High mass vs Low Mass Turntables - Sound difference?

What kind of stability are you talking about? Are you talking about foot falls feedback or other?

The reality of it is quite simple to understand,  mass and rigidity = enegy being redirected but to where?

Low mass = flexture and dissipation.

Take a light weight pan and strike it with a fork two things will occur, the tines of the fork will vibrate and the pan will vibrate and then the energy will be gone.

Take the same pan and hit it with a block of wood, you still will get a sound from the pan, and from the block of wood,  however, you will feel the energy couple back into your hand as the density of the wood will absorb some energy while bounciing energy off and some of that deflected energy goes into your hand your hand being soft and complient will take the  energy and absorb it. 

Neither of this is good. High Mass tables reflect energy which still has to go somewhere. 

Light weight tables use combinations of mass, rigidity and damping to disapate that incomming energy and internally generated energy from the motor and main bearing.

If you were 100% correct, then all the lighter weight tables, Linn, Rega, Roksan would be considered to sound aweful and these tables have been lauded over the years as excellent sounding tables.

Many years ago we compared a heavy Basis table with an acrylic and brass damped plater, with a heavy acrylic bass and an oil damped suspension to a Roksan which was considerably lighter with a lightweight wooden plinth and frame, the entire table was much lighter  in weight and the Basis sounded slow, dead, and dreadfully out of tune compared to the Roksan. 

audiotroy wrote,

"Many years ago we compared a heavy Basis table with an acrylic and brass damped plater, with a heavy acrylic bass and an oil damped suspension to a Roksan which was considerably lighter with a lightweight wooden plinth and frame, the entire table was much lighter in weight and the Basis sounded slow, dead, and dreadfully out of tune compared to the Roksan."

While that's interesting it doesn't actually win the argument of high mass vs low mass turntables because there are any number of other reasons you got the results you did. Mass is only one variable. One should not jump to conclusions based on one test. 

Without getting into the relative merits of the two types of tables, one additional factor to take into account is isolating the high mass table. My Kuzma XL is approximately 168 lbs, and the HRS base for the various turntable parts to sit on is easily another 50-60 lbs. The HRS alone is not enough to isolate the table with springy wooden floors. Hanging this monstrosity from a wall is not so easy either. The cost of those high grade isolation bases - like a Minus K or whatever-- adds an additional cost. Though I prefer the sound of the XL to the smaller Kuzma Reference I owned previously, that table --which was no lightweight itself- had a suspension and was pretty much set up and go, right out of the box. Something to keep in mind for those without concrete slabs. 

That’s a really interesting point since isolating an object on a mass-spring system actually reduces the mass of the object by a significant amount. Kind of your own private anti gravity machine. Also, one would have to analyze air bearing/high mass platter turntable like Verdier and Maplenoll and Walker to figure out just how they fit into the whole high mass vs low mass spectrum. I had an air bearing everything Maplenoll with special 50 lb platter isolated on a special version of a Nimbus sub Hertz platform. That turntable set up did NOT suffer slowness or any other malady one might ascribe to high mass turntables.

Corvette vs Lotus?

Both win races but driving them is a hugely different experience.  I think it comes down to personal preferences.

I don't believe there are "absolutes" in the audio hobby.