12-09-11: Ctlphd
Tobes, how big a difference did the single motor flywheel make? I understand they are phasing it out, so if I'm going to buy one, I need to get it now. Also, I thought about the motor sitting directly on the stand being a source of vibration, as it is not isolated like the table. I don't know of any solution to this, as any feet that I'm aware of would put it too high.
I wouldn't say it was dramatic but I thought it a very worthwhile improvement at the time (over my original motor setup -
HERE).
Howver, for a similar outlay, you may get a better result with the rim drive option - but I haven't heard that.
In regards to isolation of the motor - you'll need to experiment with this. When I coupled my old TNT motor with solid cones to the same wooden plinth as the table there was a large transference of motor vibration to the table (via the plinth). The rubber feet were much better.
Though I now use the quieter motor/flywheel with split motor/table plinths - where both plinths are damped into the sandbox via aluminium fins - I have persisted with the rubber feet. A stethoscope applied to the turntable plinth confirms the excellent isolation. I have very 'black' quiet backgrounds.
Symposium claim they got marked improvements by coupling the TNT motor/flywheel to their 'Ultra' platform using their 'precision couplers' -
See here.
I haven't heard the Symposium stuff, and one must always be wary of manufacturer claims, but I'm interested in the approach. It's something I may investigate.
Whether the direct coupling approach works will be heavily dependent on the platform used and it's isolation from the outsides world. Coupling works both ways.
FWIW, in general, I don't like any spongy rubber feet under components. I feel they smear the sound.