LP12 subchassis - The 'RubiKon'

[flatpopely]

Introduction:-

Today Mark and I visited Cymbiosis in Leicester at the invitation (I asked him!!!) of Peter Swain. The purpose was to see if the RubiKon LP12 sub chassis provided a viable ‘cheaper’ alternative to the Linn Keel and would be something that Cymbiosis would want to offer to customers. We want the RubiKon to be sold though dealers so Peter’s impressions were to be an important part of the RubiKon project.
We arrived just after 10am and were met by a friendly and welcoming Peter. He took us down stairs to where the listening would be conducted and told us he had three Radikal LP12s available; one with a Keel/NAIM Superline, one with a Keel/Linn Urika and the last a STD pressed steel sub chassis/Urika. Mark explained the design process behind the RubiKon and we showed him the spare RubiKon.

Please bear in mind that these are my thoughts on the day and Mark and Peter may have other viewpoints which I ACTIVELY ENCOURAGE them to post on this thread.
Here is what happened.

PHASE I – Phono stages
Peter was keen to get us familiar with the setup and to choose the phono stage to use. We compared two LP12s with Keel/Ekos SE/Akiva; one had a Superline the other a Uruka. After 10 mins we all agreed that the Urika was a better phono stage by some margin. The Superline was flat and lacked bass timbre in comparison to the Urika.

PHASE II – Ittok/Troika
My deck was inserted into the system fitted with my arm and cart. We compared it against the Keel/Ekos/Akiva (from now on the Keel deck). There was £7000 of difference in cost and yes the Keel deck was better but not by a huge margin. The underlying strengths of the RubiKon to retrieve huge amounts of detail and resolve macro and micro dynamics and yet still time well were present. The Keel deck gave a more even presentation and was more refined. Still not bad considering I had Prefix fitted against a Urika.

PHASE III – Ekos SE/Akiva fitted
Peter then fitted an Ekos SE/Akiva and Urika to my deck so that the only difference between the decks was the sub chassis. To see him at work is to watch experience and finesse combined with huge knowledge. He replaced the springs and grommets and also some nuts, my deck was 100%.

PHASE IV – Keel and RubiKon listening
So what did we think? Well it was very interesting, within 10 mins Peter stated that it was hugely better than the std steel sub chassis so it was not worth even bothering to bring in the std deck, result! We listened to a wide variety of records but the results were consistent.
The Keel gives a very even sound and one that is ‘calm’ and easy to listen to, not boring just refined. In contrast the RubiKon is ruthless in revealing tiny details. This has the effect of making the Keel having a slight ‘loudness’ switch effect where the bass and treble are more pronounced than the midrange. It’s an enjoyable effect and the Keel sounds rather fine as a result. Both Mark and I did think that the RubiKon had more drive and rhythm than the Keel as well as a sweeter treble.
Peter did declare that he still slightly preferred the Keel and its ‘easy’ to listen to presentation. I can see exactly what he means but I feel that the RubiKon is more faithful to what’s on the record.
This was writ large when listening to Frankie Goes to Holywood 'Welcome to the Pleasuredome'. The atmospherics and birdsong at the beginning are much more as one on the Keel but the RubiKon etches the birdsong out from the mix. Also when the bass line starts the Keel ebbs and flows smoothly while the RubiKon punches out the bass and the timbre of the note is easier to hear. Playing my beloved Tom Robinson track 'The Wedding' Toms voice was very much smoother and more even on the Keel. The RubiKon pushed the vocals out of the mix. Cymbal crashes were more detailed on the RubiKon as well. The presentation style is a bit like listenening closer to the speakers with the RubiKon, you hear every detail and timbre expression with ease. With the Keel the sound is as though you are sitting further back, everything is there but in a more restrained way.
BUT, here is the deal both the Keel and RubiKon sound superb and it’s more a matter of taste than one being better or worse. Peter declared the ‘RubiKon a no brainer at the price’.

PHASE V – The next steps
Now that it appears the RubiKon is something that will sell via dealers we will sort out some finance and get a full production prototype made, about £1000. We will then get a first batch made, probably about 20. We will continue to talk to prospective dealers and will welcome enquiries from any interested parties.
Should be done in a couple of months. I will work on the website.

Conclusion:-
The RubiKon is a great alternative to the existing subchassis available for the LP12, including the Keel. If you think, as we do, that the RubiKon is very close to a Keel (in some ways just different) then you could get a RubiKon and trade in your Lingo for a Radikal (huge difference in performance) and have a rather stunning upgrade for your deck for just a bit more than a Keel on its own, now that's worth thinking about!

System used.

NAIM NAC282
NAIM NAP250.2
NAIM HICAP2
Kudos C2

THANK YOU:-
Peter gave up a whole day to do this and this invloved much work and fitting parts for free to my deck. He is obviously highly skilled with an LP12 so if yours needs an upgrade or just a once over then I can highly recommend him.

Thanks Peter, you're one of the good guys.


P.S.

A very kind person lent me his Ekos MKI and Peter fitted it for me. I will be listening this weekend.

 

[YNWOAN]

Very well summarised Andrew - I will write some of my own thoughts tomorrow.

Huge thanks to Peter for going to so much trouble .

 

[CJ1045]

Very promising Andrew. You made a very wise choice in visiting Peter. Seems the result could not have been much better apart from Peter placing an order for 100!!

CJ

 

[YNWOAN]

Well, here is my view of events:

I arrived at Cymbiosis a little before Andrew and was greeted by the charming Peter Swain. We preceded to one one of his basement dem rooms and I had a pit of a 'poke about'. I was very impressed to see so many turntables with different levels of arms, cartridges, power supplies etc,- Peter is very obviously a real enthusiast and totally committed to analogue (I felt very 'at home' ).

I had a quick listen to the system that Peter has assembled and quickly ascertained that I was happy with the sound; it broadly represented what I am used to listening to at home and I didn't have any 'learn the system and room' issues.

Andrew arrived and we (well, I didn't) unpacked Andrew's deck and we all had a quick listen. I was pleased with the quality of sound Andrew's LP12 was producing as we compared Andrew's deck to a full specification LP12. Peter soon concluded that we were in the right performance 'ballpark' and wanted to investigate further. At this stage we had been using a Naim Superline but it was suggested we investigate phonostages a bit further.


However, the next thing Peter suggested was that we selected what phonostage to use for further comparisons. To that end, we used two identical LP12's (Akiva's, Ekos SE's, Keel's, Radikal's) to compare the Urika (Linn) and the Superline (Naim). Now, I should say that I expected the Naim to be the superior option. The first phonostage up was the Superline;I thought the sound was OK - but no more. The whole sound was a bit 'flat' and on the Thomas Dolby track the pitch of the bass notes was less obviously delineated than I expected. We then played the Urika equipped LP12 and it was obviously better in every regard - the bass was significantly better delineated and the whole sound was more fresh and open with better micro dynamic. I'm not personally in the market for the LP12 dedicated Urika but I will certainly be investigating the new Linn Uphorik and if I did have an LP12 a Urika would definitely be on my shopping list.

Peter concluded that the performance of the RubiKon was sufficiently high as to warrant comparison with the best he had. He therefore proceeded to completely rebuild Andrew's deck to top Linn specification (Akiva, Ekos SE, Urika, it already had a Radikal). The rest of the comparisons we made were between two identical, top specification, LP12's where the only difference was that one had a Keel chassis fitted and the other had a RubiKon chassis fitted. Extensive comparison between the two decks then took place.

Well, I suppose it's time for me to say how I thought the Keel compared to the RubiKon. To be honest, this is a bit tricky for me as I designed the RubiKon and it sounds the way that I intended; inevitably, that is the sound I prefer. The Keel sounds a bit less 'vivid' and a bit warmer - slightly 'creamy' in the lower registers perhaps'; the Rubikon has more emphasis on the leading edge of notes (though it's not harsh or bright in the sense that speakers, or electronics, can be). Eventually Peter expressed a preference for the Keel but was happy to agree that the RubiKon was a significant distance toward the Keel and hugely superior to the standard chassis; he even agreed that an element of personal preference may see peoples opinion of the two chassis' varying.

I can't thank Peter enough for the time (the whole day) he put aside for us and the enormous effort he went to to give the RubiKon a fair hearing. At the end of the day, he felt the RubiKon was a good design, he was happy with the performance it offered and he was happy to endorse it. With the money saved by buying a RubiKon one could get significantly closer to fitting a Radikal and that would really make a big difference to ones enjoyment of music. In addition, one could transfer ones current arm to the Rubikon and, in future, when (if) one upgraded to an Ekos SE (or Aro) the dealer could replace the armboard to suit the new arm (the whole chassis would not need replacing).

 

[Cymbiosis]

You are very welcome guys and I’m glad to have been of assistance.

Sadly, I’m a bit too tied up to post fully at present, but suffice to say the Rubikon is very good indeed.

Yes I did prefer the Keel and the differences in presentation were as Andrew and Mark have indicated. The Rubikon’s presentation was more etched, more forward and for me didn’t follow tunes quite as well as the Keel.

I found the set-up of the suspension a little more tricky than with the Keel and expressed this to Mark who explained the reasons why and a small change would feed into production examples. I also expressed the need for a second earth point, just in case people wish to use the Urika phono stage due to potential chassis earth wire fouling on the top of the Urika. That said however, this is a very serious sub-chassis alternative to the Keel IMHO – Yes the best I have heard to date after a Keel.

Would I change from my Keel ? – No I wouldn’t. However, I do believe it will be of very significant interest to users who wish to upgrade their LP12s and have discounted the Keel already due to the cost or perhaps because for similar money they would now be far better to upgrade with the Radikal first.

The Rubikon is also is of significant interest to those Aro/LP12 users for example, who now may be struggling to find Keels for Aro, as only one or two dealers worldwide have stock now due to demand.

I was told the Rubikon will be made available with cut-outs for Linn, Aro and Rega arms, possibly even SME if there is demand. So, I’ll look forward to comparing an Aro version against the Keel/A.

In brief summary, a really good product showing much promise and if it can sell for less than say £1500.00 here in the UK IMHO will fill what I consider to be a significant hole in the market...... something much better than the steel sub-chassis IMHO, but at a lower price point to the Keel.

Certainly worthy of serious consideration and if it allows people to upgrade to a Radikal sooner than would have been the case with a Keel. This may well prove to be a way of unlocking more musical enjoyment from one’s LPs even sooner than one might have imagined and without losing out too much in the musicality stakes.

At the end of the day, you need to do as I have done......... Go and have a listen, make your own mind up.

KR

Peter

 

[david ellwood]

Peter


What percentage of a keels performance do you think the rubikon represents?

 

[flatpopely]

Thanks Peter!

So glad you like it.

"Can I take your order Sir?"

BTW, I loved the 282/HICAP/250.2 combo, wow.

Andrew.

 

[flatpopely]

Peter


What percentage of a keels performance do you think the rubikon represents?

David.

I know I'm not Peter but.....

Depending on your sound preference:-

90%+ depending on your musical taste.

If you like I could visit the SO again and we could have a listen? I do realise its a huge amount of work for them but at least this time its just swappping the arm, no preliminary work required.

Andrew.

 

[david ellwood]

wow thats a complete no brainer.

you would have to be an idiot to buy a keel for more than twice the price for only a 5%ish improvement!

Cymbiosis must be keen to start stocking these by the dozen

A small amount of additional work must ensure keel beating performance (and it sounds like peter has already pointed you in the direction of a few fine tuning points)


well done!

 

[flatpopely]

David.

Thank you.

Andrew.

Edit: First posting removed as I was being a sarcastic numpty, sorry David.

 

[david ellwood]

If peter at cymbiosis is happy to back up the assertion that the rubikon represents 90+% of a keels performance then I for one am happy to accept that at face value.

 

[YNWOAN]

A small amount of additional work must ensure keel beating performance (and it sounds like peter has already pointed you in the direction of a few fine tuning points)

Well, the RubiKon that Peter worked with actually had two earth points - the reason Peter mentions this element is because I had suggested that one of them may be removed for production. He expressed a preference for keeping the second earth point and this is not difficult to do.

The second point he mentions is something I was already aware of and is only relevant to the specific pre-production unit fitted to Andrew's deck - this issue was addressed by myself some time ago.

A fine tuning of the bonding process used in the RubiKon may yet provide some further, minor, improvement and is something we are looking into as we move into the actual production phase.

well done!

Many thanks.

 

[flatpopely]

If peter at cymbiosis is happy to back up the assertion that the rubikon represents 90+% of a keels performance then I for one am happy to accept that at face value.

Really?

Perhaps I am being a bit unfair to you David. But there are those that won't accept that something can be any good for an LP12 unless it has a Linn logo on it. Refreshingly this is not the Linn Products viewpoint.

Andrew.