High mass vs Low Mass Turntables - Sound difference?

I am sorry, but science just does not lie.  Philosophies and strawman arguments of striking a pot with a piece of wood - saying things like the lighter design will store energy for less time -  possibly - because if vibrates more quickly at dramatically(flying across the room or at least moving more) and since there is constant sources of vibration in a record player...that is not a good thing dispelling energy in a short amount of time means more dramatic vibration.  Hey, if that vibration sound good...bingo!

Strike an empty beer can and it will fly across the table.  Strike a full beer can and it may move an inch.  Which one vibrates more?  Trick question because it is more complicated than that.  Sustained vibration attenuation is in the implementation and composition of the materials..  Lighter things can vibrate less than heavier things.  A heavy bell is made to vibrate, where a check of wood is not.

There it is - the quality of sound is in the implementation.  As is the same with pretty much anything in audio...Guess what...you can make a light turntable sound great and you can make a heavy turntable sound great.  

But science is science and *in general* the heavier/denser an object, the lower the fundamental frequencies of the object will be.  Do you want a lighter plinth that vibrates at a higher frequency - or do you want a heavier plinth that vibrates at a lower frequency?  Additionally, Acceleration ( movement/vibration ) = Mass x Force.   If you have less force or less mass(of the moving parts), then Acceleration ( movement/vibration ) is reduced.   

In any case - *in general*...reducing the forces/movement inside a turntable will reduce acceleration and therefore vibration.  This holds true to both light and heavy tables.  But science says that imparting that force on a lighter plinth gives you more acceleration to the plinth because the same equation applies to the body being acted upon.  It is easier to move a lighter thing and it takes less force to do so.

So these philosophies I see in audiophile circles are really more ideas..."what if we did this?" - then proceed to make up reasons why it is better only half based on science.  Then make a great sounding turntable regardless of the weight.  The correlation and misapplication of principles gives me headaches.   

Unless you are using vibration to make something sound better( like a violin ), I do wish more people would focus on the absorption and damping of vibration.  That is turning any produced mechanical energy produced by the turntable and from external sources into heat as fast as possible.

I have owned a number of sprung and massive tables over the last fifty years, including a VPI Aries, AR, and Linn LP12 (contemporary, near the top of the line).

Typically sprung tables tend to “sound livelier” is the characterization. I feel that is correct. Massive tables sound more… sorry, solid (as in solid bass). There are tables of both philosophies in most price categories and as you rise in price they converge on much better sound and less as to belonging to either camp (lively / solid).

So, since there are so many tables and price ranges, observations can drive one crazy as to which is better or just different. especially since they are set up in your particular venue and they are susceptible to vibration from your system playing and environment.

Anyway, characterizations of “the sound” of a general disingenuous disappears with better and better implementations.

Damping + Absorption or alternatively Damping + Efficient Dissipation.

These are the Criteria that are keeping TT Design at a place of divergence.

I have moved on from Mass and Absorption, and now am Wed to Lighter Weight and Efficient Dissipation.

There are Lighter Weight and Mass Materials that are equally impressive in the Damping Measurements.

There are Lighter Weight and Mass Materials that separate quite differently from how the dissipation measurements compare. 

It would seem a certain frequency of dissipation is what is selected by designers to as a means for their products to conform to a specific trait of a SQ or Coloration. 

"Acceleration ( movement/vibration ) = Mass x Force. If you have less force or less mass(of the moving parts), then Acceleration ( movement/vibration ) is reduced."

I don’t know what force, mass, or acceleration you are addressing, but your equation is wrong. Newton’s First Law of Motion says F=ma, Force = Mass X Acceleration. Then, Acceleration is equal to the Force divided by the mass. Therefore if you have less force (or torque in this case, because you are talking about an angular Force), you get less acceleration, which actually makes sense. But if you have less mass to be pushed around by a force, then acceleration due to that force increases.

As a consequence, your next sentence, "In any case - *in general*...reducing the forces/movement inside a turntable will reduce acceleration and therefore vibration." Is also incorrect, even if I am not sure how you are equating acceleration with vibration.

It's got to be a question of balancing all of the various unwanted resonances and speed inconsistencies.

With this in mind I'd favour low mass designs although I have heard some fabulous high mass designs too.

It would seem that Harley Lovegrove of Pearl Acoustics also feels the same way. I've already heard the excellent sounding Rega P8 and if the P10 really is that much better as he claims...