advertisement


What makes a Linn LP12 a Linn LP12?

Bob Edwards

pfm Member
Seeing how many optional parts there are for the LP12 these days, and how much discussion there has been regarding them, and seeing all the references to "Tigger's Broom," makes me wonder: What makes an LP12 an LP12? Alternatively: When does a Linn LP12 stop being a Linn LP12? From what does "Linn-ness" come?

I'd suggest a combination of the single-point bearing, the spring suspension, and belt drive as a starting point. Prior to the Keel and Kore I'd have added a replaceable armboard; obviously not now. I'd also suggest that Linn-ness comes from a degree of synergy between the bearing, suspension, and drive system.

But really - is a "LP12" that's built from a Stiletto plinth/top plate, with an alternative subchassis and main bearing (like Edmund Chan's, just to pick one), etc., really a Linn without a single Linn part in it? From a legal perspective, it's obviously not a "Linn LP12." But from a musical/sonic one?
 
There's no real answer to this question but that won't stop some fools, like me, having a go :D

Up until about 1992, what makes an LP12 is it's ability to make sense of the music (for some folks, but not everyone)

Post '92, what makes an LP12 is it's ability to make sense of the music (for some of the same folks, but not all of them, and for some other folks, but not everyone)
 
This thread has been done before, nay, done to death. There are so many different configurations out there, exploiting what is a modular design, and therefore enabling third party manufacturers to come up with what they usually claim, are their design improvements.
I have an LP12, though the arm (Linn Ittock II), was rewired by Audio Origami, but this is the only non-Linn part.
I wouldn’t want to go down the non-Linn road, as god knows what bastardised turntable you could finish up with. My view is that at least with all (nearly) Linn components, you’re more likely to achieve the intended synergistic outcome.
 
IMO The evolution of the LP12 is to better blend into LINNs newer & newer systems that are designed to deal with predominantly Digital sources on average. ...So what "Makes a LP12" depends on what particular generation LINN system you are blending it into.
 
Mine was all Linn when it was LP12/Lingo/Ekos/Klyde.

I added a Greenstreet subchassis in 2010 as there was no way I was going to spend 3,600 on a Keel and a one piece Klone of the Keel for $875 made sense and was far better than the stock Cirkus subchassis/armboard.

In 2011 I added a Khan top plate, suspension bolts, Klamps and cross member as having a level suspension with a top plate that I felt dealt better with motor vibrations made sense again for around $800.

I also added a Audio Origami tonearm cable to replace my stock Ekos cable as an alternative to the Linn T cable which was significantly more money.

Those non-Linn parts to me were much better quality than the Linn parts they replaced. Each improved the performance of the deck IMO.
 
Seeing how many optional parts there are for the LP12 these days, and how much discussion there has been regarding them, and seeing all the references to "Tigger's Broom," makes me wonder: What makes an LP12 an LP12? Alternatively: When does a Linn LP12 stop being a Linn LP12? From what does "Linn-ness" come?

I'd suggest a combination of the single-point bearing, the spring suspension, and belt drive as a starting point. Prior to the Keel and Kore I'd have added a replaceable armboard; obviously not now. I'd also suggest that Linn-ness comes from a degree of synergy between the bearing, suspension, and drive system.

But really - is a "LP12" that's built from a Stiletto plinth/top plate, with an alternative subchassis and main bearing (like Edmund Chan's, just to pick one), etc., really a Linn without a single Linn part in it? From a legal perspective, it's obviously not a "Linn LP12." But from a musical/sonic one?

Well it has to be one of the longest running cons and for that you have to give full credit to the Linn guru. BTW with all the upgrades through the years I can only imagine how bad the original LP 12 actually was!
 
Who said the original was bad?
It worked for me and still does.
As I said earlier about 'John', who like many in the audio world are chasing something.
They don't really appear to know what it is.
I put on a record and enjoy the music.
Surely that's what it is about?

If you don’t think your current LP12 can be improved, I would suggest going to a Linn dealer like Cymbiosis and have a listen.
 
Then buy it and soon discover that there is a new addition which is a must-have.
You stick to your philosophy and I'll stick to mine...
Oh, by the way, it's the music that's most important.
 
Seeing how many optional parts there are for the LP12 these days, and how much discussion there has been regarding them, and seeing all the references to "Tigger's Broom," makes me wonder: What makes an LP12 an LP12? Alternatively: When does a Linn LP12 stop being a Linn LP12? From what does "Linn-ness" come?

I'd suggest a combination of the single-point bearing, the spring suspension, and belt drive as a starting point. Prior to the Keel and Kore I'd have added a replaceable armboard; obviously not now. I'd also suggest that Linn-ness comes from a degree of synergy between the bearing, suspension, and drive system.

But really - is a "LP12" that's built from a Stiletto plinth/top plate, with an alternative subchassis and main bearing (like Edmund Chan's, just to pick one), etc., really a Linn without a single Linn part in it? From a legal perspective, it's obviously not a "Linn LP12." But from a musical/sonic one?

It’s Trigger…
 


advertisement


Back
Top