Skeletal vs Plinth style turntables


I am pondering a new plinth design and am considering the virtues of making a skeletal or closed plinth design. The motor unit is direct drive. I know that as a direct drive it inherently has very low vibration as opposed to an idler deck (please do not outcry Garrard and Lenco onwners coz I have one of those too) but simple facts are facts belt drive motors spin at 250rpm, Lencos around 1500 rpm, DD 33 or 45 rpm. That being the case that must surely be a factor in this issue. What are your thoughts. BTW I like closed designs as they prevent the gathering of dust.
parrotbee
Hi Chris,

Glad to see you're off the DIY and enjoying the music...as Raul used to say?
Here is a 'suspended' nude Victor TT-81 design using the same idea as your coupling 'plinth'.
It all depends on what one 'means' by a plinth?
If an added shelf sitting on a shelf qualifies as a plinth....well, that's exactly how a turntable plinth acts.
If one removes the 'added' shelf (plinth)....could someone please explain the differences to the mechanical and structural functionalities?
I do appreciate the added 'warm and fuzzy' feeling this can impart together with the ability to mechanically fix the tonearm pods if their weight is insufficient....but apart from that...👀❓
Thought I might just share this image of a cutter on a 'shelf'....?
I think the emphasis on the mass and fixity of the cutter arm compared to the platter shares the thoughts on my Copernican view of the turntable system?
Dgarretson,
The big Micro SX-5000/8000 turntables are well respected but I've never been a fan of their arm-board cantilevered mounting systems.
Here is an example of a DIY project using the Micro system.
The structural integrity of the armboards fixed onto stainless steel poles via friction becomes less and less convincing the longer the cantilever becomes to support 12" arms.
The flexural micro movements in the armboards increase according to the square of the distance of the cantilever whereas there are no deviations in a mass-loaded fully supported armpod.
The fact that these (and others like them e.g. Raven) work....is perhaps an indication that actual micro-movements are still too tiny to be destructive..?
However....like my mate Lew....I just don't like the 'theory'...😎👀
Halcro, having bushwacked a VPI TNT through flywheel, thread drive with custom pulley assemblies to minimize belt creep, and a Mark Kelly AC-1 two-phase controller, I conclude from experience that that way lies madness relative to DD. IMO there are greater evils admitted through quadraphonic rubber belts than by heroically built cantilevered tonearm boards.
Hi Parrotbee,
What Halcro says then explains why people like Mike Lavigne are using very expensive microscope stands in their systems.
If you talk to those who have changed to a wall-mounted shelf or active isolation stand or concrete slab-on-the-ground installation....they will likely express amazement at the reduction in noise-floor and the silent 'blackness' they now hear through the turntable system.
My vinyl playback system is quieter than CD...😎
An easy test for any turntable whether mass-loaded, suspended, plinthed or plinthless....is to place the stylus on an unrotating record and gradually turn up the volume of the preamp.
If a droning feedback sound commences and increases without further volume turning.....you are hearing Structure-Borne Feedback through your floor and/or rack supporting medium.
If you are able to turn your volume to maximum with total silence (even when lightly tapping the plinth)....you are probably free of feedback issues. 😘
Good luck....