View Full Version : Discussing modifications to the LP12...
{Discussion moved from here}: http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?p=206233#post206233
But it's not really an LP12 any more is it? Not criticising at all, just cross that Linn sold the likes of me a lie of sorts for so long, when then better turntables were sidelined because they didn't colour the sonics the same way..
To be honest Dave, I've heard that argument before and I'm not convinced by it. The RubiKon equipped LP12 is as much an LP12 as any modern LP12 is. I designed the RubiKon to make the most of the LP12's strengths, not to try to change it into something it isn't. If you mean it doesn't sound like a 20 year old LP12 then you are right, it does not (thankfully).
I don't really see how Linn sold you, or anyone else, a lie. Every manufacturer thinks their designs are the best, what would you expect them to think? However, Linn have been clever with their marketing, but surely noone is taken in by marketing ;). There are other good turntables in my opinion, but many of the supposed 'better' ones are not actually better in my (opinion) - most are different and some aren't all that good.
Thing Fish
17-04-2011, 18:42
This is a pointless argument. Just like the Ferrari is better than the Aston one. Both are different and you choose which one you like the best.
I have had several turntables over the years but when I heard my friends LP12 I bought one and have never wanted to change it. Some people don't like them and that's fair enough.
But to decry any turntable/amp/speaker/cable...etc as rubbish doesn't make sense. Its just different. That's all there is too it.
If we all liked the same thing think how boring life would be...;)
Reid Malenfant
17-04-2011, 18:49
This is a pointless argument.
I was thinking the same thing myself earlier ;) The point being when does an LP12 cease to be an LP12 with upgrades :scratch:
Shall we just satisfy ourselves that it's an upgraded LP12 :)
To be honest Dave, I've heard that argument before and I'm not convinced by it. The RubiKon equipped LP12 is as much an LP12 as any modern LP12 is. I designed the RubiKon to make the most of the LP12's strengths, not to try to change it into something it isn't. If you mean it doesn't sound like a 20 year old LP12 then you are right, it does not (thankfully).
I don't really see how Linn sold you, or anyone else, a lie. Every manufacturer thinks their designs are the best, what would you expect them to think? However, Linn have been clever with their marketing, but surely noone is taken in by marketing ;). There are other good turntables in my opinion, but many of the supposed 'better' ones are not actually better in my (opinion) - most are different and some aren't all that good.
It would take too long for me to type how I really feel about this (and I really do find it boring nowadays), but of all manufacturers, Linn knew what the original recordings were like ever since the first Blue Nile finished tracks were delivered in 1982. The developments wouldn't have cost much for them to incorporate, but instead they made tiny steps over a lengthy period - IMO... decks like the Systemdek, Gyrodec, Logic 101 etc really were good alternatives, but it wasn't until the Roksan that many dealers began to offer a choice. "We" only had the Rock II because one of the staff was friendly with Max T and owned one himself.
You have to congratulate Ivor on his sales and marketing of the LP12, it probably ought to feature as a case study on MBA courses. I think the main reason some are anti-Linn nowadays has little to do with the product (which does seem good in current form) but mostly is a reaction to the very impressive way people were taught to listen in a way that complemented the deck. Other manufacturers no doubt try similar techniques. The number of detractors says a lot about the success of the Linn techniques at the time, mainly in the 80' / early 90's I suppose.
The Grand Wazoo
18-04-2011, 07:05
You have to congratulate Ivor on his sales and marketing of the LP12, it probably ought to feature as a case study on MBA courses. I think the main reason some are anti-Linn nowadays has little to do with the product (which does seem good in current form) but mostly is a reaction to the very impressive way people were taught to listen in a way that complemented the deck. Other manufacturers no doubt try similar techniques. The number of detractors says a lot about the success of the Linn techniques at the time, mainly in the 80' / early 90's I suppose.
Mostly true, I think, but worse than being taught to listen was the condescending and patronising way in which it was carried out by some of the practitioners. The pricing policy doesn't do them any favours either.
I've got nothing against success (in fact I applaud it), derived, amongst other things, from astute (non-viral) marketing and entrepreneurialism.
Therefore, I have no malice towards Ivor or Linn, as far as that's concerned. I like British businesses being successful, and people making money. I also have nothing against Linn products, as such, although I think that much of the current range is vastly overpriced for the performance on offer, particularly anything relating to an LP12. And I certainly have nothing against anyone who uses their gear.
What pisses me off with the whole Linn/Naim brainwashing that happened in the late 70s and throughout the 80s, via their ever-present propaganda machine, and the all-encompassing brand evangelism which emerged with it, is that it stifled people's choice.
For that reason, so much fabulous gear, both foreign and British, either never saw the light of day in the UK, or was quickly 'neutralised' by the Linn/Naim mafia – and in turn some fantastic specialist companies, who made great products, were stamped on from a great height.
*That*, along with the blinkered, dyed-in-the-wool 'badge worshiping', is what annoyed, and continues to annoy me most. I hated my audio choices being dictated to and restricted by something I had no control over!
These days, with the dawn of the Internet, it's so different. Freedom of choice, through eBay (and such like) enables us to have access, albeit mostly second-hand, to some of the great (non-'fanboy') products born during that era, deliberately ignored and/or devalued by the media, and some dealers, many of whom were in the pockets of Linn and Naim.
But it's so sad that many small, but great, British companies were never allowed to make their mark properly on audio history, as a result of the Linn/Naim bandwagon steamrollering them into oblivion.....
Marco.
Excellent posts Marco and Chris.
It was amazing how quickly the zelots of the Linn/Naim axis infiltrated and influenced the audio press at that time, and having done so we were all subjected to a lot of absurd propaganda and arrant nonsense.
Fortunately not all of us were taken in.
Regards
Apologies to Andrew and Mark for this thread drift..
One thing I always did since toddlerhood was to "sing along" with favourite songs. My mother said many a time that had I put as much into my school-work at the time, I'd have done considerably better at school......
My "Linn-Chip" was inserted by Ivor himself, with assistance from Charlie Brennan, way back in 1981 (Gordon Bennett, was it really that long ago?:() and to be absolutely fair to both of them, the original "mk1 tune dem" has stood me in great stead over the years, as the gear which "holds a tune" and holds interest in the music being reproduced, is the gear with the longest lasting and endearing appeal, certainly in domestic audio replay I feel. Later, the "rhythm kings" took over and this was one area I couldn't identify with at all.
An old friend who was working at Grahams for a time and came to visit me at work, insisted the Arcam delta 60 amp was "better" than the previous A60. I didn't agree, so up in the dem-room we went and he "showed" me how much better the Delta 60 held the rhythm in a metronomic way, which it did, although unless you used the Audioquest cables Arcam imported at the time, the tonal qualities were bleached out of all existance - the early Arcam CD players were like this too..
Today, I still regard the ability to "play tunes" an important part of domestic leisure/pleasure-listening and so much of the best vintage gear does this so easily. Both Ivor and Julian rated the Garrard 301/401's too, although the restoration network wasn't in place back then, so they were never really competition unless you could make your own plinth system.
P.S. Ivor also told me that the LP12 could have been direct-driven, but obviously, the TD150 belt drive blue-print was probably easier to manipulate and manufacture.
It would take too long for me to type how I really feel about this (and I really do find it boring nowadays).
Yes, quite. What I would say is that "absurd propaganda and arrant nonsense" is hardly the sole preserve of the "Linn/Naim axis" and, in my experience, endemic to all fields of hi-fi. In fact, thanks to the internet, one can easily access all manner of 'hi-fi opinion', all presented with the same weight of validity - unfotunately, a significant quantity of said opinion I find to be nonsense.
Anyway, the marketing of Linn (or Naim) is beyond my remit. If people would like to discuss such issues they might like to consider creating a thread for that purpose (which I can then choose not to contribute to - something that is not easy to do on a thread about my own design).
Well, enough of that, I must get on with finishing the RubiKon for Rega files - much to do.
Hi Mark,
Would you like me to move the off-topic posts into a separate thread? :)
Marco.
Hi Marco, yes please, very kind of you - much appreciated :).
Rare Bird
18-04-2011, 13:12
What i can't quite get in my head is: What does it matter what brand name something has on it, if a modification is an improvement to yours ears regardless of if most the original manufacturers parts a gone (that includes the ones that carry the brand name) so be it ,or is it more important for people to have a brand attached? If you want an old vintage piece exactly as original (as i do depending on the vintage) live with what you have but if your a born fiddler & truly believe something can be improved Modifi, Modifi, Modifi..(don't deface an item tho)
What i can't quite get in my head is: What does it matter what brand name something has on it, if a modification is an improvement to yours ears regardless of if most the original manufacturers parts a gone (that includes the ones that carry the brand name) so be it ,or is it more important for people to have a brand attached? If you want an old vintage piece exactly as original (as i do depending on the vintage) live with what you have but if your a born fiddler & truly believe something can be improved Modifi, Modifi, Modifi..(don't deface an item tho)
Spot on, dude!
Marco.
Thing Fish
18-04-2011, 15:49
I find putting down peoples choice of hifi belittling and quite frankly offensive. I see some horrific component choices in the gallery pages but I would never be so rude as to tell them so. If they are happy with their sound then that's fine by me.
I find putting down peoples choice of hifi belittling and quite frankly offensive.
Yup - and no-one's doing that here :)
Marco.
If you have a genuine point of reference, then all well and good (as Linn and Max Townshend amongst others had back then). In the case of Tom Fletcher, he used sound common engineering sense, coupled with some considerable flair of his own, to create the stunning decks which are still amongst the best out there in their price ranges - Yep, I should count Michell Engineering in there too, although they haven't always got the sonics right first time.
This shouldn't become a Linn-bashing thread, as in the early days there really did seem to be a genuine need to rock the snotty closed-minded fraternity in audio (the Quad followers, not necessarily Peter Walker himself incidentally, but the "hangers-on" who'd become entrenched on old-fogeyism.) and make them LISTEN again.
In actual fact, what beats me is the sudden sonic-changes that Naim introduced in 1980 with the CB range. prior to this, the NAP120 and 250 were sweet toned, soooo musical and deeply involving to listen "through," yet, 135's aside, the 110/160 and 250 models were horrid, harsh toned and in-yer-face "transistor" amps of the worst and most dated kind, the deaded crossover distortion way to the front. These models are transformed with a re-cap and set-up though, but by this time, many modern amps just don't seem to need this attention, although I cannot say if naim have finally got their act together, as the current stuff is still not old enough and I doubt so much of the current range is 24/7 powered as the older units were.
This shouldn't become a Linn-bashing thread, as in the early days there really did seem to be a genuine need to rock the snotty closed-minded fraternity in audio (the Quad followers, not necessarily Peter Walker himself incidentally, but the "hangers-on" who'd become entrenched on old-fogeyism.) and make them LISTEN again.
An interesting observation, which I suspect is entitled to qualify as a truism ;)
Marco.
I find putting down peoples choice of hifi belittling and quite frankly offensive. I see some horrific component choices in the gallery pages but I would never be so rude as to tell them so. If they are happy with their sound then that's fine by me.
I don't think anyone here is belittling anyone's choice of equipment.
My comments "absurd propaganda and arrant nonsense", referred to the content of certain hi-fi magazines of the time. Such was the strength of Linn's marketing policy, some Linn dealers would refuse to sell you anything unless you were an LP-12 owner. Seems hard to believe now, but I had direct experience of this "policy".
I'm not at all biased against the product itself: I used an LP-12 for a while. The LP-12 always was a very good turntable and with Mark's (YNWaN) upgrades it is now probably an even better deck. It was just the Linn hype that I always found off-putting, if not risible.
Regards
Done!
Marco.
Cheers :cool:
Still doing RubiKon Rega files - spent 10 hours doing it today and my CAD software has just crashed (nothing lost though :)).
11 done so far - another 4 to do (but a couple of those are documents :( - might leave those till tomorrow).
Ah - almost forgot the DXF files - saved those now - gin and tonic time I think ;).
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.