A Copernican View of the Turntable System

We're baaack.....

I re-assured the moderators that I really didn't take my pet snake for a regular walk..........it's just a special treat.

Halcro, points are a sort of mechanical one-way diode. That is they are fairly efficient at transmitting vibration in only one direction. So if your points are pointed *down* under your tone arm: welcome to your plinth, the anti-vibration platform.

Any good anti-vibration platform will have both 'acoustically dead' and 'absolutely rigid' as a mantra.

I agree that a bad plinth is likely worse than none. I've been down this path before- my turntable has been in development since the early 1990s. So the comments I've been making are based out of experience, not conjecture.

If you want to separate something, and if the 'table is not a direct-drive, then the motor might be a better candidate. However IME the vibration of the motor will be of no significance if the plinth works right.

Greetings Ralph,

my turntable has been in development since the early 1990s.

That sound exciting? I was wondering why no turntable designers were contributing to this thread?
Any clues as to which 'drive' model you're pursuing?

I think this is an example of separates on the same plinth?
GULP

Atmasphere,

Just a quick question but for those of us using pneumatic footers, wouldn't that mean that the seperation of tonearm (including mount/armboard) from the nude TT represents the decoupling of both and the removal of a common plinth?

Kant demonstrated that the argument - "that might be true in theory but it is not in practise" - invariably pointed to the deficiency in a relevant theory. Maybe, if the common experience proves sufficient, we will find the reason why. That seems to be the way of progress!

Please accept my question as a genuine search for an explanation for what appears to be happening and all the best with your TT launch.