• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

"Things that cannot be measured"

It was Linn.

They even invented the whole idiotic source first paradigm :facepalm: ofcourse they did as at the beginning they only had their record player and no other products .
With analog sources it had some kernel of truth in it but not driven to the extreme and especially not at all today with digital sources .
 
Excuse me!!!!!

In a vinyl setup, the source first scenario really is most important. Vinyl's so bad generally that if you feck it up at the deck, or arm, or cartridge (in that order, try an AT95E in a top deck compared to an old Dual, cheaper Jap belt drive or something), no fancy amp or speaker is ever going to rescue it! This was something easily and repeatedly demonstrated and to this day, locked into my very being. Digital I grant you is so good at the lowest prices that there's no audible hang-up using say a Topping D10 into an expensive system - until the 'audiophool' eyes and mindset kick in of course...

The whole LP12 vs. everything else situation is a bit complex really. The LP12 DID make 70's and 80's LP's sound nicer and I suspect the colouration in the product itself, made worse with more massive tonearms starting with the Ittok and coupled with the slight wow in the drive (shared and worse in similar Thorens designs but not there in the best idler models which were noisier or direct drives which could be siting sensitive if low level feedback effects were to be avoided), maybe gave the music some form of almost subliminal ebb and flow which is highly addictive. I was in denial until an epiphany moment at Linn's factory when they cut an acetate from known master sources (I think it was an ATR 102 playback machine) two track half inch 30IPS Blue Nile master with no noise reduction (none really needed with tapes like this I was told), played the acetate (you can do it once and it sounded good on the top late 80's era LP12) - the 12" single cut I believe from the same tape sounded awful and as for the LP of the same track (Tinseltown).. Wasn't until a couple of years later than I heard a UK made but relatively unkown deck at around half the price with Rega arm ("RB arms sound so 'grey'" wail the audiophile audiophools) and same cartridge (K9) in comparison with same stylus used, that any real faith in the vinyl format was restored. Thirty five or so years on, I suspect the UK sold Roksan and PT decks really were 'better' in a subjective sense, but they sure as hell weren't so 'entertaining' in the (largely godawful?) PA-style stereo's we had back then... Maybe the slight added 'belt drive wow' I'm going on about is where some of the 'soul' comes from?

Frank - I'm not sure but I think it was Martin Colloms who started the whole Pr@t thing (Pace, Rhythm & Timing) and he even did a speaker design called The Rhythm King. For me, the LP12 was all about the 'tunes' - melodies, harmonies, singing along with the lyrics and being easily able to dip in and out of a recorded mix*, which was something I'd always done but never really consciously to that point. I can do it with live performances too but obviously 'live' has a more straight laced effect than a produced mox on a sound system.. I've been using headphones a lot recently (nothing to whet anyone's appetites here) and have been told off by my TV watching better half as I've been 'miming' along with the songs and tapping my feet - Whoops :D

*I'm sure it's measurable, but some 'HiFi' systems scream DETAIL at you, but just don't seem to allow you 'in' to the music being played. The best ones do, even if in 'HiFi' (not high fidelity) standards they initially sound less interesting. Domestic listening isn't the same as recording or mastering when you almost want everything under a magnifying glass, in my opinion currently anyway.
 
Last edited:
Exactly. So it they make it look fancy and sound different to justify the ridiculous prices. Many years ago Bob Carver pissed off the Stereophile folks by nulling a hand-built for adjustability, relatively inexpensive amp against an expensive tube amp. He effectively made the two amps impossible to distinguish in double blind listening. This did not make people very happy.

Of course, they carefully neglected to do the basic control experiment- establishing an audible difference between the two amps at the beginning.
 
They even invented the whole idiotic source first paradigm :facepalm: ofcourse they did as at the beginning they only had their record player and no other products .
With analog sources it had some kernel of truth in it but not driven to the extreme and especially not at all today with digital sources .
It was substantially true with record players actually but, as you write, not with digital.
The speakers, and particularly their location in the room, were just as important as now.
Mind you people now think they can just plonk speakers where they look nicest and fix all the shortcomings with some sort of software, which is also bollox though it can help the bass being hopeless.
 
Frank - I'm not sure but I think it was Martin Colloms who started the whole Pr@t thing (Pace, Rhythm & Timing) and he even did a speaker design called The Rhythm King. For me, the LP12 was all about the 'tunes' - melodies, harmonies, singing along with the lyrics and being easily able to dip in and out of a recorded mix*, which was something I'd always done but never really consciously to that point.
I think you are right about Martin and PRaT but I am fairly sure it was Linn who started the toe tapping bollox. I remember Ivor, or the marketing bloke whose name I have forgotten, making a theatrically overdone thing of tapping his foot selectively at demos.
 
The whole LP12 vs. everything else situation is a bit complex really.
Indeed it is.
It had a few undamped resonances in it, exacerbated by the recommendation to reef up all the bolts as tight as possible, which reduces damping and creates PRaT.
I had a LP12/Valhalla/Ittok/Troika myself for many years but it wasn't my only TT I now use the Goldmund Reference I bought used 25 years ago but still have a Roksan Xerxes, EMT direct drive (I forget the number) and the interestingly engineered B&O 8002.
 
It was substantially true with record players actually but, as you write, not with digital.
The speakers, and particularly their location in the room, were just as important as now.
Mind you people now think they can just plonk speakers where they look nicest and fix all the shortcomings with some sort of software, which is also bollox though it can help the bass being hopeless.

Ye but Linn drove it to the extreme you had to have the LP12 with the best arm and cart before you switched out your Wharfedale diamonds and cr*p Naim amp :)

There where decent Japanese LP players all the time from the 70's - 90's at ok prices , but i was as clueless as everyone else fudging with Thorens and Systemdeck players .

But no snobby audiophile could admit that some direct drive Jap record player could be any good . Which they in retrospect probably where , but i know nothing about them admittedly being a snobby audiophile at the time .

Down at dads work at SR (swedish public service radio) they had some very large Technic's decks I've never seen since ? not the famous 1200 but something bigger .

My point was, would it really cost LP12 money to build a decent enough LP player given the mediums limitations ?
 
Down at dads work at SR (swedish public service radio) they had some very large Technic's decks I've never seen since ? not the famous 1200 but something bigger .

My point was, would it really cost LP12 money to build a decent enough LP player given the mediums limitations ?
The now popular (fashionable) Garrard idler drive decks were ¼ the price of a Linn. The top model Japanese DDs were more expensive.
I evaluated (ie measured then stripped for costing) the pro Technics SP10 and a pro Sony I forget the name of when I was in R&D at Garrard.
The Technics, which I subsequently bought in bits from the scrap man at Garrard for £12, reassembled and converted from 100V to 240V and used for some time afterwards, had exceptional wow and flutter and rumble performance, but had zero isolation from structure or air borne vibration and this makes a BIG difference in a domestic setting. The Linn was good when properly set up - it was a development of the Edgar Villchur's AR TT which was the best thought through engineering at the time. Most TTs don't isolate very well in all degrees of freedom, and there are six not one! In fact the vertical isolation is not the most critical since the most important part of the signal the cartidge is transducing is horizontal vibration, but I am going into far too much detail now!
 
The now popular (fashionable) Garrard idler drive decks were ¼ the price of a Linn. The top model Japanese DDs were more expensive.
I evaluated (ie measured then stripped for costing) the pro Technics SP10 and a pro Sony I forget the name of when I was in R&D at Garrard.
The Technics, which I subsequently bought in bits from the scrap man at Garrard for £12, reassembled and converted from 100V to 240V and used for some time afterwards, had exceptional wow and flutter and rumble performance, but had zero isolation from structure or air borne vibration and this makes a BIG difference in a domestic setting. The Linn was good when properly set up - it was a development of the Edgar Villchur's AR TT which was the best thought through engineering at the time. Most TTs don't isolate very well in all degrees of freedom, and there are six not one! In fact the vertical isolation is not the most critical since the most important part of the signal the cartidge is transducing is horizontal vibration, but I am going into far too much detail now!

Some variant of the Technics SP10 seems likely (further googling confirms that SR used this player ) i was kid and did not notice the details . :)

They where in plinths on some kind of trolley so they could be carted into the studio that needed them .

Later on EMT seemed popular (dad's company had one before CD and then files carried stock music and sound effects )
 
The sad thing as that someone dropped it in a move otherwise i would had it for free :(

It was probably a EMT 938 omg what prices they fetch on ebay o_O
I just checked, mine is a 938, the 948 or 950 are much rarer and fetch silly money.
 
I think you are right about Martin and PRaT but I am fairly sure it was Linn who started the toe tapping bollox. I remember Ivor, or the marketing bloke whose name I have forgotten, making a theatrically overdone thing of tapping his foot selectively at demos.

I'll wager that if you trace it back far enough, it will end up at the source of nearly all the timeless audio twaddle- Jean Hiraga. This is a statistical guess.
 
Of course, they carefully neglected to do the basic control experiment- establishing an audible difference between the two amps at the beginning.
Well they did three or four rounds of comparative listening only satisfied with the results in the end. These were sighted tests however.
 
The LP12 is basically a 'blue printed' Thorens TD150. The top plates are the same size (the 150 likes an LP12 plinth by the way ;) ) and at one time, the platters were almost interchangeable...

I could go on and on about this particular UK turntable topic and having grown up with master tape copies (most notable a Dolby A [with pro processor] copy of Dark Side of the Moon and later, Tublular Bells and Ommadawn), the whole LP12 thing for me put me into a form of denial for a few years until CD began to dislodge the vibe and that notable visit to Glasgow blew it apart (unintentionally, but the Linn guy admitted vinyl was crap to me - just theirs was better than everyone else's crap ;) ). To be fair to Ivor, I had many conversations with him back then including over dinner a couple of times and he was great. My maybe rose tinted opinion now being that it was the media and ignorant dealers which really spread the sh*t around... I must shut up about the bloody 'fruitbox' but just to say the 'Cirkus' bearing and matching sub-chassis (now superseded) drastically improved the over-ripe sludge passing for bass and subsequent plinth updates also took it further. The current effort is silly money really for what it is, but it does now have a sound quality that 80's examples could only dream at!

Where does this leave mid 70's direct drives? Their main issue was siting in our smaller rooms, the sensitivity to vibration wrecking mid bass fidelity and the resulting sound could be rather 'dry.' The main store of the dealer I worked at sold the Townshend Rock II (Max brought in his own master recordings to *try* to keep the staff 'educated' as to how it should be, bless him) , but out of this, when old customers bought in their upper tier Technics and similar direct drives (SL1200mk1, 13/14/15/16/17/1800 family and so on) for new styli or cartridge update, the excellent sonics these could provide if carefully isolated surprised a few staff members I recall. My own recent vibes with an SL1500 have shown the lid has a lot to answer for and if the deck is treated like a Rega and lid removed along with proper siting, this old machine is really very good indeed (i changed headshell and added a cork mat, but that's subjective stuff).

I'd better crawl back under my stone now - thanks for your patience :)
 
Last edited:
There is such a transform. It is called a "tube"

Although bizarrely, some tube fans on here prefer to ignore this fact and claim they do not like distortion. Must be the pixies then.
 
Back
Top Bottom