A Copernican View of the Turntable System

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.

Pryso, you are inviting the plinth makers, except of Raul. What do you expect being delivered. Nevertheless good move!

Dear Thuchan: ++++ " I admit there are nice recordings especially on SACD which I enjoy via my DCS chain too -properly installed there is no cold sound. " +++++

well not infected yet but maybe starting to...?????

the whole subject is that through SACD/DVDA the digital source is really good and as I posted better than what we are accustomed to think.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Dear Pryso: Today if I have to design a TT I will think very seriously and in deep about the TT plinth whole subject ( what we normally understand for plinth. Yes even in a naked version there is a body where the TT seats but IMHO this is not the plinth we all are refering to. Of course we can hang-up but even here we need some " body ". ).

The first think that comes to my mind after several experiences with naked TTs is that the best plinth ( any ) is no plinth.

All plinths as you point out has its own resonances/distortions. That we can't " hear it/aware of it " does not means that the phono cartridge that is a very sensible " microphone " can't do it. That's where the differences we heard comes.

Yes different build material plinths has different behavior but why any one ( other than commercial business$$$ ) one of us have to worry about that " unknow " plinth behavior if we just can eliminate.

What I really be more " conscious " is on what surround the TT: body of the TT it self where the TT will be seated.

Instead to worry on this " TT's body " and plinth ( two subjects ) I have to " worry " only on one subject and try to have/design that perfect TT's body that can makes the less degradation to the cartridge audio signal. This make sense to me.

I'm not saying that this is the only way to think: no, the people that thing plinths are the way to go are welcome.

Now, we have to take in count if what we are designing is a DD or BD TT because each one has its own needs.

In the other side the plinth/no-plint subject is only a " small " part/factor that has influence in the cartridge quality performance level as several other " factors " as the one Halcro pointed out: arm board.

Obviously that the proof of any TT plinth design approach is when we hear it in our audio system and can confirm how good or not is that approach. Every other " thing/though " IMHO is only theory/speculations
that can't be prove it or mere assumptions.

We IMHO need facts and IMHO too right now we have not all the facts that can prove for sure the value of each approach that conlcude with out any doubt wich and why is the UNIVERSAL and best design approach.

All the experiences and opinions of the people that already try/tested the naked alternative proof something: that we like better the naked approach and second that all the ones already tested agree: we don't have yet a contrary experiences yet.

I like un-biased opinions on the subject ( un-biased $$$$$$ opinions. ) like these one:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1283151240&openflup&78&4#78

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1283151240&openflup&84&4#84

and obviously the Halcro one.

Anyway, an interesting and learning discussion. Keep on.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

that there really is no such thing as "no plinth"

Well....depends how you define 'plinth'?
Of course, if even a wire cage can be called a 'plinth', then perhaps you're right?

I like Raul's proposition ( we're back on track Raul :-))...the 'best' plinth is 'no plinth'.
And I also agree with him that we still haven't heard from anyone who has listened to a 'plinthless' TT and found it wanting? As Raul says

we don't have yet a contrary experiences yet.

Only hypothetical theories about why a plinth must exist?

In any case, I was lying awake last night thinking of this and I wondered......if we can take the 'plinth' totally out of the equation, then there can be no argument?
There are now many turntables utilising magnetic drive of the sub-platter and/or magnetic separation of the main platter from the sub-platter.
As Clearaudio claims about their Statement turntable

Magnetic driven sub-platter, with absolutely no contact to the main platter.

The DaVinci AAS Gabriel MK2 has similar magnetic separation of the main platter.
Unless I'm missing some obvious physical law here, I'd be tempted to claim that the 'plinth' in these situations can have no effect on the sound produced?