theory and current set up was inferior to what I have now. I've been listening to my favourite lps most of the day, the ones I really know well.
Base extension is massive but tight, mids are very spacious and everything sits where it should, top end is really clear and the detail is considerably enhanced. The sound stage is different, more forward and has a harder edge (tighter), but still sits very much outside of the speakers.
I haven't even tried my Mk 3 sub chassis yet, but thinking I may make another alloy arm board for that so I can keep this set up separate when I change, just in case the Mk 3 doesn't work as well. Got some new springs and rubbers as well to fit with that.
The decks settling nicely, arm board level, nice infinite bounce although I'm sure the springs will need tweaking soon enough, so on the test shelf for a few days while I tweak the hell out of it.
Yeah, nice one Andy and thanks again for persevering despite my questioning nature. I am grateful indeed.
👍 Now, if you want to further increase your SQ ... I recommend you replace the 20th C Linn springs - with 21st C Audio Silente silicon "mushrooms"! 😵
Excellent news, I look forward to more info on what you do moving forward.
In the meantime, here's an eBay listing for the lp12 subchassis that my friend designed quite a few years back.
https://www.ebay.com.my/itm/134839908218
In the meantime, here's an eBay listing for the lp12 subchassis that my friend designed quite a few years back.
https://www.ebay.com.my/itm/134839908218
Yeah, I've seen the Rubikon before. It is a nice design. I wish I had a milling machine.
Are these the mushrooms you mentioned.
http://www.audiosilente.com/spare-p...-for-thorens-td-124-td-135-td-224-td-121.html
Quite cheap to try I'm thinking.
I'll keep you informed re anything I do.
They do look like the ones I got ... however, I suggest you email Lennart first, before you order them, just to make sure.
I look forward to your updates. 👍
Hi Andyr,
Fitted the 10mm acrylic base board and sorbothane feet, Still as tight and no real audible difference in the sound, few adjustments to the tonearm, cartridge weight tracking etc.
But!
*%!& Me. I've been running through various genre's and just finished off with Leftfields "Alternative light source", it sounded like it did when I saw them do it live and it was a close call on that. I was bloody sweating after the first side.
Everything is just so God Damned tight, and the sound stage absolutely rocks. Speakers? What speakers? It's totally out of them and in the room.
Leaving it like this for a while, or if not, at least until the mushrooms arrive.
I'm going to drop it down onto the Seismic sink tomorrow, I've a sneaky feeling that's going to add a little warmth to the tightness. We'll see.
Don't know about 'warmth' - but I would suggest it will reveal even more low-level details! 👍
Have no idea what an acrylic base board should do (as I never used one, after hearing a report from a friend who visited Linn HQ in the 80s and was told all the Linn employees removed theirs - as it was only put there to avoid little fingers from touching mains voltages).
However, AIUI ... Sorbothene feet will stop vibrations created in the plinth by the motor, from exiting the plinth! 😵 So - given the Seismic Sink will stop external, ground-based vibrations from entering the plinth, standard hard feet for the plinth will be better.
I use an Al tube frame resting on squash balls to support the perspex base of my 'SkeletaLinn' - this is a pretty good isolator.
I did try putting my LP12 on Sorbothane packs once... it killed the sound... I mean, the bass got bloated and the midrange just... flat...
Then I tried a heavy oak shelving unit that had worked fine for the Dual table. Ugh... better, but not good.
So my LP12 sits on its OEM Trampolin-2... Target 5TT rack.. aluminum spikes... matching aluminum cups... wood floor... concrete slab. I like the way it sounds.
It sounds nimble and deep. Is that what the British call "pace"?
That SkeletorLinn.... At what point does it stop being a Linn and becomes a Frankenstein? Does the bearing, motor and "keel" define it? And how do you reach to the back tonearm?
That's a very impressive build. How many tries to get to that point?
Given your previous advice and the fact I understand what you're saying re vibes exiting the plinth. I'll give the hard feet a go.
I've got some really nice 35mm by 35mm alloy cones/spikes that I can fit. I can just pull the sorbothane feet off as they fit in plugs holes on the base board.
I only fit the base board because I have it and it probably gives a little support to the overall structure. I bored 60mm holes so I can get my fingers in to adjust the springs easier and small ones where the arm bolts are so I can test various torque settings.
Thanks for the advice 👍
Given your previous advice and the fact I understand what you're saying re vibes exiting the plinth. I'll give the hard feet a go.
I've got some really nice 35mm by 35mm alloy cones/spikes that I can fit. I can just pull the sorbothane feet off as they fit in plugs holes on the base board.
I only fit the base board because I have it and it probably gives a little support to the overall structure. I bored 60mm holes so I can get my fingers in to adjust the springs easier and small ones where the arm bolts are so I can test various torque settings.
Thanks for the advice 👍
Yes, that's a good Qu! 👍
I would suggest it's:
* fundamentally, the bearing
* but aided by:
a. springs and
b. belt drive.
At least - that was my conclusion when a friend came over for a listen (who owned an LP12) ... and said "that's definitely a Linn"! 🙂
Although it started off with nearly every part, standard Linn - including the springs, belt & motor - now the only 'Linn things' left on it are:
- the outer platter
- and the Karousel bearing.
The rear tonearm is easy to reach ... but cart alignment on this arm is tricky. 🙁
Hah - this is v4! 😀
v1 was a 'chassis' made from 40 x 20 aluminium C-section ... which I assembled using my trusty hacksaw and drill:
This turned out to have too much weight on the LHS spring - so I made the v2 chassis (again from C-section) by extending the apex of the triangle, 50mm to the left.
Then I found someone who had access to a CNC machine - so got a same-dimensioned chassis made from 18mm Delrin. Unfortunately, it turned out this v3 Delrin chassis wasn't stiff enough - and sagged with the weight of the inner & outer platters. It also, strangely, caused an annoying static to be present after every LP was played. 🙄
So v3 was replaced by v4 - the same dimensions ... but made from Panzerholtz.
I look forward to hearing your results. 👍