Turntable and Rack vibration control


Hi,
I moved from a Nouvelle Platine Verdier to a Loricraft Garrard 301. The big change with this move was that the Verdier comes with a terrific implementation of pneumatic suspension feet which kept the TT almost floating and hence great isolation from vibration. The result was always a noise/grain free playback and super clean backgrounds. With the Garrard, the plinth is typical custom made stacked birch ply with standard steel cones as footers. When placed directly on the rack the background is noisy, the images muddle up and overall music is not well sorted.

I do not expect the Garrard to be as quiet as the Verdier but I know it should not be this noisy either. In fact the Verdier also sounded noisy when I placed it directly on cones bypassing the pneumatic suspension feet. 

I use a Hutter Racktime rack which is not like an overbuilt audiophile rack. It is more like an open frame rack with lightweight supports. It is a bit like a Rega TT, not very damped or controlled. The rack has pointy steel feet which rests on brass spike plates (mine is an wooden floor). I guess this implementation is not sophisticated enough to keep away vibrations and let the TT play quietly. 

I am looking at two levels of solutions:
1. Replace the existing steel feet and brass plate with a quality vibration control footer below the rack
2. Replace the stock steel cone below the TT plinth with a better footer/platform.

I have tried Sorbothane, Squash balls kind of tweaks, while they reduce noise they slow down the music too.
I have also tried Stillpoints and Finite Elemente footers under the rack. They make the sound thin and metallic IMO. Platforms like Minus-K are too expensive so I have not considered them yet.

I am looking suggestions here, probably footers and vibration control devices that are more musically oriented yet well engineered like Shun Mook, Harmonix, SSC or something like an HRS platform ?
pani
Stylus drag is more audible to some than others - I am very timing sensitive. I have a low torque high mass deck, a high torque belt drive, an idler and some DD's. The low torque deck sounds great, but when it comes to busy passages it is audible and you can notice the struggle. A good tester for this I find to be the track 'Steppin Out' at the start where the piano starts wavering on my belt drive. With the greatest of respect Anvil. EMT have produced various great decks, the 927, 930, 950, 948. Have supplied radio stations the world over - made DD's, belt drives, phono amps, and cartridges. Not sure if you have the provenance of knowledge with which to dismiss the EMT analogy as hyperbole so easily...
Get a different bearing and replace the rubber belt with a thread and those issues will  go away. It's not the motor torque it's the compliance of the belt and the relatively high friction bearing in your deck. Idlers and directs have their own challenges. Good examples of each sound more similar than different. 
Cheers
Wet playing LPs probably reduces stylus drag, assuming it’s an issue, but it obviously reduces noise and distortion. The audiophile’s favorite, including mine, wet playing combo was a mixture of distilled wate and ArmorAll and one of those cute little Audio Technica red velvet roller brushes. Lubricant, coolant and just plain surfing fun for the stylus. 🏄🏻

There is a school of thought that says a low-torque motor is best and another that believes a high-torque motor (an attraction of the SP10MK3) is best.
I don't know if both can be right or why we should believe you over your opponents......?
I'm simply stating my opinion which I believe represents the least compromised design. Having said that I'm a big fan of all turntables, at any price point wether it be belt, direct or idler drive. Furthermore I have experimented a fair bit with high torque motors and found no advantage regarding dynamics and noted a few disadvantages. In my design I am actually able to run the motor at half it's torque rating which netted on the fly improvements across the board. I'm open minded about it however but after a fair amount of testing this is where I've landed.