When is an Ariston a Linn Sondek LP 12?

Status
Not open for further replies.

theophile

Pheasant Plucker
Subscriber
Answer: When it is a RD 11.

https://linnsondek.wordpress.com/

aris1.jpg


turntables-066.jpg


turntables-143.jpg


turntables-149.jpg
 
The text of Linn's first advertisement(Hi-Fi News and Record Review May 1973):

"Please note that Castle Precision Engineering(Glasgow) Ltd., 241 Drakemire Drive, Castlemilk, Glasgow, G45 9SZ, wish it to be known that they have designed(Design Copyright), Developed(Patent Pending) The special bearing and bearing housing assembly, and pressed steel chassis incorporated into the transcription deck sold up to December 1972 under the name Ariston RD 11. In order to satisfy consumer demands, we have purchased new premises adjacent to the present factory and formed the company of Linn Products Ltd and are now manufacturing our own unique product, the "Linn-Sondek LP 12" transcription deck."
 
Cheekily, the yellow sticker on the top plate of the early Sondek uses the Ariston yellow sticker with the top part which says 'Ariston Audio RD11', sliced off !! Cheeky Ivor.
 
Last edited:
I had a very early Ariston RD11 bought as a chassis with an "S" Shaped Jelco arm from a local Hifi dealer straight swap for my recently purchased Technics SL20 from them. Fitted into a Linn Afromosia Plinth and cover. Very similar to Linn. Motor had a two speed brass pulley with square section belt, Mains rocker switch the same. Only engineering difference is the main shaft had a concave end which sat on a ball bearing on the thrust pad. Linn had the spindle honed to a near spike. Later upgraded springs to linn upgrades and Linn armboard. Just got fed up having to reset suspension and Hadcock 228 periodically as both would drift.
 
I had a very early Ariston RD11 bought as a chassis with an "S" Shaped Jelco arm from a local Hifi dealer straight swap for my recently purchased Technics SL20 from them. Fitted into a Linn Afromosia Plinth and cover. Very similar to Linn. Motor had a two speed brass pulley with square section belt, Mains rocker switch the same. Only engineering difference is the main shaft had a concave end which sat on a ball bearing on the thrust pad. Linn had the spindle honed to a near spike. Later upgraded springs to linn upgrades and Linn armboard. Just got fed up having to reset suspension and Hadcock 228 periodically as both would drift.
The Linn Sondek was essentially the original Ariston RD11. Nothing more. Nothing less. The Thiefenbrun's of Castle Engineering were taken to court by the owner of Ariston Hamish Robertson who claimed that they had stolen his design. The Thiefenbruns won and the rest as they say is history.

That is why the pre-Linn Ariston RD11 has a single point bearing shaft with no ball and the post Linn Ariston RD11 uses a ball bearing. Castle won the right to use Ariston's single point bearing. They simply made the original Ariston RD11 and renamed it the Linn Sondek LP 12. Linn acknowledged that they were using Ariston's design in their first advertisement as quoted in the post #3 above this.

The Original pre-Linn Ariston RD11 is the exact forerunner of the Linn LP 12. The first post Linn Ariston RD11 had to be different due to the court challenge, hence the ball bearing at the base of the spindle.
 
I have HFNRR going back to 1960's I remember reading some lengthy articles on the Ariston Linn Hamish debacle.
However I was always under the impression that the Ball Bearing I had was pre honed spindle, as appeared to be based on Thorens design?. But mine had the on/off switch similar to the RS illuminated rocker switch as used on the early Linns, so it would follow that the Ball bearing was maybe an interim solution. Any how as a T/T it did sound good at that time.
But then so did the ReVox B795 that replace it. and a much easier to use solution
 
Last edited:
goonybird... reading your equipment list in your signature I see a Rotel RQ870BX....I`ve never run across one of those though I do use a modified RQ970BX and can`t find any Google info on an 870 beyond a post that was repeated on a number of forums some time ago about upgrading one. Is that a typo or does it really exist and if it does could you post a little info about it and maybe a picture.
 
I have HFNRR going back to 1960's I remember reading some lengthy articles on the Ariston Linn Hamish debacle.
However I was always under the impression that the Ball Bearing I had was pre honed spindle, as appeared to be based on Thorens design?. But mine had the on/off switch similar to the RS illuminated rocker switch as used on the early Linns, so it would follow that the Ball bearing was maybe an interim solution. Any how as a T/T it did sound good at that time.
But then so did the ReVox B795 that replace it. and a much easier to use solution
goonybird. If you can find any of those articles on HFNRR, I'd be grateful for historic record for you to scan them and post them on this thread. I'm sure that they detail a very interesting chapter in British hifi history
 
The Linn Sondek was essentially the original Ariston RD11. Nothing more. Nothing less. The Thiefenbrun's of Castle Engineering were taken to court by the owner of Ariston Hamish Robertson who claimed that they had stolen his design. The Thiefenbruns won and the rest as they say is history.

That is why the pre-Linn Ariston RD11 has a single point bearing shaft with no ball and the post Linn Ariston RD11 uses a ball bearing. Castle won the right to use Ariston's single point bearing. They simply made the original Ariston RD11 and renamed it the Linn Sondek LP 12. Linn acknowledged that they were using Ariston's design in their first advertisement as quoted in the post #3 above this.

The Original pre-Linn Ariston RD11 is the exact forerunner of the Linn LP 12. The first post Linn Ariston RD11 had to be different due to the court challenge, hence the ball bearing at the base of the spindle.
I have HFNRR going back to 1960's I remember reading some lengthy articles on the Ariston Linn Hamish debacle.
However I was always under the impression that the Ball Bearing I had was pre honed spindle, as appeared to be based on Thorens design?. But mine had the on/off switch similar to the RS illuminated rocker switch as used on the early Linns, so it would follow that the Ball bearing was maybe an interim solution. Any how as a T/T it did sound good at that time.
But then so did the ReVox B795 that replace it. and a much easier to use solution
Hamish Robertson comissioned the Thiefenbruns to manufacture his turntable. Even if they say that the single point bearing was their idea, they were being paid by Hamish Robertson to make his Ariston turntable. It was his bearing because no matter who came up with the idea, he was paying for it. The fact that Hamish owned Ariston and that first advert in HFNRR 1973 by Linn Products explicitly says "the transcription deck sold up to December 1972 under the name Ariston RD 11" shows that they admit whose deck the Linn LP 12 was. They had renamed Hamish's turntable and were calling it Linn Sondek.The court saw otherwise. Robertson went on to start other turntable companies other than Ariston. He designed a few other turntables that went into production. The Thiefenbrun's company basically made the same turntable with no variation for the best part of a decade. Yet we are supposed to believe that they are the innovative originators responsible for the Ariston RD11(subsequently known as the Linn Sondek LP 12) and Hamish was a side man with no part to play.
 
Last edited:
The Thiefenbrun's company basically made the same turntable with no variation for the best part of a decade. Yet we are supposed to believe that they are the innovative originators responsible for the Ariston RD11(subsequently known as the Linn Sondek LP 12) and Hamish was a side man with no part to play.
Ivor Tiefenbrun always excelled at bombast, self-promotion and manipulating the audio press. Maybe the same skills served him well in the courtroom.
 
I remember reading about the trial in HiFi News and Record Review (I had a subscription for a year when it was affordable in the US). Never understood why any patent was involved, since both turntables clearly were copies of the AR, and later, the Thorens (and maybe the Fairchild before AR). Certainly the machining and construction may have been better -- it ought to have been given the price differential between the AR and either the Ariston or Linn (or Fons, just to keep things in perspective/confusing) -- but better precision doesn't seem to me to be a patentable thing.
But who knows -- patent law is funny. How did Apple get to sue companies for the various things they stole from Honeywell and others? Or even the idea of icons on a screen (this from a Mac and IPhone user, by the way).
 
I have to agree 100%. I own a very early RD11 and aside from the two-button on/off switch, it is identical to an LP12 and indeed uses the single point bearing. Previously I had a Dunlop Westayr RD11, which was visually closer to an LP12 and used the early rocker switch employed on early LP12s, but orientated L-R rather than front-back. This differed mechanically in that the single-point bearing was 'flatter' than the Linn, but still essential the same design, and the motor pulley had a 'clutch' mechanism. Still single speed, still flat belt. All other components again were interchangeable with the LP12, but the diameter of the interface between inner and outer platter was marginally different. My guess is that this deck was produced post Linn divorce, but whilst the court case was pending. Contemporary Ariston sales lit makes a big point of the single point bearing.

I'll post pics of both later.
 
I have to agree 100%. I own a very early RD11 and aside from the two-button on/off switch, it is identical to an LP12 and indeed uses the single point bearing. Previously I had a Dunlop Westayr RD11, which was visually closer to an LP12 and used the early rocker switch employed on early LP12s, but orientated L-R rather than front-back. This differed mechanically in that the single-point bearing was 'flatter' than the Linn, but still essential the same design, and the motor pulley had a 'clutch' mechanism. Still single speed, still flat belt. All other components again were interchangeable with the LP12, but the diameter of the interface between inner and outer platter was marginally different. My guess is that this deck was produced post Linn divorce, but whilst the court case was pending. Contemporary Ariston sales lit makes a big point of the single point bearing.

I'll post pics of both later.
Hamstall, thank you for your informative post. The more numerous the photos you can post, the better. I'd love close ups of the stickers on the top plate under the platter and of the single-point bearing.

Did you buy the RD11 brand new?
 
Additionally, that Ariston two-button switch was used on a few early LP12s. Not any logic to which ones had it, since I've seen random LP12s from single serial numbers up to 3000, and whilst most have the red rocker switch pictured in Linn literature, a good few have the two buttons. My guess is that occasionally they found unused RD11 top plates and instead of chucking them, adopted a "waste not want not" philosophy and just stuck them on new LP12s.

I also have a theory of the model name. The Ariston RD11 could logically stand for "Robertson Design number 11" since that's basically what Hamish Robertson did. "LP12" is popularly believed to refer to the fact that the unit only played LPs, but I have a hunch that it means "Linn Products 12", this the successor to the last bloke's 11. An interview with Ivor many years ago I recall him saying it stood for "Linn Products (can make) One too".
 
Hi theophile. I bought the RD11 only recently but it was a one owner deck with all sales lit. I'll post pics of that, the Dunlop one and an early LP12 later.
 
s-l1600-2.jpg s-l1600-3.jpg

I'm away from my computer at the mo, so have few pics, but there is the Castle-built RD11 for starters.
 
This photo is of the sticker on the top plate of Linn LP 12 serial number 0088

$_57c.JPG

As I've pointed-out before, on the earliest Linns you can see that the Thiefenbruns continued to use everything in their factory which was on the Ariston RD 11, including that yellow sticker which was on the top plate underneath the platter. The sticker clearly reads: "Ariston RD 11" at the top like a title. When Linn used the sticker, they couldn't leave that there, so they cunningly cut-off that portion of the sticker. Ivor was miserly(what do they say about the Scots?) and put to use every single piece of Ariston stock he could lay his hands on in the manufacture of 'his' turntable. It is a blessing to see all these old examples of the RD 11 coming to light. I guess that the Thiefenbruns never counted on such a thing as the internet to expose their crafty dealings.
 
I remember reading about the trial in HiFi News and Record Review (I had a subscription for a year when it was affordable in the US). Never understood why any patent was involved, since both turntables clearly were copies of the AR, and later, the Thorens (and maybe the Fairchild before AR). Certainly the machining and construction may have been better -- it ought to have been given the price differential between the AR and either the Ariston or Linn (or Fons, just to keep things in perspective/confusing) -- but better precision doesn't seem to me to be a patentable thing.
But who knows -- patent law is funny. How did Apple get to sue companies for the various things they stole from Honeywell and others? Or even the idea of icons on a screen (this from a Mac and IPhone user, by the way).

P.S. The AR turntable's predecessor was the Stromberg-Carlson Perfectempo, the first 3 point suspended belt drive turntable design by Mitchell Cotter, the AR turntable was an improved, refined model and then Thorens refined the design further from the TD 150 onwards. Just some historical information.
 
Hi Kent!

Yes, I believe the only new thing the RD11/LP12 brought to the table was the single-point bearing. All other components were previously known and understood. The bearing was reputedly designed by Jack Tiefenbrun (Ivor's father, and founder of Castle Engineering) and Hamish Robertson when Ivor was on holiday in Israel. Ivor was more of a marketing man than engineer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom