When is an Ariston a Linn Sondek LP 12?

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's obvious that as long as the original single point bearing Ariston RD 11 owned by Hamish Robertson was being manufactured at Castle, the Thiefenbruns were more than happy for it to be called the Ariston RD 11. They didn't mount a court case against Hamish while he was their customer. If they had a problem with the use of 'their' supposed bearing, they could have simply stopped making the turntable.

For reasons that we'll never have Hamish's side of things, they wanted to continue making Hamish's turntable but they didn't want Hamish to make Hamish's turntable elsewhere.
 
On page 4 of the Linn Products' own forum, where Ivor's son Gilead is seen to be kvetching about the Wikipedia entry, a link is provided to an interview with Ivor ( https://hifi-unlimited.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/10-qs-for-ivor-tiefenbrun-of-linn.html). In the interview, this is Ivor's tale of the whole saga:


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.


It's remarkable that Hamish formed Ariston in 1970. Before the RD 11 was ever manufactured at Castle by the Thiefenbruns. So, that raises the question: How do you steal the Thiefenbrun's product( as Ivor states), by registering Ariston before you have approached Castle, before Castle commenced manufacturing the Ariston's product? Where are the turntables that Castle was manufacturing prior to Ariston?
 
You only need to look at the first post in this thread to see the original single point bearing Ariston Audio RD 11 serial number 000570. If the Thiefenbrun's were pissed off with the Wikipedia page which their flunkies can edit anonymously, they'll be fuming about this one.

Will this be the end of the saga? If the Linn forum tizzy about Wikipedia is any indication, I'd wager that there'll be a thread started on the Linn forum about this thread for certain.
 
I'm on the Linn Forum! The tizzy about the Wiki page was ages ago, but this may well start a debate!
 
I'm on the Linn Forum! The tizzy about the Wiki page was ages ago, but this may well start a debate!

Not to mention another version of the Linn Sondek LP 12 origin story from Ivor. I'l bet that he is reading and re-reading every single post on this thread, trying to figure an angle around what has been posted here. It'll be hard to find one that jibes with everything that he has said previously on the subject because, as you have said, when one puts together all the statements that Ivor has said about the origins of the Linn Sondek LP 12, compare them to each other then compare them to the facts of the dates when Hamish formed Ariston etc, the actual turntables themselves, Linn's advertisements from the time: Ivor's statements contradict themselves and contradict history.

So how is your story so full of holes Ivor? The truth has a 'ring of truth' Ivor. Your story has the opposite. I will admit though, it has been very profitable for your father, you, your family and all of your employees. I doubt that any of them would have a motive to reveal what really happened and contradict your version.
 
Another version of the LP12 story? The one on that thread isn't from Ivor, but his lad:

0. Linn did not start as an offshoot of Castle Precision Engineering. Ivor's father Jack, who owned Castle, helped him by designing a very-quiet running central bearing for the LP12 turntable, and by providing seed capital for Ivor to start Linn.

1. The reference to Acoustic Research is an attempt to discredit Ivor's original design for the LP12. The LP12 took none of its inspiration from this or any other turntable. Quite the opposite, in fact, as it was conceived from first principles through Ivor's own experimentation to be immune to acoustic feedback, which in turn led to the design.

2. The reference to Hamish Robertson and the Ariston RD11 is

a) Libellous - a ruling in the high court in 1978 rejected any claims Hamish Robertson had to the design of the LP12.

b) Wrong - the Ariston RD11 was an OEM version of the LP12.

c) Irrelevant - the Ariston RD11 did not succeed commercially, and had no bearing whatsoever on the success of the LP12 or Linn.
 
Hilarious. Flawed reasoning to avoid the truth must be in the bloodline:

0. Linn did not start as an offshoot of Castle Precision Engineering. Ivor's father Jack, who owned Castle, helped him by designing a very-quiet running central bearing for the LP12 turntable, and by providing seed capital for Ivor to start Linn.

So, supposedly getting the bearing off Jack his father who owned Castle and being provided with the seed capital from Jack his father who owned Castle smashes any argument that Linn was an offshoot of Castle??? That's like saying Ivor wasn't an offshoot of Jack despite Jack being his father and Ivor being his son. Castle as a corporation may not have derived an income stream nor ownership of Linn Products, but Jack as a person saw his son benefit from the establishment of the corporation from the seed capital. No overt financial benefit but definite overt familial benefit. Plus a reasonable inference that Ivor couldn't have started Linn without the capital from his father. If independence from Castle is seen as such a big deal, Ivor could have raised capital from other sources. It is possible that a looming court case with Hamish might have set-back the availability of other sources of capital.

1. The reference to Acoustic Research is an attempt to discredit Ivor's original design for the LP12. The LP12 took none of its inspiration from this or any other turntable. Quite the opposite, in fact, as it was conceived from first principles through Ivor's own experimentation to be immune to acoustic feedback, which in turn led to the design.

The Linn took none of it's inspiration from (my words: the AR turntable)? Quite the opposite? The AR was derived from the Linn LP12? Quick!! Take them to court!!

2. The reference to Hamish Robertson and the Ariston RD11 is

a) Libellous - a ruling in the high court in 1978 rejected any claims Hamish Robertson had to the design of the LP12.


The old "We won in court. It must be correct" argument. Pragmatic Life Experience illustrates that winning in court doesn't necessarily translate to being in the right or in the wrong. Court Judgement is as flawed as any other aspect of Human Existence. Funny how the history seems to cloud this issue. Plus the reasonable inference that a court might find you guilty of Libel if we take this further.

b) Wrong - the Ariston RD11 was an OEM version of the LP12.

I'll admit it makes perfect sense that a turntable which existed 2 years before the Linn Sondek LP12 owned by a company which came into existence 2 years before Linn Products, was derived from the Linn. It's absolutely logical.

c) Irrelevant - the Ariston RD11 did not succeed commercially, and had no bearing whatsoever on the success of the LP12 or Linn.

By that logic, the Bugatti Veyron, which sold in pitiful numbers compared to the Toyota Corolla, did not succeed commercially. Everything which sells in lesser numbers must be irrelevant. It must also be irrelevant that Linn saw the need to mention the Ariston RD 11 and aspects of its design in the initial advertisements for the LP 12. That argument doesn't answer why, if it is irrelevant, they did mention the Ariston RD 11.

So to sum up:

0): Huh?
1) Linn is responsible for the design of the AR as well as the Ariston.
2
a) Take this as a warning: We won. That's all that matters, no matter else what can be shown.
b) Our company designed something that preceded our company by 2 years.
c) Numbers make things relevant. Plus despite the fact that we did see the need to refer to the technology in the, pre-existing selling in hundreds numbers Ariston RD 11, in our initial ads: it wasn't necessary and isn't relevant.

It all makes sense in a Thiefenbrun kinda way.
 
Last edited:
On page 4 of the Linn Products' own forum, where Ivor's son Gilead is seen to be kvetching about the Wikipedia entry, a link is provided to an interview with Ivor ( https://hifi-unlimited.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/10-qs-for-ivor-tiefenbrun-of-linn.html). In the interview, this is Ivor's tale of the whole saga:
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.

So by this admission, the first 2000 LP12s (identical to the RD11, twin switches and all!) must then have been rebadged as LP12s. More RD11s are in fact LP12s than were RD11s!
 
So by this admission, the first 2000 LP12s (identical to the RD11, twin switches and all!) must then have been rebadged as LP12s. More RD11s are in fact LP12s than were RD11s!
Now remember, like 'political speak' Ivor might be telling the truth. Notice he tells the interviewer "Linn made 180 of the first batch..". Well, if there were only 180 made by Castle, the Thiefenbrun's machining company, why not answer There were 180 made in total by us or something to that effect. Ivor, by saying "180 in the first batch" may be telling the truth. The interviewer didn't ask the pertinent question: Were there more batches than one made by Linn? One would have to be reasonable in speculating that Ivor wouldn't say " ..first batch.." if there was only one batch.... To mention that there were batches made elsewhere other than Castle is to cloud the issue. Of course there were. The question needed to be answered by him was How many did Castle make for Hamish or in total?

You have to watch these Thiefenbruns...

Mind you; Since Linn Products as a company hadn't been established when the first batch of Ariston RD 11 turntables had been made, he was telling a porky.
 
Also, just noticed that the two buttons can be black/green or green/black depending on sample! Talk about 'Precision Engineering"!
 
Links showing ads outside of Bartertown are against AK rules especially if they are yours or have a link to yours.
Regards,
Jim
 
OOPS!

Yes! Just realised!

WAs just about to remove it, but seen that you've done it for me! Duly reprimanded!
 
No wrath involved, nor warning given, just trying to keep things fair for everyone. :^) Great thread BTW
Regards,
Jim
 
Gilad Tiefenbrun states on the Linn Forum that Ivor designed the LP12 from first principles. What I believe was more likely was that he simply revised the design philosophy.

When the RD11 was launched, the three-point suspension was of course not new, the Thorens and AR turntables already employed it. The Ariston had this system too, but it was originally conceived as a shock-absorber not a feature to isolate the unit from acoustic interference. When new, the RD11 springs were simply shock absorbers. A shock absorber must consist of spring and damper. The dampers in this case were small wedges of foam fitted inside each spring. When Ivor Tiefenbrun ran with the design, he must have experimented with these springs, removed them, and found that there was an improvement in acoustic isolation. The LP12 then evolved to have no foam dampers, and the instruction to site the deck on a small, lightweight rigid coffee table to absorb the acoustic energy of the environment. This act alone was Ivor's 'first principle", so Gilad could be said to be being truthful. All RD11s I've had were equipped with foam-filled springs, but no LP12 had. I'll see if I can track down the family with the 3000 serial number rebadged RD11 and see if the foam is there on theirs, or whether that was the only difference between the two decks!
 
The light rigid table thing came along ten years after the Ariston fight. Gilead and Ivor seem to say whatever they can think of to deflect the possibility of any credit being given to Hamish Robertson. While he was paying Castle to make his turntable, they were fine with his design.

Think about this: They say that they designed and manufactured the turntable and he registered a company and stole their design. Well if that is the case Hamish, not Castle(nor Linn which wasn't yet incorporated), had to be getting paid for the Ariston turntables. Why didn't they withhold the manufacturing? He can't sell any design of theirs unless they are supplying him with turntables. Supply means that they make a batch hold it until he arranges for freight Why did they supply anyone who is stealing their design? Hamish was attending Trade shows demonstrating the RD11. There were advertisements and promotional literature and press reports. He wasn't sneaking about doing it behind anyone's back. They say it was their turntable, but he was paying them to produce it. They were accepting the payment for manufacture and he was pocketing the retail sales.

Why were they supplying his business,enabling him to pocket the profits, dutifully manufacturing and delivering product if it was their design being stolen from them?
 
Last edited:
I would like to say, this is the thread of the year.

We have all known parts of this story, for our whole audiophile lives, but little details like the cut stickers just bring joy to me. It's the equivalent of audio archaeology, something I practise all the time.

Thank you for summarising and placing this in the public domain for all to see. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom