Vibration Question

@dogberry Everything about the replay of Vinyl is with fault, but the very worst of the wrongs for the replaying of  music using Vinyl, is quite capable of a replay to a level that can be enjoyed.

Then there are those that work that much harder to eek the incremental changes towards what is referred to as a improvement, which is certainly not an improvement in the enjoyment.

My most enjoyable times remembered around, Music, Photography, Fishing, Driving and some other interests, were when I new the least and had the worst tools or experience to get the job done.

There is not an explanation to be offered to convince that music will be more enjoyed as the outcome.

There is an explanation that can be offered to assist with understanding what is a optimum parameter to be aimed for, in relation to the setting up of each interface that is a necessity.

Meanwhile, I shall enjoy both the music and the (pleasing) distortions.

Dear @dogberry : Not polite but anyway: you already did it but are wrong with those 2/separated Pods, no matters what.

and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,

R.

As a fact tonearm/TT must be exactly in the same plane/plytnh, external arm pods looks fine and sometimes we use it by necessity but is totally wrong.

@lewm can explain why/it.

Regards  and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,

R.

@pindac The artificially applied kinetic energy is just a very rough indicator. @dogberry relates that thumps make it through with his Soundsmith which means that low frequencies are being transferred to the stylus of every cartridge, but one can ponder why he hears it most with the Soundsmith. What you are referring to as "natural kinetic energy" I call environmental rumble. You have subwoofers. If you can see the drivers, place your stylus down on a stationary record and turn off any low frequency limiting filters. Turn the volume all the way up watching the subwoofer cones. Now you can see environmental rumble which occurs at very low frequencies. Many suspensions, even the lowly LP12 are capable of isolation the cartridge from environmental rumble. Hanging suspensions such as the Sota, Basis, SME and Oracle are the best at it as are the MinusK and Vibraplane platforms. I can not speak for any others. To work a suspension has to have a resonance point below the frequency of the rumble, below 3 Hz is optimal. Done correctly an isolating suspension will also protect from foot falls. Done poorly a suspension can make footfall problems worse, the LP12 being a great example. 

As stated, the applying a artificially applied ( a strike from a implement or Knuckle) is one that can be reasonably easy to replicate to a very similar outcome by all who do it.

As there are many who do do this, where reports on a outcome are usually ones that are satisfactory, i.e, no noise detected that is of a concern. It does seem it is not too difficult to put measures in place to create an Isolation that is deemed valuable to be in use.

The point of interest, I extended into, was that there are individuals including myself, that have got the desired result from one test type, but have been further investigative with methods to create Isolation.

Furthering investigation and using the usual test method, in my case has confirmed, methods adopted have not been noticeable for their capability to improve the outcome of applying a artificial Kinetic Energy to be transferred.

No sound being produced at he time of a test, is simply that, "No sound being produced at he time of a test. "

There are individuals including myself, that having gone to extended measures to create methodologies to add attempt to improve on the Isolation available. There are follow up reports that are made, that in my assessment share similarities to my own. Where it is stated, that increased attraction is present in relation to the end sound being produced. 

In my case, this is not a fantastical appraisal, the effects are real and notable for the impression that is able to be made. I see no reason why any others report should be considered differently, I see no reason to question their findings, but do understand the influences on individual systems in their own environments, are most likely to be varied on the impact being made.

When seeing a contribution from myself on the subject of Isolation, it will be seen that I am keen to encourage an individual to not 'get of the Bus ' , in their Journey of learning about the effects of Isolation, because one change to a Structure has been noticeable for creating a change they have classed as improved or attractive and wanted to be maintained. 

My experiences are quite simple and Bass notes are a great indicator to where the end sound is being affected.

Bass notes can be Very Loose, Bloated, Muddy, Overbearing, where the condition when not really have a defined cut off, is starving the upper frequencies of their place in the overall range.

Bass notes can be Taut, Sharp, Clean, Adventurous and Complimentary to the Upper frequencies, where their presence are with equally shared influence on the frequency range.

I can't encourage any individual to decide on how the coherence across the frequencies is most attractive to themselves, but as for my own unique preference for listening to the bulk of my recorded music. The more I can experience of the latter description for Bass notes is being resolved, for myself, the tidier the presentation becomes and the musical encounter I most enjoy is being presented.

Then their is the antithesis to the above preference, when I set aside the time to put Chicago Blues on as a replay, I can quickly feel sold quite short, if it does not come with a dosage of colouration from the former description for a Bass note.  Hence, a ESL Speaker Array and its transparency, is speedily swapped out for a Cabinet Speaker Type, the colouration caused by the Cabinet Influences works just fine for myself.       

The chest is old and crudely made, with a very thick top, and seasoned since sometime in the 1600s. But undoubtedly, you are right, @pindac, there must be effects of percussing a drum-like surface like the top of it. Given that the top of the chest must vibrate somewhat on being struck, how can there be little or no sound revealed by the cartridge? I assume the fact the pods are sitting on spikes is helping decouple them from the surface - a mechanical isolator rather than one resulting from material science.

But I suppose the practical question is whether my ear can hear the resulting vibrations as transmitted to the cartridge, and I’ll be the first to admit my hearing is compromised, having one ear with about 50% sensitivity in it, and the other totally dead. So if I can hear nothing through the cartridges mounted on the built-in mounts on the percussion test, and nothing through the Grado on the pods, I can say that it works as well as I need it to do. The Soundsmith though does give a faint noise in the speakers, presumably because its cantilever and iron is lighter than that of the Grado (I’m making that assumption because it is a low-output MI, and the Grado is not. Probably most of the reduction in output comes from fewer turns in the fixed coils, but that alone offers no advantage over a high output MI: Peter Ledermann must be using lighter iron on the cantilever as well to make his "MIMC" cartridges because that is what makes them sound different). But this is with the pre-amp turned all the way up, and I would typically play an LP with the volume set to 15-20% of maximum. At that level I can strike the chest and hear nothing. Even so, I think you are right, and not just on theoretical grounds, because the Soundsmith sounds different to the way it sounded on the built-in mount. The Soundsmith initially was a disappointment to me when I bought it as a candidate to replace the Decca. It was so neutral and uncoloured (qualities that actually make it a very good cartridge) it did not get my feet tapping. I found I could improve my response to it with various resistive loadings—lots available on the NuVista Vinyl—and then discovered it sounded equally pleasing via the SUT. But it is a different beast on the bipod; there is more bass and this must be related to the new mount, and that must imply some vibration feeding back into the cartridge. Anathema to some, but I like it! If I am 'making a virtue of necessity' as the old phrase had it, so be it.

Thank you for your detailed response, as always.

The idea of checking for Kinetic Energies Influence is one I am familiar with through my own long term interest in using structural materials configured in varying assemblies and adding new permutations to the Structure, through new material type. Albeit, a new thickness of a liked material, a added layer of a liked material or a whole new material. Separator types used between tiers and Source are another area that has been given equally long term consideration and trials of options chosen.

This has evolved to the place where the considerations are to be seen being utilised under the Racking, on the Racking Shelving, and upon the top tiers of the racking.

I feel very confident the methodology used for Audio Equipment support has evolved to the place where little more benefits are to be discovered, especially now Phenolic Resin Impregnated Densified Wood is the latest material being introduced to take over the role of certain materials.

For many many years, I have tried to trip the support system up, through applying Kinetic Energy into the Vibration Sensitive components belonging to the system, i.e a Cartridge and a Valve.

Attempts to create a concerning sound from a Speaker through investigating the effects of natural ambient Kinetic Energy or a Artificial Applied Kinetic Energy has been for a long time, a condition that is present or able to be made present, that has not caused any concerns in relation to how it impacts on the system.

Across all forums the exact same topic can be seen discussed on occasion.

Not all contributors are making it known if audible concerns are present, but most contributors are keen to share methods adopted that are considered a improved methodology to support.

In this thread Two Individuals have made it Known they are not able to create an audible sound as a result of artificially creating Kinetic Energy to be transferred to the most sensitive receptors of such energy.

In my case as one individual reporting on artificially creating Kinetic Energy not being a concern and having spent many many hours learning about controls to contain the effects of Kinetic Energy presence. It seems quite strange that another who has seemingly adopted much lesser methods, has been able to report almost identical non concern.

In no way is this questioning the report of the outcome of investigating the TT with a Bipod TA support structure. I totally accept the findings being reported back to the individual who encouraged the investigation. 

The inquisitive side of myself asks. When having first discovered audible sound was not present when resulting from artificially applied Kinetic Energy, this area of Isolation Control was no longer a concern, this type of produced energy is semingly one that most can produce that is near equivalent.

Natural Present Kinetic Energy is not typical, it will vary Geographically and as a result of the local environments activity.   

How much of a influence has been the constant naturally present Kinetic Energy. Has the progressive and different methodologies selected to support audio equipment, over time proven to have been influential in bettering the end sound produced, through betterment to the Isolation method.

I am now and as have been on many occasions left to ponder, what has evolved,  to create the impression. Not much more benefits are to discovered, if the investigations and trials are continued, for discovering methodologies for equipment/component Isolation.

Which other influences from natural present Kinetic Energy on the end sound has been tidied up, as a result of the Support Structures I have been working with for a long period of their evolvement.

Which are the constant frequencies born from naturally present Kinetic Energy  that are through their transferral to the Styli / Valves, a detriment to the end sound, as a result of the impact being applied prior to the end sounds production.

Which frequencies (all that are present or a proportion ? ) through creating a purpose produced support structure, are the frequencies that have been tidied up in relation to their influence being evaluated on the audio systems end sound.   

Then there is the question I have made on occasions and not received an answer that satisfies. Is a dedicated Platform such as a MinusK capable of being the correct method to Isolate all unwanted frequencies in all environments. I ask this as I have worked in Laboratories at the time of their construction, and have seen the pre screed works carried out as a means to be a measure to improve Vibration control.  This seems excessive measures when the critical instrument already has its own Independent Vibration Control Plinth on the bench.        

Done. The pods holding the Grado are silent, as are those holding the Soundsmith. However, if I tap very hard (like percussing a chest, which I suppose I am, in a way) with two fingers I can hear something with the volume turned up to Quad-destruction levels in the case of the Soundsmith only. Maybe that is why the Soundsmith has discovered it has bass? Anyway, it is good enough for me.

I hear nothing at all with the cartridges mounted on the factory and custom mounts, even when I do the hard tap with two straight fingers.

@dogberry Put the stylus down on a stationary record and turn up the volume. Take a teaspoon and tap the oak around the turntable. You should not hear anything. 

@pindac Now don't go giving me ideas!

The Thread has moved on from the initial intoduction of :

' Warning to the sensitive: involves tonearm pods.'

An Update

Warning to the sensitive: involves tonearm 'Bipods.' 😎

Final picture:

The panels arrived from Acoustand today and it all seems to work. Very heavy and solid, so should be stable.

A few pages back I outlined my plans for some experimental double tonearm pods. The panels arrived from Acoustand today and it all seems to work. Very heavy and solid, so should be stable.

 

 

 

 

 

This is not a Plug for a product, but as their are plenty of measurements shown as part of the R&D for this design, and I am familiar with such type of recording being shown, through spending time with individuals who show to me their own recorded data for their own designs and works undertaken. I though it might be off interest for some to see the Vibration being present and the impact it can have.

The OP has certainly met suggestions for improvements to be put in place for  Vibration management being utilised for their TT's mounting.

As stated previously on this forum, I have produced a TA Standalone Pod design. The intention of the Pod was to aid with an inquisitive mindset, and enable other TA's to be tried out in advance of swapping out the regularly used TA, at a time when I was suspecting a improvement could be found from an alternate TA. Theories never realised, I discovered my new TA through a different course.

I totally am on board with the use of a Standalone Pod to enable reasonably easy to achieve extended experiences, a lot worse has been done to achieve this. 

As stated, I am regularly experiencing a Standalone Tonearm Pod in use with a Glanz MH12 and SP10 R. I can't detect any sonic that is seemingly unattractive as  result of the Pod being used.   

As stated previously on this forum, for a TT > TA Interface, I lean heavily towards the philosophy of using the rigidly coupled design. In the earliest days of developing and interest in using TT's and the importance of the mechanical interfaces, I become a little obsessed  with the trueness of rotation of a Platter Spindle and this evolved into my interest in the stability of inherent properties for a  Plinth material.

I will assume the Plinth material interest was stimulated by the big name Manufacturers usage of resin composites as a Plinth, and how some smaller artisan entities with an interest in TT's moved on to resin composites and Natural Stone. I recollect on occasions being in discussions with the artisans about the use of Natural Stone over the usage of Stone Composite.

In the early 90's I moved on from the usual type Plinths and commenced using materials that I had come to understand (rightly or wrongly) as a very stable in its properties material for the use as a Plinth.

From the early 90's I have used Granite, this evolved and I moved on to Corian, and also purchased a quantity of Slate, a Metal Material never really got my interest. Stone Type material has been in use as the main material of interest until approx' 2015.

In 2015, I commenced meeting (face to face) with, Plinth Builders known for their work undertaken with the Polybentonite Resin. I was looking at this as an upgrade material, to become adopted and used in the place of Corian.

Whilst learning about the properties of Poly' Resin, especially the Damping / Dissipation properties having a desirable measurement, when adopted for use as a massy Plinth, with the intention of being used in place of Stone or Stone Composites. It was at this same time I was also made aware of material such as Panzerholz and Permali.

I was soon to  learn both P'holz and P'mali were becoming sought after materials to be used for a Plinth. I set out to become very familiar with these products manufacture methods ( Phenolic Resin Impregnated Densified Wood).

Additionally through other parties, I learnt how certain tested densified wood material has properties that are very stable and in relation of the Intrinsic Damping / Dissipation are very well suited for usage in audio.

One don't have to look to far today to see how Phenolic Resin Impregnated Densified Woods are in use in audio. As made known recently, Linn has also now adopted the use densified wood in their TOTR £60K TT, it is most likely from the Brand Panzerholz? It is not uncommon to see this Brand in use, where the Company using it for audio purposes has given it a 'in house' name. 

I am keen on / an advocate of rigid coupling the TT Spindle > TA Pillar when the material used to anchor the Chassis/ Platter Spindle and Tonearm are with intrinsic properties that prove them as being very stable. To have a material option that also has intrinsic properties that are attractive for Damping/Dissipation of energies being transferred is also a big bonus, when considering rigid coupling.

Over the years I have seen soak tests for high quality Board Materials, the types that one would want to see used in a wood used for a good quality Plinth. I have also looked into substantially increased in compression boards where the Kg per m3 close to a 1000Kg per m3, not the typical 650-750Kg per m3. If I have read the data correct these board types have substantial increase in dimensions when compared to a board type such a Phenolic Resin Impregnated Densified Wood.

Typical Boards are designed for a particular function and meet the parameters of the design requirements and will last for a particular period of function if used correctly.

Resin Impregnated Densified Wood is certainly not designed as a Plinth material, but does have intrinsic properties that lean towards it being a attractive option.

I am not suggesting in any way that materials such as P'holz or P'mali are the ideal material for all to use, the influence on the sonic produced may not be attractive to many who encounter the material in use. I am yet to meet somebody who has been demo'd a P'holz Plinth as a comparison to a alternative board material using the same model TT > Tonearm > Cart', that has not resulted in the individual rejecting the P'holz, I only know of individuals adopting the usage of the Resin Impregnated Densified Wood.         

I am trying to get across is Typical Boards or Woods selected for Plinth designs that are based on rigid coupling are not ideally stable. The Boards or Wood are reactive to the environment. The designs  in place allow moisture to penetrate, which will be a cause of expansion and shrinkage. 

There are other board materials used for Plinth design that getting data on is quite difficult, but through knowing the materials and seeing it in use as a daily used material regularly, will show that after periods of exposure to moisture, it can be sponge like, expanding to the point of destruction, where particulate has become detached from the solid.

A rigid coupling philosophy over looks in general the importance of the material selected to anchor the parts to.

I would be quite confident using a TA mounted directly over a Standalone Pod in conjunction with a TT, when each has the TA and Spindle anchored to a materials that has very stable properties. I also would be even more confident in using thios method if both Standalone Pod and TT were mounted on a single Sub- Plinth that was produced form a material that has very stable properties, as this would ensure the best of set up methods are in place to attempt to ensure critical geometries and dimensions are maintained. 

The anti-thesis is to mount both TT Spindle (Bearing Housing) or TT Chassis and Spindle with the TA onto a material that expands and contracts. This method strongly suggests critical geometries and dimensions are in constant fluctuation.

Individuals expressing an interest in the rigid coupling philosophy if in ownership of a TT that has this used as the method, will be in a very good position to see if theirs is a design that utilised materials to be anchored to that have very stable properties.

As somebody with long history of expressing a keen interest in mechanical interfaces and the maintenance of the dimensions used for the geometries being used, the rigid coupling method has been discovered to have many sides to it that are worthy of raising concerns.

Some of the designs known of, would easily be replaced as a betterment using the suggestion for mounting a Standalone Pod referred to earlier. 

Not to be overlooked, for the record, listening and enjoying the entertainment is the goal. All methods employed to interface a TT and Tonearm are quite capable of replaying recorded music to a level that is able to be  thoroughly enjoyed by multiples of listeners, I am one of these myself.               

@fsonicsmith 

Well, go figure.

@dogberry 

I think you are looking at it from the wrong direction. Three points describes a plane. Four feet rock. When it comes to mechanical devices simplicity is almost always best. The fewer pieces you have the fewer resonances and interactions you have to control.   Ideally you would have one critically damped non resonant chassis to which the tonearm and platter bearing are securely bolted. The Basis Inspiration is an example of such a turntable. The problem with this design is that it can get messy if one wants to switch tonearms. Turntables like the Linn LP12 and the Sota Sapphire use removable tonearm boards which can be drilled for each arm. In the case of the Sota Cosmos the board is a 1" thick constrained layer construct of acrylic and aluminum weighing several pounds. It and the tonearm are bolted firmly to a 1" thick aluminum chassis that has been drilled out in a pattern to reduce weight and control any resonance. In this case the spindle is mounted to the chassis and the whole affair is hanging by four dampened springs. 

Does any of this lead to a better sounding turntable? The honest answer is I have no idea. There are to many variables involved, the quality of the system, the quality of the listener, cartridge set up, tonearm matching and so forth. From a purely technical standpoint it is the right way to do things and I can't not believe that all these "right ways" do not add up. 

You asked for help. The rest of are not there and can only go off of the available information. I gave you my very best guess and very questionable opinion. 

But a spirit level says the tonearm panel is level. That's surely the best I can hope for, no?

Well, the 18th century oak chest wins over all other considerations! It's worth more than all my hi-fi and records.

Don't take me literally. I meant to ditch it as the base for your turntable. Looking at the photo you posted the chance of the two pods being in the same plane as the platter surface when seated on different planks making up the top of the chest is quite small. If the shaft of the tonearm is not "laying" in the same plane as the top of the platter then you are stymied before you begin to worry about the other aspects such as excessive vibration. 

Well, the 18th century oak chest wins over all other considerations! It's worth more than all my hi-fi and records.

Here, finally is the question: he thinks I am simply introducing twice as many vibrations (external, I think he means) into the tonearm by having it rest in two sites on the oak chest, and that I would be better off having one end of the tonearm panel free-floating. My view is that rigidity is paramount, and if a built-in tonearm on a table is firmly coupled to the table then I am moving a bit closer to that ideal by having a firmly coupled chest-table-pod system. What say you?

What says me is that you should ditch the oak chest and replace it with a more dense, mass-loaded, and precisely flat base and then use one very dense and massive tonearm pod. The concurrent thread about the OMA audio turntable designs demonstrates this approach. 

@mijostyn For once I am in agreement. I have said it. elsewhere in this forum. Even the pivoting leaf type of mount found on many turntables such as this one is significant compromise. It offers versatility if you change tonearms and easy adjustment of P-S and yet at the same time invites detrimental vibration. One of the most knowledgeable guys in the industry who builds plinths admitted as much to me at Axpona one year. VPI has been designing turntables with aluminum bridges upon which the tonearm sits to facilitate their VTA on the fly adjustment system for many years, again a compromised design. The ultimate effect on performance may approach the minuscule, but at the price level asked it is not appropriate. SME has the best approach to adjustable P-S-the rock solid "sliding sled". 

All of this is just my humble op. 

I see the dominant opinion is, as expected: don't use pods at all. But given the turntables I have (where there is no other choice), I shall ask once more, is a tonearm better off on a single pod, or a double pod? The latter doubles the mass coupled to the tonearm, but possibly provides two routes for vibration to be transmitted to the tonearm instead of one.

I'm doing it anyway, so don't feel you have to advise me carefully in that respect. I just want to get a feel for whether you think there is any merit in the argument that more external vibrations will be transmitted, and if so, they will outweigh (!) the doubled mass?

I expect there isn't much of a body of knowledge on this, but I'm curious as to your thoughts.

@pindac 

That is because you are polite and I am not. I see no reason to support an inferior mounting system whether it works OK or not. The cartridge generates a voltage with relative movement of the stylus to the body of the cartridge. It does not matter which element is moving. It is hard enough to control one element. With an outboard tonearm mount you now have to control three, the turntable, the tonearm piler and whatever it is they are sitting on. With the preferred method only one, the turntable chassis which is very easy to isolate.

@mijostyn The OP is very content with their method for interfacing the TT>TA and the Geometry being created. I am experiencing regularly a similar method and not able to detect detriment as a result of the method in use.

My own position on the subject of mounting additional TA's has been re-evaluated and my most recent design passed on to a TA designer/builder, has been one that is much much more in keeping with your leaning for the rigid coupling of the Platter Spindle and TA Pillar. 

The bearing modification on the chosen TT and New Design TA will both ensure the axis will be very very true. The selected Plinth material will ensure there is minimal loss to the critical geometries created, the machining on this Plinth design I am informed is to .01mm. If my design for a additional Armboard is put to use, I'm sure it will have been scrutinised for being fit for purpose before machining of any type commences.

I can't see any reason not to be supportive to an individual who is happy in their usage of a TT set Up, especially where I am offering up an input to a general inquiry.    

@pindac 

IMHO the only way to mount a tonearm is bolted securely to a stiff chassis that also mounts the platter's bearing. A well designed tonearm board is fine. Suspending the chassis is a must. Examples of such turntables are Avid Acutus, SMEs, The Oracle, Dohmann, Sota and most of the Basis tables. The connection between the platter and tonearm needs to be perfectly rigid and non resonant. (as much as possible)

@dogberry 

I do not see any advantage in two pods as long as the one pod is sufficiently massive and stable. 

My own experience of Standalone Pod being used and as design put on paper has been for the Tonearm to be directly anchored to the Pod.

Cantilever Arm Boards have for a long time caused myself to ponder if the support method is prone to flexion. The fact that numerous TT Producers are now adopting this method, suggests it is a satisfactory application, or might be a very cost effective solution to engineering requirement. 

Most recently I produced a design given to a friend for a Cantilever Tonearm Board to be produced from Panzerholz and added to a P'holz Plinth. The Cantilever Board will enable TA's up to 14" to be added and be used to carry out comparisons between a selection of TA,s.

In your own design as shown on paper, the typical method that a pod is used has changed to the Structure now being Two Piers and a Lintel/Bridge. With this design, my query about flexion will remain. The unknown energies are now being transferred through two anchors/piers and there may be a cross talk between transferred energies that add a new energy that could be transferred to the styli.

As an alternative proposal and if the Bridging Arm Board is to be tried out, it might be worth expanding thought on the concept and see if a Longer Bridge could be used, one that over sails each Pod. The design will allow for additional positions to connect the TA, and if looked into a design may be achievable that would enable up to Two TA's to be set up on the one structure? 

Why not use the pod by Acoustand that is designed for the SME mount?  

@OP You don't necessarily want to be coupling your tonearm mount to a large vibrating surface like the oak cabinet. There is mass in your arm pedestals but no damping. The only real benefit from the proposed arrangement is not having the arm on a cantilever. As already suggested, you would be better putting the entire turntable and arm setup on an isolation platform.

👍

@lewm @mijostyn Thank you, gentlemen, for your (expected) answers. But, the question? One pod better than two, or vice versa?

@danmar123 Certainly, but it is the same thing as an Acoustand with built-in mount. I like an Englishman with a lathe, and you seem to have found me another. Maybe it was the way my father spent his evenings in his workshop, or maybe it was Neville Shute.

Would this be an option: 

I am in agreement with @lewm 

Just because you cabinet weights 350 lb this does not mean that it does not resonate in any way. Judging from the construction I can see, it does. Ideally you would rigidly mount the turntable and tonearm pod to an isolation platform. 

I guess you don't want to hear my real opinion, which is that outboard arm pods are a bad idea in the first place.  But if you must have one in this case, why not have your constructor build you ONE pod that works better for the SME mount than does his current version, with the cantilevered mount board. Because I agree that the unsupported cantilever is a really bad idea.  Two separate ones is better in some ways but worse in other ways.  I would go back to the drawing board.