Next step in Turntable

The problem with @mijostyn is that he never tried the AT-616.
Here is the image of my AT-616 in my system (under Tannoy).

This is another set of AT under my ex SP-10mk2.
4 x AT616 designed for up to 132 lbs weight (60kg).  

The problem with Solid Tech is their ugly design, I would never put them under anything like vintage turntable (but it’s just my opinion).

'Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder'
The Aesthetic of the Solid Tech is certainly not their problem.
The Aesthetic might not be to all tastes, and this totally acceptable.

If a Concern about a Solid Tech Feet of Silence is to be raised, as a user,
I will say one has to be mindful of the loading, as it can be set up to take extra weight, but the Projections that are the Cantilever Suspension Points, may become compromised where they connect to the Main Body.  
I will additionally say the Foot Print would benefit from being a Little Wider, to give a reassurance that the Supported equipment is undoubtedly stable.
This is not the result of the supported device being able to be in a state of Flotation.
It is that the Diameter of the Base in relation to the Height of the Footer seems to suggest it would not survive and unwanted contact/force applied to the Device being supported.
If my Set Up was not in a Dedicated Room, where movements around the equipment are quite limited and carried out by respectful types, i.e, not the Grand Children.
I would have had an additional Footer Plate produced to give the sense of a improved Stability being available, and not compromise the Function.
As the Solid Tech does a very good Job, it would be worth the extra investment, when used in certain environments.  


  

@Mijo--In my experience all drive system represent trade-offs--none are perfect but some better than others. The TE-2 approach is to extract the best of what belt, direct, and idler systems have to offer while minimizing the downsides. I think the TE-2 achieves this goal as per speed stability, accuracy and quietness of operation. The proof is in both listening and measurements. As for dodging wow and flutter if you dig a little deeper you will see that Paulo at Sempersonus has developed a very sophisticated devise called the "Shaknspin" which Michael Fremer reviewed very positively on Analogue Planet. This clearly attests to the designers commitment to strong measured performance. You can read the review here:

https//www.analogplanet.com/content/shaknspin-electronically-measures-turntable-speed-plus-great-deal-more

Some Solid Tech feet are similar to Isonoe that I am using under my pair of Technics turntable in my second (not main) system.

Whilst Viewing the Isonoe Footers.
It is noticeable that the Footers share a similar Suspension Method, to the Solid Tech 'FoS'.
Looking at the Method of attachment of the O Rings it does seem possible to increase the Diameter of the O Ring to produce a improved weight carrying Footer.

What is likeable is the Easy to Remove / Threaded Attachment,
Contact Point for the Plinth or Equipment.

I was intending at some point on producing a New Contact Point for my
Solid Tech 'FoS' , that could then have a option to trial with other shapes and Materials, the Isonoe would make the Intended New Method much easier to produce a exchangeable part to experiment with.

As the Base of the Footer is not interfering with the Operation of the Footer, the available option of adding stability Base Pads/Shoes are a welcome option. 

In my view if these are not too expensive they will be worth a Trial.