Linn on Wikipedia - We need your help

[Warren]

(2012-02-28 04:29)linnrd Wrote:  

(2012-02-28 03:40)Warren Wrote:  I have this conspiracy theory that the LP12 doesn't actually exist.

It really doesn't. If you look on the pages of "How many parts of the LP-12 are from the original, it would seem that most people hardly have anything from the original one.

You mean that thread what I started, I still have 4 original parts.

But how long do you recon the phrase 'free speech' would stay on the page.

[linnrd]

(2012-02-28 06:01)Warren Wrote:  

(2012-02-28 04:29)linnrd Wrote:  

(2012-02-28 03:40)Warren Wrote:  I have this conspiracy theory that the LP12 doesn't actually exist.

It really doesn't. If you look on the pages of "How many parts of the LP-12 are from the original, it would seem that most people hardly have anything from the original one.

You mean that thread what I started, I still have 4 original parts.

But how long do you recon the phrase 'free speech' would stay on the page.

LOL

[giladt Linn Staff]

(2012-02-28 02:43)linnrd Wrote:  And reporting the matter is the way to go in order to do that. I merely found thread title "We need your help" a tad weird if not disturbing. Linn does not need our help. It is something that can be done from within, perhaps by Gilad himself. Who could provide a more accurate picture that he or Ivor? There are ways of handling this, and this, I thought was probably not the most appropriate way to do so.

As I understand it, Wikipedia rules / etiquette forbid a company from editing a Wikipedia page about itself because, by definition, it's not a trusted source - according to what I've been told.

linnrd Wrote:PS: NOT to be tooooo persnickety and all, but why the heck is this in the DS forum section? Wouldn't it be better on the "Forum and Web" section? Besides, them LP-12 owners will have something else to complain about now.

Moved

[giladt Linn Staff]

(2012-02-28 03:40)Warren Wrote:  

(2012-02-28 02:34)Joesilva Wrote:  It is entirely up to each individual whether they choose to believe Gilad's statement that the the LP-12 was not in any way influenced by the AR design.

I was surprised by Gilad's comment.

Human progress occurs because we all stand on the shoulders of what came before.

There are some apparent similarities in the implementation between two turntables. It does not mean that the LP12 wasn't designed from first principles. Perhaps there were many belt-driven turntables before the LP12? Perhaps many were suspended?

To test this, I just found website a second ago by googling "LP12 Acoustic Research", which claims that the LP12 was based on a Thorens belt-driven, suspended design, and inspired by parts Linn was making for Ariston.

http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/td124page.html

Now who should we believe?

People are free to speculate on what may have influenced my father's first-principles approach to the LP12's design, but I would argue that such speculation doesn't belong on a Linn Wikipedia entry.

[NickP]

(2012-02-25 18:55)wolfmanjack Wrote:  I do not know if it is true that the only amps that could have the isobariks to sing were Naims and that Linn by that time didnt have the knowledge in making good enough amps theirselves.

I had an LP12/Ittok/Karma, Naim 32/110, & (Mk. I) Kans. I happened to sit in on a demonstration where this source was being used, with DMS (passive Isobariks), going up Naim's range of amplifiers - 42/110, 32/110, 32/160, 32/250 then 32/2*140s. Each was clearly better than its predecessor. We then swapped the 32/140s for the recently-launched Linn LK1/LK2 (which retailed for close to the bottom of Naim's range) and it was clearly better than the 32/140s, and for the same reason that each Naim combo had been better than its predecessor.

Shortly after this, I auditioned - & then bought - a pair of Mk. II Kans, & at the same time ordered an LK1/LK2. When I got the Kans home, they sounded dreadful played on my 32/110 - thick and turgid, and a very different creature from what I'd listened to being driven by LK1/LK2. But, when I got to plug them into my Linn amps, they came alive delightfully.

My inference is that Linn began to feel that, though Naim amps were the best available, that they could be bettered, as Bill Miller demonstrated in short order.

N

[glenbourne]

(2012-02-28 11:06)giladt Wrote:  

(2012-02-28 02:43)linnrd Wrote:  And reporting the matter is the way to go in order to do that. I merely found thread title "We need your help" a tad weird if not disturbing. Linn does not need our help. It is something that can be done from within, perhaps by Gilad himself. Who could provide a more accurate picture that he or Ivor? There are ways of handling this, and this, I thought was probably not the most appropriate way to do so.

As I understand it, Wikipedia rules / etiquette forbid a company from editing a Wikipedia page about itself because, by definition, it's not a trusted source - according to what I've been told.

Surely no-one is suggesting Linn should actually edit the page themselves, but if Linn feel so strongly about the page content and claim it to be inaccurate with libellous content then Linn would be best to contact the Wikipedia site owners and inform them of the inaccuracies and the libellous content. Request the page be removed and if it is not then Linn should take it all to court and pursue what they claim to be inaccurate and libellous.

I'd have though this would have been the professional course of action, but somehow suggesting Linn customers or supportive readers of this forum could edit the content on the behalf of Linn IMHO is rather unethical. A strange request and an altogether bizarre thread.

[Warren]

(2012-02-28 11:27)giladt Wrote:  Human progress occurs because we all stand on the shoulders of what came before.

There are some apparent similarities in the implementation between two turntables. It does not mean that the LP12 wasn't designed from first principles. Perhaps there were many belt-driven turntables before the LP12? Perhaps many were suspended?

This makes a lot of sense, to base a design on just one predecessor isn't sensible and isn't likely to lead to a successful design, let alone one that has been so revolutionary in performance terms.

[NickP]

(2012-02-28 06:01)Warren Wrote:  

(2012-02-28 04:29)linnrd Wrote:  

(2012-02-28 03:40)Warren Wrote:  I have this conspiracy theory that the LP12 doesn't actually exist.

It really doesn't. If you look on the pages of "How many parts of the LP-12 are from the original, it would seem that most people hardly have anything from the original one.

I was told in the 70s that the only original component of the VW Beetle still in use was the door seal... But equally, I still have my great-grandfathers axe. It's in good nick despite its age, though my grandfather did have to replace the blade, and my father replaced the haft.

N

[Keltik Klown]

(2012-02-28 11:27)giladt Wrote:  There are some apparent similarities in the implementation between two turntables. It does not mean that the LP12 wasn't designed from first principles.

FWIW, I completely agree. It's entirely plausible that solving a problem, or designing something, from first principles will result in something that has some features in common with other independant solutions/designs. In fact, I would argue that if any of solutions are in any way half-decent then they should share some common features

The Hamish Robertson/RD-11/LP-12 thing has been festering away for years. One of the problems for me is that almost all of the "information" that you'll find on the internet is obviously hearsay and biased (including, I agree, the Wikipedia Linn Products page).

I honestly don't know why Linn haven't been more proactive in trying to set the record straight. (Via Linn's own web site perhaps?) I honestly think that terse dismissals citing libel etc are not particularly helpful. Why not make more of an effort to document Linn's side of the story? But other than someone researching the patent office findings and the transcripts of the court case IMHO this can only come from Linn or from someone who was there at the time and has an insight into the facts of the matter.

There are a few interesting snippets out there resulting from interviews with Ivor, but in general they're rather brief and not that easy to find. Here's a couple I managed to find fairly quickly which I hope go some way to restoring some balance to this old controversy

From
http://hifi-unlimited.blogspot.com/2011/...-linn.html

Quote:Big E: How did you came about with the LP12's design?

IT: Now we're getting in to controversial territory here. I was trying to make a turntable based around a bearing that my father designed for some of his projects, and by the eleventh revision, I was fairly satisfied with the results, and thus the Ariston RD11 turn table was born. It was initially marketed by Hamish Robertson who later registered the Ariston company, without my knowledge at the time. Sad to say that in a series of events, it all erupted in to by then a highly controversial court case, which ruled the origin of design in Linn's favour. The LP12 is in fact a revision, based on the Ariston RD11 design.

Big E: How many of the Ariston RD11 turn table was sold then?

IT: Linn made about 180 of the first batch of Ariston RD11. Hamish sourced the remaining later batches of RD11 elsewhere.

Big E: What are the main difference between the Linn LP12 compared to the Ariston RD11?

IT: For one, the main bearing is different. The LP12 uses bearing designed that is further refined from that of the RD11. The plinth has been completely re-worked with corner bracing as well, which by now the horizontal lines were added on to the deck for a more distinct look, now a classic.

And (somewhat ironically) from a Positive Feedback article referenced from the Wikipedia Linn Products page itself: http://www.positive-feedback.com/pfbacki...r.7n6.html (This is from 2002 and as far as I can tell the articles Ivor refers to are no longer available on the current Linn web site or the previous one.)

Quote:Bruce Kinch: Could you reprise the basic background of the LP 12’s creation? Were there significant design influences from the Thorens 150, original AR or other decks? During design and development - or since, were other engineers/designers involved, or just yourself?

Ivor: Much background information can be found on our web site and we have recently posted an old article on our site which appeared in the UK press on the background of the LP12 (a copy of which is attached).

The LP12 used a suspended sub-chassis as per the AR and the Thorens. However, we used the sub-chassis not just to isolate the motor noise for shock isolation but to maximise acoustic isolation. The strategy for eliminating motor noise was to select a quiet 24 pole device, couple it to a large mass and ensure uniform distribution of residual vibration through the suspension and the drive belt to maintain the correct relationship between the cartridge body and the record surface.

The design benefited from the input of my late father who designed the patented single point bearing and from the key engineering staff at Castle Precision Engineering, my late father’s company, including John Cross, Bob Hamond, George Borthwick and the late Russell Christie and Edgar Clumpas who all enthusiastically helped me with this ‘lunchtime’ project, along with many other employees at Castle.

[Joesilva]

[quote='Keltik Klown' pid='180842' dateline='1330431888']

Thanks for the interesting and informative content above. I enjoyed reading it.

Joe