Vintage DD turntables. Are we living dangerously?

Totem395,
you`re right. Maybe I was asking too much in general. I am not referring to the theoretical implications. Copernicus should blame me. I thought in the meantime there could be some more experiences from experimenting rather than describing why one belongs to the stand alone camp or related camp, no? Everyone is proposing only THE ONE SOLUTION?

Back to the practical side: I am experimenting with stand alone and related implementations. For my 100M I am just building a very massive stand alone pod and I`d like to find out if it really makes a difference when the pod is related to the Denon or not (in case I am suceeding doing so)?

For the 101 I am attracted by Henry`s pod design. Only my EA-10 will not fit into one of the pods due to its large counter screw.

Another idea is building a massive substructure for the 101, precisely drilling a 40 mm high and 400 x 400 mm massive aluminum bases (like with the MS RX 5000) and incorporate four related arm pillars at all four corners similar to the Micro Seiki`s ones. In the middle of the bases I could carve out a 5 mm deep recess taking up the Victor thus fixing the 101, not moving around from this position.

When done properly by using 30mm steel knobs and original 20mm MS bases I have no problem using cantilevered armboards. In this implementation the pods would be related. I am not decided yet. Any ideas?

thanks Fleib and Dover - very helpful indeed!
what do you think about the two implementation designs I mentioned above?

Thuchan,
Contemplating a DD non-suspended table, I disagree with Dover. In this case mass/weight is used to insure the platter is not a moving target, and the mounting surface for both arm pod and platter is potentially a superior "closed loop" system. You're simply using the mounting surface to close the loop. Using a plinth or subchassis to insure stable arm/platter relationship is convenient but might have greater potential for degradation.

In practice, I think good results are more dependent on implementation with either approach, and I wonder about a cantilevered armboard. Seems like a bad idea.
Regards,

Dear Thuchan, Dover and I are occasionally at odds, whereas I almost always agree with Fleib. However, in this instance, I disagree with Fleib, and I could not have stated the case any better than did Dover in his initial response. Obviously, a rigid relationship between the tonearm pivot and the platter bearing is a sine qua non for a suspended table, but it is also for me a "must" even in the absence of a suspension, and Dover said why. Like Totem said, this subject has been discussed ad nauseam. By now, those who will ever be convinced one way or the other have been convinced, or not.

I do think that a massive arm pod, such as the ones built by Halcro, linked rigidly to a massive cylindrical plinth (rather than standing on its own) would be a great way to go. Best of both worlds, you could say. Or, you could make the shelf part of the system by bolting the arm pod AND the plinth to a suitable shelf material.

Fleib,
why do you think a cantilevered approach is a bad thing in this case? cantilever armboards can work very well when implemented properly!

For example the Micro Seiki engineers were really ahead of their time and they did know why they used 30mm knobs to fix the armboards and 20mm high armboards of a matching material. When properly fixed to a well working MS table even I (and I bring about 100 kg on the scale) can stand on the armboard without bending - in case there is enough counter weight on the table 😂.

The technological ideas and impact they put into this lead to a worldwide success of their tables and still do, many try copying them but it seems to me the copy cats do not reach the original also regarding rebuild armboards. Maybe this is the reason why some audiophiles complain about cantilevered armboard approaches, no?

Would you propose using separate armpods free floating around the 101? or do you have other ideas? Thanks.