Skeletal vs Plinth style turntables


I am pondering a new plinth design and am considering the virtues of making a skeletal or closed plinth design. The motor unit is direct drive. I know that as a direct drive it inherently has very low vibration as opposed to an idler deck (please do not outcry Garrard and Lenco onwners coz I have one of those too) but simple facts are facts belt drive motors spin at 250rpm, Lencos around 1500 rpm, DD 33 or 45 rpm. That being the case that must surely be a factor in this issue. What are your thoughts. BTW I like closed designs as they prevent the gathering of dust.
parrotbee

Showing 2 responses by dover

Halcro, Timeltel et al

I have a hypothesis that surely explains that my friend Richardkrebs may well be correct. The hypothesis is that Halcro has inadvertently fabricated the worlds first Smartpod, that self corrects any stylus drag by moving in and out relative to the record to null any speed variation due to stylus drag.
Further to the above
02-10-15: Richardkrebs
I do not understand how the time line test proves that the pod is not moving? All it is measuring is the platter's speed.
A basic understanding of the physics involved would help.
Halcro's TT is a direct drive Victor 101. This turntable employs active speed correction using servos. The error correction detection can only measure the difference in relative speed between the base and the platter - those who have studied engineering, physics and mathematics at university would recognise that this a closed system.

The POD exists outside the closed system, and as such if the POD is moving, the servo correction cannot be correcting for this outside force as it is not in the measurement loop.

Therefore if the POD is moving, theoretically, it would reveal itself in the timeline test.