Albert Porters after market panzerholz plinths

Isaac Newton gives us the best reason for using a massive and well-damped plinth. It's his 3rd Law of Motion, which is summed up thusly: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The motor of an SP10 Mk2 and especially the Mk3 has enough torque to rotate the whole chassis, if nothing else is holding it in place. Thus the rotational energy available from the motor is partially wasted in motion of the chassis, when there is no plinth. I have seen this phenomenon in action when I applied power to my Mk2 whilst it was sitting unfettered on my workbench. It nearly rotated itself off the bench and onto the floor. Granted, I am being melodramatic, because max torque is not developed except in the first second or two after start-up. And I really don't mean to be dogmatic on this subject; I am just going with my ears here.

Dear Lewm: A debate can start on the subject but only if who want to debate already heard both alternatives.

When you already do it maybe you still like the plinth option and I'm sure no one " die " for your choice.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Dear David: An aluminum stand alone tower but you can use any material you want like: steel, brass, wood, acrilyc etc, etc.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Not to split hairs but what is a plinth?

Most of us would agree the solid platforms securing motor unit and arm such as Lew's basic slate or Albert's or Mr. Dobbins' more complex designs are plinths. And the standard hollow box platform sold with most tables is still a plinth.

But then what about those skeletal designs like Oracle, Michell, or David's modified Kenwood? They all include an armature to mount the tonearm with the motor unit. As I understand Raul's design, it is a single wood platform (3/4"?) which bolts to the motor unit and extends to the side to provide for arm mounting. Isn't that a plinth too, albeit a minimal one?

It seems a true plinthless table would be one where the motor unit is self contained and free standing from the tone arm, the latter secured to its own weighted base.

None of this may matter to the OP or other readers unless they interpret Raul's statements to mean he suggests a separate and free-standing arm and base. As I understand his table(s), that is not his approach.

Dear Pryso: What you refer on my SP-10 is right and that was its configuration.
Latter on I change for a true non-plinth and separate tonearm tower. This one is what I'm refering to.

IMHO we DD TT owners has a rare and unique opportunity ( that maybe never comeback. ) to test and enjoy a non-plinth TT with what for me is and has IMHO better quality performance against the same plinth TT.

What any one can lose if they try it?

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.