advertisement


LP12 Origins

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

I'd just like to say that in my opinion the RD11 and early LP12 were so similar as to be virtual identical and there is no way the Linn was "streets ahead".

The plinth was different, RD11 chipboard with veneer verses solid wood on the LP12. The motor pulley was different, the Ariston had a two-speed pulley with a square-section belt. The most significant difference was the bearing. The Linn used a hardened steel spindle machined to a point where as the Ariston used a ball-bearing to form the point. When Hamish Robertson took Linn to court over the plagiarism Ivor T successfully argued that it was this difference in the bearing design that meant that the decks were not one and the same design. Unbelievable!

Apart from that any other differences are irrelevant, or non existent. The sub-chassis is identical, arm-board identical, motor identical, inner and outer platters near as damn it. What a lot of people forget is that many of the features seen on an LP12 were later introductions. The bracing on the sub-chassis, lamination of the arm-board, spring types, power supply, on the very first LP12s all of these items were exactly the same as those on the RD11.

Streets ahead? The difference in performance of the two is so slight that set-up will tip it one way or the other. OK, the Linn is maybe a little better but nothing to sweat over. The LP12 was an almost straight copy of the RD11 and sounded like it.
 
Linn messed up a very nice TT ;-). Owned one in the late seventies, with an SME 3009 and a Shure MM. Loved how it played Soft Machine's 'Third', very fluent, very musical.
 
Nothing got messed up, it just changed gradually and subtly.

A 90s LP12 wearing the same arm and cartridge at a 70s LP12 sounds a little leaner, that's all.
New ones are a different kettle of fish and are essentially a different TT IMO.
 
Robert said:
Nothing got messed up, it just changed gradually and subtly.

A 90s LP12 wearing the same arm and cartridge at a 70s LP12 sounds a little leaner, that's all.
New ones are a different kettle of fish and are essentially a different TT IMO.
Click to expand...

I should hope so for the price.
 
Mr Pig said:
Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

I'd just like to say that in my opinion the RD11 and early LP12 were so similar as to be virtual identical and there is no way the Linn was "streets ahead".

The plinth was different, RD11 chipboard with veneer verses solid wood on the LP12. The motor pulley was different, the Ariston had a two-speed pulley with a square-section belt. The most significant difference was the bearing. The Linn used a hardened steel spindle machined to a point where as the Ariston used a ball-bearing to form the point. When Hamish Robertson took Linn to court over the plagiarism Ivor T successfully argued that it was this difference in the bearing design that meant that the decks were not one and the same design. Unbelievable!

Apart from that any other differences are irrelevant, or non existent. The sub-chassis is identical, arm-board identical, motor identical, inner and outer platters near as damn it. What a lot of people forget is that many of the features seen on an LP12 were later introductions. The bracing on the sub-chassis, lamination of the arm-board, spring types, power supply, on the very first LP12s all of these items were exactly the same as those on the RD11.

Streets ahead? The difference in performance of the two is so slight that set-up will tip it one way or the other. OK, the Linn is maybe a little better but nothing to sweat over. The LP12 was an almost straight copy of the RD11 and sounded like it.
Click to expand...
Plagiarism? I though he was challenging the patent Linn had taken out on the bearing, and lost.

If anybody could claim breach of copyright or patent, it would have been Thorens, whose TD150 was the basis for the Ariston design. AR, too, for copying their original suspension design.
 
avole said:
If anybody could claim breach of copyright or patent, it would have been Thorens, whose TD150 was the basis for the Ariston design. AR, too, for copying their original suspension design.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'll give you the TD150 but the AR is similar to others in general layout only. It would be like copyrighting the use of four wheels on a car!

The point about the Ariston and LP12 is that they are virtually identical. Ivor basically took the deck, improved the build quality of a couple of parts and said it was his new deck.
 
Mr Pig said:
Yeah, I'll give you the TD150 but the AR is similar to others in general layout only. It would be like copyrighting the use of four wheels on a car!

The point about the Ariston and LP12 is that they are virtually identical. Ivor basically took the deck, improved the build quality of a couple of parts and said it was his new deck.
Click to expand...
They were indeed pretty much identical. The first Linn ad confirms this, but by then Hamish, who was never a marketer, couldn't pay his creditors and sold up. Linn, as they openly said, continued the production because of the demand. There wasn't that much to improve since they were already making all the metal bits.

They saw a marketing opportunity and grabbed it. Still remains a great turntable, though.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigerik
Here's a summary from Wikipedia. The full text is available if you google - will look later when I'm not in transit using the iPad.

Hamish Robertson designed the Ariston RD11 in 1971 with Castle Precision Engineering Ltd machining many of the parts. Robertson left Ariston, which had been taken over by Dunlop Westayr Ltd and reorganised as Ariston Audio Ltd. In February 1973 Linn Products Ltd. was formed to sell turntables made by Castle Precision Engineering. This was officially announced in an advertisement in Hi-Fi News & Record Review, with the following text: "The turntable previously available under the name Ariston RD11 is now available under the name Linn LP12."
 
If I may digress I have an Ariston RD11E sitting in my loft the top plate of which looks very, very similar to the Fons CQ30.
Anyone know what, if any connection, there was between the companies?
 
Bob,

The late William James 'Hamish' Robertson, owner of both Ariston and later Ariston Audio, eventually become director of Fergus Fons Ltd.

Craig
 
Interesting ad, however, judging by the British patent opposition hearing accounts (also published in Hi-Fi News & Record Review for those who would bother to read such things), any claimed design copyright should have been shared equally between the late William James 'Hamish' Robertson and the late Jack 'Yan' Tiefenbrun.

Craig
 
That strange double switch is fairly distinctive.
AristonRD111972.jpg


Interesting that they sought to patent the Ariston's subchassis too.

AristonBottom1972.jpg


LP12under.jpg
 
pure sound said:
Interesting that they sought to patent the Ariston's subchassis too.
Click to expand...

Earlier RD11s had an unpainted silver subchassis without the ribs. Perhaps the ribs were part of Ivor's improvements. I've also seen two versions of the ribbed subchassis, one with just the two lateral ribs, and the one in your picture with the additional cross rib.
 
The patent is GB1394611 and primarily covers the platter/bearing/subchassis.

Quite interesting reading and I noted,

GB1394611 said:
The oil also helps locate the spindle accurately in the centre of rotation and imposes a uniform drag on the spindle during rotation.
Click to expand...

Paul
 
Interesting to note that this & other related patents are in the name of Jack Tiefenbrun not Ivor. Reading through it, most of what they were granted this patent for seems to have been done earlier in other designs.

They didn't seem to make use of this other patented bearing design.
LinnPatentedspindle.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top