Tonearm mount on the plinth or on Pillar ?

Ct, I if I misinterpreted the photo of the Verdier, mea culpa.  But would it be possible to have this discussion without the heavy air of sarcasm and condescension?  Most of us are trained professionals in some specialized area or other.  And most of us must have been fairly successful in our field, in order to be able to afford the toys that allow for these discussions to go forward.  I take it as a given that none of us is stupid, in other words.  My eyesight may rightly be faulted, if I did not see the single photo of the Verdier correctly, but I am not stupid, either.  You're certainly not the only one who is guilty of the insult approach to debate, so I apologize if you feel picked upon.

Now, to get back to the Verdier, I DO feel that the OEM tonearm mount on the Verdier is a weakness of the product.  It does include a sturdy vertical pillar, as you say, but then the actual platform for mounting the tonearm is attached to that vertical pillar and hung out in space (see my reference to an inverted L-shape).  This allows for easy adjustment of P2S distance, but it is not the greatest idea for structural rigidity.  The new pillar-shaped pedestal looks better to me, no matter whether it is attached to the granite or not.

Sorry, Ct.  I just took another look at that photo, and I still think that the new brushed aluminum or steel pillar that holds the tonearm closest to the viewer is NOT sitting on the shelf; to my eyes it is attached to the granite base that also supports the bearing and the platter.  IOW, not Copernican.  Not super optimal for the other school of thought (the linkage school), either, but in that general direction.

Atmasphere wrote,

"Unless, that is, if you are claiming you have a damping system so profoundly effective that ***zero*** vibration is the result- if that is the case, then you will have been successful where no-one has been before and the world will beat a path to your door."

i don’t think anyone is suggesting that damping techniques are 100% effective. Nor is anyone claiming that vibration isolation techniques are 100% effective. However, there are two points I’d like to make. One is that - generally speaking - vibration damping techniques, e.g., constrained layer damping, are regegated to frequencies, say, above 30 Hz, whereas vibration isolation techniques, e.g., mass-on-spring methods, are primarily regulated to frequencies between 0 Hz and 30 Hz. And for the latter, vibration isolation, one should address as many of the 6 directions of motion as technically feasible for best results, not to mention attempt to produce as low a resonant frequency for the iso system as possible. Since the resonant frequencies of the cartridge and tonearm as I mentioned previously are circa 10-12 Hz then even such heroic iso means as Vibraplane and some other examples, with resonant frequencies around 3Hz, can provide isolation effectiveness of perhaps only 50-70% at 10-12 Hz. Obviously, obtaining a resonant frequency below 2 or even 1 Hz would be great. Nevertheless, one should do the best one can, including isolating the other gear from seismic type vibration, too.

geoff kait
machina dynamics

i don’t think anyone is suggesting that damping techniques are 100% effective.

Actually Geoff, I was being accosted about that very thing when I pointed out that it was impossible for any damping system to be 100% effective (perfect).

Halcro.

Yep, transmission, WRT vibration, means the same thing here in NZ. 

You mentioned transmission at resonance (FR) and at this frequency, it is obviously at is maximum since the excitation frequency and resonance frequencies are the same. At excitation frequencies below FR, transmissibility approaches 1,  so we more or less get out (vibration) what we put in. At excitation frequencies above FR, we get attenuation (partial isolation} as Geoff has explained above. The further we move above FR the greater the isolation. The curve being asymptotic to zero as the excitation frequency is increased.

It all depends upon the FR of the material or structure, So in your apartment wall example, the FR of the wall is well below the audio band and this fits perfectly with what has been said.... Your excitation frequencies are well above FR so no vibration would be detected.

So we have the question of what is the FR of the structure of the TT or pod? If this falls within the audio band then there is a potential problem.

Maybe a test would be to suspend one of your pods from a thread after removing any damping you have applied. Tap it to ascertain its FR.  

Cheers.