Funk APM for Linn LP12, Axis and Basik
This listing is unconventional and, for good reason, it is longer than most.
Your Linn was built in pursuit of better sound. Read on and discover how its felt mat holds back more of the performance already within it.
Dealer: “You’d like better sound? Certainly. Here’s a new bearing… sub-chassis… motor… power supply… How about a new deck?”
But a mat? The mat is never considered as part of an upgrade path. Why is that?
Is it because the mat is seen as nothing more than something for the record to sit on?
What if, by walking straight past the mat, without understanding how directly it affects record replay, we have missed just how much better your Linn could sound?
Are you prepared to listen to heresy? Because a mat is not “just a mat.”
Then let’s begin.
You bought your Linn—LP12, Axis or Basik—believing every important part had been carefully engineered to deliver the best possible sound.
(Yes, your Axis and Basik are capable of a really good standard of performance. You only need to know how to get it.)
There can’t be any harm in questioning whether the felt mat is there merely for the record to sit on, especially as no one else seems to have. If felt is the right material for the job, it will stand scrutiny.
Linn is obsessive about sound. It has engineered for rigidity, timing and preventing “loss of information,” and developed numerous upgrades to improve the performance of its turntables.
Its entire development history shows that Linn understands each component can affect the sound.
Notably, however, throughout some 40 years of development, one component has remained constant and unchanged: the component supporting the record, just 2mm beneath the groove.
It’s the mat, and felt has remained Linn’s mat of choice.
It is found, of course, on the Basik, Axis and every LP12—not just your Majik LP12, but all the way to the £50,000 50th Anniversary model.
£50,000. Think about that.
If felt remains beneath the record even there, one is invited to draw only one conclusion:
Felt must be the best.
Indeed, if felt is genuinely the optimum record support, shouldn’t it be found on every serious turntable?
Most LP12 upgrades cannot be compared instantly. The deck must be stripped, rebuilt and reset and many hours go by, leaving the listener to rely heavily upon aural memory.
Fortunately for us, that restriction does not apply to the mat. To hear its effect is easy—simply swap it, in seconds.
Let us begin gently.
If it is there merely for the record to sit on, that is something the platter could do just as well. No, that is not it.
Instead, with only 2mm of thickness between stylus and mat, the mat is the only component available to control energy in the record as it is played.
Now we can see that it forms a real part of the replay system, and in as direct a sense as possible.
To describe that role as important is an incredible understatement. But, isn’t it beyond important? It’s critical to your sound!
Linn tells us that its pursuit of better sound demands exceptional care—something self-evident everywhere else in the turntable. It is fair to assume, then, that Linn selected felt only after exhaustive listening, laboratory measurement, material evaluation, prototype development and repeated refinement.
We want to know just what it is that makes felt so exceptional.
Felt was used on record players before Ford introduced the Model T in 1908.
Since then, cars, aircraft, telephones, medicine—and turntables themselves—have developed beyond recognition. Manufacturers speak constantly of advanced materials, closer tolerances and continuing research, all in pursuit of better performance.
Yet the material supporting the record remains felt: technology more than a century old.
Can we really assume that it cannot be improved?
The good news is that we can check. We have measurements and we have our ears.
(With luck, the two might even agree.)
Spoiler: they do—only the result does not support felt. There would otherwise be little point in this listing.
Nor does felt solve the static that continues to plague records, even on a £50,000 turntable.
Think of a bobsleigh careering around its track. Its behaviour is not unlike that of the stylus.
The occupants are jostled and thrown against the walls as they accelerate at just 5g.
A stylus tracing a record groove experiences accelerations exceeding 20,000g.
It pile-drives energy into the vinyl, and the record’s 2mm depth means that energy reaches the mat very quickly.
The mat can now do one of two things.
It can dissipate the energy—that is good.
Or it can fail to control it, leaving energy moving within the record—that is bad.
When that reflected energy returns to the stylus, it mixes with the true musical information cut into the groove, and the stylus reads it—that is very bad.
It is very bad because the reflection is not clean music. It is distorted and out of phase and time. It is blur.
Sonically, the result can be heard as:
· Less controlled bass
· Notes losing definition
· Softer timing
· Instruments becoming harder to separate
· Fine detail being masked
· A less stable stereo image
These are all tangible descriptions arising from a poor mat that you probably never gave a second thought to.
(What descriptions would one assign to a plinth or bearing?)
If felt is the best, how well does it live up to this task and manage the energy?
What is felt actually doing?
Music is transient in nature.
A good mat should settle energy quickly and behave evenly, without violent peaks or abrupt changes.
Plot its behaviour and we should expect a substantially controlled response—within perhaps ±3dB.
No one appears interested in measuring mats these days, but fortunately Hi-Fi Choice did—in 1985.
Picture 2 shows cartridge behaviour with the record supported on felt.
Far from producing a controlled trend—never mind remaining within ±3dB—the response rises to approximately +40dB and then falls to around −30dB: a total swing of roughly 70 decibels.
That is not merely poor.
It is appalling.
The stylus is not just following the groove. It is also physically moving in response to uncontrolled mechanical behaviour caused by the mat’s inability to control the disc.
We return to the fact that felt is an unoptimised technology more than 100 years old.
Imagine that you are a manufacturer.
Felt is extremely cheap. It costs pennies. It is also easy to cut, easy to pack and produces almost no manufacturing rejects.
Whether selected by design or convenience, those are excellent reasons for a manufacturer to use it.
The reality is that you are not the manufacturer. You are a music lover.
You do not care about manufacturing convenience.
For the music lover, the question is:
Where is the sonic benefit?
When you bought your Linn, you bought into a promise—a contract of sorts—of serious research and engineering directed towards better sound.
You paid to have that work done for you.
Yet directly beneath the record—millimetres from the stylus—is a cheap textile mat whose measured behaviour is dreadful.
The only remaining hope is that this does not affect what we hear.
Unfortunately, it does.
It does not take a genius to connect uncontrolled mechanical behaviour with compromised sound.
Measurement and listening agree, rather easily. Given the extreme measured swing, that is understandable.
To add insult to injury, felt brings one more irritation: static.
Felt is an insulator.
Mat-cling remains an ongoing nuisance as the charged mat sticks to the record and lifts from the platter.
Linn has acknowledged the symptom and offered an answer: stick the mat down with tape.
Problem solved?
Er… no!
Holding the mat down merely hides the symptom of clinging. It does nothing about the static, which remains.
And the real problem with static? Dust—the record’s number-one enemy.
Dust is attracted to a charged record, where it does not merely add noise. Dust contamination within the groove also contributes to wear.
It is literally a case of brushing the dust under the mat.
This all seems wrong.
Can we put it right?
Let us cut to the chase.
Compare the measured felt response with the measured response from Funk’s APM in Picture 4.
There is no comparison.
When science is applied correctly, you benefit.
How does APM control the energy?
APM is based upon Achromat.
Its patented structure contains millions of tiny cells, rather like the bubbles inside an Aero bar.
As unwanted energy enters the material, the cell walls flex.
This dissipates energy rather than allowing strong reflections to travel back through the record to the stylus.
For more than 20 years, Achromat has demonstrated how much better a properly engineered mat can perform—not only against felt, but against rubber, metal, glass and many other materials.
You might therefore think Achromat was already perfect.
To many users, perhaps it was.
To Funk, development did not stop.
Continued listening, measurement and experimentation showed that, such are the forces generated at the stylus, Achromat alone was not the complete answer.
Funk developed APM:
The Advanced Platter Mat
APM combines three elements within one controlled structure:
· Achromat, directly beneath the record, dissipates unwanted energy
· A viscoelastic bond controls movement between the layers
· A rigid support plate supports the Achromat evenly and consistently
It is not a cheap and easily stamped product. It is a genuinely complex construction.
Together, these elements form a more highly developed composite solution, with measured behaviour that is exemplary.
Indeed, the plot shows that the stylus detects almost no additional movement generated by the record-support system.
In other words, APM leaves the stylus far freer to trace the groove, rather than forcing it to respond to uncontrolled energy returning through the record.
Listening confirms the result.
In an effort to be transparent, ask your dealer why Linn supplies felt and see what answer you receive.
Then hear APM and decide whether felt really is the better support for your record.
APM is an engineered construction and is naturally thicker than a simple stamped felt mat.
For the quickest possible comparison, simply replace the felt mat with APM and listen. Do not adjust anything.
Because APM is thicker, the arm height will not yet be optimised—meaning APM enters the comparison at a disadvantage. Even so, the difference is readily heard, and you will struggle to find a faster A–B test anywhere in turntable upgrading.
Once you have made that comparison, the arm height can be set correctly. On an LP12 this is a normal setup operation, much like fitting a different cartridge.
It really is easy.
Once you understand how critical the mat is to the turntable’s performance, retaining felt means continuing to hold back further potential already within your turntable.
· Cleaner, tighter bass
· Sharper timing
· Better separation between instruments
· Clearer vocals
· Greater image stability
· More low-level information
· Less of the thickening and blur often mistaken for warmth
None of these is a new tonal effect.
They are the sounds already locked within the record groove, reproduced closer to what the recording engineer wanted you to hear.
APM is one of several Funk developments designed to release performance already present within your Linn. Our Klever system addresses another overlooked part of the replay chain.
APM is available in five colours:
· Red
· Yellow
· Blue
· White
· Black
Should you be uncertain about, colour, compatibility or fitting, please ask. We will be happy to help.
LP12 Abalone EKOS SE Black APM
Felt Mat Response plot
APM Response
Achromat construction
Five APM Colours
Axis with three different colour APMs