One turntable with two arms, or two turntables with one each - which would you prefer?

B25 was what I used.

The 40mm compressed bamboo ply I used was dead flat - really impressed with the quality and easy to refinish the surface if required. I used a 60ft bed CNC router used for yacht manufacturing and it knackered the cutter - its a tough material.

Very dead plinth the liveliness that the metal brings would be missed by some so balance is a key here. Its a valid point one must be wary of over deadening in this application where one surface meets another for preference.

or the deadness of Panzerholz could be missed.

My reference TT was specifically designed in the 70’s as an energy dissipation device.

The primary material used, SPZ, was a specially formulated engineering supermaterial, developed in the 1970’s in Japan for earthquake proofing buildings, that has superplasticity at room temperature - any vibration or energy between 10hz to 100hz entering the material disappears through grain sliding at a molecular level. It is no longer available - too expensive to produce.

The secondary material gunmetal is a high lead content naval bronze and was specifically chosen to encourage the transmission of unwanted energy from the arm to the SPZ slab with minimal backward reflection. Having a propagation speed of 2 materials close together improves damping ( sometimes referred to as bi-metallic damping ) and more importantly minimises backward reflection of energy at the material junction - in this case minimises backward reflection into the arm/stylus.

In layman’s terms the greater the disparity between 2 conjoint materials in terms of energy transfer and propagation speeds of any disturbances, the worse the damping and backward reflection is. Something to remember when you are combining different materials in a turntable structure.

Soft material like Panzerholz can absorb a lot of surplus energy, but at some stage that energy has to go somewhere, eventually the unwanted energy will be released in an.uncontrolled manner in terms of time - leading to a smearing of the leading edge in replay.

Ideally you really want a path to ground for the unwanted energy rather than a temporary sink.

Firstly, I will make it known, I have a familiarity with the Garrard 401, used in Granite Plinth for a Long-Tem usage. Admittedly this TT has not been owned for approx’ 6 years, time flies.

Recently within my Group two consecutive session were arranged to be demonstrated Idler drives used on the same system. My PTP with a Corian Plinth was the first to make a show, which was mounted on a Sub Plinth using my P’holz Boards. The footer was a AT 616 under the Sub Plinth and the TT. The group had their revisit to an Idler Drive experience, and for the first time experienced one used in comparison to a SP10R.,

The second arrangement was to be given a demonstration of a Garrard 401. This was mounted onto a Compressed Bamboo Plinth, which for me was of interest as I know it is well liked Sub Plinth Material.

The Garrard was given a little better lore than the PTP, as it was mounted onto Two Sub Plinths made from P’holz with AT 616 Feet as the base footer and Sub Plinth Separator. The TT was seated onto Gaia Footers.

The TT had an Origin Live Illustrious with a Sumiko Pearwood Cart’. For the record, I have been introduced to the Tonearm and Cart’ on previous occasions and have been very impressed.

On this occasion in this environment and system, and drawing on recollections, resulting from the very positive impression made, I was to state, this use of the Garrard 401, to be the best performance I have heard from a one, and I have heard numerous over many years during the first decade of the new millennium.

I can’t tell you the Spec for the Bamboo Board used a Plinth, the Spec for the P’holz used is known.

I have investigated compressed Bamboo, and in general the Board is found if ’correctly compressed’ to be a weight of approx’ 700Kg per m3.

A newer to the Market Dense Bamboo - ’Tiger Bamboo’ is to be found at a weight of approx’ 1000Kg per m3.

None of these are plasticised through using Resins as a Densified Wood is.

In general Densified Woods are found at approx’ 1200Kg - 1500Kg per m3, of which P’holz falls in at around 1400Kg.

I have been a follower of the individual who may have put the information forward, that identified Densified Wood as an attractive material for Plinth Building Purposes. The Web Pages containing many useful comparisons to other materials and the criteria used for measuring a materials damping factor is to be seen at qualia.web.com

I have in the past discovered alternative materials of interest and sent in material samples to be tested by the producer of this Web Site.

From my understanding it is Densified Wood that is the most efficient at managing Transferred Energies, in a manner that will reduce the level of superfluous mechanical energies migrating to the point it reaches the Styli and impacts on the Signal Path.

I find it interesting that beech is used for making a resin impregnated wood. Beech has a reputation as being one of the most waterproof woods available - it used to be used for the construction of waterwheels at mills and is still used as handles for shaving brushes for that reason. No doubt the pressures used in the impregnation manage to overcome this resistance, but all the same, there are woods that would be far easier to impregnate.

Panzerholz is not a "soft" material.

Beech is chosen not for being waterproof ,

but because it is one of the hardest woods

and with high rigidity. Whether or not panzerholz

is your preference to use through experience

or not is all fine but the lack of basic knowledge of

it from its ingrediants to why they are chosen seems to undermine the relevence of "opinions". Long wordy explanations of what is basicly constrained layering

wont change the way some hear and choose. The popularity of light weight Rega tables proves that.

I’m quite certain that a slab of panzerholz can dissipate

the energy of a turntables self noise and the music

playback in its environment . The foundation it sits

on is actually a seperate problem.

Solve that first , ....

Besides we're off track on the OPs 

original question...

"I'm curious to hear how people would decide for themselves the answer to this question. Or maybe you've already made this decision - what do you like about your decision or what would you differently next time? "

Cheers.

" Besides we're off track on the OPs 

original question... "

There are those who not only like to have an option on how many Tonearms are mounted to work with one Turntable, but this can also be achieved through a design that is not offered by a TT's Manufacturer. It is achieved through an individual deciding on a Material to support the Turntable and Tonearm/Tonearms.

Hence P'holz has come into the discussion, as there has been earlier discussion on Bespoke Plinths being produced, to support the usage of Multiple Arms.