Hammacher Schlemmer has Kronos $28,000

Peter, I may be wrong, but I think the counter-rotating platters would have a nice stabilizing effect, rather like a gyroscope, but not actually gyroscopic. I am gratified to see that the quote from the designer, "counter-rotating platters cancel the tendency for the plinth to rotate in the horizontal plane around the axis of the bearing", is another way of saying what I wrote above. It's the Law. However, the execution of the idea is what would determine whether the results are worth the added complexity. Which is why I'd love to hear one of these tables.

Would be cool to do a direct drive with counter-rotating platters. DD would be better suited to this concept than belt-drive, IMO. (This is not to take a shot at BD; it's just that BD requires those two external motors and the associated drive belts, which might serve to reduce the possible advantages of this particular idea.)

Lewm, I'm trying to understand your point. In a conventional turntable design where the one platter is rotating clockwise, that is the "action". What is the "equal and opposite" reaction?

The Kronos designer told me that the platter rotating tends to make the supporting plinth rotate also, I guess in the SAME direction due to bearing friction, ie. clockwise. But if the friction is low, then how much of an issue is this really for all other conventional turntables?

Now apply this principle to the lower platter on the Kronos. That platter is rotating in the opposite direction making that second, lower plinth rotate slightly in that direction, ie. counter-clockwise. It seems that the platters cancel each other, but the two plinths which are floating due to the SME like four leg towers, are rotating in opposite directions and they meet at the four corners. Those forces are acting on the four legs in opposite directions. So it seems to me that the forces are not cancelled by the rotating platters but by sheer force at the corner leg supports.

I did not think to ask the designer to clarify this for me, so perhaps I am completely misunderstanding the point. This may be the wrong thread to discuss the technical design of the Kronos, so I apologize to the OP.

In an ideal universe there would be no bearing friction. Admittedly, this never happens. But in such a closed system, a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, i.e., counter-clockwise in this case, would be exerted on everything that is not part of the platter, when the motor is in action. In the real world, gravity pulls the assembly down on its base, and the friction between the footers and the shelf normally prevents the counter-rotation of the assembly. But the contrary force is present, nonetheless. (This is a problem with spring suspended turntables.) By having the counter-rotating platter of equal composition and mass borne on the same assembly as the functional platter, that force is nullified.

Think about it; in outer space, in a manned space capsule, one could not play a record unless one bolted down the whole turntable to the mass of the ship itself. Otherwise, the platter and the rest of the turntable would both rotate but in opposite directions due to the rotational force put into them by the motor. (Of course, setting VTF would be a bitch as well.)

I believe the California Audio Show had this TT up and running(downstairs-across from the Wilson Alexandria set-up). I liked it, but I can't afford it, so I'm not sure I would buy it or not, if I could.

I'm sure HS, given their impeccable audiophile credentials, would not sell this turntable if it did not work to the tee exactly as advertised. :^)