A Copernican View of the Turntable System

Halcro,
Regarding your last post of 1/27, I think the 'theoretical proof' that Ralph offered earlier in the thread more than covers the issue regarding the desirability of having the tonearm mount absolutely stable in space vis-a-vis the turntable platter axis/level. Any movement between the two will show up as distortion. There is no getting around that.

If I were going to decide to 'go nude' with an outboard tonearm pod... I would...
1) build a tonearm pod (or three) like yours - I think it is a great design - VERY heavy with threaded bottom allowing one to spike it to a platform,
2) mount the nude TT to the same platform that the tonearm pod was mounted to, probably using the same spikes as on the tonearm pod,
3) I would put pneumatic footers, if any, between the 'platform' and whatever it was mounted on.

Banquo,
As regards putting 'light' objects on pneumatic footers with very large weight limits... I think the value of using pneumatic footers is to reduce the resonance frequency of the mounting to as low as one can in both the horizontal and the vertical. If one mounts a 10kg object onto 3 footers which can EACH carry 10-20kg, I expect that would be a problem. I have found when I have used platforms and pneumatic/magnetic isolators that it is always better to be at the heavy end of the range rather than the light end.

Dear Banquo - I forgot to ask in my last post how you are making out with the repairs on your sp10 ?

Also - maybe one of the members here can hook u up with a plinth to try to compare with your current setup ?

T_bone is absolutely right - any damping (pneumatic, oil-based, elastomer - whatever) will only reach its optimum read: lowest possible) resonance frequency and spec behavior at its maximum load.
So here for once any over-compensation regarding parts is not just futile but entirely contra-productive.
That's why even most high-priced isolation platforms do need additional load in addition to audio components resting on them to really "work" the way the are designed for.
Same regarding the other points in T_bone's post. They are correct and describe the correct way to handle the topic if going for a TT without "classical plinth".
Cheers,
D.
post scriptum: I wonder why this thread has to be searched for and isn't available anymore through the Analog Forum's front page ... any idea anybody ?

Dear Dertonarm,
Thread is visible on my front page but Raul also couldn't see it?
Don't know what's going on?

T_bone,
What you are saying and what Ralph is saying seem to me diametrically opposed?
You and I are in total agreement, in fact the postulation of this thread is that the armpod is fixed and the geometrical relationship to the platter is correct and stable.
What Ralph says is

mounting for the platter and the tower for the arm will sound their best when coupled as tightly to the non-resonant platform upon which the resulting turntable is being constructed.

Coupled TIGHTLY to the platform!!

Here I am simply going to be obstinate.
I disagree completely. There is nothing TIGHT about the spikes under my armpods and there is nothing TIGHT about the TipToes under my turntable.
The armpods and turntable are DECOUPLED from their base (the shelf) and unless I'm not comprehending properly......you agree with my methods?
Bear in mind that the RELATIONSHIPS must be completely accurate and stable.

So DECOUPLED are all these items from each other, I can physically take each armpod away and if I so desire, I may even tuck my Nude Turntable under my arm as I happily walk my pet snake?