A Copernican View of the Turntable System

Dear Halcro, yes - it is on your front page, but not on the "Audiogon forum analog"-page.
Means that one indeed has to search for your thread - it can't be find among the current other threads in analog.
Very strange indeed.

Dear Halcro, T_bone and Atmasphere only seem to postulate opposite positions. Whether you actually mount with screws or with spikes and high weight can result in the very same.
So your spikes are actually VERY tight a coupling to the platform (even if you can move the armpods if you wish...). The coupling force is the weight of the armpod (hopefully pretty high) divided by the touching area of your spike (very small ... ) - so the resulting coupling force is pretty high.
However with the kind of weight we are talking generally in audio components, spikes are less tightly an mounting option than a good solid screw. After all it is about coupling two masses together without possible movement of one in relation towards the other.
Armpod(s) and bearing/turntable can hardly be DECOUPLED from each other in the sense that would allow relative movement of one towards the other (which would be the very sense of "decoupling"). One can incorporate kinds of resonance-barriers between them, but they will always (or better: should...) be coupled towards each other.
This can be via a shelf, plinth, skeleton - whatever.
I think T_bone, Atmasphere, (me too ...) are talking about the very same thing in slightly different word.
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 ?"

Hope it doesn't have to do something with "my finding the mice" talk in my last post :) Has anyone figured this out yet?

T Bone/Dertonarm – thank you - excellent advice on the weight considerations for these footers. I hope that the talk on here about those footers doesn’t cause their market price to skyrocket now. If it does we know who to blame.

Dear Chris, I should be picking my sp10 up tomorrow. It took awhile because I kept adding stuff for Mirko to do. I'll have a tonearm pod a la Halcro which will sit on these cool feet he originally designed to replace those on the Microseiki Rx-8000 motor unit. And evidently the speed was fast at 78rpm so I told him to replace all the capacitors--I hope that fixes it, even though I don't have any 78's. The noise I was hearing was the thrust bearing, whatever that is, and he replaced it. If everything goes well, I should have a pretty good set up.

Dear T_bone and Dertonarm: thanks for your notes regarding the footers. That's what I would have thought, even though I didn't know the theory behind it. But Raul asserts the AT 616 sound great beneath his 'light' sp10. Here again we have a tension between theory and observation. No matter to me: I'm still buying them just to see, that is, if they ever come up for sale. In the meanwhile, I was looking at Edensound's terrastone footers. Has anyone tried them? One can go broke trying out all these different footers; might as well buy a plinth--ha!

This thread doesn't show up on my front analog forums page either. Annoying.

T_bone,

I have been trying my stand alone armbase for the past three days and it has not moved, despite my having been deliberately more robust in handling than I would normally. Unlike Halcro, my armbase (as can be seen on my System page) is only held in place with a few blobs of blue tac. I did take some time in adjusting to ensure that arm and cartridge were perfectly aligned with the detached nude TT but after that I have treated the entire exercise as if it was a normally fixed arrangement. As you know, I'm using the AT616 pneumatic footers and so that might be encouraging if the results althmore surprising for that.

It is too early to be certain of all my findings but I would honestly (and VERY unexpectedly) say that you should just give it a go. The differences are blatant, to me.