A Copernican View of the Turntable System

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! ;^(

and Steve Dobbins, whom I wish would comment more often.
Tim, You are saying what I have said a couple of times over the past week or two. There is little doubt in my mind that a "bad" plinth can make things worse. This does not prove that a good plinth (by anyone's definition) is necessarily inferior to what its aficionados refer to as "no plinth". Also, the optimal solution is likely different for different direct-drive turnables. (I don't think anyone challenges the notion that one needs a good plinth for an idler or that no plinth is quite a good solution for a belt-drive tt.)

We plinthophiles can always take refuge in saying that the plinth which was found wanting in comparison to no plinth was of an inferior design or construction. No-plinthers can in turn say that poor performance is due to failure to use the correct footers or to dampen the shelving, etc. So, we can all rest assured that each of us has the right idea.