Technics SP-10 Tonearm Pod instead of Plinth/Base


Trawling through the Audiogon forums for information on a suitable Plinth for a Technics SP-10, I came across a post by Raul.
Instead of putting the SP-10 in a plinth, he just put the TT on three feet and then had constructed a separate base that only housed the tonearm. (I haven't seen a pic of this BTW)
Following on from Raul's 'Thinking outside the square' approach, I thought I might be able to buy, or have made, a stand-alone 'pod' or rectangular tonearm plinth that could sit along side the SP-10. Has anyone seen something like this that I could buy 'off-the-shelf'?
The advantage of this is that the tonearm is decoupled from the TT and therefore distanced from any vibrations generated by the TT.
A down side is getting the right geometry for the tonearm in relation to the distance from the spindle; and then keeping the pod in the right spot.
If this is all too hard, I might still go with a plinth. I notice an E-Bay seller in Taiwan is offering a Teak plinth cut for the SP-10. Anyone bought one of those?
All comments welcomed!
dsa
Dear Audioblazer, You wrote, "From my friends experiment with Garrard 401, it's seems isolated base is the way to go." Can you tell me/us just what experiment your friend conducted? I also wonder how it is possible to generalize from any one turntable, especially one that is rather esoteric, to all turntables on a subject such as this.

By the way, have you had any recent communication from Mark on his PSU? I too am awaiting a Kelly supply, for my Lenco in this case.
No communication since 1 mail that project is starting. However from wikispace it's seems there is a delay from April deadline. I heard a Garrard 401 not optimumly set up with isolated tonearm and it was exciting and full of prat. That's why I decided to experiment with a properly refurbished Garrard 301, purchased a reed turret , 12" reed 2p , ortofon a90 and dynavector x-1vs , mark Kelly psu. Let's see whether it will outperform my raven ac3 with raven 10.5 tonearm. Suspect it will be great for rock and classical music. Yes, listening to 1 set up is not conclusive but looking at stefano set and how da Vinci turntable is designed with isolated tonearm, I decided to take the route. Another reference go to promitheusaudio dot com
There are megabuck turntables that do it either way, tonearm on outboard pod vs tonearm very firmly associated with the bearing/platter. Probably it works either way, if the design is done properly. As I stated several times, my main beef with a separate pod is the possibility that a careless bump will destroy the alignment. That's on the practical level. Then too on the theoretical level, I like the idea of rigidity of the connection between tonearm/platter via the arm mount and bearing.

Probably I should query Mark on the controller.
I agree with Lew regarding rigidity of connection between cartridge/tonearm and the platter/record. Considering the small margin for error in proper cartridge set up, I just don't see how any lack of absolute coupling between them could be beneficial. And inserting any sort of suspension between the cartridge and headshell seems it would be worse, but I know there are some who advocate this.

One friend has a Garrard 401 mounted in a massive (solid) maple plinth with the arm(s) mounted outboard on tall, massive brass pods. Possibly they are heavy enough not to move but there is still the issue of exact positioning. I will admit his set up sounds very good. But could it be better with a direct coupled mounting?
Just to end this idle discussion, try taking a SP10 motor and platter unit out of its housing and run it with no plinth, and no platter. It will not work at all. This is very close to the condition that Raul mentions, and is extremely ill advised.

OMA has a new system for the SP10, with the motor control boards located in a separate enclosure, and the motor and platter securely anchored to a 210 pound slate plinth. This is the right way to do it.

Disclosure- We are OMA.

Jonathan