Dear readers,
I have been following developments here for a while regarding the “GreenstreetAudio alternative (affectionately known as the Klone) as described by ex brickie on page 1 of “THE review! Thread.”
Now then, let me state from the start that I have no issue with people like Arthur K, John R or flatpopley with their different and innovative alternatives to either the standard subchassis or the Keel. They give you guy’s choice at various different prices and why not, if you really want to – Just get some demos first!
I also have no problem with people tackling the issue of cartridge adjustment with the Aro. There are differing views as to whether or not to slot the headshell or not. Or to use an adjustable base for the Aro, to achieve the same, or to leave well alone.
Personally, my view is that one either adopts the Martin Colloms approach or sticks to the standard arrangement, as I remain unconvinced on the adjustable base.
So, there are my views and I hope you can see that I am not blinkered to the requirements of the market. Indeed it was I that persuaded Linn to seriously look at the possibility of producing the Keel for Aro. Linn as history now shows, were open-minded to this suggestion and before too long, research into the viability of the Keel for Aro was undertaken.
In order to cut the story short for you and to cut to the quick, I supplied Linn with all the technical information they required on the Aro. These were the original drawings and the dimensions were exactly as YNWOAN has stated already here. I also supplied Linn with two Aros so as they could perform listening tests in order to optimise the musical performance of the Keel for the Aro. The gestation of the Keel for Aro nominally took from May 2008 to November 2008, a considerable time and this reflects the care and attention to detail that David Williamson, the designer of the original Keel applied to the task. I was involved along the way, supplying information when required and offering opinions, advice and where necessary liaising with Naim in order to furnish Linn’s R&D with absolutely the correct information. All in all a considerable amount of work for David in initially designing and then latterly refining a Keel specific for the Aro, and ensuring the final finished product was absolutely perfect for the task.
So it is with some considerable dismay that I read here and also on the GreenStreet website that they are publically stating Linn got it wrong:
QUOTE“If you have an Aro arm mounted in an armboard made by Linn the geometry is likely to be incorrect. e have discovered the in the wrong location.
The specification for the Aro calls for the distance from the center of spindle to the pivot point of the tonearm to be 212.5mm.
If the is tonearm in this location on the armboard it causes the tonearm post to interfere with the triangular brace in the plinth. Linn's solution to this problem seems to have been to move the hole.”
Why did GreenStreet feel they had to copy it? Well doubtless they felt they could make it cheaper judging by their blurb. Well they have failed and I think the best thing they can do is have a total recall and refund their customers.
Here’s why in brief and why I feel it is necessary to post on this thread for you:
Firstly, the 211mm distance is the correct distance from the pivot centre to the platter centre. There is a tolerance of +/-1.5mm on the original drawing and so 212.5mm sits right at the upper limit. So for Greenstreet to publically state this misinformation that Linn is “likely to be incorrect” on their website is entirely wrong IMHO and I feel I am therefore duty bound to publically correct this for you and call for GreenStreet to remove this misinformation from their website and publish an apology.
For the record, the original Naim cut LP12 board as supplied by Naim up until last year is to the central 211mm specification.
The Keel for Aro is to the central 211mm specification and the standard Aro armboard now manufactured by Linn for Aro owners, following Naim’s decision to cease production is also 211mm. All have identical dimensions and are exactly as per Naim’s drawing that I hold on file dated 24/08/88 with the last change for the Aromatic as of 04/06/91.
I any happy to furnish any applicant with my own photographic evidence if this is required, but I am not prepared to publish Naim’s drawings here of course.
GreenStreet to make matters worse, are now suggesting that owners wanting to use their product need to now take a section of the corner brace away beneath the Aro! So maybe while someone is doing this, they can also open out the Aro mounting hole too?
A couple of questions that need asking and my suggested answers:
Have Greenstreet mounted an Aro on this Klone before shipping it out to you guys?
I would venture to suggest that this is very unlikely. Otherwise why are the problems only being discovered now and not discovered before shipping?
So, have they even listened to the product, let alone produced revisions based on findings before shipping to you guys?
Again,I think we can work the answer to that one out!!!!!
Anyway, I hope you appreciate that I do understand that it’s not always possible or desirable financially, to shell out for a proper Keel, but please do yourselves a favour, check out the offerings from Funk or flatpopley first, for at least these guys are capable of original and innovative thought. And please while you are considering your options, do hear a proper Keel, as surprising though it may seem to you now, you may actually find that it is worth the investment after all!
Regards
Peter Swain
