the home of the turntable

The 'mechanics' of a Linn plinth

a way of life

The 'mechanics' of a Linn plinth

Postby andyr » 05 Oct 2011 01:29

There are currently a number of products - from Linn and from 3rd parties - available for the LP12 which "improve" on the original design. IE. they work better, mechanically speaking.

From Linn we have had (over the last 25 years):
* the Cirkus bearing and its fixing arrangement to the top-plate.
* the new top-plate, having a fixing bolt in the motor corner, to help the top-plate mate to the plinth better (so motor vibrations are transferred better to the plinth).
* new power supplies for the original AC motor - and now the Radikal and its DC motor.
* the Keel - which, because it is a one-piece subchassis/armboard combination, provides a rigid connection between the two which enables the stylus to extract far more low-level detail from the grooves. (This low-level detail gets lost by the "lossy" connection between the original pressed-steel subchassis and armboard, which uses those 3 little screws). :)

And from 3rd parties over the years we have had:
* the Cetech CF-composite subchassis in about 2000.
* the Sole aluminium/MDF-composite subchassis in the late 2000s.
* very new is the RubiKon subchassis/armboard.
* plus one or two other subchassis.

We have also had beautiful looking plinths made from exotic woods by a Dutchman called Henk (who I believe has ceased business?) and, still current, Chris Harban in the US. These are "standard" plinths but the mechanical properties of some of the woods make plinths made from them sound better than those made from other woods.

My proposition, for anyone who feels like repeating my experiment :D , is that the mechanical properties of the plinth can be improved by a different method of construction. (The reason why Linn don't do this is that it would make the plinth a lot more expensive. :shock: )

A standard plinth is made from planks which are about 23mm thick and the top-plate is supported by 6mm strips, fixed to the inside of the plinth on 3 sides. The vibration flow from top-plate to plinth is thus:
* from top-plate to supporting strip, then
* from supporting strip into the plinth, proper.

My proposition is that the energy flow will be improved if the planks which make up the plinth are increased to 30mm thick ... and a 7mm rebate is made on the inside edges of the plinth, to allow the top-plate to sit directly on the plinth sides. IE. the "two-step" energy path in a standard plinth (top-plate to strip to plinth) becomes "one-step".

This rebate is obviously only as deep as the thickness of the top-plate but it needs to be deepened to 20mm around the armboard, to allow clearance.

After thinking about this for a year or two, I was able to find a furniture maker who could make up a plinth like this. The result, I am delighted to say, is that the new plinth provides a much more controlled bass for my LP12 (in particular, some of my Bob Marley LPs had, with my particular phono stage, a very loose bass; now, the bass stops and doesn't "overhang" like it used to - if that makes any sense! :D ). And the soundstage increased in width - which was unexpected.


Regards,

Andy
andyr
senior member
 
Posts: 800
Joined: 13 Jan 2003 10:57
Location: Melbourne, Oz

Re: The 'mechanics' of a Linn plinth

Postby nopiano » 14 Oct 2011 09:56

Hi Andy

An interesting post. Having been spending too much time looking into the evolution of the LP12 recently, as I'm considering what to do with my own c1984 model, I recognise the aspects and developments you describe.

As to your plinth redesign, I would disagree with your suggestion that, "The reason why Linn don't do this is that it would make the plinth a lot more expensive." You only have to look at the Keel price to realise that cannot be the case. Linn even brags regardless of cost (or words to that effect) these days, in particular for their Klimax items.

I have followed a number of debates on Linn's own forum and I am pretty sure your improvement would be attributed to the rebuild, or a minute aspect of it, rather than anything more fundamental. Not saying you may not be correct, but I'm sure others will have tried, and rejected, your idea. Linn believers will say everything is all carefully optimised and balanced (blah, blah) even though it began as a good copy, and not one single piece of the original remains (except the name). Were it software, it would surely be v105.8 by now I imagine!

There is even a complete non-plinth design I saw recently in the UK. A sort of open frame, like a cut down speaker-stand, but I can't recall the maker (though I think they are mainly LP record specialists).

Glad you have got something you enjoy, which is after all what it is all about!
nopiano
member
 
Posts: 64
Joined: 27 Jul 2011 20:32
Location: SW England

Re: The 'mechanics' of a Linn plinth

Postby andyr » 14 Oct 2011 12:08

nopiano wrote:Hi Andy

An interesting post. Having been spending too much time looking into the evolution of the LP12 recently, as I'm considering what to do with my own c1984 model, I recognise the aspects and developments you describe.

As to your plinth redesign, I would disagree with your suggestion that, "The reason why Linn don't do this is that it would make the plinth a lot more expensive." You only have to look at the Keel price to realise that cannot be the case. Linn even brags regardless of cost (or words to that effect) these days, in particular for their Klimax items.

I have followed a number of debates on Linn's own forum and I am pretty sure your improvement would be attributed to the rebuild, or a minute aspect of it, rather than anything more fundamental. Not saying you may not be correct, but I'm sure others will have tried, and rejected, your idea. Linn believers will say everything is all carefully optimised and balanced (blah, blah) even though it began as a good copy, and not one single piece of the original remains (except the name). Were it software, it would surely be v105.8 by now I imagine!

There is even a complete non-plinth design I saw recently in the UK. A sort of open frame, like a cut down speaker-stand, but I can't recall the maker (though I think they are mainly LP record specialists).

Glad you have got something you enjoy, which is after all what it is all about!


Thank you, nopiano. :) Nearly 100 views and yours is the first reply. :shock:

To go backwards through your post:

* yes, I have ended up with something that not only looks beautiful (IMO) ... but performs better than my original afromosia plinth. So my "experiment" has paid off, AFFAIAC. :D

* a mate of mine has removed the plinth on his LP12 - so he would seem to have something similar to what you described as a "cut down speaker-stand". He thinks it sounds better. :)

* in terms of Linn bragging about "regardless of cost" ... let's see what happens. 5 years ago (5 or 6 years after Cetech came out with their CF-composite subchassis which allowed the armboard to be rigidly bolted to the subchassis), the Linn marketing machine was still promoting "must have the lossy connection between armboard and subchassis". Then they produced the one-piece Keel!! :D

So they may well come out with a plinth that does away with the top-plate support strips.

Thanks for your input. My post was simply to describe my own experiment and promote some discussion ... unfortunately, it would seem that this basically has failed. :(

Regards,

Andy
andyr
senior member
 
Posts: 800
Joined: 13 Jan 2003 10:57
Location: Melbourne, Oz

Re: The 'mechanics' of a Linn plinth

Postby nopiano » 14 Oct 2011 15:56

You are obviously well into this, Andy! Have you seen the Khan top-plate from Tiger-Paw?

I am a bit sceptical that Linn often rationalise their weaknesses as desirable, until they get something way better, as your Keel example. Rumour is they have new plinths coming out next year, maybe aluminium, with a wooden surround?

You could yet be on the money! (or in the money, if you could produce them in quantity!)
nopiano
member
 
Posts: 64
Joined: 27 Jul 2011 20:32
Location: SW England

Re: The 'mechanics' of a Linn plinth

Postby andyr » 14 Oct 2011 20:55

nopiano wrote:
You are obviously well into this, Andy! Have you seen the Khan top-plate from Tiger-Paw?



Yes, the Khan looks very promising. I had thought that a 1/8" CF top-plate might be the go but the Khan seems as if it could be even better. (And more convenient.) I will just wait a bit and read a few reviews before buying one ... next upgrade is a RubiKon (to replace my Cetech and CF-composite armboard). :)

Regards,

Andy
andyr
senior member
 
Posts: 800
Joined: 13 Jan 2003 10:57
Location: Melbourne, Oz

Re: The 'mechanics' of a Linn plinth

Postby John R » 15 Oct 2011 11:17

Hi Andy.


Sorry to be the bringer of bad tidings but I believe Henk sadly passed away a few years ago after a period of ill health.

Hoping your future Rubikon upgrade pushes all the right buttons for you. I'm sure it will.

Regards

John R.
John R
member
 
Posts: 54
Joined: 26 May 2008 14:33
Location: Carmarthenshire, Wales, UK

Re: The 'mechanics' of a Linn plinth

Postby andyr » 15 Oct 2011 11:48

John R wrote:Hi Andy.

Sorry to be the bringer of bad tidings but I believe Henk sadly passed away a few years ago after a period of ill health.

Hoping your future Rubikon upgrade pushes all the right buttons for you. I'm sure it will.

Regards

John R.


Thank you, John ... I hadn't realised that Henk had "left the building".

Regards,

Andy
andyr
senior member
 
Posts: 800
Joined: 13 Jan 2003 10:57
Location: Melbourne, Oz

Return to Linn Forum


Design and Content © Vinyl Engine 2002-2013

faq | site policy | advertising | hifiengine