A Copernican View of the Turntable System

Dear Lewm, it is just a plain force vector diagram - nothing that would require anything specific.
And no, the fact that for specific examples of different TTs ( moving mass, static mass etc.) some individual factors will show different values, does not alter the value nor validity of the complete vector model for TTs.
In any case, grown up men in general and audiophiles in specific don't want to be lectured in public.
So - those really interested in the background on the physics of TTs will do the vector diagram themselves.
The others...... well .... business as usual.

A FV-diagram will clarify the topic.
There are much more complex machines then turntables out there which likewise are explained and researched (designed ... ;-) ...) on the firm ground of force vector models.

Cheers,
D.

Dear Dertonarm: +++++ " A FV-diagram will clarify the topic. " +++++

imho THE TOPIC IS IF A NAKED tt SOUNDS BETTER OR WORST THAN A PLINTHED ONE. Till today the ones that already tested the naked option reported a better quality performance level against the plinthed one.

Please let us know how that FV-diagram can tell us the same: IF A PLINTHED TT SOUNDS BETTER OR WORST THAN A NAKED ONE.

Please don't put " clouds " on your answer or take other topics be precise and specific, no more retoric.

A second question: THAT " fv-DIAGRAM " has ears? how good are ?

Thank you in advance for your answer.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

A FV-diagram will clarify the topic.

Which question/topic do you believe it will clarify?

1. Is a plinthless TT better or worse than a plinthed TT?
2. Is a self-standing tonearm better than a directly coupled tonearm?

(1) or (2) or both? Do they amount to the same question for you? By ‘better or worse’ I mean that from the perspective of the end user and not from a design perspective (even if it’s true that the design takes the end user's perspective into account).

How specifically does it clarify? Which concepts? And if one makes a distinction between clarifying a question and answering it, I take your claim above to imply that drawing the FV diagram doesn’t by itself answer the questions at hand. That is, the FV diagram doesn’t settle the dispute between Lewm and Halcro/Raul/Chris.

Also, do you believe that the specific sound quality (phenomenological experience) of a TT set up can be deduced a priori from knowledge of its constituent parts + arrangement? I ask this in all seriousness since, in the monumentally amusing ‘TW Acustic Arm’ thread you seemed to suggest that one could infer the sound of that arm merely by knowing how it was designed (+knowledge of the physics pertaining to arms); that is, know it without actually listening to it. I suspect that if you do believe this, then the conversation is over since Raul’s empiricism, if I understand his above post, isn’t having any of it.

I’m a grown man and I also like to go to public lectures, although you are right that I don’t like to be lectured. If you tell me something useful that I don’t know about something I’m interested in (which won’t be all that difficult in this context), then far from receiving scorn, you’ll have my gratitude.

Dear Raul,
a force vector diagram can tell how the different forces act and where they go (which I think is a very interesting question in itself .... ) and as such will explain the contribution of a "plinth" and will explain that there is always a "plinth" - even in "naked" TTs.
The only truly "naked" (i.e. NO plinth at all ) turntable is a moving platter and tonearm in fixed and orientated distance to each other floating in outer space away from earth's gravity and atmosphere. So all forces and energy displayed in that machine will remain within the machine.
I know that you don't like physics and empirical theories, but sometimes they help .....
I am not sure, whether the FV-diagram has actually ears, but if it does, those ears will be very objective and free from prepositions, decline by advanced age, taste and egomania.
So it might very well add one more statement, opinion and position to the topic.
As good ... or bad ... as any other.
Cheers,
D.

Dear DT, All I'm saying is can you direct us to such a diagram or help us understand how you would go about constructing it? One major force, for sure, is the torque of the motor, which is angular by the definition of "torque". And we all know that the torque of the motor trying to compel the platter to revolve in a clockwise direction will in equal measure compel the chassis to revolve in the counter-clockwise direction (which is one reason, IMO, why there MUST be at least a certain minimum mass to the chassis of a direct-drive turntable, where the motor is firmly a part of the chassis, lets say it needs to be much higher than the mass of the platter). Apparently the no-plinthers have observed that Newton's Third Law is not much of a problem in this regard. What next, I mean what other major forces are in play? VTF, skating, gravity.....?