advertisement


The Karousel has landed

I’m amazed how little its gone up to be honest, I bought a new one about 18 years ago and it was £160 then IIRC. No issues with it, beautifully flat and finished and it fitted perfectly on my Cirkus spec deck.
 
Tony I know you and I are ex original Xerxes users and as we are talking platters...sorry couldn't resist the platter on the original Xerxes was probably the most engineered part of it :D


I’m amazed how little its gone up to be honest, I bought a new one about 18 years ago and it was £160 then IIRC. No issues with it, beautifully flat and finished and it fitted perfectly on my Cirkus spec deck.
 
Tony I know you and I are ex original Xerxes users and as we are talking platters...sorry couldn't resist the platter on the original Xerxes was probably the most engineered part of it :D

Indeed. A very nice platter served up on a couple of flexible bits of MDF and an exploding PSU! I’m not sure I ever quite bought into the logic behind the very thin centre spindle, I’d be interested to see how they have survived long-term (I never had any issue with mine, but I moved it on in the mid-90s). I did like the way the platter sat on the sub-platter leaving a distinct recess for the record label. That was a good bit of design Linn, Rega and others should copy.

For a while they did a pretty decent upgrade deal where you kept the nice platter and maybe main bearing and could swap all the no-doubt bent bits of your Xerxes for the 10 and not a huge amount of money. I’d have been tempted had I wanted to stay with the Roksan as I don’t think the 10 has the design flaws of the original, but ultimately I’m pleased I took the trajectory away I did. I’ve ended up in an entirely different place and I like it!
 
the platter on the original Xerxes was probably the most engineered part of it.

Were they that bad? I knew the top 'plate' was a bit of a disaster but I don't know about the rest of it.

I remember fixing a Pink Triangle and being shocked by how shoddy it was inside.
 
Were they that bad? I knew the top 'plate' was a bit of a disaster but I don't know about the rest of it.

To my mind as a very early adopter, yes. It had some quite clever and radical thinking, but it was poorly thought-out in a few key areas and poorly made in most. The sagging top plate is obviously very well documented. It is hard to imagine how it wouldn’t sag given the design and material choice. The original PSU was notoriously poor too, it ran very hot for some reason and cooked itself now and again. The other design fail was it had absolutely no provision for arm cable dressing, there was a slot on the rear of the ‘picture frame’ outer plinth to just pass it out, but it inevitably fouled the ‘suspension’ of the top to some degree (the thicker the cable, worse the degree). They eventually fudged this by releasing a three-leg triangular table so you could just let the arm cable hang loose from the arm-base and dangle in an arc to the preamp. Basically a cop-out as they hadn’t designed a solution to an obvious problem, and yes, it sounded noticeably better that way. I ended up drilling a big round hole in my Target wall shelf so the arm cable could hang straight down in a similar way. There were lots of these little niggles and as a result it never felt like anything more than a prototype. I’d be inclined to view the 10 as the ‘release product’ here, I’ve never stripped one down but I get the impression that addressed the bugs. I’d be interested to see what arm cable routing solution it has.
 
It's quite surprising that some of the UK built decks enjoyed the success they did considering how poorly built they were compared to Japanese ones.

It is the thing Linn always got right IMO, the LP12 was never anything less than beautifully made and I suspect that is a reason is is a classic today along with things like the 301, 401, 124, EMT, Gyrodeck, SL1200, SP10, various Regas etc etc. Great design is never just a good idea, it is every single process required to make a really solid well-made long-lasting product that stands the test of time. There have been some great UK audio designs, but also huge numbers that were let down with either obvious cost-cutting or just poor ‘garden shed’ build, fit and finish. There is very good reason why some stuff is worth lots today, and some worth next to nothing.

PS I do realise there was some variability in LP12 build with regards to squareness of the plinth, top plate, subchassis etc, but I still rate it as beautifully made. There is very little about an LP12 I can’t put right!
 
It is the thing Linn always got right IMO, the LP12 was never anything less than beautifully made..

In the beginning I think it was par for the course but it had the benefit of being refined over the years. For example the early arm board was MDF, painted on the top but not the bottom so it absorbed moisture and bent. Early plinths could twist. The fact that they kept to the same architecture rather than introduce new models let them refine the bugs out of it but Lencos etc from that era were just as well made if not better.

It's a shame that it seems like the deck is not as well made today. I see cost cutting in there.
 
Indeed. A very nice platter served up on a couple of flexible bits of MDF and an exploding PSU! I’m not sure I ever quite bought into the logic behind the very thin centre spindle, I’d be interested to see how they have survived long-term (I never had any issue with mine, but I moved it on in the mid-90s). I did like the way the platter sat on the sub-platter leaving a distinct recess for the record label. That was a good bit of design Linn, Rega and others should copy.

Tony,
You are so spot on about the original Xerxes....Yes I had 3 powersupplies all failed ! - The black paint on the MDF flacked off ! - The removable center cap seemed to make no audible difearance what so ever.
I upgraded my Rega RB 300 for a Artemiz.Have to say it was the worst engineered arm I have ever had.You couldn't set anything on it.Anti Skate,Tracking force .No dials !! and the icing on the cake there was a piece of cotton on the end near the counterweight.An SME or Linn Ittok it was not ! Just a plain awful thing to adjust.And TBH couldn't hear much over the RB300.
 
In the beginning I think it was par for the course but it had the benefit of being refined over the years. For example the early arm board was MDF, painted on the top but not the bottom so it absorbed moisture and bent.

Prior to the Keel and Kore, LP12 arm boards have always been made with a wood fibre based material but the really early ones were actually three layers of hardboard coated with matt black paint. I've actually seen one delaminated - very poor quality. I've even seen one early arm board showing the rough hard board face at the underside.

However, Linn later moved to a structure utilising a melamine top and bottom to sandwich the fibre core, which was a marked improvement to this day. Although there have been various iterations along the way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
However, Linn later moved to a structure utilizing a melamine top and bottom to sandwich the fiber core, which was a marked improvement to this day.

Interestingly the current spec armboards are not as good as they were twenty years ago! The layer on the top and bottom is nowhere near as thick as the melamine used to be. It's very thin in fact. Also, there used to be a layer of melamine in the middle too but I don't see any sign of that now. Unless it's just so thin I can't see it.
 
Here’s a bit from volume two of the Cymbiosis LP12 setup guide which also includes photos.

Later arm boards are black on the underside, have a more of a silk finish and are of a laminated construction. Within these, there are three types: one with a harder top and bottom surface with a softer layer between the two; one with an additional single central lamination dividing the softer layer into two and finally, one where there is a total of four harder layers top and bottom with the two internal laminations separated by the three softer layers.
 
In the beginning I think it was par for the course but it had the benefit of being refined over the years. For example the early arm board was MDF, painted on the top but not the bottom so it absorbed moisture and bent. Early plinths could twist. The fact that they kept to the same architecture rather than introduce new models let them refine the bugs out of it but Lencos etc from that era were just as well made if not better.

It's a shame that it seems like the deck is not as well made today. I see cost cutting in there.

I've been to the Linn factory lots of times from the 80s to about 3 years ago. I can assure you there is no cost cutting. Modern LP12s are superbly made.
 
I've been to the Linn factory lots of times from the 80s to about 3 years ago. I can assure you there is no cost cutting. Modern LP12s are superbly made.

Yeah? So how come a brand new platter, straight out of the box, is out of balance? And the laminate on the armboard paper thin?
 
Most, if not all medium to large companies look for cost reduction opportunities wherever they can, it's rather fatuous to think otherwise. Sometimes a change of material/s or process can provide quality benefits, but not always.

I feel if Linn achieve any benefit from a material or process change, then the customer will certainly pay dear for it! Belts anyone?
 


advertisement


Back
Top