Technics SP-10 Tonearm Pod instead of Plinth/Base

About the Theory of Mechanical Linkage of the TT chassis against the tonearm, in my point of view, less vibrations are better than "joint" vibrations. Now to theorize here seems a bit ridiculous but any way I will give it a go: To have a synchronized vibration could work in order to lets say minimize the sum of vibrations, but this would mean that both the Tonearm and the TT are at the crest of the vibration at a given moment and at the valley, in complete synchronization, if one is at the valley and the other at the crest then it is better to have them Isolated, in a separate Pod. Now, in music we know vibrations are in a lot of frequencies, not only at one, so to have a synchronized movement that would annul the vibrations in all frequencies seems a bit complicated.

This would be theorizing on a result I found in practice, I dont know how valid that could be since we could also theorize on the contrary.

Practically I like it better.

Thanks everyone. For me, a lack of funds is the mother of invention, so that's why, at least in part, I'm thinking of Raul's clever approach.

I've always been a little circumspect when it comes to wood and turntables. I believe that its use transforms the turntable into a musical instrument (I also consider that sprung suspensions add to the euphonic mix). While all plinth designs have this effect, the goal (for me) should be neutrality. The more 'stuff' attached to the device that is extracting the micro signal from the groove, the more chance for colouration.

Lewm: Good points to consider. In place of the AT pneumatic feet of Raul's set-up, I was thinking of some of those fantastic feet from Herbie's Audio Lab. They would perform the isolation task very well and secure the TT to prevent dancing across the room... The company also make a great matt that is perfect for the SP-10. As for the pod, checkout this pod with adjustable feet, layering, damping and (brass?) weight:

http://www.turntables.lt/gallery/tonearmturret/norm_04859_2009-04-04.jpg

Rnadelman: Ah, the layered approach. If I had to go with a plinth, I think the plywood/aluminum woud be the best sonically. There is someone here (In OZ) who makes them. Do you think that they do a better job than wood of draining unwanted resonances?

Jsadurni: See the link above- is that the kind of 'pod' you made? Would you say that your setup keeps the speed and bass reproduction while extracting the upper mid and treble with air/space/soundstage depth?

Raul: It seems that Jsadurni is getting great results from the non-plinth + tonearm pod approach. I agree- I can always try the setup first. The feet I can use later with a plinth if the pod idea doesn't work.

Keep the idea coming, thanks everyone!

DSA, as for the layered plinth I made that my first choice of options that are out there. I think solving a problem seems to always create another one. With that said I have thus far made audio choices based on what someone had to say about the particular component and how it would work with the rest of my system. Now I have made a choice to test and see how it works and if I like it I will continue to use it or if I don't like it then I will take a look at other options. I urge you to do it your way just to see if it works for you.
Thanks

This is yet another of those "to each his own" audio discussions. We can be comfortable knowing we are all in the right. Have fun. If any one of us besides Raul tries it both ways, please report back on your preference.

I forgot to mention my third option for a plinth- Marble. The Japanese seem to think that this is the best material for a direct-drive TT plinth. Slate is another, but marble is easier to come by and preferred by many.
Has anyone tried a marble plinth?