Vintage DD turntables. Are we living dangerously?

Dear Geoch,
if you are using a Cu 180 g mat you may balance the directness by putting a very thin felt mat on top of it. The combination of both mats enables an absolutely harmonic sound. You will not trust your ears anymore, believe me...

best @ fun only

Dear Geoch,
the felt mat I am using on top of a Micro Seiki Cu 180g mat weighs 5,9 g. It is very thin. On the back it is covered with a black laquer bringing it into good contact with the Cu 180g mat, also keeping everything absolutely flat (!).
I recall that I payed 100 Euros for the felt mat.

It is always a matter of try and error - but this combination really convinced me and believe me I tried some...

I think Halcro's experiment with the pig mat might have been successful because it is flat. Nevertheless I know some guys swearing on a wave like mat...

all the best for your experiments.

Fun Only

all the best with experimenting

thanks Fleib and Dover - very helpful indeed!
what do you think about the two implementation designs I mentioned above?

Thanks Lewm. What is the disadvantage of stand alone armpods and why is it crucial that there is a connection between armpod and table? Does the physical connection bear any advantages?

Taking Henry's excellent implementation, would it help if the separate armpods are standing on a firm platform as well as the 101 or would you propose a touch to touch connection between armpods and table?

I have seen the Kenwood's realisation. Very well done!
Just imagine one would take a non-plinth integrated 101 how could you connect pods with the table?

Henry convinced me going for a 101. my unit will arrive in about 2 weeks and I hope it has not too many defects as it is "for repair". I got a lot of information from Henry (👍 many thanks) also preparing my service team which is ready to start 🔧. now I am collecting ideas what kind of armpods I should use? Henry's pods look very nice and stable. I 'd like bringing in at least four arms on the DD, also an EA-10 which has a huge counter weight below of the arm. Therefore I need space below of the armboard.

Totem395,
you`re right. Maybe I was asking too much in general. I am not referring to the theoretical implications. Copernicus should blame me. I thought in the meantime there could be some more experiences from experimenting rather than describing why one belongs to the stand alone camp or related camp, no? Everyone is proposing only THE ONE SOLUTION?

Back to the practical side: I am experimenting with stand alone and related implementations. For my 100M I am just building a very massive stand alone pod and I`d like to find out if it really makes a difference when the pod is related to the Denon or not (in case I am suceeding doing so)?

For the 101 I am attracted by Henry`s pod design. Only my EA-10 will not fit into one of the pods due to its large counter screw.

Another idea is building a massive substructure for the 101, precisely drilling a 40 mm high and 400 x 400 mm massive aluminum bases (like with the MS RX 5000) and incorporate four related arm pillars at all four corners similar to the Micro Seiki`s ones. In the middle of the bases I could carve out a 5 mm deep recess taking up the Victor thus fixing the 101, not moving around from this position.

When done properly by using 30mm steel knobs and original 20mm MS bases I have no problem using cantilevered armboards. In this implementation the pods would be related. I am not decided yet. Any ideas?

Dear Lewm,
that seems to be a brilliant idea: why not building a massive slate plinth, let the 101 sink in the middle and Henry`s pods at three other holes having rigid contact with the slate plinth. will draw a draft.

Fleib,
why do you think a cantilevered approach is a bad thing in this case? cantilever armboards can work very well when implemented properly!

For example the Micro Seiki engineers were really ahead of their time and they did know why they used 30mm knobs to fix the armboards and 20mm high armboards of a matching material. When properly fixed to a well working MS table even I (and I bring about 100 kg on the scale) can stand on the armboard without bending - in case there is enough counter weight on the table 😂.

The technological ideas and impact they put into this lead to a worldwide success of their tables and still do, many try copying them but it seems to me the copy cats do not reach the original also regarding rebuild armboards. Maybe this is the reason why some audiophiles complain about cantilevered armboard approaches, no?

Would you propose using separate armpods free floating around the 101? or do you have other ideas? Thanks.

regarding cantilevered armboards it seems to me we should look deeper into aspects like how long is the cantilever, which forces are put on, which are the mass ratios and which is the source of the resulting energy of the scanning process? If we do so we clearly see why the cantilever beam plays no important role!

Lewm, MS boards are flimsy??? When have you been standing last time on an original Micro Seiki armboard? Or do have double my weight? :-)

Fleib, Dover`s rules do apply to all TTs - regardless of drive mechanism.

Despite the convincing conclusion that platter and tonearm bearing should ideally not interact in relative movements I have experienced that it depends on the way of execution, e.g. in the Continuum or with my Toyo stand.

when the Victor arrives and has been repaired I will look into it again. Thanks all having supported me here so far and exchanged ideas - very helpful indeed !!!

Dear Fleib,
okay - that makes sense! I could build up a round aluminum (or using other material!?) corpus in which the 101 sinks in keeping rigid contact. Three floating but rigidly coupled armbases -eventually not neccessarily flying in the air- keep contact with the corpus via two massive tubes like at the Feickert Triple. The armpods will carry a flexible upper level segment which can be exchanged like at Henry`s pods.
This upper level plate will also carry a flexible & fast changing system as it is implemented at the Firebird thus enabling using 12, 10 and 9 inch arms.

This design could fulfill the rigid contact requirements of arms, motor and platter. The main issue will be that the 101 keeps contact with that "kind of plinth" as you suggest.
regards