Next step in Turntable

As said my Solid Tech Feet of Silence have superseded all other used footers.
My AT 616 are used under a Sub Plinth and are no longer used to be the Footer that is in contact with the TT's Plinth.
The Feet of Silence when used in the Construction of Materials to support the plinth has bettered them, when my ears are used to assess the effects.
I do use AT 616 under Cabinet Speakers and the effect that they have is quite satisfactory and I see no reason to change this as a method.

No fancy measurements at my end to convince me of my decisions for the use of Footers, The Method used is to Buy, Trial, Trial, Trial, in various permutations, Keep or Discard, using my ears as the Tool to make the choices.
When the Footers referred to above are under the radar, the purchase costs do creep upwards to be able to assess such devices. 

As difficult to believe as it is, even for myself when first experienced,
my Home Built Aerated Suspension Sub Sub Plinth was to have an effect on the above Tiers in the Support Structure, that really allowed the TT's Presentation to be quite special, and showed the real difference between the AT 616 and Solid Tech's     

The problem with @mijostyn is that he never tried the AT-616.
Here is the image of my AT-616 in my system (under Tannoy).

This is another set of AT under my ex SP-10mk2.
4 x AT616 designed for up to 132 lbs weight (60kg).  

The problem with Solid Tech is their ugly design, I would never put them under anything like vintage turntable (but it’s just my opinion).

'Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder'
The Aesthetic of the Solid Tech is certainly not their problem.
The Aesthetic might not be to all tastes, and this totally acceptable.

If a Concern about a Solid Tech Feet of Silence is to be raised, as a user,
I will say one has to be mindful of the loading, as it can be set up to take extra weight, but the Projections that are the Cantilever Suspension Points, may become compromised where they connect to the Main Body.  
I will additionally say the Foot Print would benefit from being a Little Wider, to give a reassurance that the Supported equipment is undoubtedly stable.
This is not the result of the supported device being able to be in a state of Flotation.
It is that the Diameter of the Base in relation to the Height of the Footer seems to suggest it would not survive and unwanted contact/force applied to the Device being supported.
If my Set Up was not in a Dedicated Room, where movements around the equipment are quite limited and carried out by respectful types, i.e, not the Grand Children.
I would have had an additional Footer Plate produced to give the sense of a improved Stability being available, and not compromise the Function.
As the Solid Tech does a very good Job, it would be worth the extra investment, when used in certain environments.  


  

@Mijo--In my experience all drive system represent trade-offs--none are perfect but some better than others. The TE-2 approach is to extract the best of what belt, direct, and idler systems have to offer while minimizing the downsides. I think the TE-2 achieves this goal as per speed stability, accuracy and quietness of operation. The proof is in both listening and measurements. As for dodging wow and flutter if you dig a little deeper you will see that Paulo at Sempersonus has developed a very sophisticated devise called the "Shaknspin" which Michael Fremer reviewed very positively on Analogue Planet. This clearly attests to the designers commitment to strong measured performance. You can read the review here:

https//www.analogplanet.com/content/shaknspin-electronically-measures-turntable-speed-plus-great-deal-more

Some Solid Tech feet are similar to Isonoe that I am using under my pair of Technics turntable in my second (not main) system.