I took the liberty of copying this chunk of a post from here, http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ns-beaten-behringer-what-322.html#post4085319, comparing IMP and Behringer active monitors. His remarks about the Behringer:
What needs to be done is to improve the quality of the sound as generated by the drivers - and then the HF properly joins the soundstage, is no longer seen as being spat out of the speaker box.
His "all the higher frequencies coming from the speakers" is the problem, but it's nothing to do with them being CD, box speakers, or not being omni, dipole, etc - and everything to do with excess distortion. That audible distortion constantly draws one's attention to the fact that the sound is emerging from the drivers, and that the HF is not part of the soundstage. Instant, non-convincing sound is the result ...
What needs to be done is to improve the quality of the sound as generated by the drivers - and then the HF properly joins the soundstage, is no longer seen as being spat out of the speaker box.
Last edited:
You have that backwards, don't you? Ariston produced the RD11 starting in 1971, with many parts machined by Castle Precision Engineering, designed by Hamish Robertson. In 1973 Linn Products Ltd. was formed to sell turntables made by Castle Precision Engineering. In Hi-Fi News & Record Review, Vol. 6, No. 2, February 1973 they ran ad ad which stated "The turntable previously available under the name Ariston RD11 is now available under the name Linn LP12."
So I think you meant to say "the first 50 LP12's were RD11's." Ariston didn't remove anything from the Linn design, because Linn didn't have a design yet (or even exist yet) when Ariston designed the RD11.
No . As far as I know from what Ivor told me in 1976 he wanted Ariston to sell another 100 he had made. They rejected them as being too expensive. As anyone can see the RD11 that followed was inferior to the LP12. So you can see Ariston was a marketing company who preferred to make an inferior TD150 ( in detail yes ). Linn was the manafaturing company who made both. The next Aristons were made by Peter Dunlop of Dunlop Westair who also made electric storage heaters. Peter went on to make Systemdek. There were side shoots into STD and that to CJ Walker. I was a drinking buddy of Ray Collins Ariston's head of sales . I sold RD 80's because I liked Ray and put up with the problems . To be honest RD 80 was poor value compared with a TD 160 SE, customers seemed OK with it as they saw the Linn connection and thought it worth 20% more. Ray never contradicted the story of Ivor. He worked with Linn and Ariston at the very beginning. Ariston revised the bearing and to me it means it is just another 3 point suspension turntable of less good value. Ray was a real tough nut, he should have been in films like Get Carter. If he didn't think Ivor designed the important parts of LP12 he wouldn't have hesitated to say. He did say Ivor could hear things other people couldn't. I suspect that is true for good or bad.
To be clear. Not all V8 engines are the same. Some have small refinements and are just better. Naturally we all respect the V8 Ford with it's side valves etc. John Dillinger did. If you like Ariston went back to side valves.
Today I set out to prove a well sorted TD145 TP16 DL110 Linn springs will equal my LP12 glued chassis, Ekos first ever production week. I have a hunch it will. I will be happy if it does because the LP12 shouldn't live in the loft. If you see my drift I only need the LP12 to be as good. Part of me says it will have a fight as I suspect the TP16 is highly neutral.
BTW. A TD160/145 has superior bearing concentricity compared with RD11. This means in truth the TD160 is the one Linn should fear. If you want to build a top quality turntable you should start with a TD 160. It will be very hard for you to fail. Buy two to keep yourself honest. Use the real one as reference. 90 % of what is written will guarantee your special will sound worse. Thorens were not stupid.
My very first memory of Linn was Hi fi News. A reader had acoustic feedback problems. News said a turntable they had tried was in late development and had impressed them as being remarkably better than any reference they had when feedback ( Circa 1972 ). The company was named and was Linn. All I can guess is the 50 two button ( on off ) RD 11 had been sold without the press ever realizing. Much of the Linn backlash was due to Ariston cheating themselves. If I remember an LP 12 was between the price of TD 160 and 125 at the time. Ivor told me he went to every shop saying you owe it to yourself to hear this. His rain coat over the LP12 as he went out in all weathers. Jack his father was none too impressed by Ivor's friend Hamish Robertson not buying the 100. The name Linn is the park next to Castlemilk factory. Castlemilk was like New York's more dangerous areas . Ivor told me my car was unlikely to be there when I returned ( it was ). I also owe him some oysters from my 1976 visit, he said the guided tour worth that. I remember him saying " I can't let you have the agency as Mr Horn is very powerful where you live , Mr Gandy can supply one or two to you". I really like Ivor and his education on that day valuable.
To be clear. Not all V8 engines are the same. Some have small refinements and are just better. Naturally we all respect the V8 Ford with it's side valves etc. John Dillinger did. If you like Ariston went back to side valves.
Today I set out to prove a well sorted TD145 TP16 DL110 Linn springs will equal my LP12 glued chassis, Ekos first ever production week. I have a hunch it will. I will be happy if it does because the LP12 shouldn't live in the loft. If you see my drift I only need the LP12 to be as good. Part of me says it will have a fight as I suspect the TP16 is highly neutral.
BTW. A TD160/145 has superior bearing concentricity compared with RD11. This means in truth the TD160 is the one Linn should fear. If you want to build a top quality turntable you should start with a TD 160. It will be very hard for you to fail. Buy two to keep yourself honest. Use the real one as reference. 90 % of what is written will guarantee your special will sound worse. Thorens were not stupid.
My very first memory of Linn was Hi fi News. A reader had acoustic feedback problems. News said a turntable they had tried was in late development and had impressed them as being remarkably better than any reference they had when feedback ( Circa 1972 ). The company was named and was Linn. All I can guess is the 50 two button ( on off ) RD 11 had been sold without the press ever realizing. Much of the Linn backlash was due to Ariston cheating themselves. If I remember an LP 12 was between the price of TD 160 and 125 at the time. Ivor told me he went to every shop saying you owe it to yourself to hear this. His rain coat over the LP12 as he went out in all weathers. Jack his father was none too impressed by Ivor's friend Hamish Robertson not buying the 100. The name Linn is the park next to Castlemilk factory. Castlemilk was like New York's more dangerous areas . Ivor told me my car was unlikely to be there when I returned ( it was ). I also owe him some oysters from my 1976 visit, he said the guided tour worth that. I remember him saying " I can't let you have the agency as Mr Horn is very powerful where you live , Mr Gandy can supply one or two to you". I really like Ivor and his education on that day valuable.
Last edited:
I was trying to find the 1970's Linn advert. It said approximately this " Linn turns the tables on other turntables as it has a unique point in it's favour". The unique point was exactly that, a true point contact bearing. They even tried for a patent without success as the idea was not new, only the tolerances. Garrard in a 1953 paper from Monty Mortimer to the directors mentioned exactly the same tolerances. I have read the report. Linn used exactly the same reference points and even aged the platter the same 7 months. I am convinced Ivor read the report. Monty used glass as a reference for bearing quality. There are one or two things Linn say which are mildly irrelevant for their bearing so I suspect it was saying it parrot fashion. One thing Linn betters Garrard on is hardness. The Garrard avoids problems by not using a point contact.
Ivor said that the mono groove width is 1/1000 th inch. Thus at - 60 dB we must say stupidly small ( within the wavelength of couloured light said Ivor ). Any vertical movement matters. A ball bearing centred badly can never offer the performance required.
Ivor said that the mono groove width is 1/1000 th inch. Thus at - 60 dB we must say stupidly small ( within the wavelength of couloured light said Ivor ). Any vertical movement matters. A ball bearing centred badly can never offer the performance required.
I was trying to find the 1970's Linn advert. It said approximately this " Linn turns the tables on other turntables as it has a unique point in it's favour". The unique point was exactly that, a true point contact bearing. They even tried for a patent without success as the idea was not new, only the tolerances. Garrard in a 1953 paper from Monty Mortimer to the directors mentioned exactly the same tolerances. I have read the report. Linn used exactly the same reference points and even aged the platter the same 7 months. I am convinced Ivor read the report. Monty used glass as a reference for bearing quality. There are one or two things Linn say which are mildly irrelevant for their bearing so I suspect it was saying it parrot fashion. One thing Linn betters Garrard on is hardness. The Garrard avoids problems by not using a point contact.
Ivor said that the mono groove width is 1/1000 th inch. Thus at - 60 dB we must say stupidly small ( within the wavelength of couloured light said Ivor ). Any vertical movement matters. A ball bearing centred badly can never offer the performance required.
First playing of LP12 Ekos DL110 ( Lyra safely returned to it's box ) . Seeing as it is straight out of the box it is delightful . Forgot how easy the Ekos is to adjust. Oh my goodness it is good. Playing Franz Schubert Octet in F major Opp 166. Nice easy piece on a very old mono DGG ( Members of Berlin Philharmonic DGM18285) . It is superb. This is what I had hoped for. The fitting was easy as the DL110 needs to go well forward to hit 66 mm zero point. I have the extra weight fitted and 2g on Shure gauge which might be lower ( 1.8 ). LP12 S No 78184 Feb 1989 with Valhalla. The sound is joyful in the extreme . The TD145 is very OK and to be honest both are good enough for any man. They are obviously cut from the same cloth and the niceness is mostly equal. The Linn seems to have an extra bass octave and greater depth. Like lets say a first class photograph and a transparency the latter is better, both are good and the LP12 the Kodachrome ( I accept the emphasized bass as the Red of Kodachrome ) . They both suggest the same origin. TP 16 is remarkable and yet Ekos is better. I never realized how opposite of sterile the Ekos is. Most ridged arms are very sterile ( SME 5 , RB 300 ) . The Origin Live Conqueror is not. The Denon is well above usual excellence and cheap. The belt is original yet is as new. It has been used on and off for at least 10 of it's 25 years. I would guess more. The Valhalla working was a gamble. They often die when switched back on.
The Mormons visited during the first 10 minutes. That's a sign !!!!!
Ivor said that the mono groove width is 1/1000 th inch. Thus at - 60 dB we must say stupidly small ( within the wavelength of couloured light said Ivor ). Any vertical movement matters. A ball bearing centred badly can never offer the performance required.
First playing of LP12 Ekos DL110 ( Lyra safely returned to it's box ) . Seeing as it is straight out of the box it is delightful . Forgot how easy the Ekos is to adjust. Oh my goodness it is good. Playing Franz Schubert Octet in F major Opp 166. Nice easy piece on a very old mono DGG ( Members of Berlin Philharmonic DGM18285) . It is superb. This is what I had hoped for. The fitting was easy as the DL110 needs to go well forward to hit 66 mm zero point. I have the extra weight fitted and 2g on Shure gauge which might be lower ( 1.8 ). LP12 S No 78184 Feb 1989 with Valhalla. The sound is joyful in the extreme . The TD145 is very OK and to be honest both are good enough for any man. They are obviously cut from the same cloth and the niceness is mostly equal. The Linn seems to have an extra bass octave and greater depth. Like lets say a first class photograph and a transparency the latter is better, both are good and the LP12 the Kodachrome ( I accept the emphasized bass as the Red of Kodachrome ) . They both suggest the same origin. TP 16 is remarkable and yet Ekos is better. I never realized how opposite of sterile the Ekos is. Most ridged arms are very sterile ( SME 5 , RB 300 ) . The Origin Live Conqueror is not. The Denon is well above usual excellence and cheap. The belt is original yet is as new. It has been used on and off for at least 10 of it's 25 years. I would guess more. The Valhalla working was a gamble. They often die when switched back on.
The Mormons visited during the first 10 minutes. That's a sign !!!!!
Last edited:
Well Nigel, we will have to agree to disagree on the time line. You have Ivor Tiefenbrun on your side, and i have documented history on mine 
.
I agree that the TP16 is under-rated, it is a fine tonearm. Check it for bearing play though, they often develop chatter and it is easy to adjust away. That really improves the focus. The worst part of the TD150/60/45 is the cheap press-board bottom cover. It adds nothing and resonates like a drum. Try replacing it with a piece of 1/2" MDF or Baltic birch plywood, it will firm up the plinth very nicely. That is the biggest single improvement you can make to a Thorens.
On my TD160 I also added damping to the underside of the top plate and the subchassis. I like what that does, though I suspect you may not. I have seen examples where the subchassis had additional stiffening added to reduce flex, and i suspect that could be beneficial. Easier to do on a 150 though, the shape of the 160 subchassis makes it harder to modify.
I had to modify mine slightly, enlarging the tonearm hole, because I mounted a (Thorens branded) RB300 which has a longer pivot-to-spindle distance. I found a NOS Thorens armboard for the Rega arm; it gets the mounting distance right but sits too high, I can't get the VTA right with my cartridge without either cartridge spacers or a pathologically thick platter mat. I will make a new arm board soon using the Thorens one as a template. I can't decide what to make it out of, any suggestions are most welcome.
I am using a low-output Denon cart, the DL-311LC. I tried a Sumiko but wasn't fond of it, it didn't have that MC "magic". The Denon does.
When it is set up right the TD160 makes a great platform.
.I agree that the TP16 is under-rated, it is a fine tonearm. Check it for bearing play though, they often develop chatter and it is easy to adjust away. That really improves the focus. The worst part of the TD150/60/45 is the cheap press-board bottom cover. It adds nothing and resonates like a drum. Try replacing it with a piece of 1/2" MDF or Baltic birch plywood, it will firm up the plinth very nicely. That is the biggest single improvement you can make to a Thorens.
On my TD160 I also added damping to the underside of the top plate and the subchassis. I like what that does, though I suspect you may not. I have seen examples where the subchassis had additional stiffening added to reduce flex, and i suspect that could be beneficial. Easier to do on a 150 though, the shape of the 160 subchassis makes it harder to modify.
I had to modify mine slightly, enlarging the tonearm hole, because I mounted a (Thorens branded) RB300 which has a longer pivot-to-spindle distance. I found a NOS Thorens armboard for the Rega arm; it gets the mounting distance right but sits too high, I can't get the VTA right with my cartridge without either cartridge spacers or a pathologically thick platter mat. I will make a new arm board soon using the Thorens one as a template. I can't decide what to make it out of, any suggestions are most welcome.
I am using a low-output Denon cart, the DL-311LC. I tried a Sumiko but wasn't fond of it, it didn't have that MC "magic". The Denon does.
When it is set up right the TD160 makes a great platform.
Last edited:
Nigel, thanks for the Linn history. I have been around the block with Ivor, as well as owning a TD150 from 1967. (lousy arm)
I also owned an Ariston for about 1 year.
Another table that has not been mentioned was the GALE, that had direct drive with a phase locked servo, and magnetic suspension. VERY advanced for 1975, but actually not as good sounding as the Linn.
I also visited the Linn site in 1976, and saw the platters (aging) and this impressed me at the time.
Today I use a Linn and I won't go back, nor do I want to pay for the upgrades. Still, the Linn is one of the best turntables ever made, in my opinion, but I have heard better for a much higher price.
I also owned an Ariston for about 1 year.
Another table that has not been mentioned was the GALE, that had direct drive with a phase locked servo, and magnetic suspension. VERY advanced for 1975, but actually not as good sounding as the Linn.
I also visited the Linn site in 1976, and saw the platters (aging) and this impressed me at the time.
Today I use a Linn and I won't go back, nor do I want to pay for the upgrades. Still, the Linn is one of the best turntables ever made, in my opinion, but I have heard better for a much higher price.
Still not getting the answer I'm after,
No, I didn't do all that this time because I was curious specifically to compare my B&M speakers with AR94s. I thought I knew them well, after 17 years of listening to them.
Frank, this is a one-off case.
To be clear all were Linns. The first 50 were not called Linn. Ariston themselves never made the point contact bearing. Also knowing Ray Collins means I was almost there in person. Ray never once corrected the story. Ray only ever spoke of Ivor. Like the people who wrote the Bible everyone else is a later comer. The way the story has been told is complicated and includes hurt pride. The main thing to say is whilst the LP12 is a superior TD150 the RD 11 after S No 50 wasn't. To be doubly sure. The 100 Aristons to be sold next never were. They were converted to LP12. Now if Ivor or Hamish first wanted LP12 it is impossible to say. Ivor said it was them both. Ivor unlike Hamish could do it. Peter Dunlop was the replacement for Ivor & Jack Tiefenbrun. The hurt pride was that once Linn had done all the hard work others felt it was their pie also to share. They didn't even realize they had stopped making the thing that was special, the bearing. You should realize 90% of things in Britain fail. Not least at that time. Ariston was that sort of product. I think it came back as Linn were in the picture. Some dealers who couldn't get Linn could get Ariston. If not TD160 super would eat it for breakfast. I always remember if I went to someones house and it was a TD 160 S I was sure to enjoy the system. If an Ariston not so sure. Reason is the Dealer would not usually be trained and the thing would be as from the factory. That would mean hopeless. Mostly suspension jammed and tilted and no one realized. I am almost certain RD11 used TD160 belts. I saw Linn making their own in 1976.
The other thing is the people imply that the Linn was a rip of and the Ariston the saintly Knight. Well that is daft as the RD11 wasn't very different in price. The rip off is people buying something that was sold by those who didn't know as being the same. The further rip of was the Thorens was the one they all should be scared of. The reason that didn't happen is Thorens was sold by discount shops. The Press somehow didn't like those shops. I sold LP12 RD80 and TD160 ( Rega, Kenwood KD 1033, Dual and Projekt ) . I was force to sell TD 160 cheap. I didn't mind as that was being correct to sell what's best and to hell with profit. The odd thing is I couldn't give TD160's away. I think the lack of endorsement meant no buyers. We sold a few, never as much as we should.
The cheap bottom of both TD 160 and LP12 is something I refer to in keeping it honest. Many change things and do not realize they killed the very thing that works. The better mod is to remove it. The cavity resonance remains with " improved " bottom boards or not .
I would not want the Rega RB 300 to replace the TP16 . I have just heard the TP16 show the Ekos how to do it. It is trailing edge detail. I would say TP16 is a bit special. RB 300 is a remarkable piece of engineering. Alas sounding good is not high on the list. Having heard a Rega P6 recently that has changed greatly when with the Exact PU.
I haven't heard my LP12 for some years now. Why I rejected it is still there. Now the weird bit. The system now is totally different compared with Naim and Rega Ela speakers ( Royd Apex ) of 1989. The sound is almost exactly as it was.
The Denon DL 110 is wonderful. Perhaps the careful suspension design makes it is instantly usable. I suspect others will have to build it a preamp if they want what I get, it might sound week if fed into standard ones. 6 dB extra gain minimum needed. I have a feeling DL 110 is better than DL103 if the gain is right. DL103R is superb.
The Sumiko is a funny animal. I am told they are very variable. They share some facilities with Lyra. When they are good they are excellent. Tracking seems suspect.
A strange situation. The Linn is clearly better and it will stay, all can use it now. My son will get back his TD145( 160 ). The winner is the Thorens as it has totally won my heart. LP12 and it are two sisters and if I had to marry one it would be TD145.
I have a Schroeder arm and the Lyra Helikon. I want my next turntable to be a Goldring GL88 ( I have one ) . I will chicken out and use my 401 I guess. The Linn will be the real one as it is only £138 if the stylus gets broken I won't shout at anyone. I bought the Denon DL110 from a shop that sells fridges and washing machines! First time in 41 years I paid retail. I also have an Ortofon M25 calibration and a VMS 20 E. I prize the VMS as it will work in anything. M20FL even better. The M25 is highly accurate , the graph looks like done by ruler.
John. If this was my first time with a Linn I would be dancing in the street. The sheer power is unbelievable. It's the one thing the system needs. Still love the underdog TD145. My son is very lucky. I was given it!
The other thing is the people imply that the Linn was a rip of and the Ariston the saintly Knight. Well that is daft as the RD11 wasn't very different in price. The rip off is people buying something that was sold by those who didn't know as being the same. The further rip of was the Thorens was the one they all should be scared of. The reason that didn't happen is Thorens was sold by discount shops. The Press somehow didn't like those shops. I sold LP12 RD80 and TD160 ( Rega, Kenwood KD 1033, Dual and Projekt ) . I was force to sell TD 160 cheap. I didn't mind as that was being correct to sell what's best and to hell with profit. The odd thing is I couldn't give TD160's away. I think the lack of endorsement meant no buyers. We sold a few, never as much as we should.
The cheap bottom of both TD 160 and LP12 is something I refer to in keeping it honest. Many change things and do not realize they killed the very thing that works. The better mod is to remove it. The cavity resonance remains with " improved " bottom boards or not .
I would not want the Rega RB 300 to replace the TP16 . I have just heard the TP16 show the Ekos how to do it. It is trailing edge detail. I would say TP16 is a bit special. RB 300 is a remarkable piece of engineering. Alas sounding good is not high on the list. Having heard a Rega P6 recently that has changed greatly when with the Exact PU.
I haven't heard my LP12 for some years now. Why I rejected it is still there. Now the weird bit. The system now is totally different compared with Naim and Rega Ela speakers ( Royd Apex ) of 1989. The sound is almost exactly as it was.
The Denon DL 110 is wonderful. Perhaps the careful suspension design makes it is instantly usable. I suspect others will have to build it a preamp if they want what I get, it might sound week if fed into standard ones. 6 dB extra gain minimum needed. I have a feeling DL 110 is better than DL103 if the gain is right. DL103R is superb.
The Sumiko is a funny animal. I am told they are very variable. They share some facilities with Lyra. When they are good they are excellent. Tracking seems suspect.
A strange situation. The Linn is clearly better and it will stay, all can use it now. My son will get back his TD145( 160 ). The winner is the Thorens as it has totally won my heart. LP12 and it are two sisters and if I had to marry one it would be TD145.
I have a Schroeder arm and the Lyra Helikon. I want my next turntable to be a Goldring GL88 ( I have one ) . I will chicken out and use my 401 I guess. The Linn will be the real one as it is only £138 if the stylus gets broken I won't shout at anyone. I bought the Denon DL110 from a shop that sells fridges and washing machines! First time in 41 years I paid retail. I also have an Ortofon M25 calibration and a VMS 20 E. I prize the VMS as it will work in anything. M20FL even better. The M25 is highly accurate , the graph looks like done by ruler.
John. If this was my first time with a Linn I would be dancing in the street. The sheer power is unbelievable. It's the one thing the system needs. Still love the underdog TD145. My son is very lucky. I was given it!
Last edited:
I set mine up very carefully 25 years ago. It had one height tweak since then. That's all I have done . It looks like new and has the original belt. Ivor told me he charged less for the belt than it cost him to make. He then smiled and said " they last forever ". He was right.
If you think back he must have shown you his two CNC machines. Three in the country and the other at Rolls Royce. There was a main frame computer using large brown dicks as Hard Drive. You might also have seen a submarine sump they were working on? £50 000 then and he smiled and said " LP12 is bread and butter ".
I think like me you must be told stories of events you actually witnessed and people correct your version? I get it all the time. My favorite answer is " well actually you are talking to that very person ".
My dam camera is broken and the Blue-Tooth on the phone also ( went in the bath ). Deserves some photos.
As Nigel mentioned Hi-Fi Choice, here's one by them (7/05) on the Michell Tecnodec.
Interesting part is the 'Lab' Report in the top right corner.
(audio rag reviewers give me gastro-esophageal acid reflux)
Attachments
Last edited:
I gave John Mitchell his strobe gun when he went to DC motors. If anyone needs the design I will publish it. 2 x 74HC4060 a 5 V regulator PP3 battery and LED plus 120 R resistor. 3.2768 MHz crystal. The jammy bit it the 5 V regulator gets more battery life. John was a lovely man. He told us how to make perspex without it cracking. He made R2D2 in Starwars ( the round one, other was C3PO ? ). Many friends have his turntables. The first thing they say is the look totally wins them. The motor when AC was excellent. They have magnetization problems cased by a one pole switch. No idea what or why it happens. The factory can fix that. Do not go DC. I have to say without John cavity resonance in turntables would be still common.
On that note Systemdek ( Peter Dunlop ) round version is excellent. It excels with Linn Ittok. Now that is rare as the Ittok is fussy. It will need an arm rest made. Believe me it is a giant killer. There were many Ittoks when Ekos came out. It was a chance to play.
I see what you mean. M25.
How about -78 dB .
On that note Systemdek ( Peter Dunlop ) round version is excellent. It excels with Linn Ittok. Now that is rare as the Ittok is fussy. It will need an arm rest made. Believe me it is a giant killer. There were many Ittoks when Ekos came out. It was a chance to play.
I see what you mean. M25.
How about -78 dB .
Last edited:
I saw the 2 story equipment that was in his father's machine shop. These people were SERIOUS! Seeing the platters placed along a side wall being aged was something else that I was impressed by. Further talks with Ivor, especially when I could get a few beers into him, was also fruitful. I really wanted to know what was so special about the Linn. I had already used one for 2 years, but I was really impressed (technically) with the Gale, that was much more exotic.
Ivor set me 'straight' but as you know, he kept his 'secrets' close.
I did have an incident with the Linn bottom cover and Ivor. He came to visit me in California in 1967, and the bottom cover was missing. His associate almost had a 'fit' implying that I had made a serious error. Ivor got him to calm down. Then, I had a Breuer tone arm, and that is the best tone arm that I have ever owned. I tried to get Sumiko and Linn to market the arm from Switzerland, but they just took the best ideas and ran with them. Disappointing.
Ivor set me 'straight' but as you know, he kept his 'secrets' close.
I did have an incident with the Linn bottom cover and Ivor. He came to visit me in California in 1967, and the bottom cover was missing. His associate almost had a 'fit' implying that I had made a serious error. Ivor got him to calm down. Then, I had a Breuer tone arm, and that is the best tone arm that I have ever owned. I tried to get Sumiko and Linn to market the arm from Switzerland, but they just took the best ideas and ran with them. Disappointing.
Last edited:
DC motors are problematic, and were 'oversold' when they first became popular, because they were just velocity servos that had to change speed to control torque. Dynamic needle drag creates the problem. I don't know if a strobe would show the problem accurately enough. SOTA built a turntable to compete with Linn back in 1980 in my office. They chose a Pabst DC velocity servo, and I told them that it was not the best approach. They told me to mind my own business, and fortunately, I had my Linn and stuck with it.
Sumiko did import and sell the Breuer arm for a short time, that's where I bought mine.
Sorry, I didn't really want to get into a rehash of the Ariston/Linn history. It is an oft-told tale, and the facts are out there for anyone who is interested to look.
Removing it gets rid of the flapping press-board. Replacing it increases the rigidity of the plinth and controls resonance. You should give it a try on the 145, it is a big improvement.
To each his own. I used the TP16 for a while. With my rather high-compliance MM cart it was 50/50 between the TP16 and the Rega. With the MC the Rega is much better, I think it's the superior bearings.
Indeed, the output level of the 110 is at an awkward point, a little low for most MM phono stages, and of course far too high for most MC stages. When I built my current phono stage I felt the gain was little high for the Denon 311, or at least higher than I needed, so I tweaked the gain a bit, reduced it by ~3-4dB. That also increased local degeneration in the front end a bit. It's a very small change but seems to work a little better.
Yes, I wouldn't extend my findings to all Sumiko carts, just the one I tried. Tracking was not very good, highs were a little harsh (may have needed better setup, I never really worked to get that cart right since I always planned to replace it), also poor shielding seemed to let in more noise.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.