Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Pontefract cakes, surely? Eccles is in That Lancashire, and therefore beyond the pale to A True YorkshiremanThat weren't foam lad, that were small Eccles cakes.
Pontefract cakes, surely? Eccles is in That Lancashire, and therefore beyond the pale to A True YorkshiremanThat weren't foam lad, that were small Eccles cakes.
The contact between the ball bearings and the race are probably less than the point contact on a unipivot.Please show your evidence! I’m not singling out Linn, it is the same with any conventional bearing arm. If they had no play they can’t move freely, simple as that. Sure, humans won’t be able to feel any slop in an ABEC 5 or 7 bearing, but it is there on a microscopic level as it has to be for the thing to have low friction. This is not the case on a unipivot, a WT, Schroeder and some other non-conventional designs. These work with a different rule-book.
PS FWIW the old Linn arms have a distinct sound to my ears; the Ittok having a pretty obvious resonance/forwardness in the upper mid (the reason I later went to a Zeta), fun and very tuneful though. I never got on with the Ekos in dems, very easily beaten by the Aro to my ears/taste, though in fairness I never heard the MkII.
It seems to me to be a matter of principle that ideal transducers in an ideal environment will be fixed firmly to minimise the 'doppler effect' caused by parts moving when they shouldn't.
The contact between the ball bearings and the race are probably less than the point contact on a unipivot.
A radius is a radius, assuming infinite smoothness and hardness they're all but identical, except a gumball ball race tonearm has 10-20 times more of them and steel is way softer than sapphire. There's no comparison the uni is an order of magnitude lower in contact sutface
I notice a distinct backing away from the ‘80s flat-earth ideology of what Linn described as a ‘closed loop’ between cartridge and main bearing and where the word ‘rigid’ was used in most sentences by reviewers, dealers and even customers. Over the past few years it appears things are changing...he weeds!
It's all compromise though, from the microphones to the speakers...
This is from an early Linn LP12 setup manual provided to dealers. I’m not seeing here where they say to cause damage to materials.
This is from an early Linn LP12 setup manual provided to dealers. I’m not seeing here where they say to cause damage to materials.
This is interesting, not least because the 1990s LP12 set up guide I have in a cupboard somewhere explicitly defines ‘tight’ as tight enough and absolutely not deforming the materials. I wonder if Linn revised this after seeing the same things you describe?Absolutely, that is certainly my view. Often from out of the audio range and into it,
PS I quickly looked at the ‘Lejonklou’ Linn dealer forum John mentioned (I’d never heard of it) and the torque values they are using are tiny. The sort of values I’ve been discussing (most values a fraction of an Nm), so it looks like Linn themselves have shifted a very long way from what they were advocating back in the ‘80s. As stated I’ve personally seen more than one Linn “trained” dealers apply astonishing levels of torque to things that clearly didn’t need it. Literally allen-key bending forces! I won’t name them, but if they are reading this, yes, I saw you!
This is interesting, not least because the 1990s LP12 set up guide I have in a cupboard somewhere explicitly defines ‘tight’ as tight enough and absolutely not deforming the materials. I wonder if Linn revised this after seeing the same things you describe?
I posted an early 1980’s Linn setup manual regarding tightness and nowhere does it say to deform materials.This is interesting, not least because the 1990s LP12 set up guide I have in a cupboard somewhere explicitly defines ‘tight’ as tight enough and absolutely not deforming the materials. I wonder if Linn revised this after seeing the same things you describe?
The contact between the ball bearings and the race are probably less than the point contact on a unipivot.
Not sure I agree as far as speakers are concerned, at least for some kinds of floors. Why would you want couple a speaker into a wooden floor which will radiate sound, and through which sound will travel faster than air? Speaker designer has done a lot of work making the speaker radiate sound; why mess it up by connecting your floorboards? The sort of stands Northward are offering for (typically) ATCs are well coupled to the floor for stability, but then decoupled from the speaker above about 8Hz. Highly damped fore and aft and against rocking.
Er... I was hardly suggesting that an earlier version would suggest anything of the sort, rather that they might have clarified the text after they’d seen stuff broken by over enthusiasm...I posted an early 1980’s Linn setup manual regarding tightness and nowhere does it say to deform materials.
Interesting suggestion. How does that work? Most ballraces contain more than three balls. The pressure to bring them all (~12-24 in a typical arm) into contact must introduce a small amount of friction and potential for rattle, mustn't it?