Da Vinci AAS Gabriel

That's an interesting thought Dgad. I wonder if Thomas thought of using one motor and 2 passive pulleys. Arthur K from Funk Firm uses such a scheme and calls it Vector Drive.

Dgad, suspension in cars and isolation from periphery vibrating ground (shelves, floor, wall) has very little to do with each other.

While your thoughts do indeed reflect some popular high-end audio "theories", they are not on a solid physical basis and are not hitting the topic.

In resonance frequency and the isolation from parasite vibration "we" are - should..... - seek a resonance frequency below 1 Hz.
Check the website of Minus-K and other companies dealing and specializing in this to get some insight into this topic.

3 motors will introduce - as they can hardly be synchrozised - 3 sources of error into a rotating system.
To this just add the belts which do elastically speed up and slow down - i.e. introducing wow and flutter - the platter and you have a rotating system which is the very opposite of constant unaltered speed.

You don't hear that the TT sounds worse with multiple motors?
Most likely because the bearing is now force free if the motors are situated in a manner that the bearing is horizontal free of force or close to that.
As this will "better" the sound, most will credit this improvement to the multiple motor situation.
However - using only 1 motor and 2 counter-bearings in the positions of the other "motors" instead will further improve the sonic presentation.

Multiple motors is the very same conceptional error as with multi-tubes or multi-transistors output-stages. As the individual tube/transistor/motor is always NOT identical in all parameters to its "comrades" the resulting "signal" is itself not homogenous but "wobbling".
This is something to think about before telling me how wrong I am.

It has to do with strict logic and theoretical model without prejudice.
We should have some members here who do enjoy exactly these ...........

Ducati Rider,

Black Night get close and the fact that the motors are next to each other & contacting the belt almost at one point should be the best of all worlds. Syncronization would never be a problem in such a design.

Dertonarm,

I never said what I like better in these forums between multiple motors or not. Only in private, as my conclusions are not 100% verified. Further 3 motors in theory, can compensate for error as well. They would average the error of any one motor. Again, I am back to the argument there are no absolutes/

As for electron Microscopes and tonearms etc. I think we have to take into account 2 types of vibration. One would be "micro vibrations" and one would be Macro. There can be no one solution that is perfect for all scenarios. Imagine a sprung wood floor. A different isolation option would be needed for isolating footfalls as compared to airborne noise.

Dgad, any isolation platform deals with mechanical vibrations only - airborne pressure (loudspeaker etc.) do of course need different measures.
A isolation platform with a resonance frequency below 1 Hz however does deal with microvibrations as well as footfalls.

Dertonarm,

We are dealing w. both static & dynamic forms of isolation. I think both needs to be approached independently. But then there are active isolation systems that might handle all. In the end, for my system, I find that a low resonant frequency is a sonic ideal and as stated before one of the biggest sonic upgrades for the $ I have ever done. The other being my room (speaker position etc.). I have also stated here on the forum that even with isolation I found stillpoints to be a benefit. That also says something. But what I don't know (and I do wonder). It was immediately audible. I would imagine Stillpoints provide isolation in a horizontal plain vs a vertical one. Then again Stillpoints under my CDP in combination with springs is also a major upgrade and not expensive.