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.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.
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 historyI 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
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.
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.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
Ivor Tiefenbrun always excelled at bombast, self-promotion and manipulating the audio press. Maybe the same skills served him well in the courtroom.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.
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.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 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).