A Copernican View of the Turntable System

Hello Jcarr, I'm coming into this discussion rather late, but please explain a statement:

**FWIW, I also agree fully with Daniel and Travis regarding outboard arm pods. When you play a record, what you are actually doing is measuring it against the platter and spindle. Mounting the tonearm on a separate pod allows relative movement to occur between the tonearm pivot and the platter / spindle, and this will interfere with the accuracy of measurements.**

The set-ups I've seen with separate arm pods look like massive affairs where both the spindle housing and pods are planted so there can be no relative movement between them. Of course these are non-suspended tables. So, what are you talking about? Why is it preferable to use a plinth to maintain spindle/arm distance, rather than the base? I would think that using the plinth has greater potential to muddy up the sound.
Regards,

Hello Halcro, **As you say Nikola.......claiming the existence of phenomena without scientific proof places this hobby of ours in the same realm as 'religion'.
Statements of faith reign supreme with non-believers labelled as heretics?**

Since you used a question mark, I assume you're asking a question, otherwise you're making a statement, but you're unsure?

Your statement presupposes that everything and all phenomena, can be proven scientifically. Many scientists believed the Higgs particle exists, before there was evidence to support that.

Regards,

Halcro,
*Many scientists believed the Higgs particle exists, before there was evidence to support that.*

**True......but there were observable phenomena which could only be explained by the existence of 'something'?
This lead to a 'thesis' to explain this phenomena and then a search or test to prove the 'thesis'.
Most of Einstein's theories were unprovable at the time he postulated them and 100 years later......there still remain some to be proven?
As far as I know.......none of his theories was subsequently disproven?**

If an audiophile, not a scientist, has repeatable subjective evidence that a phenomena exists, should he postulate a thesis and look for scientific proof before experimenting with this phenomena, discussing it, and assuming it exists?

I think not. It's not his job. His goal is to manipulate the sound of his system and he has subjective evidence to support results. If someone else questions the existence of said phenomena and says it doesn't exist, perhaps this will lead to understanding what is really going on, or not, but requiring an audiophile to postulate a theory and offer proof of a phenomena is absurd.

Regards,