Sondek LP12 arm options

[stevec67]

Linn's marketing savvy was unsurpassed. How they got certain sections of the press rabidly behind them and their dealers to freeze out the opposition is still a bit of a mystery!?

Hardly. They did it with money. Lots of advertising in the press means favourable reviews, and [Scarface] One thing. Don't ever f*** me Tony. Don't ever try to f*** me."[/Scarface]
When Linn and Naim are showering you with advertising revenue and dropping off lots of "demo" items that they never bother collecting again, you're a fool if you don't play the game. The dealers were bought in with healthy margins and price maintenance. Look in an LP12 and spot the bits that are expensive to buy. The plinth, basically. The bearing also, the rest is generic tut that comes for next to nothing.

Time and time again the idea that the only worthwhile upgrade from a Rega 3 was an LP12 was rammed down our ears. I think its these old wounds that along with a costly never ending upgrade path that left a bitter memory in many people's minds.

Yep. The Linn/Naim partnership was very clever in what it did, it took the arrival of the internet to break the stranglehold of a tame hifi press that just kept repeating that there was only one game in town.

did Linn create anything else worthwhile? Their speakers are ghastly

The Keilidhs were nice. I think they outperform passive Kabers, mind you that's not hard. Also as someone else said their multiroom offerings were very good at a time when nobody else was in the game.

 

[749er]

Over the years I have bought loads of kit which hasn’t been flavour of the month with magazines.

Revolver Redwood instead of a Rega Planar 3
Castle Durham’s instead of any number of Other speakers.

Mission PCM4000

I always bought them because I liked them and never worried about what magazines said.

I think it’s unfair to blame Linn. No one forced people to buy their kit.

 

[flatpopely]

I don’t think SARAs are ghastly!

 

[749er]

[QUOTE="]Look in an LP12 and spot the bits that are expensive to buy. The plinth, basically. The bearing also, the rest is generic tut that comes for next to nothing.


.[/QUOTE]

Isn’t that a bit simplistic?

It didn’t happen by itself. It happened after a lot of research and development.

 

[stevec67]

[QUOTE="]Look in an LP12 and spot the bits that are expensive to buy. The plinth, basically. The bearing also, the rest is generic tut that comes for next to nothing.


.

Isn’t that a bit simplistic?

It didn’t happen by itself. It happened after a lot of research and development.[/QUOTE]
Really? How much of that R&D was funded by AR and Ariston in the 60's, before Linn started with their "homage to" decks? Now OK, I get that this is a small company and they have to pay the rent on the offices and can't fund R&D across the industry in the way that Sony funded it by selling a million transistor radios, but don't tell me that Linn had heavy R&D costs in the 70's. How could they? They didn't bloody DO anything! The corner braces. Oo-wee, I bet that had some midnight oil getting poured in the lab. Oh, the Valhalla PSU. Oh yeah, a simple phase shift circuit. Those engineers really must have grafted. The tonearms, ah yes the ones they bought in from Japan. R&D costs? On a simple record player? Spare me the pathos, please. If you are serious, take the base off an LP12 and have a look inside. Then have a look inside a transistor radio. Then tell me which has more technology in it. An LP12 of the 70's has about as much R&D in it as a Baby Belling Electric Cooker with Thermostatically Controlled Fan Oven.

 

[749er]

Isn’t that a bit simplistic?

It didn’t happen by itself. It happened after a lot of research and development.

Really? How much of that R&D was funded by AR and Ariston in the 60's, before Linn started with their "homage to" decks? Now OK, I get that this is a small company and they have to pay the rent on the offices and can't fund R&D across the industry in the way that Sony funded it by selling a million transistor radios, but don't tell me that Linn had heavy R&D costs in the 70's. How could they? They didn't bloody DO anything! The corner braces. Oo-wee, I bet that had some midnight oil getting poured in the lab. Oh, the Valhalla PSU. Oh yeah, a simple phase shift circuit. Those engineers really must have grafted. The tonearms, ah yes the ones they bought in from Japan. R&D costs? On a simple record player? Spare me the pathos, please. If you are serious, take the base off an LP12 and have a look inside. Then have a look inside a transistor radio. Then tell me which has more technology in it. An LP12 of the 70's has about as much R&D in it as a Baby Belling Electric Cooker with Thermostatically Controlled Fan Oven.[/QUOTE]

The association with Ariston is well documented. I think you are being a bit simplistic. Maybe you don’t work in product development but I do and just because something looks simple and straightforward doesn’t mean that getting to that point whilst ensuring supply chain integrity, component reliability etc was an inexpensive and easy task. If it were bigger companies would have done it before Ivor T.

 

[forester]

Surprised it took this long to become a Linn bashing thread. Even if the LP12 innards are bog simple they got a combination that sounded better than most, and have made a living ever since by pricing items according to their sound (relative to others') rather than what it cost to develop or manufacture. In many things you pay a premium just for the designers name, in Linn's case at least you get some sonic performance for your money. How many of the alternative decks are still in service and capable of being improved to a more or less top flight performance with full manufacturer support and warranty?

 

[flatpopely]

Isn’t that a bit simplistic?

It didn’t happen by itself. It happened after a lot of research and development.

Really? How much of that R&D was funded by AR and Ariston in the 60's, before Linn started with their "homage to" decks? Now OK, I get that this is a small company and they have to pay the rent on the offices and can't fund R&D across the industry in the way that Sony funded it by selling a million transistor radios, but don't tell me that Linn had heavy R&D costs in the 70's. How could they? They didn't bloody DO anything! The corner braces. Oo-wee, I bet that had some midnight oil getting poured in the lab. Oh, the Valhalla PSU. Oh yeah, a simple phase shift circuit. Those engineers really must have grafted. The tonearms, ah yes the ones they bought in from Japan. R&D costs? On a simple record player? Spare me the pathos, please. If you are serious, take the base off an LP12 and have a look inside. Then have a look inside a transistor radio. Then tell me which has more technology in it. An LP12 of the 70's has about as much R&D in it as a Baby Belling Electric Cooker with Thermostatically Controlled Fan Oven.[/QUOTE]


Oh dear!

Steve you been on the Linn hate course?

Luckily the LP12 sounds way better than a cooker.
As I’m sure you have heard...........

 

[Suffolk Tony]

The association with Ariston is well documented. I think you are being a bit simplistic. Maybe you don’t work in product development but I do and just because something looks simple and straightforward doesn’t mean that getting to that point whilst ensuring supply chain integrity, component reliability etc was an inexpensive and easy task. If it were bigger companies would have done it before Ivor T.

Amen to that. My dad had an Ariston, & it was decent enough but nothing like as good as my LP12. The costs of developing products are inevitably much greater than folk seem to think.

 

[stevec67]

Oh dear!

Steve you been on the Linn hate course?

No, but I do get tired of the "Oh, R&D costs" commemts when you look at the pace of development and the degree of engineering and think "nah".

Luckily the LP12 sounds way better than a cooker.
As I’m sure you have heard...........

Indeed it does. Don't get me wrong, I like the Linn, I've had 3, all good decks. There have been some genuine innovations in the late 80s and 90s, the Lingo wasn't for nothing, the Cirkus (etc) developments that follow are very real, but the 70's and early 90's were hardly tours de force of engineering brilliance for a company that was all about that one product.

Maybe you don’t work in product development

Actually that's exactly what I do. I'm in food manufacturing technical management and NPD is part of my brief. I like to think that I know an awful lot about manufacturing, quality improvement and bringing products to market. OK, my expertise is more meat pies than record players, but there you are.

I'm not out to bash the LP12, but let's be realistic about how much actual engineering development went in in the first, say, 10 years of its manuacture. IT did a brilliant marketing job. That's undeniable. However he did it on the back of a spend on A&P rather than nuts and bolts. Compare and contrast Garrard. Probably a better deck, at least fundamentally, with far more engineering, made at a loss, undermarketed. The R&D costs on that and difficulties of manufacture were far greater. Was it successful? No. Nobody wanted to buy it.

 

[2112]

Japanese direct drives were better than the LP12 but they hardly saw the light of day in the UK because of the Linn marketing machine.

 

[YNWOAN]

Well, were they? The electrical engineering was sophisticated but the mechanical manufacture of plinths and bearings wasn't as good as many of the European makers. Even then, cogging in the motors of some DD decks is clearly visible in some of the speed plots Paul R has done. Of course there are exceptions and some of the Japanese DD decks were excellent - as you say, few of these made it to UK shores and, if they did, they were expensive.

 

[Anh]

Apart from the LP12 (given it's origins), did Linn create anything else worthwhile? Their speakers are ghastly, and their amps nondescript.

That's Linn in a nutshell!

 

[Buntobox]

Or maybe we bought Linns because we didn't have the choice, and/or brainwashed by the audio press at the time.
Why was it good that Linn did particularly well and other British companies were muscled out. No competition means no advances made.

I bought my LP12 in 1984, secondhand, for £475. I then fitted it with an Ittok...can't remember how much that cost. I recently sold it on Ebay for £1245. I think I was brainwashed by the hi-fi press of the time and certainly by a friend I had who had worked in a hi-fi shop in Wilmslow who considered LP12s to be the living end. He convinced me to buy one and I subsequently owned it for 33 years. As I was prepping it for sale, I had occasion to open it up to clean it and check all was well. I was appalled at how primitive it was under the surface. I replaced it with a Hanss Acoustics T-30 which blew the Linn away in terms not only of sound quality but sheer engineering prowess. The LP12 is, in my opinion, not the turntable the marketing guys would have us believe it is, especially in its less expensive guises, neither in 1984 nor today.

 

[Buntobox]

Linn's marketing savvy was unsurpassed. How they got certain sections of the press rabidly behind them and their dealers to freeze out the opposition is still a bit of a mystery!? Time and time again the idea that the only worthwhile upgrade from a Rega 3 was an LP12 was rammed down our ears. I think its these old wounds that along with a costly never ending upgrade path that left a bitter memory in many people's minds.

Rega on the other hand didn't try to sell us anything, much like Harbeth I guess. Most Linn dealers stocked Rega decks, but not XY and Z, because they were not deemed as rivals by Linn. At that time they weren't, so they survived.

A lot of people found that the Ittok/ Ekos arms need a lot of upgrading to get rid of their roughness.

Apart from the LP12 (given it's origins), did Linn create anything else worthwhile? Their speakers are ghastly, and their amps nondescript.

Agreed. I heard a top-of-the-range Linn system once that had Keltic loudspeakers in it which sounded as hard as nails and totally lacking in meaningful bass.

 

[cre009]

I am well aware that the background to the LP12 development is disputed and as a topic that has interested me. Depending on which version you believe the development was largely done by either Ivor Tiefenbrun or by Hamish Robertson. I will disagree with a chunk of what is being said here. In general the relationship with Ariston is not well understood and useful information published in the 70s is not currently available on the web. I know that people on both sides have the information but for different reasons I believe they are reluctant to make it available. The development of the original LP12 was protracted and events were a lot more nuanced than people are aware. A background to the dispute was provided for the initial patent hearing and that was useful because It contains a lot of details which do appear to be corroborated by other information I have found.

The summary of the Tiefenbrun/Robertson business background was provided by the Hearing Officer at the patent enquiry and would have been based on the input from both sides of the dispute. An abbreviated and amended version of this background was previously posted at Vinyl Asylum by a poster called FlatEarth on October 18th 2001 and this has been used without attribution for the Wikipedia entry for the Linn LP12 turntable. I believe the purpose of the summary was to provide what the Hearing Officer believed to be the correct background and context for the hearing which was concerned specifically with the point bearing.

The following is transcribed from an Adrian Hope article titled "THE LINN/ARISTON/ROBERTSON AFFAIR" from the April 1978 issue of Hi-Fi News and Record Review as detailed on pages 71 and 73. In response to some criticism Adrian Hope insisted the information in the article was an accurate synopsis of the hearing.

"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."

https://postimg.cc/image/rhott93yt/

https://postimg.cc/image/7abe0ye79/

https://postimg.cc/image/4g88nirgl/

https://postimg.cc/image/e0rvae92t/
03/05/2018 images can be viewed at postimg.cc no longer viewable at postimg.org

 

[cre009]

The patent had issues which were addressed during the hearings which were started in London in December 1976. This was followed by a separate session in Glasgow in July 1977 for Jack Tiefenbrun who was too unwell to attend the prior hearing. Hamish Robertson passed away prior to the decision by the Patent Office in January 1978.

The following is taken from the same April 1978 Hi-Fi News Report and details how the patent was contested.

"Following publication of the Tiefenbrun patent in May 1975, an opposition was lodged by Fergus Fons Ltd and William James Robertson, better known as Hamish Robertson on various grounds eg that what it claimed as new, was in fact old keeping in mind what had been shown to the Harrogate Audio Festival in 1971. They also opposed on the grounds that the idea was 'lacking in inventive step' over what was already known to engineers. A further ground of opposition was that the invention had been 'obtained' from Hamish Robertson, that is to say was rightly the invention of Hamish Robertson and not Jack Tiefenbrun."

Also from that article are the following comments and finding by the Hearing Officer.

"He noted for instance Mr Robertson's evidence was shown in cross examination to be not always self consistent, and finally decided that the opponents (Fons and Robertson) had failed to prove their allegation that the bearing invention had rightfully been made by Robertson. In British Patent Law the onus of proof in such a serious ('obtaining') allegation is on the person who makes that allegation, and it is a very heavy burden of proof. In the Hearing Officer's view, Fons and Robertson had failed to discharge the onus of proof. To say that however, is a very long way from saying that I am satisfied that Mr Tiefenbrun was the inventor... Two matters have come to light in these preceedings which have caused me some disquiet

The first matter that bothered the Hearing Officer was that there had been a sale by Linn of a deck which was stylistically similar to that which had been produced by Castle for Ariston (as the RD11) and that the sale had been without credit or reward to Hamish Robertson, even though it was admitted that the styling of the deck was indebted to Robertson. The Hearing Officer was also disturbed at the paucity of detailed information to be found in the patent on the exact nature of the bearing. Although as previously explained, the bearing was agreed to be the nub of the invention, the patent description deals with it in only very general terms. And as also previously explained, British Patent Law requires that the inventor gives the public adequate and full details of the invention."

The Hearing Officer then came to a decision in favour of Fons and Hamish Robertson.

"Despite the Hearing Officers reservation on such points and on the matter of who actually invented what, it was on the issue of prior publication and obviousness that he finally came down in favour of Robertson and Fons and against Tiefenbrun. The Hearing Officer accepted the Fons-Robertson argument that sufficient of the invention claimed in the Tiefenbrun patent had been disclosed to the public at Harrogate in 1971 (more than 6 months ahead of the date when Tiefenbrun filed his patent application) to make each and every claim of the patent invalid."

The Tiefenbrun's lodged an appeal against this finding and the Appeals Judge (Mr. Justice Whitford) found in favour of the Tiefenbrun's. A summary was provided in a further article by Adrian Hope with the title "The Linn/Ariston/Robertson Affair (Part 2)" on page 53 of the July 1978 edition of Hi-Fi News & Record Review. A copy of this article was uploaded a few years ago by Rob Holt at another forum but has recently disappeared due to image hoster problems.

"The Appeals judge agreed that the Patent Office had been right in refusing to accept Robertson's claim that the Linn bearing was his invention and not Tiefenbrun's. But the judge disagreed with the Patent Office on the crucial issue of whether or not the public demonstrations of the Ariston turntable and bearing at Harrogate in 1971 should invalidate the bearing patent subsequently filed by Tiefenbrun. There is in British Patent Law a provision (Section 50 of the Patent Act, 1949), which says that if an invention is published without the consent of the inventor it does not invalidate a subsequent patent application by the inventor. In other words, if the public demonstration of the Ariston turntable at Harrogate in 1971 took place without the blessing of Tiefenbrun it should not invalidate the patent application that Tiefenbrun filed in 1972.

The judge summed up his view of the situation bluntly and succinctly. There was he explained, a glaring conflict of evidence between Hamish Robertson and Jack Tiefenbrun over the question of whether or not Tiefenbrun had consented to a public demonstration of the Ariston turntable at that fateful Harrogate show. The judge recognised that his finding on this point 'must manifestly do great injustice to either Mr Robertson or to Mr. Jack Tiefenbrun'. In a nutshell, whereas the Patent Office official took the word of Hamish Robertson, the judge took the word of Jack Tiefenbrun. This he did after re-reading all the evidence previously presented and the transcripts of all the cross-examinations that had previously taken place. 'Mr Robertson is a witness whose evidence cannot be relied on in any particular' said the judge. 'There is no part of his evidence touching any issue which is not self-contradictory at one point or another' he went on. 'I think it is quite impossible to accept his evidence on any issue unless it is supported by some independent evidence... the opponents' case is based on what can most charitably be described as figments of Mr Robertsons imagination".

In October 1978 there was a further appeal by representatives on behalf of Hamish Robertson (with public funding) against the decision by Mr. Justice Whitford. The outcome was detailed in the March 1979 edition of Hi-Fi News on page 61 under the title "Going Round in Circles". The details are largely concerned with legal technicalities concerning whether Mr. Justice Whitford could reach the decision he made without actually having heard Hamish Robertson's testimony. Three judges heard the appeal with the outcome that the previous appeal decision was upheld. This meant that the Tiefenbrun's patent remained granted and they were awarded costs.

 

[cre009]

From the business background provided for the hearing it is possible using other material to produce a timeline of events which I have extended to the 1980s to include other Scottish turntable manufacture (Strathclyde Transcription Development, Systemdek) that evolved from or have some relation to the Linn-Ariston-Fons saga.

I have tried to limit the use of other more recent anecdotal internet based material except for instances where it appears to be corroborated by or clarifies other information. However various comments by Nigel Pearson in two threads at the diyaudio site are worth reading though these are partly informed by conversations with Ivor from before the patent hearings in 1976/77. As such there is a possibility of these being slanted in favour of the Tiefenbrun's. However Nigel claims he had confirmation from Ray Collins who worked for Linn and and later on Ariston, that what he had been told was generally correct. On the other hand there are also two Hamish supporters who clearly knew him from from the period when he was running his Thermac business and have posted frequently about their view of events. Both are long on anti Linn rhetoric but included in the rants are some useful snippets. Both show some confusion about the timeline and the detail though that is common to most people on either side who have posted extensively on the issue.

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/the-lounge/200865-sound-quality-vs-measurements-1553.html
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/analogue-source/110814-revive-ariston-rd-11s-28.html

1967-1971 - I have found a little about Thermac which was an Audio Retail business. There were regular small box ads each month in Hi-Fi News from December 1970 through to July 1972. There is no mention of Ariston in the advertisments until November 1971 when it is listed along with some of the the other main brands that Thermac was a dealer for. This is further supported by a letter in the August 1971 Studio Sound magazine on page 394 that describes an Ariston Audio SR90 speaker recently developed that can be heard at Thermac of Glasgow. It is clear from the advertisments that Thermac and Ariston Audio co-existed until mid 1972. I have also seen a comment that an Ariston speaker was listed in a Hi-Fi year book from around that time but dont have a copy. Hamish was not named in the 1971 advertisments but did appear by name in the last few ads in 1972.

1969-1971 - In the September/October edition of the 1987 Hi-Fi Review Magazine on page 45 there is an interview with Ivor who claimed "We started building the turntable in serious commercial quantities in '73 but I'd been working on it since 1969" and "I had my father's precision engineering works at my disposal at lunchtimes and out of factory hours so I had considerable resources and machinery available to me". From conversations Ivor had with Nigel Pearson the turntable was said to be conceived by Ivor based on a desire to use his Fathers factory to build his own version of and improve on a Thorens TD150 turntable he had previously owned but then sold. The manufacture of a bulk quantity of turntables was said to be due to an insistence by Jack that he would only allow Ivor to use the Castle facilities to manufacture the turntables if they were done in batches with a figure of 50 mentioned. Nigel Pearson in a couple of threads at the diyaudio site also provides some anecdotal information based on conversations with Ivor in 1976 and with Ray Collins. There is mention that Ray did listening tests when Ivor made changes to the turntable.

"Ray Collins took me out for a drink one day. He was with Ivor when Ariston was involved (They sold Linns with that badge, Ivor was left with 100 they refused to buy). Ivor himself told me and it was also 1976.

Ray was out of the film " Get Carter ". Ray obviously loved Ivor as much as us all (if you don't you never met him or were jealous is my guess). Ray said no one should doubt a man who spends all his money on a hi fi after just getting married. Ray used to do listening tests with Ivor. Ray said he couldn't hear the differences and would humour Ivor by saying he did. Ray had no doubt about Ivor's sincerity".

1970-1971 - based on anecdotal comments there is reason to be believe that Hamish and Ivor may have been discussing or had actually started some kind of business partnership. Nigel Pearson makes reference to Ivor describing Hamish as his partner. There is also mention from a Hamish supporter of Hamish Robertson's daughter seeing Ivor visit Hamish on several occasions to read paperwork. She also described seeing Ivor looking through Hamish's case while Hamish was out of the room and a sinister spin is placed on this though this could just as likely be the need to see some documents known to be held in the case that they were both reviewing.

September 1971 - The RD11 was presented at the Harrogate Hi-Fi Show. A user Hamstall has usefully provided a copy of the Ariston literature (probably that mentioned in the background summary) in a thread at the Audiokarma site. There is a brief mention in the Hi-Fi News report of the show in the November 1971 edition on page 2023. "Undoubtedly the best demonstration was that presented on behalf of a new Scottish company, Ariston Audio represented in England by C. W. Walker. Two products were introduced, the SR90 loudspeaker and the RD11 turntable, and in conjunction with a Sugden A50 series amplifier extremely pleasing sounds ensued. The speaker is unusual - nay unbelievable - in that it employs a 3/4 in. - thick layer of concrete bonded on to the cabinet walls - a practice that is undoubtedly effective in suppressing enclosure resonance, but has hitherto been considered the perogative of the lunatic fringe. But it weighs heavily on the ground at 1 1/2 cwt and also on the purse at £104. The turntable is similar in conception to the TD150. However the suspension is very much more damped and the complication of a speed control is omitted - 33 1/3 rpm only".

Note - The original RD11 turntables are identifiable by their twin black/green start buttons and often have an inspected by label by someone with the initials WJR believed to have been William James (Hamish) Robertson.

Late 1971 to early 1972 (estimate) - the precise time period is not clear but a further batch of (said to be around 100) decks were manufactured, apparently with an expectation that they would be purchased by Hamish. It is not clear who actually requested the manufacture but I would speculate the contractual arrangement was probably informal. According to an anecdotal recollection of conversations with Ivor by Nigel Pearson the purchase was refused by Hamish mainly on cost grounds. We know the decks were built because images of some of them rebadged to become part of the initial batch of LP12s are available. This second batch was not mentioned in the Hi-Fi News articles though for me this second batch is crucial to understanding the start of the quarrel between Jack and Hamish. Ivor has subsequently claimed "Linn made about 180 of the first batch of Ariston RD11. Hamish sourced the remaining later batches of RD11 elsewhere". It is not clear if this reference to 180 includes the first batch of which 40 were bought by Hamish plus this second phase of turntables which were not actually purchased by Hamish.

March 1972 - The RD11 deck was presented at the Sonex Show in Paris. A picture of the RD11 is included on page 871 of the Hi-Fi News report of the show in the May 1972 edition.

April 29th 1972 - the initial patent application 20014/72 for 1 394 611 was submitted by Jack Tiefenbrun to the Patent Office. The Hi-Fi News article refers to BP 1 394 611 but it is now officially recorded as GB 1 394 611. It was followed by a further application 27974/72 on 15th June 1972. The complete specification was filed on 5th June 1973 and can be viewed on espacenet.com. It is not clear when the patent was initially conceived and how it relates to other events but preparation of the submission would have taken days if not weeks prior to April 29th. I cannot rule out that the patent was raised in response to a threat by Hamish to take the manufacture of the RD11 decks elsewhere.

GB1394611
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/pub...611A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=&date=19750521&DB=&locale=#
May 21st 1975 - Published
January 25th 1978- GB1394611 - 414C - CASE DECIDED BY THE COMPTROLLER ** GRANTS REFUSED (SECT. 14/1949)
March 8th 1978 - GB1394611 -4145 - APPLICATION MADE TO THE PATENTS APPEAL TRIBUNAL (SECT. 14/1949)
June 28th 1978 - GB1394611- 414L - CASE DECIDED ON APPEAL ** GRANT ALLOWED (SECT. 14/1949)
July12th 1978 - GB1394611 - 414H - APPLICATION MADE TO THE COURT OF APPEAL (SECT. 14/1949)
April 25th 1979 - GB1394611 - 414B - CASE DECIDED BY THE COMPTROLLER ** GRANTS ALLOWED (SECT. 14/1949)

July 1972 - the final time an advertisment appears for Thermac is on page 1330 of the Hi-Fi News July edition. The advertisment is smaller than those that preceded it with no brands listed and simply refers to the business as "Thermac Audio" but with Hamish named. It is not clear how much longer the business continued to operate post this advert. I have seen anecdotal comments that Hamish ran into financial problems but I would speculate this seems more likely to represent a move away from audio retail to concentrate on the production of the turntable. I would speculate he was under financial pressure at this point and had to make a choice between his retail business and the turntable manufacture. Anecdotal comments by two people who knew Hamish imply he was claiming the RD11 as his own development while he was still running the Thermac business.

Mid 1972 (estimate) - Hamish arranged for Dunlop-Westayr to manufacture the RD11 turntable. This casts doubts on claims that Hamish did not purchase the second batch of turntables from Castle Precision Engineering because he was in debt but instead that he was probably looking to reduce manufacturing costs using an alternative source. I would expect that formal contractual arrangements would have been required though the prior Castle manufactured decks probably helped to define the final product. It would have taken time to set up the manufacture though most development costs would have been avoided. Based on the threat by Jack mentioned in the Patent Officer summary and also the content of the May 1973 Linn advert it can be deduced that Dunlop-Westayr were probably producing RD11 decks with a single point bearing toward the end of 1972. There is an advertisment for Ariston Audio in the December 1972 edition of Hi-Fi News on page 2224 with a list of over 20 dealers where the RD11 can be heard but amusingly the ad does not define what the RD11 is. It is not clear if many were sold at this time. Hamstall has provided images of a Dunlop-Westayr manufactured deck with single point bearing on the Audiokarma thread but this was in a plinth with a 1974 date so I speculate this may have resulted from a subsequent exercise by Dunlop-Westayr/Ariston Audio to clear their old stock of the disputed bearings.

 

[cre009]

February 19th 1973 - Linn Products was officially registered. The Linn history is well documented elsewhere so only details associated with the dispute will be included.

March 15th 1973 - Ariston Audio has an entry in the Edinburgh Gazette (6th April) listing the company in "PARTICULARS OF DIRECTORS OR CHANGES THEREOF". This may be when Peter Dunlop and Dunlop Westayr officially acquired Ariston Audio. There are no prior entries for Thermac or Ariston in the Edinburgh Gazette that I can locate probably because they were retail business. The Gazette acts as a transaction record for businesses but rarely offers any details. I speculate this was the point when Hamish ran into financial trouble as it seems probable that he would have found himself with a commitment to purchase turntables from Dunlop Westayr that he would then have difficulties in selling on due to the threat by Jack Tiefenbrun. There are anecdotal comments that Hamish continued with Ariston Audio in an advisory or consultancy capacity.

May 1973 - Linn Products placed an advertisment in Hi-Fi News and Record Review "Please note that Castle Precision Engineering(Glasgow) Ltd., 241 Drakemire Drive, Castlemilk, Glasgow, G45 9SZ, wish it to be known that they have designed (Design Copyright), Developed (Patent Pending) The special bearing and bearing housing assembly, and pressed steel chassis incorporated into the transcription deck sold up to December 1972 under the name Ariston RD 11. In order to satisfy consumer demands, we have purchased new premises adjacent to the present factory and formed the company of Linn Products Ltd and are now manufacturing our own unique product, the "Linn-Sondek LP 12" transcription deck." An image of this advertisment was also included in the abbreviated update/reprint of a Linn vs Fons 1976 review in the July 2014 edition of Hi-Fi News.

September 1973 - A new version of the Ariston RD11 turntable was shown at the Harrogate show. A brief report was provided in the November 1973 edition of Hi-Fi News on page 2263. "A welcome reappearance was made by the Ariston brand name, which has not been too much in evidence over the past few months. The improved RD11 turntable was on demonstration through their new headphones. The deck modifications include increasing the turntable mass to 9 1/2 lb and provision of slip clutch, together with mounting changes facilitating installation".

This Harrogate show also had an encounter between Hamish and Ivor that was detailed (with conflicting versions of what happened) in the Adrian Hope April 1978 account of the patent hearing and also in a Russ Andrews letter to Hi-Fi News printed in the June 1978 edition on page 99 with the title "about an alleged anti-Linn bias".

-From the April 1978 account "According to evidence given under oath at the Patent Office hearing, in September 1973 there was an extraordinary meeting between Hamish Robertson and Ivor Tiefenbrun in the foyer of the Majestic Hotel, Harrogate. It was of course at the time of the Audio Festival and a witness told how Ivor Tiefenbrun was 'kneeling on the floor by (Hamish Robertson) and the tears were running down his face'. 'We have never disputed that you designed the turntable Hamish, all I want is a small part of the market', Tiefenbrun was reported as saying. But the Hearing Officer clearly had difficulty in deciding who or what of much conflicting evidence to believe. He tactfully described Hamish Robertson in the witness box as 'a man whose use of the English language was not concerned with niceties'. But the Hearing Officer also found in considering Ivor Tiefenbrun's account of the Majestic foyer incident, that it was 'somewhat surprising 'that Tiefenbrun had not immediately denied' the witness account. The Hearing Officer also 'felt that he (Tiefenbrun) had turned over in his mind what he was going to tell me beforehand'. The Hearing Officer finally decided that it was difficult to accept at face value any recollections which were inevitably between 4 and 6 years old".

-From the Russ Andrews letter "For instance, with respect to Mr. Ivor Tiefenbrun's alleged tearful confession at Harrogate. I was one of the people present at that encounter and I can positively deny the validity of Mr. Robertson's account. It did bear a resemblance to an encounter in the bar at the Post House Hotel where Mr. Robertson behaved in exactly the fashion that he attributed to Mr. Tiefenbrun. On both occasions there were independent witnesses who will verify my account and, in the recent patent hearing, Mr. Robertson's witness could not corroborate his story".

December 1973 - A somewhat cryptic statement and comment from Dunlop-Westayr was published in "News and Views" in Hi-Fi News and Record Review on pages 2555 and 2557 under the heading "DUNLOP-WESTAYR AND ARISTON".
- "The company of Dunlop-Westayr have recently acquired a controlling interest in Ariston Audio Ltd., producers of the Ariston RD11 transcription turntable. It is expected that this new development in Ariston's progress will bring an end to the difficulties that the company has been experiencing of late. The chairman, Mr. P. B. Dunlop said that there had been 'enormous difficulties in establishing the project especially as the background was such that they could have obtained immediate sales of the product'. However he felt that the considerable time taken in 'establishing the company and setting standards' had not been wasted. The RD11 is now beginning to be manufactured in reasonable quantities, and production is expected to be in the region of three to four thousand within the next few months. The dealers have been personally assured by the company of the continuance of supplies in the future, and furthermore that prices will be held firm till February 28th, 1974. The company would like to make it clear that the various rumours circulating in the industry regarding Ariston products and the firms founder, are completely without foundation. Ariston will continue to retain the services of C. W. & J. Walker who would like to express their thanks for the confidence that Ariston have shown in them. C. W. & J. Walker would also like to thank the dealers for their continued support in the difficulties of the last few months. The marketing of all Ariston products will be carried out by Ariston Audio Ltd. from their general sales office at Irvine, Ayrshire".

 

[cre009]

January 5th 1974 - There is an entry for Fergus Fons in the February 15th listing on page 222 of the Edinburgh Gazette under "PARTICULARS OF DIRECTORS OR CHANGES THEREOF". This is the earliest entry for Fergus Fons I been able to locate. In December 1974 there is a further entry under the same heading.

May 1974 - There is a news item in the May 1974 edition of Wireless World on page 162 with the title "British electronic turntable". "As well as a restyled version of the RD11 turntable, Ariston Audio Ltd will be marketing a two-speed electronically-governed turntable with variable speed control. With wow and flutter of 0.04% weighted r.m.s., it will cost around £136. The RD11 itself has a redesigned main bearing and the makers claim an unmeasurable rumble and hum level. The 24-pole synchronous motor drives the 9 1/2 lb table through a non-stretch belt. Ariston Audio Ltd, P.O.Box 13, Irvine, Ayrshire KA12 8JL". This appears to be an early announcement of the planned manufacture of the RD11E turntables though I have not found any evidence that these made an appearance until late in 1975. There is a full page advertisment for the RD11 in the December edition of the same magazine so I am not sure if the restyled version is referring to the RD11s which as far as I can establish also started to appear later than that.

May 21st 1975 - The Tiefenbrun patent was published.

Mid 1975 - Fergus Fons as a manufacturer started to appear among brands listed by some retailers. The CQ30 turntable had a full page advertisment on page 102 of the October 1975 edition of Hi-Fi News with the Maybole, Ayrshire KA19 7BH address. The advertisment lists "Fons anti-feedback phase cancellation suspension system- and exclusive Fons electronic drive system geometry (all patents pending)". I have not been able to find reference to these patents outside the Fons literature and reviews. The Fons CQ30 was also demonstrated at the September 1975 Harrogate show with a brief mention in the show report in the November edition of Hi-Fi News. The turntable was reviewed in the October 1975 edition of Gramaphone.

November 1975 - there is a full page advertisment for the Ariston RD11EL turntable in Hi-Fi News on page 384. This is the first reference to the electronic version that I have been able to locate since the May 1974 news item. The RD11EL was subsequently abbreviated to RD11E.

Note Ariston Audio also started to market a revised version of the RD11 named the RD11s with revised styling and armboard. Many of the RD11s have parts with an RD11 label so it appears to have been a transition but I have not been able to establish exactly when these were introduced.

June 7th 1976 - two new companies were listed in the Edinburgh Gazette under "CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION". They were "Fons International (Hi-Fi) Limited" and "Fons International Marketing (Hi-Fi) Limited". On June 17th there was a listing for Fons International Marketing (Hi-Fi) Limited under "PARTICULARS OF DIRECTORS OR CHANGES THEREOF". I have not been able to establish whether Hamish was directly involved with either of these companies which co-existed with Fergus Fons through to early 1977. A review of the CQ30 (compared with the LP12) in the October 1976 edition of Hi-Fi News names the manufacturer as Fons International Hi-Fi Limited suggesting manufacturing was transferred from Fergus Fons.

Mid 1976 (estimate) - I have seen an anecdotal comment that there was an attempt to reach a settlement of the patent dispute. This seems likely since the costs of the hearing would be high, Jack Tiefenbrun was seriously ill and I would expect that the Tiefenbrun's now realised the patent application was quite weak and had a serious chance of being rejected. I doubt that the Tiefenbrun's would have been aware that Hamish would go into the hearing with a back story which "was not self consistent". The initial Adrian Hope article in Hi-Fi News also provides a summary of rumours concerning the dispute including "Most popular was the suggestion that Linn might have to pay royalties on past production to a third party". I would speculate that these came from Hamish supporters and if he could defeat the patent claim he could then have used the prior threat by Jack to make a claim of damages. The damages would probably be substantial if the court upheld his claim to the original development of the turntable and bearing. It also appears that Hamish had maintained a positive relationship with some people in the audio industry including the Dunlop family and had their support. However the second Adrian Hope article makes the observation that a point bearing similar to that used for the RD11/LP12 had first been used for the Connoisseur Craftsman III turntable and I would speculate that this would have been of concern to the Tiefenbrun's going into the hearing.

December 1976 - The initial hearing by the Patent Office for patent GB1394611 was held in London. Jack was unable to attend due to his illness.

March 7th 1977 - There is an entry in the Edinburgh Gazette for "Strathclyde Transcription Developments Limited" under the heading "CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION". There are anecdotal comments that Hamish may have been associated with the STD 305 series of turntables but the turntables only really started to appear in 1978 with the STD 305D after Hamish had passed away. I have looked for corroboration of any Hamish involvement but the only clear description of the background of STD I have located was provided by Chris Frankland in a review of the STD 305D in the June 1978 edition of Hi-Fi Answers (uploaded by willbewill on the internet) which suggests Hamish was not directly involved.

"It is well known that the history of Linn, Ariston and more recently Fons is all very much tied up and close historical links exist especially between Linn and Ariston and indeed both Hamish Robertson of Ariston and Jack Tiefenbrun of Linn Products were very closely associated in the early days and collaborated in the production of a precision turntable bearing.

From that point of course, their history gets very complex but I mention this to show that although the three companies, Fons, Linn & Ariston share a common historical background, STD is completely separate and unconnected in any way with any of these three companies. Although we are told that the designer of the STD was an oft-times associate of Hamish Robertson of Ariston, any relationship ends there. In fact, Strathclyde Transcription Developments is a member of the Howwood Industries group of companies who have a tradition of supplying highly engineered, fine tolerance products to a variety of companies, mainly computer and aerospace, where almost inconceivable tolerances of often 0.001 thou are demanded as standard!".

April 29th 1977 - There is an entry in the Edinburgh Gazette with the title "FERGUS FONS". "A petition was on 15th April 1977 presented to the Sheriff Court of Glasgow and Strathkelvin at Glasgow by T, Gayne (Design Services) Limited incorporated under the Companies Acts and having its Registered Office at 65 Colvilles Place, East Kilbride, Craving the court to order that the above Company be wound up by the court under the provisions of the Companies Act 1948". This was followed by an entry in the Edinburgh Gazette on June 1st with the title "FERGUS FONS LIMITED (In Liquidation)".

May 25th 1977 - There is an entry for "Fons International Electronics Limited (formerly Fons International Marketing (Hi-Fi) Limited)" in the Edinburgh Gazette under the heading "CHANGE OF NAME".

May 1977 - There is a brief news report in Hi-Fi News on page 63 with the title "Ariston Ailing?". "It is with regret we hear that the Official Receiver is looking into the affairs of Ariston Audio Limited, the Ayrshire firm best known for their RD11 turntable".

June 1977 - The US distributor was still advertising the Ariston RD11E turntable in the US "Audio" magazine on page 127.

July 1977 - a follow up hearing was held with the Patent Officer travelling to Glasgow on the 18th to attend on Jack who had been too unwell to travel to London as a witness.

October 1977 - There is a small news report in Hi-Fi News on page 81. "Even later news is that Fons International who make turntables, have taken control of Ariston Audio, who used to make turntables. Raised eyebrows all round from close observers of the Scottish turntable saga!".

November 1977 - There is a follow up news item in Hi-Fi News on page 101 with the title "Fons". "As reported in September, Fons International Electronics have acquired the assets of Ariston Audio and intend to 'market the Ariston products aggressively through a new company to be known as Ariston International Ltd'. Fons themselves are introducing a new turntable to replace the CQ30. The Fons international Mark One will cost £108 plus VAT and can be supplied either blank or precut to accept the SME, Grace, Audio Technica, Mayware Formula 4 or Infinity Black Widow pickup arms".

January 1978 - Patent Office decision.

February 10th 1978 - a second patent GB1596435 was applied for by Jack Tiefenbrun. The earlier patent received criticism from the Patent Hearing Officer and so I would speculate this may have been lodged as a precaution if the original patent application failed on appeal. This patent had an untroubled life relative to its older sibling.

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/pub...=D&ND=3&date=19810826&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#

GB1596435
February 10th 1978 - Application No 5369/78
May 31st 1978 - Complete specification filed
August 26th 1981 - Complete specification published

March 1978 - the appeal by the Tiefenbrun's against the initial decision of the Patent tribunal with the decision by Mr Justice Whitford in April. Since Hamish had died I would expect that the Tiefenbrun's would have provided additional information to further highlight the inconsistences that were of concern in the patent hearing and there would have been little or no new information provided in support of Hamish's version of events.

September 1978 - in the US "Audio" magazine there is an advertisment "DISTRIBUTORS BLOW OUT! New factory sealed Fons International
Mark I Turntables. Belt -drive, 3 -speed, 10-100 rpm, 3 -point suspension, Rosewood base, dustcover. Current retail $314.95. Send check for $234.95 plus $15.00 shipping". This seems to indicate that Fons International were selling off their remaining turntables.

October 1978 - a further appeal by representatives on behalf of Hamish Robertson (with public funding) against the decision by Mr. Justice Whitford. The outcome was detailed in the March 1979 edition of Hi-Fi News on page 61 under the title "Going Round in Circles". The details are largely concerned with legal technicalities concerning whether Mr. Justice Whitford could reach the decision he made without actually having heard Hamish Robertson's testimony. Three judges heard the appeal with the outcome that the previous appeal decision was upheld. This meant that the Tiefenbrun's patent remained granted and they were awarded costs.

December 1978 - a short news item in Hi-Fi News on page 79 with the title "Ariston News". "Manufacture and UK Distribution of Ariston turntables is now under new management and the company renamed Ariston Acoustics Ltd. Marketing will be via a limited number of retail outlets at home and abroad. The rrp of the RD11s is now £185 inc VAT and the address is 1 Society Street, Maybole, Ayrshire, Scotland. KA19 7BH". I believe this is when John Carrick took over the Ariston brand but it is not clear if he also acquired Fons International. The address is the same as for Fergus Fons and Fons International with production of the Ariston turntables moved to the premises where the Fons turntables were previously manufactured. In addition there is a full page advertisment on page 172 with a picture of the RD11E and mentions of both RD11E and RD11s.

April 1979 - A report about the Cunard Show is provided in the July edition of Hi-Fi News on page 51. "There was quite a bit of activity on the turntable/arm cartridge scene and in particular it was good to see Ariston back in action with their fine looking RD11S design, a development of the respected RD11. Not a great deal of crossword experience is required to fathom the origins of the new Scottish-based Aristodek firm. They were showing an advanced prototype of a model to be launched in the summer. Its main feature is its ability to 'reproduce music beyond the standard already achieved'. Who'd argue with that? (well we know we would, but who else?)". Note my understanding is Aristodek became Dunlop Systemdek with the "Transcription" turntable shown at the following years April 1980 Cunard show.

July 1980 - There is a brief news item in Hi-Fi News on page 39 under the heading "Address Changes". "Ariston Acoustics Ltd are moving to a larger factory; new address is Unit 176, Brieryside, Prestwick, Ayrshire KA29 2RB".