I have covered the Linn/Ariston history in depth elsewhere. In summary Ivor Tiefenbrun developed a prototype turntable based on a TD150 which was then marketed initially as the Ariston RD11. Based on the patent hearing coverage in Hi-Fi News and other material I have researched it is quite apparent that Ivor Tiefenbrun developed a prototype turntable based on a TD150 he had previously owned. Ivor actually told people it was based on the TD150 in conversations about the background prior to the patent hearing. The development was in 1969 and 70 using the facilities at Castle Precision Engineering which his father Jack owned. The staff at Castle were involved in helping him with what was just a personal project at the time to create as good a turntable as he could based on the design but using parts manufactured at Castle. Hamish Robertson did not submit an alternative version of that background to the patent hearing otherwise the patent officer would have needed to decide which version to believe. Ivor abandoned the prototype to move to Israel in early 1971 and Jack Tiefenbrun allowed Hamish to continue with the prototype with a view to marketing it. The main emphasise in 71 was on styling which may well have led to a platter change (based on the AR XA?) and in turn the contested bearing change as well. All work appears to have been done on an informal basis with just a paper transaction for accounting purposes when Hamish purchased the decks Hamish had also created the Ariston brand for a SR90 speaker he had developed. Contrary to an internet myth that is doing the rounds that speaker was not an "isobaric" design but was claimed to have "isothermal" properties due to the granite-concrete mix used in the cabinet. Similar word but different meaning. Following the final development Hamish then purchased 40 decks possibly with Lenco sourced dust covers and plinths. All were assembled at Castle. Along with the speaker the deck had a successful showing at the September Harrogate show in 71. A further batch of turntables was then commissioned but there appears to have been a bust up between Hamish and Jack probably with the cost of the decks figuring in the row. Hamish then moved the deck manufacturing to Dunlop-Westayr and appears to have told a different background to justify the need for a manufacturing move to Peter Dunlop who may have been reluctant to take on the work otherwise. I suspect he doubled down with his story when Jack threatened him with the patent but was unable to offer up that story to the patent hearing. The hearing is based on evidence based written submissions which each side gets to see before the hearing. Each side must contest what they disagree with and the two sides then orally go through what is contested at the hearing. I originally thought Linn was set up to sell around 200 twin button decks that Hamish did not buy but it appears these were all eventually factory sold with a residual quantity going out with Linn LP12 serials. Linn was actually set up in February 73 but Hamish did not sell Ariston to Dunlop-Westayr until April 73. I now suspect Linn may have been set up in part to undermine Ariston sells while Hamish still owned the brand but I also expect it was something Ivor would have wanted to do after he returned to the UK around the end of 72.
I guess you are talking about pre MG Rover Group cars, but interesting that you should choose MGs, because they are the largest single marque car club in the world, formed in 1973, so you are undoubtedly correct in your statement. The MG Owners Club Shop, also happens to be in the county I live. The MGB was a good reliable car (my brother owned a MGB GT), but the good looks, power output and handling were destroyed by US regulations. With the horrible rubber bumpers introduced during 1974-1975 and ride height raised by an inch. A MGB with emissions set for Californian regulations lost 25bhp! These "quirky and fiddly to keep on the road" cars may set you back close to £20,000 for a nice example.
So many negative waves with regard to the LP12. I think most of this has to do with their annoying marketing (yes it is annoying) and less with the actual product. I'm fine with with anyone who prefers one component to another, because its a personal decision. I greatly prefer my MasterSound tube amp to the Audio Research that I once had. That does not mean I go around dissing Audio Research as crap. Some of the stuff in this thread is almost comical, how about this one: "I have a question as I have always been intrigued by the LP 12. If your house settles as houses do and your turntable is out of level, how does this effect setup. Because I mean some houses move a bit more than others. Does this mean constant fiddling? I was really put off by the ongoing tuning issues when I originally was looking at the Sondek." Maybe we should be concerned with turntable performance during earthquakes. Or how about the OMG reaction to removing the tonearm to change carts, like I can't be bothered to remove the tonearm, but lining up a cart is no big deal. Removing a tonearm is a lot easier than lining up a cart! The biggest (and best) argument against an LP12 is that it's too bloody expensive, not all the twaddle about leveling, removing tonearms etc. I backed in to the LP12 I have and have done a bunch of upgrades all with used components (except for Cirkus), because of its longevity and popularity you can put a nice deck together for not that much (comparatively). If I was buying new they would be out of my price range and I'd have a VPI or Rega.
it is too bloody expensive. Simple as that. When I come home from listening to a Radical setup and listen to my VPI scout and think that in many ways sounded better than the Linn, thats a problem.... a big one. 18 grand vs 1600.00, yep, thats a problem, big time. Trust me, I am not saying that it did not sound good but not 18 grand good. thats for sure.
It saddens me to see the poop the Chinese owned company produce under this badge. BTW I was reliably informed that the plastic bumpers were a huge error and later found unnecessary for US roads.
I had family and friends tooling around in those tiny little MG vehicles in the 1970s in the US. They were rattly, buzzing little jobbies that were among the least reliable and fiddly of all cars on the road in those days. They were exactly....British, which made them lovable, wonderful to look at, but overall ****** to actually own and drive. Any suggestion otherwise is remembering through the lens of pure nostalgia.
They weren't put there for the roads, they were there to meet US "safety" regulations, namely the ability to take a 5 MPH hit to the nose or tail with no damage. That's also why the ride height was changed, to get the bumpers up to the minimum specified height, i.e. to get them level with the bumpers of full-size US cars. At least the Linn Sondek didn't have little leather straps to keep the suspension from bouncing too far. Although I suppose the tonearm cable and p-clip could serve the same function...
I owned a little MG once & our original family home may still have oil stains on the drive to prove it!
All cars were pretty unreliable in those days but the MGB was a fun car and so was the Triumph Stag part of the same company by then. Problem was all the BMC brands did there own thing and competed with one another. Just the opposite to the way car production is today with common platforms and engines. Add that to poor management and catastrophic labour relations and you had the recipe for disaster that was British Leyland. It just got about sorted when it was sold to BMW which after a boardroom change had no interest and planned to split up the company and close Longbridge. Unfortunately the clueless Blair government allowed a bunch of chancers to buy The MG Rover operation (Land Rover had been sold to Ford). They spent most of the BMW money handed to them on changing bumpers and the like and sold of all the assets to keep it going while lining their own pockets via a holding company. A Chinese company then purchased what was left (later bought out by another Chinese company). Most equipment was moved to China but design and a small assembly operation remains at Longbridge. The Chinese did a final run of the last MG sports car, the MGTF before continuing with new models primarily designed for Chinese market. The designs are cheaper than other makes and now include a small saloon and SUV. My view is if you want a cheap SUV the Dacia Duster is a better bet and more expensive makes are superior but more important have far less depreciation. I have seen very few on the road (more on top of car transporters) over the last decade so UK sales are probably in the hundreds to low thousands. Back on topic. The failure of Hamish to win the patent dispute was that he was an alcoholic and likely worse for wear at the hearing. So Ivor and Linn won by default due to an inadequate defence. Ariston brand did however continue for many years even producing a CD player (which likely was the final nail in the coffin).
Problem was they changed the cars sold here in the UK to the new US bumpers. The chrome bumper versions are more sought after as a result.
The wire wheels having long fallen off! I spoke to my brother regarding his MGB GT, and he did replace the thrust washers to cure the well known rear axle clunk. He may have been lucky, but the car which had the optional electronic overdrive, didn't break down in the two years he owned it. They were designed as affordable cars bringing sports car looks, if not performance to the masses. Back on subject, you can drop new springs and grommets on a 45 year old LP12. Unlike those small MGs, the LP12 is still in production, so parts readily available!
How important are changing grommets? I had new springs put on mine a couple of weeks ago but don’t think he did grommets.
Not to me. I've got both. Neither one looks or feels anything other than top quality in two different setups in my home. No doubt they look entirely different from each other, but that just makes a preference for one 'look' over the other a matter of personal taste or personal aesthetics. Photos on web sites can leave poor impressions too, no doubt. I met someone who honestly thought there was no substantive difference between a $350 Audio Technica turntable (ATLP120 or something like that) and a $4000 SL1200G, until they actually saw and heard an SL1200G in a shop demo or at the home of a friend or relative.
I agree that the Linn looks classier, but not that the Technics looks cheaper. I'm guessing that your perception is based upon the fact that the G looks like a DJ table, rather than an audiophile TT.
Cheap-looking implies poor quality. The SL1200G is not poor quality. Cheaper-looking implies less expensive. That’s true (depending on the LP12 version being compared). Classier-looking implies an aesthetic difference. Nothing to do with quality or cost. They’re all distinctively different terms, but you’re using a couple of them interchangeably. Made it harder to understand what you meant.
I'm using both because meant both. I think it looks cheap compared to the LP12 and doesn't look anywhere near as classy.
