I am an advocate of the rigidly coupled design for a TT, with Hard Interfaces at the critical mechanical interfaces on the Plinth / Chassis.
I have used this method for the best part of 30 years when I weaned off Belt Drive TT's, moving to Idler Drive TT's and eventually having a 401 in a '9 Stone in Weight' Granite Monolith Plinth > SME IV. This interest in Idler Drives evolved to Platter Spindle Bearing being overhauled/redesigned, through to a PTP Solid Nine with a bespoke design Platter Spindle Bearing, all mounted as a rigidly coupled design.
Today I use DD TT's as a rigidly coupled design.
I have in the past developed an interest to learn about the influences of a variety of Tonearm > Cart's (LOMC - HOMC - MM ) in use on the Main TT.
To make this an easier to create experience I designed a Standalone Tonearm Pod, which had a design incorporated to toy with damping and enable different interfaces between the Pod Mounting Plate and TA. I did not use this method in the end, other experiences changed my direction.
An individual who has a system I am very very familiar with, has a SP10R > Glanz MH1200 > Miyajima . With the TA mounted on a Standalone Pod.
I have failed to detect anything that is detractor when experiencing the SP10R that could be associated with using a TA on a Pod.
With TT / Pod both sharing the same Sub-Plinth as a mounting platform there is an improved coupling in place to having different surfaces for each part to be interfaced.
If the Sub-Plinth is specifically selected for being a very stable material with attractive Damping and Dissipation properties, this can easily be a better marriage for parts to interface than what many TT Designs are able to create.
Keeping an open mind, and having simplistic options in place for creating new experiences when curiosity takes over is key to creating continuous opportunities to learn.
A sweet spot has been found for some, just through an alternate Headshell Material or Platter Mat Material being tried out.
