Linn LP-12 still competitive with the very best?

In response to Eee3 I never said that newer was better. I am responding to the fact that linn is not competitive at it's price point with better designed tables. I for one cannot understand the statement if it ain't broke don't fix it? We are not talking about waffle iron's here but an expensive TT. That has not kept up with most if not all the competition with all it's years in existence. When the Goldmund studio first came out it trashed the Linn with it's looks and use of newer material's which contributed to a better performance. Yet through it all Linn never addressed it's inferior built and the lack of wanting to use better known materials. I will concede if not for the use of the Pabst motor on many older Goldmund's they would have sold at first glance before anyone would have considered a Linn. I also find it laughable with the need of an expert Linn setup technician to float the table "suspending it in mid air" so to correctly set it up. There are tables from VPI, Rega and many other's that would take most of 45min or less to set up rightly out of box with better sound and with reliability of setup.

Owned mine since '90. I've had it "tuned up" once in '03, which, unless you're truly a 'hands-on' person, should be done on ANY TT older than a decade. My Linn has never failed me and has always sounded great. Maybe I lucked out and bought the only one that isn't 'fussy'!;)

Chazro, I guess you bought the only other one, besides mine, that isn't fussy. I bought mine in the mid 70s, had it updated a couple of times, last tuned about 15 years ago. I've never had the first problem and it still sounds great. I've had two other tables but I always come back to the Linn. What other electronic product can you count on to work flawlessly for 30 plus years?

"As far as engineering and construction goes, the thrust plate in the bearing well is machined so precisely, you cannot measure its flatness mechanically. You have to use wavelengths of light to measure it. Hardly obsolete."

Mechanical measurement of surface roughness is at least two orders of magnitude more accurate than using light (see atomic force microscopy). This has to be one of the most inane comments I've read in quite awhile.

I am not a Linnie as I did not buy one until this fall for a back up table. There are a number of people, such as Martin Colloms, who have heard most things and have top systems who still use the Linn so it must be competitive. As noted, the outside appearance has changed but the inside is very different. I'll bet some of those telling you how obsolete it is are using tube amps with circuits straight from the 50s.