What Does It Take To Surpass A SME V?

The original question has been ignored for 2 pages of useless controversies and sterile debates between 3 people. Tired of it. I quit. 

@senza  Yeah the thread is pretty well useless. I don't see much value in it either. 

@neonknight It is strange that your evaluation of the development of the Thread into how a Mounting for a TT Platter Bearing and Tonearm should be produced as a structure.

Using the Single Minded 'one method only' approach, that is being so fought for, to prove it as the absolute and only method to be used.

It Clearly is stating the first reference to a comparison between a SME V 12" and an alternative SME 12" Arm have been inadequately carried out.

The statement is also making it known the Methodology incorporated as Part of the design on your Turntable are flawed and a failing, so your use of the SME V are questionable in the individual making the statements assessment and any other that is agreeing with their view.

It is also heavily leaning toward the notion that a TT that has a Bearing Mounted on a Chassis, and the Chassis Mounted on a Plinth, along with a Tonearm Mounted on the same Single Material Plinth is Flawed. The Chassis is a different material to the Plinth and an impediment to how the energies are transferred and the mechanical coupling between Bearing and Tonearm are rigidly interfaced. 

To have a Tonearm attached to a Sub Plinth and Turntable Bearing on a Separate Plinth, is stated to be wrong, and 50 years of experience from the individual fighting their corner for the 'one method only' approach, has found proof to confirm that your Tonearm in use and any other you might choose to use are totally flawed in use, due to the design for the TT / Tonearm Interface.

I am not seeing any value to this, it is a flawed approach with limitations, as the real science will most likely show most Rigid Coupling Designs are with a compromise and a deviation for the real mechanical requirements.

As Stated Previously in posts, There is a TT Design to be tried imminently that has athe chassis removed and and a Densified Wood is the surrogate Chassis and Plinth to receive Tonearms. This is produced as a result of my interest in developing the Rigid Coupling Theory and an attempt to further remove the usually seen impediments present for the design. 

My experiences supply myself with quite different outcomes, in how I percieve how different TT / Tonearm Interfaces Perform. I am 'out there' experiencing what other do. I am not locked up in a Room all insular with a single minded attitude, that is not offering a constructive criticism in any manner. It is a attack on the usage of other methodologies, that are seen in use and endorsed by numerous individuals, who are designers, producers, dealers and enthusiastic end users.

I know there is an endless experience of Successful Replays being experienced as a Musical Encounter, as a result of not having a Turntable and Tonearm rigidly coupled to a Single Material Type on the same plane. 

On that note - I'm out of this thread as well, it has become a place to endorse the Poo Pooing all over methods adopted by a Vast Amount of Vinyl users. 

@pindac 

What are you talking about? I wrote nothing about this "theory". You people created it all on your own. 

The original question is what does it take to surpass a SME V? My turntable is a SOTA Cosmos Eclipse. So it's a floating subchassis. I have no need to discuss tonearm and bearing mounting structure because my choice is defined by the 1 inch thick aluminum subchassis. 

What is being written has nothing to do with the original topic. 

@neonknight Your request for info is based around alternative Tonearm Options to the SME V of a Dimension a as stated in the OP " The replacement has to be 9 to 10.5 inches. 

"What are you talking about? I wrote nothing about this "theory". You people created it all on your own". 

12" Tonearms were brought into the Thread not by @pindac 

The follow up to the sharing about a 12" arm being deselected for another, is where the thread fell apart, as the the usual P**ing Match kicked off to prove one opinion is more valid than another's.

Your Thread being hammered with unimportant info' and tolerated by yourself, with no value seen in the content being presented to your own inquiry. 

Standalone Tonearm Pods were not brought into the Thread by @pindac .

Making the Statement " stand alone tonearm pods are a disaster in progress " is not produced from the @pindac Keyboard.

The follow up reasoning being bludgeoned into the thread for explaining the disaster of a Standalone Arm Pod is flawed and suggests that TT designs that aren't Rigid Coupled are, and points the finger at numerous TT / Tonearm Interfaces as being inferior in their design, suggesting aesthetic is a contributor to the failure.

The SOTA Cosmos Eclipse is as exposed to the accusation of being a inferior design as all the others 'thrown under the bus'.

@mijostyn is wrong, especially when they are advocates and are actively promoting a TT and Tonearm, the same Brand as your own that is not a Rigidly Coupled Design.

My assessment is that the design has way to many parts to be used for the Structure to even be considered as a Rigid Structure. The Separate Tonearm Pod is an assembly of Laminations of different materials and attached to a separate material to the Platter Spindle.

What I feel confident in saying is that the design used in your case, with whatever tonearm of a 9" - 10.5" Dimension, will be capable of producing an " endless experience of Successful Replays "

2