HiFi Subjectivist ¦ Audio Forum ¦ NVA User Group

A recent post on pfm got me thinking. The first paragraph of the post said:
"There seems to be a trend at the moment for attacking the major contribution that Linn and to some extent Naim made to audio in that period. Graphs and arm-chair engineering jargon were a major part of the magazine review and sales content until someone suggested that only musical enjoyment mattered. We have a tendency to assess kit by listening to treble and bass and soundstage and what-have-you - aspects of sound rather than music - because we're short of time."
https://pinkfishmedia.net/forum/threads ... 750/page-2

The Linn LP12 measured worse than the leading Japanese turntables of the 1970's in terms of signal to noise ratio, wow and flutter.
Therefore it was pointless for Linn to try to compete in objective measurements.

With hindsight those Japanese turntables sounded better than the LP12 too.
However, Linn were able to get the hi-fi press of the time to say that the LP12 sounded best.

Is that a major contribution to audio?
It was a major contribution to the pockets of Linn.
It contributed nothing positive to audio because it introduced a large element of bullshit, poor buying advice from the magazines, a reduction in the meritocracy of the audio world.
It was a Trojan Horse. Using the gift of subjective magazine reviews to hide the rotten truth that certain brands were praised for their subjective sound quality way beyond what they actually merited.

More subjective magazine reviews would have come in sooner or later anyway. There were enough subjective advocates around in the industry. With Richard Dunn being one of them.

What we have is "create an enemy" marketing. Those big bad objectivists! Aren't they nasty! Well here's Ivor T and Popular Hi-fi magazine to the rescue!

It's the same cult like form of influencing that has been used throughout history. Siege mentality. Use a bit of surface logic (and hope no-one looks under the bonnet of the surface logic).
Modern day cults use the same techniques. For example, the HAES (Health At Every Size) cult:

The thing with subjectivity is that you need to become your own expert, and there is not really a 'silver bullet' short cut. It helps if you can latch on to real experts who can be relied upon to be truthful, but you still have to develop your own ear. Folks who bought LP12s, back in the day, wanted to be told what to buy (me included). I didn't even know that DD and Idler decks existed, let alone that they could sound better than the Linn. The people who work the hardest to hear different gear, who make an effort to understand the context of what they are hearing (room, the rest of the system, the recording etc)... tend to get to the best results, and often at a considerably lower cost.

I knew that idlers and direct drive existed. However, I was convinced that idler's suffered from transmitted motor noise and noise and wow and flutter from imperfections in the idler wheel. And that direct drives suffered from cogging, producing wow and flutter and transmitted motor noise.
And as a result I never auditioned either of those types of turntable in the first 25 years of my audio journey.

That convincing was done by the subjective hi-fi magazines that were merely repeating the Linn marketing stuff.
Even though well engineered direct drives measured better than the LP12. AND sounded better than the LP12.

So what was all that stuff about the superiority of the LP12 based on? It wasn't objective. And it wasn't subjective listening tests.

The move to subjective hi-fi magazine reviews was used as a means to suppress the number of valid audio products that buyers auditioned before buying.

Slightly aside from the OP but, in my locality at least, it's the Linn/Naim dealers who have survived. The dealers that dared to question the magazine reviewers' opinions are the ones that have long disappeared.
Does this indicate how much the buying public was influenced by magazines?

I became interested in hifi early in 79 when I bought a budget system out of my student grant. I read the magazines and was initially taken in, Linn had stolen a march on all competitors and their products were superior, justifying the high prices. If I had the money I might well have bought an LP12. I later began to smell a rat and late in 1980 my response was nuclear. I wrote a letter to Popular HiFi, the most extreme Linn advocate, saying that Ivor was lining the pockets of the Haymarket reviewers and requesting a detailed analysis of why the LP12 was so superior to the competition. I added that Linn were using the phenomenal profits from this paid for exposure to finance the development of an arm, cartridge and three pairs of speakers. In no way did I expect the letter to be published but to my amazement it appeared in the December 80 edition of Popular HiFi. I got the expected rebuff from editor Chris Frankland saying that Popular HiFi staff had paid for their fruit boxes. but that was nothing compared to what was to come from Ivor two issues later. I was not expecting to be on his Christmas card list.

I am convinced that the only reason my letter was published was to invite a response from Ivor which amounted to a two page free advert, as well as insulting me - "empty headed, uneducated." He spouted on about Linn being a dedicated team of enthusiasts making hifi for their own enjoyment and if other people liked it so much the better. The perception that they were shrewd marketing people could not be further from the truth. A copy of my letter and Ivors response are somewhere in the archives.

Popular HiFi constantly maintained that a budget amplifier and speakers fronted by an LP12 would out perform any system fed by another tt with expensive amplification and speakers "rubbish in rubbish out". In 83.when I had a bit of cash I put this to the test comparing the LP12 to the Rega 3 through a NAD 3020 and budget speakers. In no way was the LP12 superior. A friend accompanying me was of the same opinion. The salesman was not impressed and made derogatory comments about the records I brought. I joined the waiting list for the Rega at a fraction of the price also in the knowledge that it would not go out of tune if a fly farts. The LP12 I heard might not have been properly set up.

This brings me on to my lack of knowledge as a result of the magazine brain washing. The only competition to the LP12 was belt drives which came second best in reviews. Direct drives and Japanese designs were rubbish and I had not heard of Idler. If I was better informed I would have compared the LP12 to a direct or idler drive partnered by amplification and speakers far superior to what I listened through at the demo. I think that would have changed my opinion about "high end" and I would not have lost interest in hifi for thirty years.

Forty years ago I only knew half of it about Linn. I was not aware of the stranglehold they had on dealers and the money Ivor paid the Thatcher Government to keep trading standards off his back. I was also not aware of the extent of the damage he had done to the industry and consumers.

It's the "Well whatever you think about Linn, they were at least a force for some good in the world of audio, back in the day" rhetoric from that post in pfm that gets my goat.

Lindsayt wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 6:55 pm It's the "Well whatever you think about Linn, they were at least a force for some good in the world of audio, back in the day" rhetoric from that post in pfm that gets my goat.

From those who don't like to admit they were taken in.

Surely this went on for many decades- I remember late 80s early 90s reading about how wonderful the linn Lp12 was - I never knew about DD nor Idler either- run both atm.

I liked their tonearms n a couple of speakers but hated their cartridges- I was a Thorens fan

Latteman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 8:43 pm Surely this went on for many decades- I remember late 80s early 90s reading about how wonderful the linn Lp12 was - I never knew about DD nor Idler either- run both atm.

I gave up on hifi magazines in the mid 80s so I was out of the loop. It would seem that it was only the power of the Internet which dispelled the mythology. Those who had the opportunity to compare Linn with the competition could make their views known world wide.

From the forums it seems that the many who fell under Ivor's spell can be split into three groups:-
1. Those aware of the error of their ways an openly acknowledge it. Examples on HFS.
2. Those aware of the error of their ways and try to cover their backs. See the OP of this thread.
3. The sad cases still under the spell many of whom have forked out fortunes on the upgrade paths. Bring on the men in white coats.

CN211276 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 5:44 pm……….. the money Ivor paid the Thatcher Government to keep trading standards off his back.

Do you have any evidence to support your accusation?