A Copernican View of the Turntable System

Dear Lew, I expected some euphoria about the victory of your galleons. But instead your are chalenging my nationalistic feelings. Slovenia and Kuzma are my ex brothers and I already own Kuzma's TT. There are boundaries to any kind of tolerance,you know.
But If Kuzma offered one for free as a token of our reconciliation I am willing to (re) consider my tolerance.

Regards,

Dear Henry,
it is not disputed at all - at least not by me - that a "nude" turntable paired with an "isolated/free" armpod(s) can sound very good.
For a limited period of time.
With certain arm/cartridge combination (the higher the compliance - the better).
Even I have tried separate arm pods as long back as 1986 (if I remember right they were pretty hefty - approx 30 lbs each) in conjunction with a Le Tallec and a Micro Seiki skeleton TT.
Neither Lewm nor I do offer opinions based on theories here.
What we did was acting as advocati physici.
Technically - and ultimately sonically - there is no single advantage of isolated arm pod versus firmly attached armbase.
If isolated arm pods can and do - undisputed by me - sound so good in comparison with so many plinth-based tt, then the explanation is easy, logic and showing that there still is a lot of work to do in many integrated turntable concepts.
In any case - where is the problem, why not simply prevent an isolated arm pod (but by all means do at least place arm pod and tt on the same ground/shelf, whatever ) from moving by means of adhesive tape or similar.
Easy to remove, easy to alter.
But it is not just "movement" - it is too energy transfer and reflections.
That's why it works comparatively well with high compliance MMs - they but very little energy into the tonearm.
Peace on earth .....
Cheers,
D.

Dear Daniel,
I understand your point about 'fixing' the base via tape or blu-tak and that is easy to do.
There is however another philosophy to the 'support' of the armpods.....and indeed the nude TT itself......and that is, to de-couple both elements from structure-borne feedback via the supporting shelf.
I know some folks insist that spikes actually 'couple' rather than 'de-couple' and that 'isolating' feet made of rubber or visco-elastic material are better and there may be some truth in that. Nevertheless, I believe that bolting or fixing the armpods to the substrate without 'decoupling', may cause problems from structure-borne feedback?
It may not be a big deal in the overall scheme of things....so let's keep our minds open :^)
Cheers
Henry

Hi D – Does your Uni tangential alignment tool differ from the manufacturers one at all ?

The tool I actually use for measurement is a customized one that has a fine thin line etched into the material. The stylus fits into it or it doesn’t. The pic I posted was the manufacturers one as u know. Thought it looked like a nice two lane highway per post reference ? I have found with the sp10 chassis 7.5 inches is the "middle of the road" when measured from the left side for the ET 2.5.

Hi Lew – if you choose to order the Kuzma 4 point tonearm online with a computer – pls be careful when checking off the options boxes. You don’t want to end up receiving one of Mr Kuzma’s brass arm pods in the mail too ? But I have to admit I would pay to see a picture of your face if you opened up the box to find one inside? :>)

All
I am going to have a plate welded to the bottom of my brass arm pod to accept the DIN connection right at the pod. Can anyone tell me if I better off to use a different metal other than brass for this plate. (sonically speaking ) Anyone have any thoughts on this ? Was planning on brass ?
Much appreciated.

Cheers Chris

Chris,
FWIW, a friend swears by phosphor bronze.