High mass vs Low Mass Turntables - Sound difference?

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.

Well Tempered designer Bill Firebaugh states that at music frequencies, the silicone fluid in the cup provides a high degree of rigidity, but at very low frequencies (where LP warps live) a desirable amount of freedom of movement. Townshend Rock turntable designer Max Townshend claims the same for the similar fluid in his tables damping trough. Friction from the silicone? Not much I'd wager, especially in comparison with ball bearing-on-ball bearing in captured-bearing arms. 

I'm just saying there are plenty of arms with less friction, which of course is only one criterion. I think UCLA? came up with the Townsend design and he marketed it.