Hello,
I have been making turntables as a hobby for the last couple of years, and have acquired a fair number of spare parts. As such, I want to find a way to throw these all together and use them up, so they stop taking up space.
The main platter/bearing system I have is from an Ariston RD11s, unfortunately without the suspension system, so I will just be hard mounting it to the plinth. I also do not have the rest of the plinth, so I cannot measure the proper distance from the pulley to the spindle of the subplatter. I do, however, still have the original flat belt pulley.
From what I have been able to measure, this is what I have:
Subplatter diameter: ~164mm
Pulley (33 rpm) diameter: ~17.9mm
Pulley (45 rpm) diameter: ~24.6mm
The motor was just a simple AC synchronous one, and I believe it operated at 300 rpm 60hz/ and 250 50hz. Attached to the set up were only two capacitors, the operational one and one I believe to keep the speakers from popping when the table was switched on. I am in North America, so I would be running at 300 rpm 60hz.
Can anyone who has an Ariston RD11s confirm that the previously provided measurements are correct, as well as:
-The distance between the pulley and the subplatter spindle
-The approximate length of the belt
Alternatively, I was considering putting the motor halfway between the outer edge of the subplatter, and the inner edge of the outer platter. This would require designing a new pulley and getting a new belt, which would require making sure that the new motor/pulley/belt combinations is properly sized to drive the whole system at an accurate 33.33/45.0 rpm.
I am aware that there are electronic solutions to fix speed accuracy and variation, but seeing as how the aim of this is to make it as simple as possible, I would rather not build an additional motor controller unit for this table.
Thanks everyone, for your help.
I have been making turntables as a hobby for the last couple of years, and have acquired a fair number of spare parts. As such, I want to find a way to throw these all together and use them up, so they stop taking up space.
The main platter/bearing system I have is from an Ariston RD11s, unfortunately without the suspension system, so I will just be hard mounting it to the plinth. I also do not have the rest of the plinth, so I cannot measure the proper distance from the pulley to the spindle of the subplatter. I do, however, still have the original flat belt pulley.
From what I have been able to measure, this is what I have:
Subplatter diameter: ~164mm
Pulley (33 rpm) diameter: ~17.9mm
Pulley (45 rpm) diameter: ~24.6mm
The motor was just a simple AC synchronous one, and I believe it operated at 300 rpm 60hz/ and 250 50hz. Attached to the set up were only two capacitors, the operational one and one I believe to keep the speakers from popping when the table was switched on. I am in North America, so I would be running at 300 rpm 60hz.
Can anyone who has an Ariston RD11s confirm that the previously provided measurements are correct, as well as:
-The distance between the pulley and the subplatter spindle
-The approximate length of the belt
Alternatively, I was considering putting the motor halfway between the outer edge of the subplatter, and the inner edge of the outer platter. This would require designing a new pulley and getting a new belt, which would require making sure that the new motor/pulley/belt combinations is properly sized to drive the whole system at an accurate 33.33/45.0 rpm.
I am aware that there are electronic solutions to fix speed accuracy and variation, but seeing as how the aim of this is to make it as simple as possible, I would rather not build an additional motor controller unit for this table.
Thanks everyone, for your help.
Last edited:
A speed controller, if done properly (eg SG4), not only allows accurate rotation, but also reduces vibration inherent in the motor to low levels, especially relevant when hard mounting the platter and motor.
Like you I enjoy making 'bespoke' turntables, I mostly use Papst 3 phase synchronous motors, driven by the aforementioned SG4 controller, that allows precise frequency and phase control.
My TTs are driven by longer drive belts, around the periphery of the platter, with the motor in a separate pod, this allows a larger diameter motor pulley that is less influenced by any discrepancy at the belt join.
Like you I enjoy making 'bespoke' turntables, I mostly use Papst 3 phase synchronous motors, driven by the aforementioned SG4 controller, that allows precise frequency and phase control.
My TTs are driven by longer drive belts, around the periphery of the platter, with the motor in a separate pod, this allows a larger diameter motor pulley that is less influenced by any discrepancy at the belt join.
Hi ralphcooke,
I have made the sg4 sinewave generator and the associated power supply to make it with an Anaheim DC motor, and I am using that with another turntable that I have built. I agree, it is a superior drive system, but the point of this build is to use the the bits I have lying around, and I am alright with just having it driven by an AC motor without an associated power supply - hence why I want to get the measures are correct as possible.
Chances are I will end up making a new pulley and belt, since all the other factors are known, and it's the easiest route to go.
I have made the sg4 sinewave generator and the associated power supply to make it with an Anaheim DC motor, and I am using that with another turntable that I have built. I agree, it is a superior drive system, but the point of this build is to use the the bits I have lying around, and I am alright with just having it driven by an AC motor without an associated power supply - hence why I want to get the measures are correct as possible.
Chances are I will end up making a new pulley and belt, since all the other factors are known, and it's the easiest route to go.
The Linn LP12 was an clone of the RD 11 record deck made in Scotland by Castle Precision Engineering which just "happened " to be Ivor Tiefenbruns FATHER--JACK,s company to a design by HAMISH ROBERTSON who contracted Jack to build it ---in NINETEEN SEVENTY and distributed by C.J.Walker & company .
BUT !!! in February 1973 ---guess what ??? Linn Products started selling decks made by --guess who--thats right ---Castle Precision Engineering - which--quote- "were VERY similar " to Aristons --rip-off in my book .
This is very well known if you live in Scotland but propaganda and historical revisionism rules the world now so the Linn gets the praise but Ariston don't .
Now where is my contract lawyer --ah he is in Philadelphia !
BUT !!! in February 1973 ---guess what ??? Linn Products started selling decks made by --guess who--thats right ---Castle Precision Engineering - which--quote- "were VERY similar " to Aristons --rip-off in my book .
This is very well known if you live in Scotland but propaganda and historical revisionism rules the world now so the Linn gets the praise but Ariston don't .
Now where is my contract lawyer --ah he is in Philadelphia !
@duncan2 - do you by any chance know when C.J. Walker & Co. closed down? I still have my Walker 55 TT, with a Grace G-727 tonearm and the original motor. The motor needs a bit of servicing (oil seems to have gunked up) but otherwise in excellent nick. Have needed to replace the belt twice through all the years (bought ~1986.) Still a favourite of mine.
There is a lot more to this Linn/Ariston saga as both used the same sub-chassis and Ivor admitted it was Hamish that invented the single point ball bearing not him but it was Ivor that first patented it - a regular occurrence if you check out historical facts .
Of course a patent war ensued as regards the design of the deck Linn lost that one but Hamish ( for very good reason ) left the partnership --there is still more .
The old RD11 is/was classed as SUPERIOR to the first Linn LP12,s , a better motor was used some parts are interchangeable between the two I could go on but will stop there but The Dunlop Systemdek made in Troon Ayrshire - Scotland is another well made deck .
Ivor was a good promoter as acknowledged even by the UK "golden-ears " of the time, I felt sorry for Hamish who didn't have the "gift of the gab " a UK expression .
Ferret --going by this it was some time in the later 1980,s-
The Walker CJ-55 Turntable | Rudy's Corner
From all accounts it too is much better than a standard LP12 and is now highly prized--- don't sell it.
Even vinyl engine posters think its good.
Of course a patent war ensued as regards the design of the deck Linn lost that one but Hamish ( for very good reason ) left the partnership --there is still more .
The old RD11 is/was classed as SUPERIOR to the first Linn LP12,s , a better motor was used some parts are interchangeable between the two I could go on but will stop there but The Dunlop Systemdek made in Troon Ayrshire - Scotland is another well made deck .
Ivor was a good promoter as acknowledged even by the UK "golden-ears " of the time, I felt sorry for Hamish who didn't have the "gift of the gab " a UK expression .
Ferret --going by this it was some time in the later 1980,s-
The Walker CJ-55 Turntable | Rudy's Corner
From all accounts it too is much better than a standard LP12 and is now highly prized--- don't sell it.
Even vinyl engine posters think its good.
I am interested in the Ariston-Linn history and plenty of misinformation showing up here
If anyone wants to read the Hi-Fi News coverage of the patent hearing then it is here. Thanks to Rob Holt for the scan of the later article.
https://postimg.cc/image/rhott93yt/
https://postimg.cc/image/7abe0ye79/
https://postimg.cc/image/4g88nirgl/
https://postimg.cc/image/e0rvae92t/
What is apparent from the coverage is that Hamish Robertson in his written submission must have conceded that the RD11 started out as a prototype turntable developed by Ivor Tiefenbrun. Someone would probably have to access the patent hearing documentation likely held at the British Library to fully verify this. However based on my research I have no doubt that the whole thing evolved from Ivor developing his own version of a TD150 using facilities at Castle and with assistance from the Castle staff and Hamish did not offer up an alternative story to claim otherwise.
It is clear that the Tiefenbrun's conceded that Hamish was responsible for the RD11 styling. This was probably more than just the arm board logo and would have likely involved choice of plinth and dust cover (both likely sourced from Lenco) and a change to the platter appearance (similar to AR XA).
The bearing design was contested and the coverage does not provide a clear steer. It would have been Jack Tiefenbrun's area of expertise and I have seen a comment on another forum that leads me to believe it was designed by Jack. At the hearing the decision about who designed it defaulted to Jack as per patent law but the Hearing Officer was not fully convinced about the merits of the patent.
I have seen nothing to persuade me that Ivor conceded the nearing design was by Hamish. For example see here
A Wee Dram of Scotch: Linn Products' Ivor Tiefenbrun | Stereophile.com
For a different perspective also have a look at Nigel Pearson's posts on a couple of threads here
Sound Quality Vs. Measurements
Revive an Ariston RD-11S
If anyone wants to read the Hi-Fi News coverage of the patent hearing then it is here. Thanks to Rob Holt for the scan of the later article.
https://postimg.cc/image/rhott93yt/
https://postimg.cc/image/7abe0ye79/
https://postimg.cc/image/4g88nirgl/
https://postimg.cc/image/e0rvae92t/
What is apparent from the coverage is that Hamish Robertson in his written submission must have conceded that the RD11 started out as a prototype turntable developed by Ivor Tiefenbrun. Someone would probably have to access the patent hearing documentation likely held at the British Library to fully verify this. However based on my research I have no doubt that the whole thing evolved from Ivor developing his own version of a TD150 using facilities at Castle and with assistance from the Castle staff and Hamish did not offer up an alternative story to claim otherwise.
It is clear that the Tiefenbrun's conceded that Hamish was responsible for the RD11 styling. This was probably more than just the arm board logo and would have likely involved choice of plinth and dust cover (both likely sourced from Lenco) and a change to the platter appearance (similar to AR XA).
The bearing design was contested and the coverage does not provide a clear steer. It would have been Jack Tiefenbrun's area of expertise and I have seen a comment on another forum that leads me to believe it was designed by Jack. At the hearing the decision about who designed it defaulted to Jack as per patent law but the Hearing Officer was not fully convinced about the merits of the patent.
I have seen nothing to persuade me that Ivor conceded the nearing design was by Hamish. For example see here
A Wee Dram of Scotch: Linn Products' Ivor Tiefenbrun | Stereophile.com
For a different perspective also have a look at Nigel Pearson's posts on a couple of threads here
Sound Quality Vs. Measurements
Revive an Ariston RD-11S
Cree009 --Ivor admitted that the one point bearing was Hamish,s idea not his, he went off to stay in Israel for a while during that period although he got the publicity for it .
If Hamish showed his RD11 at Harrogate much earlier than the LInn LP12 production and had his design on the market in 1971 much earlier than Linn and marketed as his then how can you call it a "Ivor Teifenbrun design " ?
If Hamish showed his RD11 at Harrogate much earlier than the LInn LP12 production and had his design on the market in 1971 much earlier than Linn and marketed as his then how can you call it a "Ivor Teifenbrun design " ?
If the process for patent hearings in 1976/77 was anything like the modern approach then it was probably what is now known as an inter partes hearing. Much of the work is done prior to the hearing. This requires comprehensive written statements from each party to be submitted in advance of the hearing and shared with the other parties in an iteritive process of discovery. Evidence consists of witness statements and supporting documents or material. Each side is provided with copies of the other parties submissions and expected to respond by identifying what they wish to contest. If they don't contest something then by default they have agreed.
The physical Patent Hearing in a court room is intended to address the contested content from the written submissions along with legal arguments and the modern guidelines state that new evidence should not be submitted at the physical hearing unless agreed by the Patent Hearing Officer (Comptroller).
The Hearing Officers do not do their own research so will reach a decision based on the patent application and the written submissions along with clarification from verbal testimony provided at the physical hearing. By process and training the Hearing Officer is required to be even handed in how they administer the hearing. It would create grounds for an appeal if they were not even handed.
Hi-Fi News covered the patent hearings in articles by Adrian Hope (aka Barry Fox).
From the articles we can see that the hearing was specifically about the application for a patent concerning the point bearing as used for the original Ariston RD11 turntable. The background concerning the development of the turntable also needed to be taken into consideration with regards to any remedies (possible costs/damages or other actions) that would result from the decision about whether or not to grant the patent.
"The Officer saw the nub of the disputed invention as the point contact bearing formed by the conical end of the platter spindle. And it was agreed all round that this, by minimising rumble was indeed the nub of the invention. The Hearing Officer then went on to summarize the train of events that led up to the current marketing of Linn turntables. To the best of my knowledge this has not previously been crystallised, so thanks are due to the officer for his delightfully clear summary of the situation.
Indeed, anyone both puzzled by and interested in the history of the Ariston-Linn saga need look no futher than the Hearing Officer's main decision for a full breakdown of the extraordinary facts surrounding this unique episode in Audio History.
To summarize the summary: Jack Tiefenbrun formed Castle Precision Engineering (Glasgow) Ltd. 15 years ago. Hamish Robertson had a company called Thermac in 1967 which became Ariston in 1970 and Ariston Audio in 1973. In 1970 Jack Tiefenbrun's son Ivor Tiefenbrun bought some Hi-Fi equipment and became friendly with Hamish Robertson. Ivor Tiefenbrun made a prototype turntable with a ball bearing and then went off to Israel in 1971. While Ivor was away, Jack Tiefenbrun and Hamish Robertson changed the ball bearing to a point bearing. Robertsons's company Thermac then ordered some 40 such units from Castle. Now as Ariston, Robertson then planned a display of the units for Harrogate in September 1971. C. W. and J Walker were appointed selling agents for the turntable- by now christened the RD11. The turntable was indeed shown at Harrogate that year and the RD11 sales literature boasted "a unique single point bearing" and "almost rumble free sound". The next year (1972) Jack Tiefenbrun filed the two provisional patent specifications on which the disputed patent (BP 1 394 611) was finally to issue. By the end of that year (1972) there had been a deteriation, and finally a breakdown, of relationships between Robertson and Ariston on one hand and the Tiefenbrun's on the other. This culminated with a threat to Robertson that a copyright action would be brought against him if he had the RD11 turntable made elsewhere than at Castle by Tiefenbrun.
In February 1973 Linn Products Ltd. was formed to sell single-point bearing turntables made by Castle. Ariston was then taken over by Dunlop Westayr Ltd. and the separate firm Fergus Fons formed with Robertson as director. As we have already seen, it was Fons and Robertson and not Ariston-Dunlop-Westayr, who attacked the Tiefenbrun patent claims.".
There is plenty of interest in the coverage but one of the key points is that "Ivor Tiefenbrun made a prototype turntable with a ball bearing and then went off to Israel in 1971" is stated as a fact (ie uncontested) in the Hearing Officer summary. Adrian Hope insisted his article contained an accurate synopsis so there are only 2 possible options to explain this.
1. Hamish submitted an alternative version in his written submission but the Hearing Officer ignored it even though it would have been very relevent to any decisions about remedies. This would be a serious failing by the officer who would need to review both versions and justify using one submission in preference to the other. I would also have expected the Adrian Hope article to cover different disputed versions if Hamish submitted one. This option looks so unlikely that I personally dismiss it.
2. Hamish did not submit an alternative version in his written submission and as a result conceded that the RD11 turntable was based on a prototype by Ivor.
If the Tiefenbrun's could produce a lot of witnesses that their version was correct then it would have been a huge mistake by Hamish to submit an alternative version that was false. If the Tiefenbrun's version was fake then they would have struggled to produce witnesses and I would have expected Hamish to submit his own different version.
Whether or not Hamish submitted an alternative version is something that will be verifiable by reviewing the patent hearing documentation copies of which should be held by the British Library in London.
Outside the hearing Ivor has named former Castle staff who helped him with the development. "The design benefited from the input of my late father who designed the patented single point bearing and from the key engineering staff at Castle Precision Engineering, my late father’s company, including John Cross, Bob Hamond, George Borthwick and the late Russell Christie and Edgar Clumpas who all enthusiastically helped me with this ‘lunchtime’ project, along with many other employees at Castle". This implies that the Tiefenbruns would have been able to call on many witnesses at the hearing if true.
PF interview with Ivor Tiefenbrun
Also elsewhere Ray Collins, a former Castle employee (and later Ariston Acoustics) not named by Ivor above told Nigel Pearson that he helped Ivor with the development which provides some independent corroboration that Ivor did the early development. "Ray used to do listening tests with Ivor. Ray said he couldn't hear the differences and would humour Ivor by saying he did".
All the versions on the web from Hamish supporters start out with him approaching the Tiefenbruns with a turntable he had designed by magic. None of them provide details of the magic trick. The patent hearing makes it quite clear that the magic trick was to use a prototype turntable developed by Ivor Tiefenbrun.
The physical Patent Hearing in a court room is intended to address the contested content from the written submissions along with legal arguments and the modern guidelines state that new evidence should not be submitted at the physical hearing unless agreed by the Patent Hearing Officer (Comptroller).
The Hearing Officers do not do their own research so will reach a decision based on the patent application and the written submissions along with clarification from verbal testimony provided at the physical hearing. By process and training the Hearing Officer is required to be even handed in how they administer the hearing. It would create grounds for an appeal if they were not even handed.
Hi-Fi News covered the patent hearings in articles by Adrian Hope (aka Barry Fox).
From the articles we can see that the hearing was specifically about the application for a patent concerning the point bearing as used for the original Ariston RD11 turntable. The background concerning the development of the turntable also needed to be taken into consideration with regards to any remedies (possible costs/damages or other actions) that would result from the decision about whether or not to grant the patent.
"The Officer saw the nub of the disputed invention as the point contact bearing formed by the conical end of the platter spindle. And it was agreed all round that this, by minimising rumble was indeed the nub of the invention. The Hearing Officer then went on to summarize the train of events that led up to the current marketing of Linn turntables. To the best of my knowledge this has not previously been crystallised, so thanks are due to the officer for his delightfully clear summary of the situation.
Indeed, anyone both puzzled by and interested in the history of the Ariston-Linn saga need look no futher than the Hearing Officer's main decision for a full breakdown of the extraordinary facts surrounding this unique episode in Audio History.
To summarize the summary: Jack Tiefenbrun formed Castle Precision Engineering (Glasgow) Ltd. 15 years ago. Hamish Robertson had a company called Thermac in 1967 which became Ariston in 1970 and Ariston Audio in 1973. In 1970 Jack Tiefenbrun's son Ivor Tiefenbrun bought some Hi-Fi equipment and became friendly with Hamish Robertson. Ivor Tiefenbrun made a prototype turntable with a ball bearing and then went off to Israel in 1971. While Ivor was away, Jack Tiefenbrun and Hamish Robertson changed the ball bearing to a point bearing. Robertsons's company Thermac then ordered some 40 such units from Castle. Now as Ariston, Robertson then planned a display of the units for Harrogate in September 1971. C. W. and J Walker were appointed selling agents for the turntable- by now christened the RD11. The turntable was indeed shown at Harrogate that year and the RD11 sales literature boasted "a unique single point bearing" and "almost rumble free sound". The next year (1972) Jack Tiefenbrun filed the two provisional patent specifications on which the disputed patent (BP 1 394 611) was finally to issue. By the end of that year (1972) there had been a deteriation, and finally a breakdown, of relationships between Robertson and Ariston on one hand and the Tiefenbrun's on the other. This culminated with a threat to Robertson that a copyright action would be brought against him if he had the RD11 turntable made elsewhere than at Castle by Tiefenbrun.
In February 1973 Linn Products Ltd. was formed to sell single-point bearing turntables made by Castle. Ariston was then taken over by Dunlop Westayr Ltd. and the separate firm Fergus Fons formed with Robertson as director. As we have already seen, it was Fons and Robertson and not Ariston-Dunlop-Westayr, who attacked the Tiefenbrun patent claims.".
There is plenty of interest in the coverage but one of the key points is that "Ivor Tiefenbrun made a prototype turntable with a ball bearing and then went off to Israel in 1971" is stated as a fact (ie uncontested) in the Hearing Officer summary. Adrian Hope insisted his article contained an accurate synopsis so there are only 2 possible options to explain this.
1. Hamish submitted an alternative version in his written submission but the Hearing Officer ignored it even though it would have been very relevent to any decisions about remedies. This would be a serious failing by the officer who would need to review both versions and justify using one submission in preference to the other. I would also have expected the Adrian Hope article to cover different disputed versions if Hamish submitted one. This option looks so unlikely that I personally dismiss it.
2. Hamish did not submit an alternative version in his written submission and as a result conceded that the RD11 turntable was based on a prototype by Ivor.
If the Tiefenbrun's could produce a lot of witnesses that their version was correct then it would have been a huge mistake by Hamish to submit an alternative version that was false. If the Tiefenbrun's version was fake then they would have struggled to produce witnesses and I would have expected Hamish to submit his own different version.
Whether or not Hamish submitted an alternative version is something that will be verifiable by reviewing the patent hearing documentation copies of which should be held by the British Library in London.
Outside the hearing Ivor has named former Castle staff who helped him with the development. "The design benefited from the input of my late father who designed the patented single point bearing and from the key engineering staff at Castle Precision Engineering, my late father’s company, including John Cross, Bob Hamond, George Borthwick and the late Russell Christie and Edgar Clumpas who all enthusiastically helped me with this ‘lunchtime’ project, along with many other employees at Castle". This implies that the Tiefenbruns would have been able to call on many witnesses at the hearing if true.
PF interview with Ivor Tiefenbrun
Also elsewhere Ray Collins, a former Castle employee (and later Ariston Acoustics) not named by Ivor above told Nigel Pearson that he helped Ivor with the development which provides some independent corroboration that Ivor did the early development. "Ray used to do listening tests with Ivor. Ray said he couldn't hear the differences and would humour Ivor by saying he did".
All the versions on the web from Hamish supporters start out with him approaching the Tiefenbruns with a turntable he had designed by magic. None of them provide details of the magic trick. The patent hearing makes it quite clear that the magic trick was to use a prototype turntable developed by Ivor Tiefenbrun.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.