advertisement


LP12 Origins

While there are some similarities, Linn made changes to the Ariston design - they put flutes on the plinth!
 
They changed the armboard too. They put a Linn logo on there instead. It's almost a totally different turntable.

-- Ian
 
The turntable in the auction is not an RD11 - it is, in fact, an LP12. I have no idea where that armboard came from!
 
Its was very lucky for Ivor T that the designer of the RD11 died prematurely , the rest is history
 
Yes, here's the official story from Analog Addicts:


History of the LP12

Origins

"There used to be a saying among the Scottish Hi-Fi community that the engineers coming out of university turned left to go to Heybrook and right to go to Linn.

The truth is, the two designs share a number of things in common. They are both three point sprung suspensions as both are based on the original AR white paper for transcription turntables. They both use a wood plinth which looks similar, a two-piece platter, and identical dust covers (except for the logo--LP12 Vs TT2).

There used to be another saying that Hamish Robertson who designed the Ariston RD11 was by nature a drinking man and not an entrepreneur. There came into his life a certain Ivor Tiefenbrun who suggested that his fathers' firm, from memory I think was called Castle Engineering, could machine parts for the Ariston turntable. Hamish accepted the offer and soon the product rolled of Ivor's production line. Imagine the shock some little time later when Ivor appeared at a northern Hi-Fi show with what seemed to be a carbon copy of the RD11 under his arm but now bearing the name Linn LP12.

From the above, it would appear that at least the Ariston and the LP12 were designed by the same engineer, to whit, Hamish Robertson..!!

Hamish, daunted by this, took to his bottle and some time later was found dead at home after a particularly heavy drinking bout. Rumour has it that he had committed suicide but I seem to remember the autopsy showed that he had asphyxiated by inhaling his own vomit."
 
All suspended decks of the time are pretty similar be they from Linn, STD, Ariston, AR, Heybrook etc.
The difference is in the detail, the quality of the engineering and the ability of the designer to listen and tweak the design for the desired result. These are the areas in which Linn were streets ahead IMO.
 
murray johnson said:
er No. The area where Linn were streets ahead was in marketing BS.
Click to expand...

Hi Murray,

Look at an STD or Ariston bearing and compare to a Linn.

Look at the kiln dried hardwood plinth of an LP12 and compare it to any of the above.

Look at the countless tweaks and refinements year on year to the LP12.

When I was listening to decks in the 80s the difference between the sound of an LP12 and Ariston RD11 (and the RD110) was not subtle and certainly not down to marketing BS.
 
Hi Robert,

I have a TT2 here at the moment. I had an LP12 here a couple of weeks ago. The TT2 is actually better made and to my ears actually sounds less 'coloured' although to be fair they both sound pretty similar. Hardly surprising. They are similar machines. Neither really represents the state of any art. If you heard big differences at some Linn dealership back in the 1980's might I dare suggest that the demonstration you had was not perhaps entirely fair? Its very easy to make a SS deck of this type sound 'off' as many Linn users will testify.

"Look at the kiln dried hardwood plinth of an LP12" Marketing BS

Linn Plinths were, for many years, made by Greaves of Sheffield, as were plinths for Pink Triangle, Voyd, Heybrook, and many others. If theirs were 'kiln dried hardwood' then so were the others!
 
Are you talking about the quite old Heybrook TT2 or the antique original Ariston RD11?

In any event if a Heybrook TT2 sounds similar to an LP12 there is something very wrong. I suppose it is theoretically possible for a replay system to obscure the differences. Source first was always predicated on good but cheap amps and speakers.

Paul
 
murray johnson said:
If you heard big differences at some Linn dealership back in the 1980's might I dare suggest that the demonstration you had was not perhaps entirely fair? Its very easy to make a SS deck of this type sound 'off' as many Linn users will testify
Click to expand...

I am a big fan of the Heybrook and feel it gets pretty close to the LP12. It does sound rather different though as you'd expect as it uses different materials for the platter, sub chassis and plinth.

The fact that an LP12 out-performed the competition at dealers may have been due to bullshit and brainwashing, or rigged dems - no one can know for sure in all cases but I don't subscribe to that particular conspiracy theory, having heard the differences many times at home and at friends.

Believe it or not, products can sell and achieve mass appeal (within our little world) on merit alone.
The Rega planar 3 was considered the deck to have for many years if the budget wouldn't stretch to the Linn. It walked off the dealers shelves for well over a decade as a result of dealer dems, yet Rega positively shunned all publicity and could hardly be accused of spinning or BS - quite the reverse!
 
Hi Paul,

I'm talking about one of the last TT2s to be made. The 'source first' idea is a load of tripe in the context of hifi imho. But do tell me exactly why you think an LP12 should sound so different to a TT2. To a PT yes, or an Orbe or SME certainly but to a TT2 or an Ariston?

Products are successful often due to the efforts of multiple, like minded dealers who are given a good story (sales pitch) to work with. Good qc and support helps and both Linn and Rega did that well. The Rega wasn't as good sounding a TT as (for example) the Systemdek IIx but sold many more due to their dealers and favourable magazine coverage.

It is hard to conceive now of the influence the Linn/Naim retailers had on the hifi press in the late 70's and early 80's.
 
Because the LP12 is a better turntable than the Heybrook. It gets more information off the record.

I'm still confused about why the TT2 has come up in a thread ostensibly about primordial Aristons. I think the Vinyl Engine quote upthread is completely bogus.

Paul
 
Hi Paul,
Re TT2 and LP12, that of course is just your opinion. Mine's different. The point of the thread however was that the original LP12 was basically an Ariston RD11. Both of these turntables have more in common with the TT2, the Thorens TD150, TD160, STD and the AR turntable than they do with any others. They all share a similar characteristic sound. You might imagine that the LP12 is significantly different but I don't think it is and can't see substantial engineering reasons why it should be.

Turntables like the Garrard 301, the Pink Triangle, the Elite Rock or a Micro Seiki DD are very different in conception and often in the materials used. They do (unsurprisingly) sound different.
 
I heard one a couple of weeks ago that was about 18 months old with whatever their top arm was/is nowadays and a Koetsu cartridge. Still didn't play solo piano without wavering and still got muddled on busy classical music. Same old, same old.
 
Re TT2 and LP12, that of course is just your opinion.
Click to expand...
I don't see how this can be a matter of opinion. And if you can't hear it then there's a huge problem with your system. You don't have to like either one. But nevermind.

FWIW putting the STD and the LP12 in the same category is just absurd, the PT is technically closer to the LP12 than the STD.

Paul
 
Hi Murray,

I'm sorry but once you come out with the line:

"The 'source first' idea is a load of tripe in the context of hifi imho"

then you cannot be taken serious. If the information is not there, then no amp or speaker can make up for the loss.

Cheers

Graham
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top