On 16/01/2014 08:41, Bob Latham wrote:

But apart from the sound, like it or loathe it, the Linn had one other
feature, very low surface noise. It was quite shocking at the time how
much less crackle and pop there was from the Linn setup than any of the
other combos I heard at the time. One mate of mine unfortunately now
decease, purchased a Linn simply for the surface noise factor alone.


Discussing the merits of various turntables is rather like arguing
over whether an Austin Seven is better than a Ford Model Y.
But if you think that a Linn has less crackle and pop than another
turntable then you are mistaken.

--
Eiron.

In article , Bob Latham
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:

I certainly would not want a "rattly old lid" on the turntable. That's
one of the reasons I decided I didn't want a Linn. Bought a deck where
the lid works OK without things falling off or being loose. Although
that wasn't the main reason for my choice.

I had to use a Linn for some days at a show back in the 1980s. I got
sick of the 'bumpers' falling off the front, etc. Also the way the mat
kept sticking to the LP when you lifted it. Was IMHO a real pest to
use.

So far as I'm concerned a *well made* lid serves a number of purposes.
Mainly reducing how much dust falls onto the LP whilst it is playing.


It seems to me that these are pretty insignificant reasons for not
having a Linn but there yer go.

They would be if I'd thought it made the sound any better. But in practice
I heard nothing from it that made me decide that. I hadn't mentioned sound
quality because at the time I hated the Asak cartridge which was with it.
Tried other decks, etc, and settled on something quite different.

But for me and for many others at the time, the Linn sounded more
exciting than anything else. You either liked that or you didn't.

Didn't hear it. Whereas other things I tried gave me a sound I liked.

I tried to avoid the expense and the sheep like behaviour in buying a
Linn and before it I had a Technics direct drive (not sure of the model
maybe 150) with SME arm and Sure V15 III. Then I heard a moving coil
cartridge, an Entre with Lentek spelling head amp, wow! I've preferred
MCs ever since.

Again, the main things I noticed about early MCs was the mistracking
compared with something like the Shure V15. I'd agree, though, that the
mistracking and peak distortion could sometimes add an 'edge' to pop/rock
music. But to me it was like drawing a thin black line around images in a
picture to get a more 'cartoon' effect and make things stand out. Not
really something I wanted for classical music.

That said, I largely stopped bothering with trying new cartridges once I
had the V15 and was quite happy with it. Still am. So for all I know modern
MCs are superb. When I looked at alternatives a few years ago, though, the
main shock I had was just how *big* the styli were. Very high tip mass
compared with the V15.


But apart from the sound, like it or loathe it, the Linn had one other
feature, very low surface noise. It was quite shocking at the time how
much less crackle and pop there was from the Linn setup than any of the
other combos I heard at the time.

Weird. How have you established that is the Linn turntable rather than your
choice of cartridge, sylus profile, (or even the arm or RIAA amp)? Can't
say I noticed any such effect. So far as I can tell the main factors with
surface noise seem from my experience to be:

1) Dirt or scratches due to lack of care, etc. [see (2)]

2) EMI. Their LPs tended to be far more prone to noises added at the
factory.

To some extent stylus size, mass, and profile, etc.

Recently been playing some 2nd-hand LPs that are ancient. Noticable that
some of the mono ones c1960 or earlier are lacking in noise despite having
a visibly scratched surface. Seems to be due to the grooves being deeper,
but I'll only know if that's the reason if I sort out a decent microscope.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article ,
Bob Latham wrote:
In article ,
Eiron wrote:
On 16/01/2014 08:41, Bob Latham wrote:

But apart from the sound, like it or loathe it, the Linn had one
other feature, very low surface noise. It was quite shocking at the
time how much less crackle and pop there was from the Linn setup
than any of the other combos I heard at the time. One mate of mine
unfortunately now decease, purchased a Linn simply for the surface
noise factor alone.


Discussing the merits of various turntables is rather like arguing
over whether an Austin Seven is better than a Ford Model Y. But if you
think that a Linn has less crackle and pop than another turntable then
you are mistaken.

I can only speak for tests that myself and friends did and often repeated
and in all of those cases it certainly did have less crackle and pop than
the others on test and I was not mistaken. However, it is well possible
that you have compared a Linn with systems I have not. If you don't wish
to believe that then fair enough but I was not mistaken.

You'd need to test combinations of turntable, arm and cartridge to come to
any real conclusion about which produces the least surface noise. Logic
says the turntable itself will have no influence on this - although how it
is isolated from external vibrations etc is pretty important.

Also a cart is one of the few things where the connecting leads can make a
difference.

--
*A bicycle can't stand alone because it's two tyred.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 16/01/2014 11:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bob Latham wrote:
In article ,
Eiron wrote:
On 16/01/2014 08:41, Bob Latham wrote:

But apart from the sound, like it or loathe it, the Linn had one
other feature, very low surface noise. It was quite shocking at the
time how much less crackle and pop there was from the Linn setup
than any of the other combos I heard at the time. One mate of mine
unfortunately now decease, purchased a Linn simply for the surface
noise factor alone.


Discussing the merits of various turntables is rather like arguing
over whether an Austin Seven is better than a Ford Model Y. But if you
think that a Linn has less crackle and pop than another turntable then
you are mistaken.

I can only speak for tests that myself and friends did and often repeated
and in all of those cases it certainly did have less crackle and pop than
the others on test and I was not mistaken. However, it is well possible
that you have compared a Linn with systems I have not. If you don't wish
to believe that then fair enough but I was not mistaken.

You'd need to test combinations of turntable, arm and cartridge to come to
any real conclusion about which produces the least surface noise. Logic
says the turntable itself will have no influence on this - although how it
is isolated from external vibrations etc is pretty important.

Also a cart is one of the few things where the connecting leads can make a
difference.

The connecting lead affects the overall capacitance of the load seen by
the cartridge,
which might affect the frequency response. So maybe Bob's majik Linn
effectively
had the treble turned down....

I have an LP that I haven't played since I digitized it last year on a
Thorens/SME/Shure. I'll try again with this Linn Axis and compare the
surface noise and rumble, just in case Bob isn't completely barking
mistaken.

--
Eiron.

In article , Bob Latham
wrote:


Actually, now I'm thinking about it, it was over 30 years ago. I *think*
in the end we found it was the Ittok ARM that reduced the surface so in
that sense it wasn't the turntable. Never the less the linn combo was
the quietest bar some margin in our tests.

How did you find it was the arm?

e.g. did you use the same Linn turntable and the same cartridge with
different arms? And how did you take into account any changes due to the LP
having been played - either removing some dust or adding some problems? I
assume you used the same LP or group of LPs thoughout. What other arms
were compared in this test?

I'd not be surprised that a change of cartridge or stylus affected the
audibility of clicks, etc. Similarly I can see how the amp or cables might.
Also speakers. Puzzled by the arm doing so. Despite having used a Linn arm
for a while, and used other systems, not something I've ever encountered,
or seen any explanation for.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article ,
Bob Latham wrote:
You'd need to test combinations of turntable, arm and cartridge to come
to any real conclusion about which produces the least surface noise.
Logic says the turntable itself will have no influence on this -
although how it is isolated from external vibrations etc is pretty
important.

Actually, now I'm thinking about it, it was over 30 years ago. I *think*
in the end we found it was the Ittok ARM that reduced the surface so in
that sense it wasn't the turntable. Never the less the linn combo was the
quietest bar some margin in our tests.

A badly matched or set up arm/cartridge can certainly *increase* surface
noise. I'd be surprised if the Linn arm/cardridge actually reduced it over
other decent combinations, though. Unless it also affected the frequency
response.

However, none of that gets round just how cheaply they were made - despite
the high selling price. ;-)

--
*There's two theories to arguing with a woman. Neither one works *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Bob Latham wrote:
However, none of that gets round just how cheaply they were made -
despite the high selling price. ;-)

Couldn't resist could you.

What a lovely bunch of people on here.

Are you married to a Linn or something?

Haven't you noticed just how badly they are made?

If they had been sold at a budget price, different matter. But at a high
end price I'd expect high end materials and workmanship.

--
*HOW DO THEY GET DEER TO CROSS THE ROAD ONLY AT THOSE YELLOW ROAD SIGNS?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Bob Latham
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:

How did you find it was the arm?

Very convenient I know but I must remind you this was 30 years ago.

Fair enough. I have enough trouble remembering details from a few days ago.
Let alone what I did mumble decades ago.

The best I can recall was that i had an SME arm mounted on an Ariston
turntable and i think at that time I was using an ortofon cartridge. It
would have been an MC.

OK.

e.g. did you use the same Linn turntable and the same cartridge with
different arms? And how did you take into account any changes due to
the LP having been played - either removing some dust or adding some
problems? I assume you used the same LP or group of LPs thoughout.
What other arms were compared in this test?

When a mate who was also (I admit a dealer) brought round a Linn it had
the Ittok and the Asak fitted. The *apparent* dynamics of the linn was
quite shocking at the time making the Ariston SME combo sound flat. In
addition the linn had noticeably less surface noise.

As I recall I also noticed an effect on some LPs. In particular pop ones.
The 'Police' LPs stick out in my memory for the way some guitar and - more
noticably - drum strikes gained an 'attack' using the Asak. However when I
spent time listening to a range of material it seemed to correlate with
mistracking of peaks, particularly at HF. So went with noticable harshness
on things like massed strings near end of side. As a result, made some
pop/rock sound more 'dynamic' at the expense of making classical material
less pleasing and distorted. Sort of a 'peak extender' a bit like applying
the HDCD headroom expansion.

Since I listen to a range of music types and wanted a hifi rather than a
system that added these changes, I wasn't attracted. But as I said, I was
also put off by bits falling off, etc.

I couldn't afford to swap in one go and so I got the turntable and an
arm board for my SME. It was the model where the arm tube unplugged from
the baring assembly. I preferred this combo to the Ariston but it was
far short of the full monty. Next came the arm which of course meant a
new arm board and I think recall this was the point when the clicks and
pops reduced. This was before the Asak which I had to do more saving
for.

The curio remains the arm. I can see that something like a change in rake /
VTA angle, etc, might alter such effects as it can change how the stylus
sits in the groove.

I'd not be surprised that a change of cartridge or stylus affected the
audibility of clicks, etc. Similarly I can see how the amp or cables
might. Also speakers. Puzzled by the arm doing so. Despite having used
a Linn arm for a while, and used other systems, not something I've
ever encountered, or seen any explanation for.

Many moons later I went to a linn evening at The Plough and Harrow in
Birmingham if anyone knows it and the Linn guy mentioned lower surface
noise and claimed that most of the noise you here is the arm's reaction
to the energy from the click and not the click itself. I'm not claiming
that to be true I've no idea.

Yes, I've heard that theory before. I also recall Noel Keywood becoming a
bit obsessive about measuring arm resonances, etc.

However a point people seem to overlook is that many MCs like the Asak
actually have/had a much lower compliance and higher tip mass than
something like a V15.

The lower the compliance, the more vibration will be transferred via the
stylus into the arm. By having ten times the compliance, say, the transfer
will be about 20dB less. So worries about 'arm resonances' can become
rather less of a concern.

The higher tip mass means that the stylus is more inclined to simply brush
past any brief impulse caused by a narrow scratch or bit of dust. Or even
plough dust out of the groove. But that may also means it simple flexes the
Vinyl rather than track *intended* HF modulation.

Beyond that I can't comment on the idea that it is the *arm* that affects
this as it isn't an effect I noticed.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article ,
Bob Latham wrote:
Many moons later I went to a linn evening at The Plough and Harrow in
Birmingham if anyone knows it and the Linn guy mentioned lower surface
noise and claimed that most of the noise you here is the arm's reaction
to the energy from the click and not the click itself. I'm not claiming
that to be true I've no idea.

That sounds entirely logical to me. Meaning it's got absolutely nothing to
do with the turntable.

Can't remember if the Linn arm had damped bearings. SME offered this as a
mod and that does make a difference to some types of surface noise.

--
*I started out with nothing... and I still have most of it.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 20/01/2014 21:26, Bob Latham wrote:
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bob Latham wrote:
However, none of that gets round just how cheaply they were made -
despite the high selling price. ;-)

Couldn't resist could you.

What a lovely bunch of people on here.

Are you married to a Linn or something?

Haven't you noticed just how badly they are made?

If they had been sold at a budget price, different matter. But at a high
end price I'd expect high end materials and workmanship.

I shouldn't bother replying to this as its just the same sort of
provocative rubbish that gets you disliked on uk.tech.digital-tv. You are
a troll I'm sure.

But no. I've had my Linn since around 1980 and I've never once considered
it made from poor materials and I've seen no sign of bad workmanship,
quite the reverse in fact. I consider the hinges to be design issue.
Judging by the success of that turntable combo I would think few others
did either. Actually, the platter is milled so well that it balances very
well without any drill marks in the underside so common at the time in
other turntables. My Ariston was peppered with balancing drill cut outs on
the underside.

Just because Linn don't balance turntables doesn't mean that they shouldn't.
And as for the hinges, that's not really Linn's fault. It probably was a
good design
but the manufacturer cut corners in production so they wore out too soon.
I wonder what they were originally intended for?
But they should have sourced a better hinge and made it available to
customers when they started failing. A bad attitude to customer service,
like the unavailability of replacement stylii soon after I bought a K9
cartridge.

--
Eiron.