A Copernican View of the Turntable System

Dear Raul,
i have one advantage if you let me put it into these words. I have seen and listened to this turntable. So pls. take your chance and convince yourself in Denver. Then let's continue this discussion. Okay?

best & fun only

Dear Raul, All that you say about the current state of high level R&D in audio is probably true. On the other hand, modern designers have available methods for machining parts both for beauty and for function that were never dreamed of when those Technics engineers went to work on the SP10, for one example. Further, we now have transistors, ICs, resistors, capacitors, etc, that far outperform the 1970s vintage of the same items. It's kind of a trade-off between the good old days and now. And in the end, the person who is buying this turntable needs to be convinced that somewhere in there are some unique and transcendent qualities that make it worth the price. That too is the job of the designer/inventor. I would also reiterate that I already stated I do not hold with those who condemn things purely on the basis that they cost "too much". But, sorry, right now I just don't see $150,000 here. I will keep an open mind until I have a better understanding of the unique qualities of this piece, if it has any. If I decide to go to RMAF, I will look for it there.

That bit about the tonearm mount and the turntable/bearing resonating at different frequencies is possibly more true for separates than it is for turntables with integrated tonearm mounts, IMO. (But I don't want to flog that horse here any longer.)

Even if one hears the ONEDOF at RMAF, how will he/she be able to isolate the sound of the table from the rest of the system? Pardon the pun. And what will the rest of the equipment in the system actually be?

I went to RMAF last year for the first time and spent most of the weekend listening to different tables, arms and cartridges. Some combinations sounded great, but I certainly did not gain any real understanding of what any individual component actually sounded like.

I agree. I would rather hope to find out more about how the bearing is constructed by talking to someone in the know, first hand. The bearing seems to be the crux of the justification for astronomical cost. Otherwise, the tt looks like it could fit into the TT Weights line-up quite nicely, as a representative belt drive and at TT Weights pricing.

Thanks Banquo for all this information direct from the designer.
I'm also puzzled about some things he says....like the armpod?
The heavier the better he says and then mentions that steel is eight times heavier than aluminium and lo and behold.......he makes the armpod out of aluminium?
I also think that we have to listen to Thuchan who is the only one here who has actually heard the table?
Looking at the designer and his website and his philosophy is all well and good but in the end......the proof is in the pudding.
And Thuchan has had the desert and is not impressed :^)