Very much so. I don't think I've ever said before that anything 'rocks', but now I shall say it: PFM rocks!
Rega planar 3 or old lp12
- Thread starter worz
- Start date
Very much so. I don't think I've ever said before that anything 'rocks', but now I shall say it: PFM rocks!
Mullardman
Moderately extreme...
Not the ones I was referring to. There is almost..or maybe absolutely, no part of the LP 12 which has remained unaltered over time.
Just thinking about this. Off the top of my head the number of different types of each part are:
Lid - 3 ( not counting colour)
Hinges - 2
Plinth - 6
Top-plate - 3
Springs - 2
Spring hanger bolts -1
Nuts - 3
Grommets - 2
Motor - 5 (including thrust plate changes)
Motor PSU - 10
Arm-board - 4 (not including the one-piece alloy ones)
Sub-chassis - 6
Mat - 2
Belt - 1 (really?)
Belt guide - 2
Platter - 1
Bearing/sub-chassis - 5
Base-board - 6
Feet - 1 (Not including the base-boards with feet)
I'm sure some, maybe all of these will be wrong but it was fun to do ;0) Add on the number of aftermarket options and the list of possible combinations is bewildering.
The problem is that all these decks will sound different but look ostensibly the same and this is playing havoc with the used market. Unless you're very familiar with what the LP12 sounds like in various configurations, you don't know what a used deck will sound like or how it compares to others. And values are a mess. Because they all look much the same, people are paying a lot for old decks that are very different under the skin from their younger brothers. I'm seeing early eighties spec decks, or even seventies, up for sale at the same sort of price as a Majik made a few years ago. Good grief. Forty years of a difference!
linnfomaniac83
I bet you can’t wheelie a unicycle!
It’s been in continuous production for coming up to 50 years though, there have been a steady progression of improvements over that time, but all of the decks made in that time are immediately recognisable as an LP12.
linnfomaniac83
I bet you can’t wheelie a unicycle!
Some of the differences are subtle, and the core character of the deck is largely the same, but it has improved quite vastly over time. What is a good idea, is to listen to a deck before you buy it.
Sure, but even if you can you almost certainly won't have any kind of reference. And forty years really is a long time in the life of a bearing and motor. You can easily even up paying a lot for a deck that's well off the pace compared to a more recent one. And not know that.
david ellwood
Kirabosi Kognoscente
Sometimes it’s really hard to keep your mouth shut on threads like this, but I will, I promised.
Miss Ariel
pfm Member
No one bats an eyelid with say cars.Take a new Mini for instance compared to one 40 years ago and it's got no original parts at all.
I don't know any manufacturer that hasn't refined an iconic product in their portfolio.
I had this conversation with him previously; I must have made a reasoned argument for LP12 speed stability because he put me on ignore.
They are not the same care, they only share a name. Yes, many manufacturers update and improve on old products but it's rare for them to remain locked to the same architecture. Off hand, struggling to think of any?
Take the motor for instance. From a transmission point of view, having the motor fixed on the chassis while the platter bounces on springs is not a good idea but it was necessary years ago to isolate the platter from motor noise. Today, with better motor technology, there is no need to do that but Linn can't change it because it would effectively be a different deck.
Other manufactures typically change the whole product as the tech develops. Linn have never tried to replace the LP12. They just make it stiffer.
Thorn
pfm Member
Over the decades I've gone from the very basic,with Basik arm, to Ittok, Lingo, Cirkus, Trampolinn and Karousel. The only "upgrade" that made a significant difference was the Karousel.
That's interesting and sounds like an honest appraisal of what you have heard.
They issued a new one about 3 years ago but most people thought it was less musical and they went back to the original after several months. The new one was a little thicker.
I don't recall Linn doing that before - I.e. going back to an earlier design. Glad they didn't just stick with it to save face.
david ellwood
Kirabosi Kognoscente
I thought it was quite an improvement, a real shame they reverted. The reason being that the new belt ran at a slightly different speed on decks without a servo.
On a servo deck it was a fair bit better.
torstoi
pfm Member
No significant difference from a Basik to an Ittok.. ?
Now that's interesting.
It's better, as is the Ittok to Ekos Mk1, but it's not huge. Most Linn fans would consider it a big upgrade but it's all relative.
Ah, never knew about that.
torstoi
pfm Member
I couldn't tell apart a late Ittok from my Ekos I, they are technically nearly the same as J7 confirmed.
The step from Basik to Akito I was singificant tho.
Basik really best avoided, Akito being a solidly good arm.
Late Ittok/ Ekos I another big step to very good. (vfm aside, but they are very good arms.)
As for the Circus bearing, they did change the subchassis when you got a Circus bearing for 600€ like I did.
The old subchassis being spot welded at a few spots and the new ones had a long line of glue over nearly the entire length of the board.
I only realised that later on in context of the idea and planning of the Sole subchassis that started off here at PFM,
that a huge part of what people hear with a Circus kit, may actually be the updated subchassis being much less resonant due the long glue lines.
Which damped significantly, the old one rang like a bell.
Although I have it myself, I'm not entirely sure it is the bearing itself for the most part that makes an audible difference.
Some even prefer the old pre-Circus bearing..I'm neither pro noor contra, it's just a thought.
John
Rack’em Up!
Not all pre-Cirkus subchassis were spot welded. My 1987 LP12 had a glued bracing and was very similar to the Cirkus subchassis. The Cirkus subchassis difference was double thickness of material around where the bearing attached to the subchassis.
The Cirkus bearing really deserved a better subchassis and got it with the Keel.
The Cirkus bearing really deserved a better subchassis and got it with the Keel.