What do you think of this? (Keel copy)
Moderator: Staff
What do you think of this? (Keel copy)
Last edited by lejonklou on 2008-09-28 21:34, edited 1 time in total.
Wow - if it sounds anything like as good as a Keel, then I think he could be receiving quite a few orders, especially all the Naim ARO owners waiting in the wings.
And if in addition to sounding as good, it also has the same benefits musically as the Keel then I'll be left wishing it had been available about a year ago! MASSIVE price difference.
Also goes to show what Linn are making on the Keel. Musn't forget, this guy is also making money on his item and it's still a quarter the price. I know Linn will have put R&D spending into the Keel and there's the dealer margin to factor in, but even so, I'm already beginning to feel a bit sore at the cost of the Keel compared to this! :evil:
And if in addition to sounding as good, it also has the same benefits musically as the Keel then I'll be left wishing it had been available about a year ago! MASSIVE price difference.
Also goes to show what Linn are making on the Keel. Musn't forget, this guy is also making money on his item and it's still a quarter the price. I know Linn will have put R&D spending into the Keel and there's the dealer margin to factor in, but even so, I'm already beginning to feel a bit sore at the cost of the Keel compared to this! :evil:
-
Music Lover
- Very active member
- Posts: 1673
- Joined: 2007-01-31 20:35
- Location: In front of Lejonklou/JBL/Ofil
A contrarian view
Hi Everyone,
Not to be an intentional contrarian, but I rather hope this Keel alternative does not work out very well.
1) Given how long the LP12 had already been tuned, tweaked, and fettled before the arrival of the Keel, one would guess that the Keel's particular geometry was arrived at through fairly laborious development and testing. As such the R&D costs might well have been formidable (how much is the "loaded" cost (salary + benefits + payroll taxes + administrative + etc.) of a Scottish engineer? - in the (US) robotics company where I worked, it was near a quarter million dollars per year for a top-quality ME or EE with relevant experience, and Linn's audio engineers are presumably similarly specialized?). These costs would have to be defrayed over a relatively small sales volume. If those volumes are now substantially reduced because of undercutting from a direct copycat (one who did not perform any R&D, but merely took physical measurements off a borrowed Keel), then the R&D expenses might never be recouped; at the least, the return on investment might be substantially reduced.
Or put in somewhat bolder terms: if this Keel copy proves successful, then the business managers at Linn will have a stronger disincentive to invest significant R&D in product improvements unprotected by trade secret, patent, or copyright. And that can't be good for any of us.
2) In a related vein: are there any legal experts out there who can comment on what recourse Linn might have against this fellow? Patents of course are out, and it's hard to enforce Trade Secret on a mechanical component with no moving parts(!) -- but trademark and copyright can sometimes be applied to the physical form of a product, particularly when appropriation of that form provides the basis of a competing commercial venture. But I'm fuzzy on even U.S. law in this area, and goodness knows what British statutes (if any) might apply.
In any case, if this fellow decides (as his eBay listing states) to go into commercial production with his copy (instead of merely making a copy for himself and a couple of friends), then I hope his product either fails in performance, or else Linn finds some way to shut him down. (I'm speaking selfishly here of course, as I don't have an LP12 and wouldn't benefit from an inexpensive Keel copy -- instead, I just want Linn to be financially healthy, with much incentive to continue R&D of all kinds!)
No offense intended to any LP12 owners who are excited by this development -- professionally I have to worry about such things (in a non-audio branch of technology), so I'm approaching from a different perspective. :D But hope you're all well, and best wishes with your systems & music.
Cheers!
-C
Not to be an intentional contrarian, but I rather hope this Keel alternative does not work out very well.
1) Given how long the LP12 had already been tuned, tweaked, and fettled before the arrival of the Keel, one would guess that the Keel's particular geometry was arrived at through fairly laborious development and testing. As such the R&D costs might well have been formidable (how much is the "loaded" cost (salary + benefits + payroll taxes + administrative + etc.) of a Scottish engineer? - in the (US) robotics company where I worked, it was near a quarter million dollars per year for a top-quality ME or EE with relevant experience, and Linn's audio engineers are presumably similarly specialized?). These costs would have to be defrayed over a relatively small sales volume. If those volumes are now substantially reduced because of undercutting from a direct copycat (one who did not perform any R&D, but merely took physical measurements off a borrowed Keel), then the R&D expenses might never be recouped; at the least, the return on investment might be substantially reduced.
Or put in somewhat bolder terms: if this Keel copy proves successful, then the business managers at Linn will have a stronger disincentive to invest significant R&D in product improvements unprotected by trade secret, patent, or copyright. And that can't be good for any of us.
2) In a related vein: are there any legal experts out there who can comment on what recourse Linn might have against this fellow? Patents of course are out, and it's hard to enforce Trade Secret on a mechanical component with no moving parts(!) -- but trademark and copyright can sometimes be applied to the physical form of a product, particularly when appropriation of that form provides the basis of a competing commercial venture. But I'm fuzzy on even U.S. law in this area, and goodness knows what British statutes (if any) might apply.
In any case, if this fellow decides (as his eBay listing states) to go into commercial production with his copy (instead of merely making a copy for himself and a couple of friends), then I hope his product either fails in performance, or else Linn finds some way to shut him down. (I'm speaking selfishly here of course, as I don't have an LP12 and wouldn't benefit from an inexpensive Keel copy -- instead, I just want Linn to be financially healthy, with much incentive to continue R&D of all kinds!)
No offense intended to any LP12 owners who are excited by this development -- professionally I have to worry about such things (in a non-audio branch of technology), so I'm approaching from a different perspective. :D But hope you're all well, and best wishes with your systems & music.
Cheers!
-C
Interesting point, Ceilidh.
My guess (just a guess) is that this product is quite good. And it can certainly be argued that Linn brought this down on themselves with their outrageous pricing of the Keel. In fact I have been waiting since day 1 for something like this to happen and feel a bit surprised that it took so long.
Regarding protected design, the rules seem to vary quite a lot between different countries. I believe Great Britain has a very weak protection, while in Scandinavia it is stronger for visible parts. Non-visible parts, like internal engine parts, are hard to protect at all. The question is if Linn will act on this or just ignore it.
My guess (just a guess) is that this product is quite good. And it can certainly be argued that Linn brought this down on themselves with their outrageous pricing of the Keel. In fact I have been waiting since day 1 for something like this to happen and feel a bit surprised that it took so long.
Regarding protected design, the rules seem to vary quite a lot between different countries. I believe Great Britain has a very weak protection, while in Scandinavia it is stronger for visible parts. Non-visible parts, like internal engine parts, are hard to protect at all. The question is if Linn will act on this or just ignore it.
Hello Mr. Lejonklou,lejonklou wrote:Interesting point, Ceilidh.
My guess (just a guess) is that this product is quite good. And it can certainly be argued that Linn brought this down on themselves with their outrageous pricing of the Keel. In fact I have been waiting since day 1 for something like this to happen and feel a bit surprised that it took so long.
Thanks for replying so quickly! :D The question is, just how outrageous is the Keel's pricing? (This is a true question, not a challenge, as I'm not familiar with the financials of the audio industry.) Is the Keel to be conceptually treated as a normal mechanical component, or as a piece of software? Or rather, how much of the Keel's price reflects production and distribution costs, and how much of it is strict amortization of R&D?
Most of the outraged posts I've seen regarding Keel pricing seem to hinge on the disparity between production cost and retail price -- but is that the appropriate metric? It is if R&D costs are a small component of the overall price, but it isn't if the R&D is huge. (Ad extremum, a software product's pricing need bear no relation at all to the manufacturing / distribution cost; e.g., a CAD software package costing $20-40k can arrive on a $0.30 CD-ROM, without any printed manual -- all the pricing is in R&D and support.)
Or to put things in a broader context: to what extent does any of Linn's pricing reflect strict manufacturing & distribution costs? Were Linn to produce an electronic component (in a plain LP or AV-style box) that yields Keel-level improvement to an existing LP12 system, would people gladly pay $3800 for it? And if so, would they be outraged if the parts & production costs of the chips & PCBs inside the box only cost a few hundred dollars? (For that matter, what is the parts cost of something like a $3500 Majik CD? Can it be much more than a few hundred dollars?) Knowingly or not, we're used to paying lots of money for IP (Intellectual Property) in the form of circuit design and enabling computer code. So why should one view mechanical hardware differently?
If Linn, on deciding the Keel's pricing, adopted a What the Market Can Bear mentality, then yes, I'd heartily agree they've brought this on themselves! But instead, if it was a matter of a couple of impassioned LP12-devotees within Linn approaching their manager some years ago during a time of financial hemorrhage and saying "Look, we think we can transform the LP12's performance mechanically if we spend X pounds sterling on performance emulation software, and Y pounds on our salaries for the next Z months or years", then I can imagine the beleaguered manager replying: "Ok, if marketing comes back and tells us we can sell the upgrade at an NPV-positive price, you can go ahead; otherwise, NO".
If the above scenario applies (and really, how easy could it have been to come up with the Keel's precise configuration?), the chief difference between the Keel development and that of Linn's normal electronics would be that the normal electronics are easily protected by intellectual property law, and the mechanical Keel (perhaps) is not. And that (for Linn) would be rather sad.
Anyway, there are a lot of "If"s in the above reasoning, and maybe Linn outrageously overpriced the Keel! Again, I have no clue about audio industry financials, or how much R&D something like the Keel would cost. Your expert comments on these matters would be greatly appreciated -- thank you in advance, and hope Stockholm is somewhat drier at the moment than Boston (we'll be getting 3"-6" of windswept rain over the next 24 hours -- pretty soggy!).
Cheers again, :D
-C
I see what you mean, Ceilidh. And it is a relevant question.Ceilidh wrote:Is the Keel to be conceptually treated as a normal mechanical component, or as a piece of software?
Given that the Keel is roughly of the same dimensions, weight and centre of gravity as the previous combination of pressed steel subchassis, laminated wooden armboard and arm collar, I don't see why the R&D*) costs should be huge. Linn have all the machinery at hand and most likely made a bunch of prototypes for evaluation.
Manufacturing costs are, as you say, rather pointless to discuss as we all know it's a minor part of what Linn charges for the Keel.
Linn are of course free to set any price they want, but they surely must have considered that a very high price
1. will mean less units sold
2. will give bad publicity
3. might drive owners away from the LP12 altogether, as it feels impossible to keep it up to date
4. will increase the temptation to copy it
I suspect that the people who were in charge at the time when the Keel was introduced more or less went for What the Market Can Bear. Linn representatives have several times said that prices are set in relation to performance - which sounds reasonable until one considers the points above and that Linn is not the only HiFi company in the world.
And while I believe they could have settled for half the current price, it is now impossible to lower it without making those who already bought it upset.
Just my 2 cents.
*) It is a little know fact that in the early days, R&D stood for Ron and Don, two really cool guys from Bushville.
-
Music Lover
- Very active member
- Posts: 1673
- Joined: 2007-01-31 20:35
- Location: In front of Lejonklou/JBL/Ofil
Not so sure about this.lejonklou wrote:[Given that the Keel is roughly of the same dimensions, weight and centre of gravity as the previous combination of pressed steel subchassis, laminated wooden armboard and arm collar, I don't see why the R&D*) costs should be huge. Linn have all the machinery at hand and most likely made a bunch of prototypes for evaluation.
You also have to consider the dynamics of the "LP12-system" not only static mechanics.
I.e. vibrations.
That is the main reason I think the copy isn't going to be as good as Keel.
Agree Fredrik that Linn put themselves in this situation with a too high price.
At a decent price Linn would have LOADS of Keel sold obtaining same/higher profit. (as production cost isn't that high)
AND why on earth don’t they have an Aro version??? :roll:
It's all about musical understanding!
lejonklou wrote: I suspect that the people who were in charge at the time when the Keel was introduced more or less went for What the Market Can Bear. Linn representatives have several times said that prices are set in relation to performance - which sounds reasonable until one considers the points above and that Linn is not the only HiFi company in the world.
And while I believe they could have settled for half the current price, it is now impossible to lower it without making those who already bought it upset.
Just my 2 cents.
*) It is a little know fact that in the early days, R&D stood for Ron and Don, two really cool guys from Bushville.
Thank you for the observations -- I defer to your much more in-depth knowledge of the industry! :D As I spend much of my time with Ron & Don (the non-Bushville variety :D), I tend to think many folks don't fully appreciate how much product development can cost, particularly in a company setting where investors and ROI have to be satisfied -- but since you're heavily involved in development yourself, then I'll happily take your appraisal that Linn overdid it on the Keel pricing!Music Lover wrote: Agree Fredrik that Linn put themselves in this situation with a too high price.
For me, this is a little sad to hear: when I first discovered Linn, I came across an old interview in which Ivor explained how Linn went for cost-plus pricing -- i.e., product cost reflected R&D, manufacturing, and distribution costs in a fairly consistent manner. This interview was seen by some as a breath of fresh air, given the pervasive marketing fashion of the time to price things at "value to the consumer" (i.e., to reduce to an absolute minimum the "Consumer Surplus" (a frightening term if there ever was one!) between product price and the maximum a customer would pay). The cost-plus philosophy espoused in that interview was refreshingly contrarian for all the reasons Mr. Lejonklou has outlined; it was consistent with Linn's traditional reputation for providing excellent performance for the pound/euro/kroner/dollar; and it was viewed by some as being an interesting and perhaps valuable strategy for long-term success in a very competitive industry. But it sounds like Linn consciously stepped away from this philosophy at some point?
Anyway, if the Keel is grossly over-priced, then I hope Linn finds a way to reduce pricing / come out with a less-expensive version for all you LP12 fans! Thanks very much again for the enlightening comments, and best wishes for the weekend.
Cheers,
-C
P.S. -- still raining hard in Boston.... :D
Well, this is one case where I'm afraid I'm going to have to play the devil's advocate. So let me start by saying that without some real evidence to the contrary, I don't believe that the Keel is overpriced.
Here is my reasoning:
1) I do believe that there was more R&D in the Keel than what might at first be obvious. If one assumes that Linn just decided to replace the arm collar, armboard and subchassis with a piece of aluminum of roughly the same dimensions and weight then it would be a simple task. On the other hand if one believes, as I do, that Linn undertook an investigation into the optimum way to improve on the bearing to tonearm interface then it would stand to reason that any number of materials and configurations would be tried from different metals and numbers of parts to materials like acrylic and carbon fiber. I have no inside knowledge of the number of different options tried but I have no doubt that a fair number were before a commitment was made to make this expensive an upgrade. I was told by Linn that the Ekos SE was tried with a titanium headshell and it was switched back to aluminum as the titanium did not sound as good. I was also told that the Ekos SE was not painted black like the earlier Ekos II as the paint hurt the sound. I don't believe that Linn would be working to this level of detail on the Ekos SE and not on the Keel as well.
Once the best material was chosen then further optimization would have been done in terms of the exact layout of the different sections, their thicknesses and the thickness of the crossmembers to optimize resonance characteristics. None of this seems very trivial to me and all of it has to be taken into account in the final pricing of the product.
2) I showed the Keel and the photos of the machining involved to a customer who has experience in machining quality metals. When shown the photo of the block of aluminum that Linn uses to make two Keels he stated that at current market prices it would run about $1500US for the aircraft grade material they are using. If he is correct, and I have no conflicting evidence so far, that breaks down to $750 peer Keel. With a typical industry ratio of 5 to 1 of retail to parts cost that would mean that the Keel should sell for $3750 instead of the $3250 it sells for. If the aluminum costs even half that much, the pricing would still be reasonable considering the R&D, machining, finishing, etc. involved.
3) I find the linked eBay ad far from conclusive in convincing me that the Keel is overpriced. While a quick look at the photos and text might convince you that this is a reasonable clone of the Keel, closer inspection reveals that it has a ways to go. Firstly, the builder states "A structural analysis showed that bolting the original collar to the aluminum arm board provided virtually the same rigidity as machining both from one piece." I'm sorry but I really don't trust his "structural analysis" compared to Linn's. And I trust his "virtually the same rigidity" even less. Does anyone here really think Linn would go to the trouble of machining the Keel with the arm collar as part of it if there weren't substantial sonic benefits to doing so? Do you really think just sticking with the standard arm collar wasn't researched? Surely Fredrik, Paolo and I have to admit that even the tightness of the bolts that hold the collar to the armboard have to be torqued to a precision of a couple of a HUNDREDTHS of a Nm, or better, for best performance. Making it out of the same piece won't improve it? I don't believe it! But I do believe that leaving the collar off the machining reduces the material costs by about one third! And that it also reduces the complexity of the machining and the machining time involved significantly - both of which would substantially reduce costs.
Secondly, his Keel "clone" is not as well machined as the real Keel is. A close inspection of the bottom of his unit will show that the attachment area for the bearing housing is flat. The actual Keel has three raised "lands" surrounding the three mounting holes for the bearing housing bolts. This may seem like a small matter but again I believe the significance is more than it would at first appear. When Linn introduced the world to a three point cartridge mounting with the lovely Troika it also had three raised "lands" surrounding the mounting holes. I was told at the time by one of the engineers that while this appeared to reduce the contact of the cartridge to the headshell, it actually allowed for a better contact. He said that a cartridge with a "flat" top bolted to a "flat" bottom headshell had only 5% contact area on a molecular level. By going with the three lands the contact area was increased to approximately 15% of the area of the cartridge top. I am quite sure the same idea is at work here.
Thirdly, in other areas of the clone the machining is again not up to the level of the real thing with some edges abrupt and sharp instead of smooth and tapered and some crossmembers made thinner to accommodate the holes for the arm collar bolts. A true engineer trying to make a similar, competitive product with more versatility for arm mounting would at least have repositioned the braces in the area of the arm mounting (certainly one of the crucial areas for solidity) so that the holes wouldn't eat into them. There also appears to be no attachment point for the ground wires, although this could be drilled and tapped later. But I'm sure he would say these are all minor, unimportant points.
Finally, I can't really tell from his photos but I seriously doubt that the finish of the clone is up to the level of the real Keel.
4) Since we are on the subject of finish, the Keel is a truly exceptionally well finished piece of hardware. Certainly up to the level of the Klimax units with a quality to the finish job that appears likely to still look clean in 20+ years. If the rumors I've heard are correct, the finishing of the Keel is done by SME. If this is so it is yet one more reason for the value of the Keel. SME is known as one of the very best, if not the best, finishers of metals in the world. They supply all the black chrome finishing for the Rolls Royce automobiles sold to heads of state as nobody else's finishing will hold up in the desert heat the way theirs does.
5) Back for a minute to the pseudo-Keel. The man who made this piece had no R&D - he just copied the Keel design by his own admission down to the thickness of the various sections and to the size and placement of the crossmembers. As I pointed out above he didn't even copy it all that well cutting corners on both the machining and the materials. In addition he has no distribution costs, no real marketing costs, no documentation costs, no recycling costs (which I believe are now mandated in the EU), no profit for the dealer and no significant packaging costs (Linn not only ship the Keel in a fitted hard foam package to assure safe delivery - they also include two rather nice screwdrivers, a ground wire and hardware to attach it, and an installation manual). He certainly should be able to sell it for substantially less!
6) If Linn really wanted to start pricing things based on what the market will bear why didn't they do it with the Trampolin 2? Is there anyone who has looked at the Trampolin 2 compared to the original Trampolin and not felt it could easily sell for twice as much? It cetainly looks to me like it SHOULD cost twice as much to make. In place of a sheet of melamine, a sheet of aluminum with a damping panel and the whole painted nicely, a ground lug welded to the aluminum plate with the wire and hardware to attach it to the chassis for shielding, additional machining in the back to accommodate different tonearm cables and a removable plate below the tonearm mount (which really should be removed for best sound but likely has to be there to meet electrical regulations). And the improvement it makes in the musical performance is way out of line with the price. Why then does this suddenly greedy Linn sell it for the same exact price as the original Trampolin? It really just doesn't make sense.
Obviously, Linn knew they were going to take a lot of heat over the pricing of the Keel. But the interesting thing is that most of the grief they took over the pricing occurred BEFORE the Keel was even on the market. AFTER it was released the number of complaints on the forums went way down. Instead the posts started rolling in as to what a splendid upgrade it was. And they were right. I have installed a fair number of Keels (and Ekos SEs and Trampolin2s - some of the first being in my own LP12) and I have yet to have a SINGLE person who did not feel that the musical improvement was good value for money.
Now I know that Fredrik and I both have a hard time accepting the silly money a lot of high-end stereo gear goes for - a perfect example being the new $300,000 Goldmund Reference turntable which has a phono stage/tonearm/cartridge system that actually turns the signal to digital and back to analog again! And I'm sure that many on this forum have experienced very expensive gear that couldn't reproduce music if its life depended on it - some of it sounding just plain awful to anyone with an ounce of musical sensitivity - despite it getting wondrous reviews in the Hi-Fi press. But I think in this case we have to take a step back, and a bit less emotional approach to this, and really try to evaluate as fairly as we can whether the Keel is a decent value for the money or not. I think you can clearly see my view from the above.
It would be nice if Linn's best preamp still sold for $3000 and their top speakers were still under $10,000. It would also be nice if my new Honda Accord still sold for $4500 instead of $27,000 and if gas still sold for $.79 instead of $3.79. But those kinds of prices aren't something we are going to see again. At some point we are just going to have to get used to it.
OK guys, I've got my fireproof suit on. Bring on the flames! :)
Here is my reasoning:
1) I do believe that there was more R&D in the Keel than what might at first be obvious. If one assumes that Linn just decided to replace the arm collar, armboard and subchassis with a piece of aluminum of roughly the same dimensions and weight then it would be a simple task. On the other hand if one believes, as I do, that Linn undertook an investigation into the optimum way to improve on the bearing to tonearm interface then it would stand to reason that any number of materials and configurations would be tried from different metals and numbers of parts to materials like acrylic and carbon fiber. I have no inside knowledge of the number of different options tried but I have no doubt that a fair number were before a commitment was made to make this expensive an upgrade. I was told by Linn that the Ekos SE was tried with a titanium headshell and it was switched back to aluminum as the titanium did not sound as good. I was also told that the Ekos SE was not painted black like the earlier Ekos II as the paint hurt the sound. I don't believe that Linn would be working to this level of detail on the Ekos SE and not on the Keel as well.
Once the best material was chosen then further optimization would have been done in terms of the exact layout of the different sections, their thicknesses and the thickness of the crossmembers to optimize resonance characteristics. None of this seems very trivial to me and all of it has to be taken into account in the final pricing of the product.
2) I showed the Keel and the photos of the machining involved to a customer who has experience in machining quality metals. When shown the photo of the block of aluminum that Linn uses to make two Keels he stated that at current market prices it would run about $1500US for the aircraft grade material they are using. If he is correct, and I have no conflicting evidence so far, that breaks down to $750 peer Keel. With a typical industry ratio of 5 to 1 of retail to parts cost that would mean that the Keel should sell for $3750 instead of the $3250 it sells for. If the aluminum costs even half that much, the pricing would still be reasonable considering the R&D, machining, finishing, etc. involved.
3) I find the linked eBay ad far from conclusive in convincing me that the Keel is overpriced. While a quick look at the photos and text might convince you that this is a reasonable clone of the Keel, closer inspection reveals that it has a ways to go. Firstly, the builder states "A structural analysis showed that bolting the original collar to the aluminum arm board provided virtually the same rigidity as machining both from one piece." I'm sorry but I really don't trust his "structural analysis" compared to Linn's. And I trust his "virtually the same rigidity" even less. Does anyone here really think Linn would go to the trouble of machining the Keel with the arm collar as part of it if there weren't substantial sonic benefits to doing so? Do you really think just sticking with the standard arm collar wasn't researched? Surely Fredrik, Paolo and I have to admit that even the tightness of the bolts that hold the collar to the armboard have to be torqued to a precision of a couple of a HUNDREDTHS of a Nm, or better, for best performance. Making it out of the same piece won't improve it? I don't believe it! But I do believe that leaving the collar off the machining reduces the material costs by about one third! And that it also reduces the complexity of the machining and the machining time involved significantly - both of which would substantially reduce costs.
Secondly, his Keel "clone" is not as well machined as the real Keel is. A close inspection of the bottom of his unit will show that the attachment area for the bearing housing is flat. The actual Keel has three raised "lands" surrounding the three mounting holes for the bearing housing bolts. This may seem like a small matter but again I believe the significance is more than it would at first appear. When Linn introduced the world to a three point cartridge mounting with the lovely Troika it also had three raised "lands" surrounding the mounting holes. I was told at the time by one of the engineers that while this appeared to reduce the contact of the cartridge to the headshell, it actually allowed for a better contact. He said that a cartridge with a "flat" top bolted to a "flat" bottom headshell had only 5% contact area on a molecular level. By going with the three lands the contact area was increased to approximately 15% of the area of the cartridge top. I am quite sure the same idea is at work here.
Thirdly, in other areas of the clone the machining is again not up to the level of the real thing with some edges abrupt and sharp instead of smooth and tapered and some crossmembers made thinner to accommodate the holes for the arm collar bolts. A true engineer trying to make a similar, competitive product with more versatility for arm mounting would at least have repositioned the braces in the area of the arm mounting (certainly one of the crucial areas for solidity) so that the holes wouldn't eat into them. There also appears to be no attachment point for the ground wires, although this could be drilled and tapped later. But I'm sure he would say these are all minor, unimportant points.
Finally, I can't really tell from his photos but I seriously doubt that the finish of the clone is up to the level of the real Keel.
4) Since we are on the subject of finish, the Keel is a truly exceptionally well finished piece of hardware. Certainly up to the level of the Klimax units with a quality to the finish job that appears likely to still look clean in 20+ years. If the rumors I've heard are correct, the finishing of the Keel is done by SME. If this is so it is yet one more reason for the value of the Keel. SME is known as one of the very best, if not the best, finishers of metals in the world. They supply all the black chrome finishing for the Rolls Royce automobiles sold to heads of state as nobody else's finishing will hold up in the desert heat the way theirs does.
5) Back for a minute to the pseudo-Keel. The man who made this piece had no R&D - he just copied the Keel design by his own admission down to the thickness of the various sections and to the size and placement of the crossmembers. As I pointed out above he didn't even copy it all that well cutting corners on both the machining and the materials. In addition he has no distribution costs, no real marketing costs, no documentation costs, no recycling costs (which I believe are now mandated in the EU), no profit for the dealer and no significant packaging costs (Linn not only ship the Keel in a fitted hard foam package to assure safe delivery - they also include two rather nice screwdrivers, a ground wire and hardware to attach it, and an installation manual). He certainly should be able to sell it for substantially less!
6) If Linn really wanted to start pricing things based on what the market will bear why didn't they do it with the Trampolin 2? Is there anyone who has looked at the Trampolin 2 compared to the original Trampolin and not felt it could easily sell for twice as much? It cetainly looks to me like it SHOULD cost twice as much to make. In place of a sheet of melamine, a sheet of aluminum with a damping panel and the whole painted nicely, a ground lug welded to the aluminum plate with the wire and hardware to attach it to the chassis for shielding, additional machining in the back to accommodate different tonearm cables and a removable plate below the tonearm mount (which really should be removed for best sound but likely has to be there to meet electrical regulations). And the improvement it makes in the musical performance is way out of line with the price. Why then does this suddenly greedy Linn sell it for the same exact price as the original Trampolin? It really just doesn't make sense.
Obviously, Linn knew they were going to take a lot of heat over the pricing of the Keel. But the interesting thing is that most of the grief they took over the pricing occurred BEFORE the Keel was even on the market. AFTER it was released the number of complaints on the forums went way down. Instead the posts started rolling in as to what a splendid upgrade it was. And they were right. I have installed a fair number of Keels (and Ekos SEs and Trampolin2s - some of the first being in my own LP12) and I have yet to have a SINGLE person who did not feel that the musical improvement was good value for money.
Now I know that Fredrik and I both have a hard time accepting the silly money a lot of high-end stereo gear goes for - a perfect example being the new $300,000 Goldmund Reference turntable which has a phono stage/tonearm/cartridge system that actually turns the signal to digital and back to analog again! And I'm sure that many on this forum have experienced very expensive gear that couldn't reproduce music if its life depended on it - some of it sounding just plain awful to anyone with an ounce of musical sensitivity - despite it getting wondrous reviews in the Hi-Fi press. But I think in this case we have to take a step back, and a bit less emotional approach to this, and really try to evaluate as fairly as we can whether the Keel is a decent value for the money or not. I think you can clearly see my view from the above.
It would be nice if Linn's best preamp still sold for $3000 and their top speakers were still under $10,000. It would also be nice if my new Honda Accord still sold for $4500 instead of $27,000 and if gas still sold for $.79 instead of $3.79. But those kinds of prices aren't something we are going to see again. At some point we are just going to have to get used to it.
OK guys, I've got my fireproof suit on. Bring on the flames! :)
My guess is that they don't have an ARO version because they really have no reason to promote NAIM tonearms, especially when they have such a fine new one of their own. My guess is also that in optimizing the performance of the Keel the interaction with the tonearm is a critical part of the equation and the Keel is obviously optimized for Ekos arms. In addition, my guess is that the Keel might not even work well with the ARO - it being a unipivot tonearm.Music Lover wrote:AND why on earth don’t they have an Aro version??? :roll:
Despite all my guessing, I really don't know for sure. But I can tell you that one of the Linn dealers in the UK who is also a Naim dealer has sent a couple of AROs to Linn for the purpose of evaluating the viability of an ARO version of the Keel. So we may see one yet.
Thank you for a well reasoned and logical post. If its of any consolation Thomas, I feel much better about the Keel pricing having read your post. I probably over-reacted at first, but I don't think my initial response will be that uncommon amongst Keel owners. Personally, I think there will always be a small element of doubt that the Keel could not have been just a little cheaper, but we will never know unless Linn's spending figures come to light. Perhaps most importantly, and as you have already mentioned, a cheap copy is only possible because Linn developed and manufactured the Keel in the first place - if that makes sense.
Quite an impressive defense, Thomas!
You may be right in most of it, but I have to at least try to pinch a few holes in your arguments.
As you wrote, we both have a hard time accepting silly money for HiFi gear. To that I can add that I am bored to death with references to Space Engineering, Submarine Technology, Aircraft Grade and the like. When it comes to the Keel, one could just as well say 'an aluminum alloy commonly used in the bicycle industry'. Because that's what it is. And in the Artikulat/Klimax case, one could replace the silly talk about submarines with 'suspension of rubber'.
It might sound less fancy and exciting, but I don't believe in spicing up stories this way. The truth is often much more interesting - which is that HiFi is not about rocket science, but rather a challenging area where technology meets art.
The finish - Keel quality is certainly excellent, but does it matter to performance?
The machining - The copy uses only larger diameter tools, which is why it looks much coarser. But does this matter to the sound given that all contact areas are flat?
The flat area above the bearing - The copy is certainly simplified here, I agree that it probably matters.
Regarding what is supplied with the Keel, I'm glad you brought that up. The old Cirkus upgrade kit came with a new main bearing, inner platter, springs, grommets and drive belts to make sure those who upgraded started with all new and optimal pieces. Was any of that included with the Keel? No, not even the very low cost bushings and springs. The Keel manual tells you to "don't forget to order new springs and bushings" :!: To save a £ or two on these and at the same time supply free Wera screwdrivers (that I have never had any use for) shows poor attention to detail in my humble opinion.
You may be right in most of it, but I have to at least try to pinch a few holes in your arguments.
Several materials were tried in the past and have been experimented with by others. This time I believe the choice was aluminium from the very start. Several Linn employees were known to have experimental aluminium subchassies in their LP12's years before the Keel was announced and precision aluminium machining from solid pieces has been a Linn speciality since the Klout was introduced. Or rather; a Castle Precision Engineering speciality (Ivor's brother's company).ThomasOK wrote:...then it would stand to reason that any number of materials and configurations would be tried from different metals and numbers of parts to materials like acrylic and carbon fiber
That number is several times what I have been quoted when I looked into this....he stated that at current market prices it would run about $1500US for the aircraft grade material they are using
As you wrote, we both have a hard time accepting silly money for HiFi gear. To that I can add that I am bored to death with references to Space Engineering, Submarine Technology, Aircraft Grade and the like. When it comes to the Keel, one could just as well say 'an aluminum alloy commonly used in the bicycle industry'. Because that's what it is. And in the Artikulat/Klimax case, one could replace the silly talk about submarines with 'suspension of rubber'.
It might sound less fancy and exciting, but I don't believe in spicing up stories this way. The truth is often much more interesting - which is that HiFi is not about rocket science, but rather a challenging area where technology meets art.
I agree with you here. The copy is not as well made, but how much harm this will do to the music is unclear.closer inspection reveals that it has a ways to go.
The finish - Keel quality is certainly excellent, but does it matter to performance?
The machining - The copy uses only larger diameter tools, which is why it looks much coarser. But does this matter to the sound given that all contact areas are flat?
The flat area above the bearing - The copy is certainly simplified here, I agree that it probably matters.
Regarding what is supplied with the Keel, I'm glad you brought that up. The old Cirkus upgrade kit came with a new main bearing, inner platter, springs, grommets and drive belts to make sure those who upgraded started with all new and optimal pieces. Was any of that included with the Keel? No, not even the very low cost bushings and springs. The Keel manual tells you to "don't forget to order new springs and bushings" :!: To save a £ or two on these and at the same time supply free Wera screwdrivers (that I have never had any use for) shows poor attention to detail in my humble opinion.
Simple: With 3 new LP12 upgrades after more than a decade of silence, all of them can't cost a fortune. The Ekos SE and Keel do, so the third had to be cheap. To show the world that these upgrades really are reasonably priced, the Trampolin/2 had to be both good and cheap.Why then does this suddenly greedy Linn sell it [the Trampolin/2] for the same exact price as the original Trampolin? It really just doesn't make sense.
I agree with you here. The Keel is a fantastic product, period. The mourning about a high price can't go on forever, but the testimonials from us who upgraded can - there is much to say about how good it is!most of the grief they took over the pricing occurred BEFORE the Keel was even on the market. AFTER it was released the number of complaints on the forums went way down
-
Music Lover
- Very active member
- Posts: 1673
- Joined: 2007-01-31 20:35
- Location: In front of Lejonklou/JBL/Ofil
I think not small. I'm not even sure it going to be better at all...lejonklou wrote:I agree with you here. The copy is not as well made, but how much harm this will do to the music is unclear.closer inspection reveals that it has a ways to go.
No doubt the sound going to be more impressive but what about the musicality?
Many other non Linn LP12 subchassis have that effect...
I quote myself from my fist post in the tread
Music Lover wrote:Please dont.Charlie1 wrote: I'm already beginning to feel a bit sore at the cost of the Keel compared to this! :evil:
Keel is such a central components that even a small change going to have a huge performance effect totally.
But I really hope it's a good product!
It's all about musical understanding!
-
Robert Lake
- Active member
- Posts: 103
- Joined: 2007-08-19 17:50
Another Keel alternative with Charm
The Funk Firm offers various upgrades to your L12. One is the CHARM, a sub-chassis made from a composite of carbon fibre and end-grain balsa. As I understand it, it can also be used with the Aro arm.
According the firm "the CHARM provides superior performance and sound to ANY other sub-chassis available for the LP12". The idea is to "improve on rythm and timing still further." The price is £480.00, which sounds quite reasonable compared to you know what. The Funk Firm is also moving the position of motor a bit as another upgrade.
A funk firm rebuild LP12 from the mid-90 was used as a comparsion in the Hi-Fi News, March 2008, review of the SE upgraded LP12. The article was named "Licence to Keel" :lol:
Unfortunately, the reviewer does not really compare Keel and Charm directly. He praises the Keel upgrade, but points out that "A Funked LP12 has yet lower perceived noise floor and arguably better pitch definition, but perhaps can no longer be conidered a Sondek anyway".
http://www.thefunkfirm.co.uk/V_sound.htm
Has anyone heard the Charm in action?
According the firm "the CHARM provides superior performance and sound to ANY other sub-chassis available for the LP12". The idea is to "improve on rythm and timing still further." The price is £480.00, which sounds quite reasonable compared to you know what. The Funk Firm is also moving the position of motor a bit as another upgrade.
A funk firm rebuild LP12 from the mid-90 was used as a comparsion in the Hi-Fi News, March 2008, review of the SE upgraded LP12. The article was named "Licence to Keel" :lol:
Unfortunately, the reviewer does not really compare Keel and Charm directly. He praises the Keel upgrade, but points out that "A Funked LP12 has yet lower perceived noise floor and arguably better pitch definition, but perhaps can no longer be conidered a Sondek anyway".
http://www.thefunkfirm.co.uk/V_sound.htm
Has anyone heard the Charm in action?
Here we go. Time to use a multi-quote setup and close a hole or two!
The machining - you skipped over the missing integrated arm collar. A major bit of corner cutting and quite likely, IMHO, to cause a performance penalty.
I feel that this pseudo-Keel is exactly the same thing. A poorly executed, corner cutting, direct copy of a quality piece being sold directly by someone with little or no R&D, overhead and distribution costs. That he sells it for $725 is unsurprising. Considering, in addition, his reduced materials costs and reduced machining and finishing costs he is probably doing pretty well for himself - but I don't think his customers are likely to be getting a better deal, or even as good a one, as what they are getting from Linn.
And, yes I'd really like to have the Keel sell for $1200 myself. And I admit that it is possible that Linn is making a killing on it. But I don't have any actual evidence that it is not priced the same way Linn has tended to price products in the past. And this poor clone is more likely to convince me that Linn's pricing is fair than that it's unfair.
This just means that the experimenting had been done over time.:)lejonklou wrote:Quite an impressive defense, Thomas!
You may be right in most of it, but I have to at least try to pinch a few holes in your arguments.
Several materials were tried in the past and have been experimented with by others. This time I believe the choice was aluminium from the very start. Several Linn employees were known to have experimental aluminium subchassies in their LP12's years before the Keel was announced and precision aluminium machining from solid pieces has been a Linn speciality since the Klout was introduced. Or rather; a Castle Precision Engineering speciality (Ivor's brother's company).ThomasOK wrote:...then it would stand to reason that any number of materials and configurations would be tried from different metals and numbers of parts to materials like acrylic and carbon fiber
...he stated that at current market prices it would run about $1500US for the aircraft grade material they are using
I actually hadn't heard about the submarine talk - guess I skimmed that part. But I agree there is a lot of silliness in the explanations companies in any number of industries use to justify their pricing. Certainly it would be better to communicate what actually goes into the improved performance without the hyperbole. But communication has not been a Linn strong point, whether with customers or dealers, for some time. And you have to admit that the hyperbole coming out of Linn is an order of magnitude less than from most high-end companies, especially high-end cable companies.lejonklou wrote:That number is several times what I have been quoted when I looked into this.
As you wrote, we both have a hard time accepting silly money for HiFi gear. To that I can add that I am bored to death with references to Space Engineering, Submarine Technology, Aircraft Grade and the like. When it comes to the Keel, one could just as well say 'an aluminum alloy commonly used in the bicycle industry'. Because that's what it is. And in the Artikulat/Klimax case, one could replace the silly talk about submarines with 'suspension of rubber'.
It might sound less fancy and exciting, but I don't believe in spicing up stories this way. The truth is often much more interesting - which is that HiFi is not about rocket science, but rather a challenging area where technology meets art.
closer inspection reveals that it has a ways to go.
The finish - does it matter to performance? Possibly not (but possibly) but if you are selling a premium product (and I think we have to agree the Keel is that) it really should look premium. You and I might be quite happy with a piece that looks rough here and there but most potential customers would likely rather pay an extra $500 for something that looks really good. It is also important to remember that this piece, despite most of it being hidden, is likely to be on the turntable for 20 or so years and needs to look good for that time. Take a look at an Arcam black FMJ piece at any dealer and you will see the problem of getting that wrong. They seem to attract dust and a slight brush of the finger seems to embed skin cells that refuse to be removed. Try cleaning with a paper towel and things just get worse. A finish that looks good and stays looking good over the extensive life of the typical LP12 is a necessity and fits with other materials like the plinth and stainless steel top plate. But not, sadly, the outer platter - where is the enduring finish for that?lejonklou wrote:I agree with you here. The copy is not as well made, but how much harm this will do to the music is unclear.
The finish - Keel quality is certainly excellent, but does it matter to performance?
The machining - The copy uses only larger diameter tools, which is why it looks much coarser. But does this matter to the sound given that all contact areas are flat?
The flat area above the bearing - The copy is certainly simplified here, I agree that it probably matters.
The machining - you skipped over the missing integrated arm collar. A major bit of corner cutting and quite likely, IMHO, to cause a performance penalty.
I understand your feeling that Linn could have included a set of springs and grommets with the Keel. But the English version of the Keel manual makes no mention of replacing them. While I find that the Keel is definitely more finicky in regards to straight suspension bolts and good springs and grommets (if it "ticked" on a Cirkus it will be worse on a Keel), I do not generally replace them all when I install a Keel. I usually find that I only have to replace a spring or a grommet or maybe two when setting up a Keel and we, of course, have a fair stock of replacements on hand. Also, while you and I may not have any need for those nice looking screwdrivers, I think it safe to say that a fair number of dealers do not have a #10 Security Torx screwdriver handy and wouldn't be able to attach the ground wires without it.lejonklou wrote:Regarding what is supplied with the Keel, I'm glad you brought that up. The old Cirkus upgrade kit came with a new main bearing, inner platter, springs, grommets and drive belts to make sure those who upgraded started with all new and optimal pieces. Was any of that included with the Keel? No, not even the very low cost bushings and springs. The Keel manual tells you to "don't forget to order new springs and bushings" :!: To save a £ or two on these and at the same time supply free Wera screwdrivers (that I have never had any use for) shows poor attention to detail in my humble opinion.
Why then does this suddenly greedy Linn sell it [the Trampolin/2] for the same exact price as the original Trampolin? It really just doesn't make sense.
I'm afraid I have to say that this pricing theory would tend to indicate a level of marketing savvy and cunning that appears to be far beyond anything that I have seen come out of Linn. :mrgreen: Are we talking about the same company that tries to sell $18,500US Klimax DS units without a useable remote control and didn't bother to include progressive scan in a 2005 DVD/receiver?lejonklou wrote:Simple: With 3 new LP12 upgrades after more than a decade of silence, all of them can't cost a fortune. The Ekos SE and Keel do, so the third had to be cheap. To show the world that these upgrades really are reasonably priced, the Trampolin/2 had to be both good and cheap.
most of the grief they took over the pricing occurred BEFORE the Keel was even on the market. AFTER it was released the number of complaints on the forums went way down
My final thought, which is really another way of stating something I said in the quoted previous post, has to do with the pricing of this knockoff vs. the real Keel. As a manufacturer, I'm sure you have to admit that someone with a little electronics knowledge could take your Slipsik, copy the basic design, use some cheaper parts, skimp on how they oriented and soldered the components and put it in a case more like the Kinki and it would spec out basically the same. Without having to cover the cost of development, dealer and distributor margin, manuals, decent packaging, etc. they would be able to sell it directly for a fourth of what you sell it for. But it would also likely perform substantially worse than a real Slipsik and quite probably worse than the Kinki.lejonklou wrote:I agree with you here. The Keel is a fantastic product, period. The mourning about a high price can't go on forever, but the testimonials from us who upgraded can - there is much to say about how good it is!
I feel that this pseudo-Keel is exactly the same thing. A poorly executed, corner cutting, direct copy of a quality piece being sold directly by someone with little or no R&D, overhead and distribution costs. That he sells it for $725 is unsurprising. Considering, in addition, his reduced materials costs and reduced machining and finishing costs he is probably doing pretty well for himself - but I don't think his customers are likely to be getting a better deal, or even as good a one, as what they are getting from Linn.
And, yes I'd really like to have the Keel sell for $1200 myself. And I admit that it is possible that Linn is making a killing on it. But I don't have any actual evidence that it is not priced the same way Linn has tended to price products in the past. And this poor clone is more likely to convince me that Linn's pricing is fair than that it's unfair.
Thomas: Solid arguments from you again and I rest my case. But I still think that Linn would have sold more, earned more and improved their reputation if the Keel had been priced at half of what it currently is. Not possible? If they really wanted to, it would have been.
Robert: Haven't heard any of the Funk Firm stuff yet, but I've read what they claim and what users report. And I'm sorry to say it doesn't sound convincing to my ears. Treble sweetness, blacker blacks, increased detail and imaging - well, I won't rule anything out until I have listened to it (or somebody I trust has), but descriptions like that don't spark my interest.
Robert: Haven't heard any of the Funk Firm stuff yet, but I've read what they claim and what users report. And I'm sorry to say it doesn't sound convincing to my ears. Treble sweetness, blacker blacks, increased detail and imaging - well, I won't rule anything out until I have listened to it (or somebody I trust has), but descriptions like that don't spark my interest.
-
Music Lover
- Very active member
- Posts: 1673
- Joined: 2007-01-31 20:35
- Location: In front of Lejonklou/JBL/Ofil
yes :!:lejonklou wrote: Linn would have sold more, earned more and improved their reputation if the Keel had been priced at half of what it currently is.
Same goes with the Artikulat and Kontrol upgrades.
First they cost a fortune, then a few years later the upgrade cost 25% of the price (close to 50% of the second hand value)
I can somehow understand that the speaker upgrade cost money but SOO much?
Remember the Komri upgrades (new 4Karray and modified amps) were free.
And the KK upgrade (new main board) is not expensive to manufacture.
Or should we expect an upgrade costing 25% of retail price every 5 years? :?
It's all about musical understanding!
I agree with both posts. It does seem like we've entered the age of expensive Linn upgrades and I do think Linn could be more reasonable on them, especially in the case of things like the Artikulat 350s where IMHO they are just making them they way they should have been when released. I think they should reward the early adopters by making the upgrade as inexpensive as possible.
And don't even get me started on the new expensive Linn service fees. I'm really hoping the new US distributor will do something about it.
But I have to say it has been fun sparring with you, Fredrik. We so rarely seem to have a difference of opinion on things Hi-Fi that I felt the need to take advantage of this one (even though our views are not really that different). And it gave me a good chance to complain about what I see as a sloppy copy.
The defense rests. :)
And don't even get me started on the new expensive Linn service fees. I'm really hoping the new US distributor will do something about it.
But I have to say it has been fun sparring with you, Fredrik. We so rarely seem to have a difference of opinion on things Hi-Fi that I felt the need to take advantage of this one (even though our views are not really that different).
And it gave me a good chance to complain about what I see as a sloppy copy. The defense rests. :)
Good. Then go directly to this thread and explain yourself: :twisted:ThomasOK wrote:But I have to say it has been fun sparring with you, Fredrik.
http://www.lejonklou.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=384
Cool down guys. :lol:
I think anyone slagging off the price of the Keel is not only doing Linn a disservice but also the good dealers who have to install it.The Akiva isnt exactly given away is it?Why does nobody moan about that.Is it because the Keel looks so simple.Do any of you guys know how much the wheel(sounds like?) cost when that first came out.?It was expensive let me tell you...!!?
I am more comfortable paying 2 grand for a well machined piece of kit that has been carefully installed in my lp12 and get a massive improvement than spend 2 grand on a Majik DS box of tricks(digital is very expensive;pound /sound) that wont be that great in a few years.Once Linn do a decent Linto and improve their pre-amp(KK) we will really hear what the Keel is all about. Linns stuff is still good V for M.The Ekos SE? I'm not so sure about
I think anyone slagging off the price of the Keel is not only doing Linn a disservice but also the good dealers who have to install it.The Akiva isnt exactly given away is it?Why does nobody moan about that.Is it because the Keel looks so simple.Do any of you guys know how much the wheel(sounds like?) cost when that first came out.?It was expensive let me tell you...!!?
I am more comfortable paying 2 grand for a well machined piece of kit that has been carefully installed in my lp12 and get a massive improvement than spend 2 grand on a Majik DS box of tricks(digital is very expensive;pound /sound) that wont be that great in a few years.Once Linn do a decent Linto and improve their pre-amp(KK) we will really hear what the Keel is all about. Linns stuff is still good V for M.The Ekos SE? I'm not so sure about
I know that tune
Surely the DS products will be around for quite some time and if Linn have really solved some of the old problems found in CD playback, then there may not be any more big steps forward - at least in the near future.I am more comfortable paying 2 grand for a well machined piece of kit that has been carefully installed in my lp12 and get a massive improvement than spend 2 grand on a Majik DS box of tricks(digital is very expensive;pound /sound) that wont be that great in a few years.
Why? I'm keen to know what you think of it? :)The Ekos SE? I'm not so sure about
-
Music Lover
- Very active member
- Posts: 1673
- Joined: 2007-01-31 20:35
- Location: In front of Lejonklou/JBL/Ofil
YEAH!lejonklou wrote:Good. Then go directly to this thread and explain yourself: :twisted:ThomasOK wrote:But I have to say it has been fun sparring with you, Fredrik.
http://www.lejonklou.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=384
Drop the gloves guys, don't be shy :mrgreen:
It's all about musical understanding!
"Put up your dukes, put up your dukes!"lejonklou wrote:Good. Then go directly to this thread and explain yourself: :twisted:ThomasOK wrote:But I have to say it has been fun sparring with you, Fredrik.
http://www.lejonklou.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=384
More fun? :D
There's something to explain? :? It seems to me that I mostly agreed with your comments as is indicated by a few quotes I pulled from my last reply:
"For the most part I agree about the sonic quality."
"But yes, there are not as many newcomers into THE LINN enthusiast group as there used to be."
"I totally agree with all you are saying here."
I believe I was more just giving the view from across the pond where the market is a bit different due to all the big, and often ghastly, American iron in the Hi-Fi market. Also, I don't know how well Linn is promoted in Sweden but in the US they are a fairly small fish in a big ocean whereas in the UK they seem to be just the opposite. As an example we are the only real Linn dealer in a three state area made up of Michigan, Indiana and Ohio. Obviously this means that many potential customers are totally unaware that Linn even exist.
Wow! You were around before the wheel! :) And here I thought I was old having been born before color television was a reality in the US.Lego wrote:Cool down guys. :lol:
I think anyone slagging off the price of the Keel is not only doing Linn a disservice but also the good dealers who have to install it.The Akiva isnt exactly given away is it?Why does nobody moan about that.Is it because the Keel looks so simple.Do any of you guys know how much the wheel(sounds like?) cost when that first came out.?It was expensive let me tell you...!!?