advertisement


What happened to Ariston?

Yank said:
I suspect that the omni thing was done just to bring the mids and highs down to four ohms to match the two woofers.
Click to expand...
Looks more like a nod to Sonab to me
My uncle had a pair of Sonabs and liked to demo "popcorn" with them. Unusual effects but I'm not sure it was true
 
I think I mentioned before that according to mag review of Griffin Speaker, they applied for a Patent on Isobaric loading around the same time as Linn. I don't know what came of it all.
There was nowt wrong with big Linn Keltic I heard in a strange room (steady). It did have a lot of boxes to go with it mind to tune the sound.
 
Wobblybob said:
Thanks Bizebub. A mate had an RD11 and I couldn't tell it apart from my LP12 apart from the valhalla on switch.
Click to expand...

It was exactly the same thing. Linn ran an ad which said the RD11 is now available as the LP12, or somesuch. They were completely open about it, goodness knows where the conspiracy theories came from.
 
The Isobarik was two Kefkit 3 in a box, later with a more excitable tweeter. A happy accident.

Paul
 
Paul R said:
The Isobarik was two Kefkit 3 in a box, later with a more excitable tweeter. A happy accident.

Paul
Click to expand...

The Linn Isobarik my not be everyone's 'cup of tea', but I recall some knowledgeable audio commentators liked it, in particular Paul Messenger.
Paul worked at Spendor, whose loudspeakers designs I respected, so he had some credibility. At least with me...
 
FWIW Kefkit were reputed to be the drivers that didn't quite make it to spec.
OTOH Really good speakers like LS35A were sample matched with a lot more time taken........as Martyn knows well about.
 
Paul R said:
The Isobarik was two Kefkit 3 in a box, later with a more excitable tweeter. A happy accident.

Paul
Click to expand...


Or unhappy accident if your idea of a good loudspeaker is a reasonably accurate transducer rather than something "what goes loud".

As for the RD11, it is accepted that Hamish designed it but the courts ruled that Castle Engineering was responsible for the bearing design. That is all. IT is simply a good business man. The fact that he's never been able to hear the difference between digital and analogue sound should surely ring alarm bells with some Linnies :)
 
I seldom come across loudspeakers that give such scant regard to preserving the original stereo signal Paul.

I rather suspect that had Linn designers had the tools at their disposal that are available today, a very different design would have been offered up.
 
Now an elegant bearing / sub-chassis arrangement to make the LP12 look primitive and clumsy by comparison - the Pink aerolam and inverted sapphire items.
 
merlin said:
Or unhappy accident if your idea of a good loudspeaker is a reasonably accurate transducer rather than something "what goes loud".

As for the RD11, it is accepted that Hamish designed it but the courts ruled that Castle Engineering was responsible for the bearing design. That is all. IT is simply a good business man. The fact that he's never been able to hear the difference between digital and analogue sound should surely ring alarm bells with some Linnies :)
Click to expand...
That's because they were responsible for the bearing design, it was their business and the reason why they were called in.

Also, are you sure that Ivor Tiefenbrun has never been able to tell the difference, or is that based on the one famous test? Incidentally, at a friends place once with a mega expensive TT/CD system we ran a comparison, and the differences were not that great.
 
There must have been quite a few versions if the Ariston RD11 turntables. The one shown on Vinyl Engine has a round armboard and the RD11s shown has rectangular armboard which is unlike the RD11s I owned which was round. My RD11s was quite different if you compared it closely to a LP12 from that same era. The LP12/Basik certainly outperformed the RD11s/Mission774/775 I purchased new in 1984.
 
avole said:
That's because they were responsible for the bearing design, it was their business and the reason why they were called in.

.
Click to expand...

Other manufacturers had used single point bearings before the 1970's.
It'd be interesting to know who originally drew the spindle profile. It isnt normally the contracted engineers although they are likely to have a say in how the item is produced. That aspect may have been the challenging part.

Later versions of the RD11 did have circular armboards & various other changes made but the original version (as pictured up the thread) is what the LP12 was derived from.
 
avole said:
That's because they were responsible for the bearing design, it was their business and the reason why they were called in.

Also, are you sure that Ivor Tiefenbrun has never been able to tell the difference, or is that based on the one famous test? Incidentally, at a friends place once with a mega expensive TT/CD system we ran a comparison, and the differences were not that great.
Click to expand...

As I understand it at the time Ivor was claiming digital destroyed the music and, IIRC, starting some of the erroneous stories about digital that some people still seem to believe, he was challenged to be able to hear the insertion of a Sony F1 digital recorder in the loop and could not tell the difference between this ADC/DAC and an interconnect.
I have tried this and nor could I, either, but I hadn't been claiming that digital broke the music...
 
Yank said:
Did they use KEF's crossovers too?
Click to expand...
I think there is probably a close relationship between early Isobarik crossovers and the Kef design.

Does this,
stumo3.jpg


look Kef-like?

Paul
 
Im more interested in the shot itself - is it behind the external 110? Looks to small for a full brik xover to me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top