radikal

We use the Tune Method to evaluate performance

Moderator: Staff

User avatar
ThomasOK
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4358
Joined: 2007-02-02 18:41
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by ThomasOK »

lejonklou wrote:Your probably confused! :mrgreen:

Checking Wikipedia, it said something interesting: "The most common zamak alloy is zamak 3, but zamak 2, zamak 5 and zamak 7 are still commercially used."

Which one is the LP12 platter made of? And has it changed? Maybe we should ask someone at Linn about this, it seems ridiculous to guess and I'm sure they don't mind if we order a bunch of new platters in case it's actually improved.
From the latest version of the LP12 spec sheet (Revised 02/04):

Platter

2 pieces, made of non-magnetic
Mazak 8 (app. 4.1kg)
Production tolerance 0.025mm,
optimal weight distribution

Who is confused? :wink:

See also: http://www.brockmetals.sk/mazak8.htm
Azazello
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 630
Joined: 2007-01-30 21:59
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Post by Azazello »

ThomasOK wrote:Who is confused? :wink:
Probably someone at Linn who miss-spelled the last order. :lol:
User avatar
lejonklou
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6524
Joined: 2007-01-30 10:38
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by lejonklou »

ThomasOK wrote:Who is confused? :wink:
I was, but no longer am. This is a "we're proud to be British" thing. From Wikipedia again:

"In the early 1930s Morris Ashby in Britain had licensed the New Jersey zamak alloy. The high-purity refluxer zinc was not available in Britain and so they acquired the right to manufacture the alloy using a locally available electrolytically refined zinc of 99.95% purity. This was given the name Mazak, partly to distinguish it from zamak and partly from the initials of Morris Ashby. In 1933, National Smelting licensed the refluxer patent with the intent of using it to produce 99.99% zinc in their plant at Avonmouth."

Your spec sheet quote provided useful information, Thomas: Zamak/Mazak 8 is the composition. Now has it been 8 all along or has it changed?

My outer platter weighs 2.53 kg, quite a bit more than what Chris reported.
User avatar
Moomintroll
Active member
Active member
Posts: 166
Joined: 2007-04-22 21:52
Location: UK

Post by Moomintroll »

I'm sure some of the Linn literature from the 80's refers to Mazak 5.

'troll
User avatar
ThomasOK
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4358
Joined: 2007-02-02 18:41
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by ThomasOK »

I rather expected it to be one of those "British" things.

In looking at a number of older pieces of LP12 literature and Linn magazines I was unable to find any mention of Mazak 5 or indeed of Mazak at all except in the latest version of the LP12 lit. The phrase used quite consistently is "a non-magnetic zinc-aluminium alloy".

However, in the LP12 exploded diagram last updated in 1996 the part number for the outer platter is OPLAT/04. The part number shown on the most recent parts price list from February 09 is OPLAT/05. Since the number after the slash generally refers to the revision number it seems like this could well be the fifth version of the outer platter. But the LP12 history does not mention anything about updated outer platters. I just asked the distributor the other day and they said that OPLAT/05 is still shown as the current part. Since the new LP12 exploded diagram from April 2007 shows the part number as OPLAT-R it looks like they aren't using the revision number so the drawing doesn't go out of date when the parts revision numbers change. This would leave us not knowing when the the outer platter changed from 04 to 05 except that it was sometime after 1996. Fortunately, I keep a database of Linn documents including old price lists. I have found that on the August 2008 parts price list the part number is still OPLAT/04. Since this is the most recent parts price list before the February 09 one, the part must have changed between August 08 and February 09 - fairly recent indeed!

Obviously the change in part numbers could be due to a change in material made necessary by lack of availability of the original material as recently happened with the armboard, in which case Linn likely wouldn't bother to mention in in the history. (The LP12 history hasn't been updated for quite some time anyway so many changes could be missing from the list.) But it would be interesting to know why the change in part occurred and if Linn did feel there was a musical improvement. Since Linn have done a lot of major refinement of the LP12 platform in recent years with the Keel, Trampolin2, Ekos SE, Radikal and Urika it would not be surprising to find that they also re-evaluated some of the other parts and have made refinements.
User avatar
ThomasOK
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4358
Joined: 2007-02-02 18:41
Location: United States
Contact:

The new LP12 platter - part 1.

Post by ThomasOK »

Yesterday I received one of the new LP12 platters, OPLAT/05. (Sometimes I don't wait very long before jumping on these things. :) )

This is definitely lighter than the previous platter. The shipping scale I have at home is only accurate to 2 ounces so I can't give the exact weights. But my older platter, an OPLAT/04, weighed at 5 lbs 8oz. (I put it on several times and once it came up as 5lbs 6oz but the others it came up as 5 lbs 8oz, so it is safe to say it is somewhere between 5lbs 7oz and 8oz.) The new OPLAT/05 I would call 5lbs 3oz. (It came up as either 5lbs 2oz or 5lbs 4oz almost equally - one more time with the 2oz weight on the several times I tried it.)

So to summarize:
New platter OPLAT/05 5lbs 3oz
Old platter OPLAT/04 5lbs 8oz (possibly 7oz)
So a difference of approximately 5oz!

This is not a trivial amount that you would expect to come from machining differences from one platter to the next. Physically, the two platters appear to be the same. I did not have a micrometer handy but the thickness of the platter and the rim appeared to be the same as did the contours of the machining. The two platters also appeared to ring about the same amount when held up and tapped. So my best guess is that there has been a change in the alloy itself. Since the spec sheet that referred to the metal as Mazak 8 is from 2004, which is somewhere in the middle of the life of the OPLAT/04, it could be that a different material is now used. Of course, it could also be that the new platter actually is a little thinner in areas and it just isn't enough to be apparent to the naked eye looking at them side by side.

The "speckled tinge' that Chris mentions is NOT restricted to the new platter. From the looks of it I am pretty sure that this textured look is caused by the spray pattern of the machine they use to apply the protective lacquer. It appears on the underside except on the mating surface of the platter and the bottom edge of the rim and also on the top of the platter. But this same texture is also on my older OPLAT/04 which is only two or three years old. So my guess is Chris's older platter was produced when they were using a different machine to apply the lacquer.

So after all this how does the new platter sound? That will have to wait for Part 2. I want to make sure that I am comparing the platters themselves and not other factors when I listen, but it should be soon.
User avatar
lejonklou
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6524
Joined: 2007-01-30 10:38
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by lejonklou »

Great work!!

I can't wait to read part 2!

Judging by your weights, I definitely have the old platter.

Old: 5lb 8oz = 2.49 kg
New: 5lb 3oz = 2.35 kg
Chris Morton
Member
Member
Posts: 33
Joined: 2008-02-15 00:25

Post by Chris Morton »

lejonklou wrote:Great work!!

I can't wait to read part 2!

Judging by your weights, I definitely have the old platter.

Old: 5lb 8oz = 2.49 kg
New: 5lb 3oz = 2.35 kg
Well I made a mistake in reading my scales. My old platter is also 5lb 8oz. However, the new platter still shows a weight which is greater than 5lb 3 oz. Mine is closer to 5lbs 6 oz. Of course, we're talking kitchen scales here and the error bars on the measurement could be several ounces or more re: Thomas's comments.

My Radikal/Urika has now had about 3-4 weeks of running in and frankly speaking, the results are really amazing. The Isobariks just dissapear. The resolution of my system has increased dramatically. Peter roughly quantified the improvements as 25% but I would say right now that we are talking 35% to 40% better (whatever that really means to people).

The detail, subtlety and space in the music is just amazing. Of course the question is how does this transfer into musical enjoyment? Well, the music just seems to have been pulled appart but the coordination of all the sounds seems to be so right so that you just can't stop tapping your foot/nodding your head. Deep in the base there are all kinds of sounds that I haven't heard before and they have pitch-rightness, not just noise. You realize that before, base notes and sounds were being played but they were just a bit off pitch so that they didn't harmoniously resonate with the rest of the music. Now the emotion in the music through the harmony in all the different sounds has gone up very dramactically.

I agree with others that the Radikal (with Urika in my case) is by far the biggest upgrade I've ever heard. The sound is very, very different but in such a musically right and satisfying way. I feel like saying that my system is now complete.

Of course, our systems are never complete :)

Chris.
LP12 SE/Radikal/Urika,KK, Aktiv Isobariks
User avatar
lejonklou
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6524
Joined: 2007-01-30 10:38
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by lejonklou »

Have you compared the platters yet, Thomas?

We want part 2! :D
User avatar
ThomasOK
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4358
Joined: 2007-02-02 18:41
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by ThomasOK »

lejonklou wrote:Have you compared the platters yet, Thomas?

We want part 2! :D
Unfortunately not yet. I am hoping to be able to do that this weekend - last weekend was just too busy. To make sure I am hearing the actual change from the platter itself I feel it is time I come to grips with platter orientation to make sure it does not contribute to what I hear.

But I do have a report that I know some have been waiting for. I have finally had an opportunity to compare a Radikal in AV chassis vs. a Radikal in Klimax chassis. I'm sorry to say that I have good news and bad news. The good news is that the Radikal in machined aluminum actually is more musical than the Radikal in the standard casework. The bad news is also that the Radikal in machined aluminum actually is more musical than the Radikal in the standard casework. :(

I need to qualify this by saying that this was not as even a test as I would like to have done. The Radikal MA (Machined Aluminum) was new out of the box and I was only able to have it powered on for four days, most of that time only idling, before I did the comparison. The Radikal AV I used was my own which does have at least a couple of weeks warm up on the replacement controller board and much longer on the PSU board. Also my Radikal AV was sited on a single Quadraspire Q4 midi shelf on spikes and skeets and the Radikal MA was sitting on top of it with a towel in between. My feeling is that any advantage from this should go to the Radikal AV but it is hard to say for sure.

What I found is that the Radikal MA is just slightly more musical than the Radikal AV under these conditions. The difference is quite small, certainly several orders of magnitude less than the improvement from a Trampolin2 over a 1, but it is undeniably there. It wasn't so much that the music was easier to follow as it was that it sounded like a little bit better pianist playing a little better piano recorded with a bit better microphones. I did have to listen pretty closely but the improvement was there and it was consistent in several back and forth comparisons. Whether the difference is small enough that it would be swamped by putting the lesser unit on a better rack, as one dealer suggested, I can't say, but my experience is that the rack a unit sits on, while it can make a definite improvement, does not precede the item that sits upon it in the hierarchy. (Who knows, with the Mimers Fredrik may want to contradict me on this.)

While it is less of an improvement than I would like to hear considering the expense involved, since Linn claim that the difference is strictly cosmetic I cannot fault them for that. And I can confirm that they are the same internal components mounted in the same fashion. So to sum up, an small improvement, but an improvement none the less.
Charlie1
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4831
Joined: 2007-12-11 00:30
Location: UK

Post by Charlie1 »

Yes, I've been waiting for that post for sure :) Very interesting.

Can't say I'm dissapointed to hear the difference was marginal. Would have been good to know if and how much bigger the gap had become if their locations were swapped around.

Thanks for reporting back to the forum.
Chris Morton
Member
Member
Posts: 33
Joined: 2008-02-15 00:25

Post by Chris Morton »

I think you might find that the platter is a rather more significant improvement than a Klimax-cased Radikal :D
LP12 SE/Radikal/Urika,KK, Aktiv Isobariks
k_numigl
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 348
Joined: 2008-01-30 12:23
Location: Friesland

Post by k_numigl »

I really wonder what kind of 'kitchen scales' are in use. The common digital
ones costing about 20-40 USD/Euro/GBP give you reliable results
within gramms (not ounces). Consequently, I was too lazy to take
either my outer platter to the lab (where a precision lab scale is at
hands) or the lab scale to my home. My kitchen scale reads 2582 gramms
(on a level surface). This outer platter is not old*: I installed it as part
of a new Cirkus Kit together with the Radikal, because my LP12
bearing showed signs of wear. Thus, every input about new/old outer
platters and their musical benefits is most welcome.

Second comment: The Radikal seems a mystery. It is so easy to
recognise that it sounds different when sitting on different surfaces.
I routinely try out every component on a rigid surface and on a
Linn Trampolin. Some work better on a rigid basis, some improve when
sitting on suspended material (e.g. the Klout improves much when
suspended). The Radikal disliked the Trampolin. But why the heck?
There´s not even going a sound signal through it. And as it is so
sensitive to its basis, could it be that we just have to find the
optimum basis for it to bring it up to a K-case performance, and
the K-Radikal is just less sensitive to its shelf? As it is less easy
to obtain at K-Radikal than a kitchen scale, I myself will never find out.

Regards, K.

* Comment added later: This is wrong, outer platter is old
model. See later post. kn
Last edited by k_numigl on 2010-01-15 10:19, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
lejonklou
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6524
Joined: 2007-01-30 10:38
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by lejonklou »

You beat me, Klaus! Your platter seems even more heavy than mine. :)

When I referred to a kitchen scale, it's an analogue one with counterweight. Probably far from exact and I expect yours to be more correct.

Agree about the Radikal support mystery. But I'm used to it, as it was the same thing with Lingo - only a bit less. My favourite unit to demonstrate tune differences due to different supports and power cords with used to be the Lingo. Now it's the Radikal, and it's even more sensitive. I won't bet too much money on the K-Radikal being any less sensitive...

Klout improving when on a suspended support was news to me! Any other units you have found react the same way?
User avatar
ThomasOK
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4358
Joined: 2007-02-02 18:41
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by ThomasOK »

OK, I have what I will call preliminary findings on the new platter. After doing some comparisons yesterday I do feel the newer platter is a little better but it is not a huge improvement. In fact I would rate it pretty close to the improvement I heard from the Radikal K vs. Radikal AV. I also feel this is one of those things that could bring out the Cirkus vs. original bearing types of debate. By this I mean that one of the differences I noticed was a more detailed, deeper and more tuneful bass on the new platter compared to a warmer, softer, fuller bass on the old platter.

In order to make sure I was doing a fair comparison I had to make sure I had a level playing field. To do this I evaluated platter orientation, the position of the outer platter relative to the inner platter, for the first time. I had heard that it could make an improvement before but just hadn't tried it. I have to say it does work - there will be a position in the rotation of the outer platter compared to the inner platter where the music will be more tuneful. It is not a huge change but is similar to getting the proper torque on some of the lesser screws like the motor wire to Lingo connection rather than something like the bolts that hold the top plate to the plinth which I feel make a bigger change. But the amount of improvement from proper orientation of the outer platter and from the new platter are potentially similar depending on how far off the outer platter is (although I do feel the type of improvement is somewhat different).

So I had to find the proper orientation for each platter, which I did with different musical tracks, before I felt I was doing a fair comparison. Then I compared the two optimized platters using the same mat. It was this comparison I based my findings on. I call them preliminary as I was only really able to compare one track after I took the time to do all the other optimizing (I had also optimized a couple more torque settings on my LP12). I plan to do some more comparisons with additional music when I have the chance but for the next couple of days I'll be more involved with cooking for Thanksgiving.

So my suggestion would be to try different orientations on your current outer platter first. I started out trying the orientation my platter had vs. rotated 180°. After determining which of those was better I tried 90° in each direction and then narrowed it down. I did find that a few degrees off the optimum was audible and that on the new platter going off one way made the bass worse while going off the other way made the vocals and cymbals sound worse but the right position brought it all together. Once you have gotten the outer platter in the optimum position try rotating it away by 90° or 180° and see how much difference you hear. This should give you a good idea of about the level of improvement the new platter can make. Then you can decide if it is worth the money to you to get one (about $330US). Either way you get a free upgrade from getting the platter position correct.
User avatar
lejonklou
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6524
Joined: 2007-01-30 10:38
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by lejonklou »

Many thanks for this thorough investigation! Is there anywhere else I could possibly get answers of this caliber?? I doubt it.

Thomas, when you have the platters optimally aligned, have you experimented with the position of the outer platter on the inner? What I'm referring to is the small gap between the platters that prevents them from ringing as a whole.

[The outer platter has a hole that is intentionally made slightly bigger than the required size to fit the inner platter. Both platters have a fundamental frequency with which they ring and with this arrangement, their combination is quite non-resonant. If the hole was a little smaller, they would start acting as one single platter - and have a pronounced ringing.]

To begin with, you can compare the outer platter being pushed in one direction versus having it perfectly centered. Centering it requires a suitable thin blade that can be run around the small gap between the platters. I used to have a set of blades for tuning my moped that worked perfectly, I'll see if I can find it.

I would guess that the center position is the best, but perhaps it doesn't make any difference?

And regarding the difference between OPLAT/04 and OPLAT/05, it seems that you saved me from the expense. For a while there, I honestly contemplated replacing an outer platter that is only a few years old. :o
User avatar
ThomasOK
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4358
Joined: 2007-02-02 18:41
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by ThomasOK »

I was aware of the spacing between the platters and you had mentioned using a feeler gauge in one of our earlier conversations. I don't have a feeler gauge small enough to fit the space so I was unable to be that precise about it but I did try to keep the outer platter easily centered. I will have to try pushing it to one side and then the other to see how much musical difference I can find. I'll give it a try when I have more time to do the platter comparison with more music.
User avatar
lejonklou
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6524
Joined: 2007-01-30 10:38
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by lejonklou »

Ah, 'feeler gauge' is what they're called!

I found mine. The thickness that works for the space between the platters is 0.05 mm. Doesn't seem like much, but it's very obvious that the platter can be perfectly centered with this feeler gauge - and then pushed to one side, which creates a very audible TCHICK.

As soon as the fever leaves my body, I'll give it a listen. Perhaps using 'Fever' by Elvis. :D
Lego
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 2007-04-18 11:42
Location: glasgow

Post by Lego »

lejonklou wrote:Ah, 'feeler gauge' is what they're called!

I found mine. The thickness that works for the space between the platters is 0.05 mm. Doesn't seem like much, but it's very obvious that the platter can be perfectly centered with this feeler gauge - and then pushed to one side, which creates a very audible TCHICK.

As soon as the fever leaves my body, I'll give it a listen. Perhaps using 'Fever' by Elvis. :D
Speedy recovery Fredrik! I've managed to avoid it..I must be the carrier..!!??
Is that Elvis track from the legendary RCA Living Stereo album 'Elvis is Back'.....?
I know that tune
User avatar
ThomasOK
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4358
Joined: 2007-02-02 18:41
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by ThomasOK »

Lego wrote:
lejonklou wrote:Ah, 'feeler gauge' is what they're called!

I found mine. The thickness that works for the space between the platters is 0.05 mm. Doesn't seem like much, but it's very obvious that the platter can be perfectly centered with this feeler gauge - and then pushed to one side, which creates a very audible TCHICK.

As soon as the fever leaves my body, I'll give it a listen. Perhaps using 'Fever' by Elvis. :D
Speedy recovery Fredrik! I've managed to avoid it..I must be the carrier..!!??
Is that Elvis track from the legendary RCA Living Stereo album 'Elvis is Back'.....?
That is indeed the one and a very fine track it is. Should work well for comparisons. Of course, you might also want to use "The Click Song" :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHxkiXALQjU
k_numigl
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 348
Joined: 2008-01-30 12:23
Location: Friesland

Post by k_numigl »

Despite topics mix a bit here, a short answer to the question of F.
whether I had found something else than a Klout to benefit from
a suspended basis: Yes, my Kairn is on Trampolin feet suspension.
The more modern boxes (Linto, Lingo, TuneBox) didn't like that. I
had several suspicions which gear would benefit and which not -
all in vein when seeing the Urika suspended. (But stop: has anyone tried it
UNsuspended??) So you just have to try. And it may well also depend
on the particular installation (I realised lately the 'bouncing Linto' thread,
and wouldn't rely on the findings there when seeing how much my
installation differs from the one shown there).

Klaus
User avatar
Tony Tune-age
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1579
Joined: 2009-12-19 19:07
Location: United States

Post by Tony Tune-age »

Lejonklou made the comment that the Radikal is sensitive to power cords and shelf placement. What type of power cord works the best in your experience, and have you used isolation devices such as component cones? Also, is a lower shelf (of an audio rack) better for the Radikal than a higher shelf?
Tony Tune-age
User avatar
lejonklou
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6524
Joined: 2007-01-30 10:38
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by lejonklou »

Power cords: This can be system specific, but in my system, the Volex cords have sounded best.

Cones or isolation: Not tried this, as I haven't been able to make it sound better than on a Mimer. The jump from Oden to Mimer is very, very obvious on a Radikal. Once on a Mimer, it just sounds worse when something is placed in between the aluminium shelf and the Radikal.

I don't know in what situations lower shelves are better than higher ones. On Harmonihyllan it doesn't work that way. The bottom shelf sounds the worst and the ones above it are about equal in performance. Perhaps the top shelf sounds a bit better than the others, I haven't checked this properly as I don't have the same type of shelf on the different heights.
User avatar
Tony Tune-age
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1579
Joined: 2009-12-19 19:07
Location: United States

Post by Tony Tune-age »

Thanks for sharing your experiences Lejonklou. Prior to purchasing the Radikal, I did experiment with the Linn Lingo outboard power supply. Basically, it sounded better on a shelf by itself, than sharing a shelf with another component. When isolation cones were used, the sound was not nearly as good as without isolation cones. Also, using after market power cords sounded better than the stock cord, although it did not need or require an overly expensive cord to sound better.

So, I have taken the lessons learned from that experience and utilized them for the Radikal. As such, I didn't know how productive it would be to do the experiment all over again with the Radikal.
Tony Tune-age
k_numigl
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 348
Joined: 2008-01-30 12:23
Location: Friesland

Post by k_numigl »

Two comments on the 'outer platter' issue.

First, I have to correct the statement, that my outer platter mentioned
earlier was a new version. A recent visit to my local shop revealed that the retailer installed the new Cirkus Kit, but used an outer platter that was
resting in stock for quite some time, as it is not that often replaced.
Reported weight thus refers to the older version.

Second, I wonder whether the difference in weight between the old and
new version (OPLAT04 vs 05) allows for a simple exchange of the
platters in order to compare them acoustically. Do you have to
readjust the spring settings of the LP12 when changing the platters,
or are the weight differences are too small to affect the spring balance?

I just wondered if acoustic differences reported by Thomas could
possibly be due to this issue.
Post Reply