A Copernican View of the Turntable System

I am happy to have the seismic protection for when earthquakes come along. But the resonant frequency of those is quite low :^)

However, I notice the difference between having an isolation platform and not having one. And I notice the difference in loading one differently. And I also notice acoustic feedback from time to time. Wish it weren't so, but I do... But that's just me and if noone else has a problem with sound waves in their listening space, I guess I'm just unlucky... :^(

The result of the structural design for seismic loading creates a building (particularly a high-rise steel or concrete structure) which is continually 'moving' even when there are no quakes.
We are not talking resonant frequency here......we are talking constantly moving structures which are setting up wave patterns of frequencies from the subsonic possibly even into the low twenties.
It's not a good look.....but there are solutions which however would require specialist knowledge.
If I were you....I'd try my Micro SX 8000 or any other heavy unsuspended deck and see if there is an improvement?
I'm betting there is:^)

FWIW... my apartment building is wide and flat and is only 3 floors high. It is certainly not designed with the same features as my office building, which is 15 times taller, and has seismic dampening foundations.

Not sure what to say... My SX-8000 sounds better with an air-bearing isolation stand beneath it than without it, as does my SP-10Mk3 in a SAEC-like metal plinth. Both weigh a short ton. I am currently listening mostly to a very heavy direct drive turntable with stillpoints for feet. The sound is excellent. But I have yet to put an air table beneath it and I am wondering...

T_bone,

Meow,

"Some pod implementations have different isolation systems under the pod and the table, which makes for a different arm-bearing-to-table-bearing interaction, and this is something I would suggest against. In the end, it all comes down to implementation (Dgob's Chinese cats and your arm pods)."

Anyone using an arm tower and pneumatic/magnetic footers beneath their TT is decoupling these at the plinth. I assure you the logic around this being erroneous does not hold, IME. At least you seem to keep an open mind and that is all that anyone could ask for, whether or not we ever find agreement.

I thought it might be useful to look at some commercially sold arm-pods and the design thought between them?
3 current manufacturers come to mind:-
DaVinci
Redpoint
TTWeights
DAVINCI
DaVinci apparently make their armpods from wood. Different materials inside for damping purposes?
REDPOINT
I think I contacted them before making my armpods as the similarity is too obvious.
Their pods are made of any non-ferrous metal you want and chambers within the pods are filled with silicone oil for damping purposes.
I believe prices started at approx $2000 depending on height and other requirements....but could escalate from there?
TTWEIGHTS
Closest to a universal tonearm with adjustable heights etc. uses combinations of materials for damping purposes.

My own thoughts are that the prices of these commercially available products are too high.....obviously because of the mark-up factor involved.
The use of dissimilar materials for damping purposes cannot be bad...even if of debatable usefulness....but must contribute to the costs of production.
I believe that weight is the single most important attribute of a good armpod and I would do without some glamorous extras if loss of weight were the penalty?
What do others think?