A Copernican View of the Turntable System

Dear Halcro, yes, but that is not in any way an empirical test or proof. The Raven is relatively bass-shy and in any case, a relative comparison between the "nude" DD and the Raven is no more than that: - a relative comparison between two TTs.
See - no matter whether you have a TT with a plinth or a "nude"/skeleton TT - you always have a "plinth". With the "nude" TT the surface/corpus underneath the motor and the armbase IS in fact the plinth and does act as one.
Please do seriously consider giving a thought to a complete force vector diagram of the turntable system and you will immediately see the point.
And BTW - the spinning platter is of course part of the force vector system. But nevertheless, the tonearm/cartridge do form a mechanic-dynamic system and the two together with the plinth/underground do form a mechanic system.
Cheers,
D.

Dear Blackburn, good hint. I checked my travel goods and found a sombrero from last visit in Mexico. Will take it with me.

Dear Bjesien, Freud would have answered: twelve tonearms are not enough, or relating to your position maybe: You are entangled in a jealousy complex.

Dear Raul,
glad to hear everything is on track with you and you are not deserting the analogue playfied at all.
regarding tapes I did clarify py position. Concerning the digital format I admit there are nice recordings especially on SACD which I enjoy via my DCS chain too -properly installed there is no cold sound.

Dear Halcro, am I infected already?

Bjesien, I think it would be more revealing to look to see who has a 16-inch tonearm.

The remark about cigars is credited to Freud himself, who was a devotee'.

Dertonearm, I like what you said, that there really is no such thing as "no plinth". That's a good way to put the same argument I was trying to make with Halcro et al.

Plinths? Much of this discussion has me wondering.

Plinths are constructed in so many different ways that I believe it is impossible to generalize about their sonic contribution. Many earlier designs were a simple box (open inside). More recently most seem to be made with solid materials. And the variety of materials is almost endless -- particle board, MDF, ply, Birch ply, solid hardwoods, glued strips of hardwood (like cutting boards), Corian, Obsidian, slate, marble, granite, composite (like some Kenwoods), glass, acrylic, aluminum, stainless steel, lead, etc. Then there are composites or combinations of these materials, as with constrained layer damping. Setting aside dimensions, each material has its own resonant frequency. So how can the "sound" of plinths be lumped into a single category?

Even a "plinth-less" table must have some means of support for the motor, bearing, spindle, platter, and arm (be it separate or attached). And those support materials also have their own resonant frequencies.

So what I really wonder about is if those who now find favor with plinth-less designs have simply eliminated the sound of unmusical resonances in whatever plinth material they experienced with a plinthed table? If so, does that mean ALL plinth designs are inferior? Or simply that the plinth they did hear was not the best material choice? And further, would a better material choice result in favoring that over their plinth-less example?

I certainly respect comments by Raul, Halcro, etc. but I also respect those of Albert Porter, mikel, J. Weiss, etc. I remain confused! ;^(