High mass vs Low Mass Turntables - Sound difference?

My experience suggests that the pragmatic intelligence used in the implementation of Any design paradigm is far more important than the paradigm itself.

Further, I have learned that only the results matter when it comes to listening. And that there is more than one way to improve the perceived performance of one's listening system, for which it is possible to substitute 'turntable' for this discussion thread.

Having said that, I presently use a moderately high mass (22 lbs, 10 kilos) platter (whose mass is augmented by a platter mat far heavier than the manufacturer's rubber unit), making the platter heavier still.

Along with the heavy revolving mass of the platter, I selected a Low mass, long format (12") tonearm.

To hold these in relation to each other, I chose a high mass, constrained layer damping plinth which provides no suspension for the table or tonearm.

Underneath both I placed a mass-loaded isolation device, and between the plinth and the isolation platform I am experimenting with a variety of isolation or vibration damping materials.

What matters is the impression of music these components are able to produce as they are combined (and recombined) to reveal what is in the grooves.

What's of equal importance, is that I have heard turntables with other approaches that sound outstanding.

I am convinced there is more than one approach to drawing fine, satisfying, engaging and musical results from a turntable. I believe there to be numerous approaches --at many price points-- that can, with attentive implementation, come very close to this aim.

And then there is the matter of personal preference to consider....

I have compared my Michell gyro with Rega tonearm with my Maplenoll Ariadne Reference and my Maplenoll Apollo using the same cartridge (ZXY Airy 3s) before i gave the gyro to my daughter. please note, lots of differences besides the "mass" but the biggest impact i saw was the bass response is just better(deeper, cleaner) with the Maplenoll tables. I am sure there are other differences in sound quality that i could spout out like background darker/quieter or soundstage, but moving from my original Dual 701, Denon, and Michell gyro, to the heavier mass Maplenoll line, the bass is what stands out the most when using the same cartridge. 

10timps, For decades I have listened to the oft repeated claims of Well Tempered philes to the effect that the tonearm has "no bearing".  To this claim, I put the question, "Does the arm pivot?"  The answer is yes it does. Therefore it must have a bearing, by definition.  If you like the WT, that's fine, you have a lot of company. But grammatically speaking, it does not have no bearing. It's a very low friction bearing, but the trade-off is a lack of precision.

As to the high mass/low mass paradigm, I think it's hard to argue from this perspective alone, because most low mass turntables also have some sort of built-in suspension, whereas most high mass turntables tend to be of the unsuspended type. So the debate is 3-way, sort of. I don't care for any of the suspended tables I have owned in comparison to any of the higher mass, unsuspended tables I have owned.

Totally agree. A golf ball floating in goo is hardly low friction. Many examples of lower friction tonearms. 

13blm, I like to find consensus, but maybe in fact we don't agree.  All that goo provides dampening mainly, and probably some friction too, but I think the WT claim for very low friction (but not no friction) may be accurate.  My point was that in order to achieve low friction, the bearing is relatively imprecise in the rigidity with which it anchors the pivot point in space.  But yes, I also suppose there are tonearms with lower friction, especially true unipivots, which unfortunately bring to the table their own set of problems. No free lunches in audio, and no pivoted tonearms with no bearings, either.