Cartridge ISOLATION; What Say You?

I'm sure Lewm and Atmasphere shed some light on this.

Cartridge isolation is very important but at what level? This is not difficult at all. The cartridge has to maintain a fixed orientation to the record. ANYTHING that corrupts that relationship like unipivot arms is bad. So the solution is, you isolate the entire turntable or rather the chassis that carries the tonearm and platter. This is the rational behind suspended turntables. They keep the environment from interfering with the cartridge without further corrupting the relationship of the cartridge to the record.
This cartridge isolation pad is beyond silly. What it does is dependent on the surface area of contact as well as the tightness of the screws, two variables that can not be easily controlled not to mention it corrupts that relationship. 

Vibration dissipation? The cartridge body should not vibrate at all. Any vibration of the cartridge body is distortion. The best way to keep a cartridge from vibrating is to fix it firmly to a very rigid structure with enough mass to get the resonance point of the cartridges suspension down to 10 Hz. Above 10 Hz the system is rigid. Below 10 Hz the tonearm is free to move. Adding another suspension between the cartridge and tonearm adds another resonance point which is going to be much higher than 10 Hz and it will not isolate the cartridge from anything occurring below that resonance point. It may well be within the audio band which will cause ringing. I can not imagine any circumstance where this would be beneficial. Nobody I know of makes a tonearm that bad. 

@lewm , I saw Tower of Power at the Hampton Beach Casino three weeks ago. As good as ever but not the best sound system. Not a situation you would want to use as a standard but their current singer has the largest lungs I have ever heard. Guy can belt out a tune for sure. Saw Wilco 2 weeks ago. Jeff Tweedy is a piece of work. Better sound system but but still not suitable to use as a standard to evaluate Hi Fi sound.
@atmasphere , Was that you talking or someone else? I certainly could not have said it better. It seems to have gone in one eye and out the other. Can you please tell me what tomwh is talking about? 
The only thing I care to add is that mass does not provide isolation from low frequency disruptions like foot falls and environmental rumble. It will diminish higher frequency pollution. To get rid of low frequency noise you take the rigid platter, tonearm, cartridge sub chassis and hang it from springs tuned to a very low frequency or place it on something like a MinusK platform. 
@tomwh , you are entitled to believe whatever you want, whatever that is.

@tomic601 , I believe I said TOP was not to be used as a standard. No large venue system can be used as a standard. You have no reference.
Acoustic instruments are tops, Jazz is great. Bands with individually amplified instruments can also be used. The Dave Holland Band is a great example. Everyone is amplified except the drums. They use the same set up recording that they use on stage. I've seen them three times and their records sound exactly like they do live. Dave's bass has a lot of character and he takes frequent solos. Great for evaluating bass performance down to 40 Hz or so. 
In Boston we have the Regatta Bar and Skuller's, smaller venue bars seat maybe 100 people at the most. 
Don't forget classical music either. String quartets are great for evaluating imaging. 

@lewm , I think you may be on to something. 

@tomic601 , Do "Prime Directive" or "Not for Nothing" If you like them you can go in either direction. Back 30 years ago his music could get....difficult. He was with Miles from 1968 thru 1970. The Quintet is my favorite. It features Robbin Eubanks on trombone and Chris Potter on sax. These two play off each other brilliantly. 
@mr_m , If you are talking about either of the two records above I beg to disagree. Both are nicely crafted studio recordings with no over tubs or fake sh-t.  They are just like you hear them in person. 

Lets make this as simple as possible.

The turntable supplies the energy the groove uses to force the stylus to vibrate in any combination of two directions, up and down, side to side. In an ideal world the cartridge body would remain absolutely still. It would not vibrate or resonate at all. However due to the fact that the stylus is suspended from the cartridge some of this energy is transferred to the cartridge body. Assuming the cartridge body does not ring the frequency this energy is transferred at depends on the stiffness of the cantilever's suspension and the mass of the cartridge. If the cartridge is solidly mounted to the tonearm you can add the effective mass of the arm to the mass of the tonearm lowering this frequency which all agree should be around 10 Hz. Putting a flexible material between the body of the cartridge and the tonearm add a second suspension with another resonance point determined by the stiffness of the material and the mass of the tonearm assuming the tonearm does not ring. Since this suspension is obviously stiffer than the one supporting the cantilever and the effective mass of the tonearm is lighter than the effective mass of the tonearm plus the cartridge, this resonance frequency is going to be much higher. If it winds up in the audio band it will be audible and represent distortion. If it is above the audio band it will inaudible except maybe to members of the tweaky gang. Is such a device going to dampen any ringing? I suppose it could but I would rather have a cartridge body and tonearm that do not ring. Good tonearms and cartridges do not ring so adding a secondary suspension can either do absolutely nothing or add an audible resonance which is obviously not good.