Tables That Feature Bearing Friction

Dear Restock, a superb post - thank you very much! I would like to mention however that I do not see me in some kind of opposition regarding Teres, Raul or any other of the well-respected contributors to this thread.
I just wanted to clarify the point that this particular part of the audio chain is - besides the tonearm... - the most simple to handle. Here we do only have to work with mechanics. The other components are either electrical or machanic-electrical transducers (much more complex ). Taste, personal preferences and opinion, room interaction and matching impedances and many more do have enough room in the development ofspeakers, cartridges and amplifiers. and they are NEEDED there.
But not in TT design.
Yes, -in the end everything in music in subjective.
But the very best turntable possible will have absolutely no sound signature of itself. It will just allow the maximum in clear detailed information to be extracted from ANY given cartridge/tonearm combination.
The turntable is nothing more than the enviroment, the basic floor on which the analog-playback starts.

But if we relay on hearing/listening in turntable conception and design, we automatically imply that the turntable is the weakest part already and per se in the particular audio-system used to determine its quality.

We all see the problem: to judge the performance of a turntable design by sonic performance, we would need an audio-system were all the other parts are "better" than the TT under question.
But most likely we will design a turntable which "sonic signature" will mask certain flaws of the audio chain used to develop the TT.
It will be designed to compensate flaws of the evaluation system used to develop it.
This dilemma is omnipresent in audio of course. However in the turntable we have for once the opportunity to design on pure physical, mechanical parameters and facts.
I do see a clear and straight road here.
It may be long road and the journey may take a lot of effort in many ways.
But the goal is that mountain clearly visible in the distance - not the next inn or diner which will lure us with comfort (=compromise) by the first signs of effort or weariness.
Once entering the door of that inn and sit down at the table you will not carry on on that journey. The day is done and teh job as well. You went awhile and has reached new ground. Its o.k.
Thats what happens all too often.
We should be strong enough to walk through the night.
We should not discard the opportunity to reach the mountains that easy.
As is so pathetic written on the memorial for the american pioneers (hope I remember is right... in brackets are my synonyms....):

"the cowards didn't start (CD-player from Radioshack....), the weak died on the way (settle happily with current "state of the art products".....) only the strongest reached the mountains - they were the pioneers (.....and probably died exhausted, wounded and torn by life - but o.k., if they did what they wanted and reached what they dreamed of)".

Well, sounds like a pathetic political speech for fortify indurance in the sight of worldwide financial crisis doesn't it ??

Did I mention this is about turntable design....?

I think one can some up the problems very simply, but I'm probably just restating what has already been posted here. As I see it the problem is not of design and proper application of physics. The real, true problem is integration. This is true of any complex system, not just with turntables.

You can design and plot and plan all you want. There will still be some compromise or component that you have to go to the shelf for. And then you are constrained by the operation of that component. That is when "feel" takes over, right or wrong. This is true for any complex system in the real world. This is the realm of practical experience and personal preference. This is also the realm of great breakthroughs and great failures.

Dear Mrjstark, if you ever should try different belt materials on a force free lateral (horizontal) bearing, you will observe that the noteable differences in sound will be much less compared with the differences noted in the "standard" (=one motor - no counter spindle) set-up.

Why do we hear so huge difference (I will certainly not deny the fact that there are audible differences with various belt / thread materials and other tweaks in turntable design (mats, clamps, isolator feets, spikes, platforms etc.)) even in state of the art turntables ??

Because these turntables are NOT finished "products" (seen in the sense of a market or as a non-commercial design).
Most likely the designers were under time-pressure and/or seeing the end of the budget and thus need to bring the TT "on the market now".
A "finished" turntable (or any other really "finished" product....) will either show no positive differences with various tweaks or they aren't possible at all due to a design which takes all aspects into count and leave no room for our "add-on", "upgrade" or "tweak"-mentality.

You can't tweak a turntable with force-free bearing running with an aramide or dyneema thread. There is no better material possible so far.
You can't tweak a Minus-K 0.5 Hz suspension by putting spikes or cones underneath. It is already suspended in the best possible way.

We do hear so many differences with so little changes in so small parts because the turntable is so weak.
Because there is so much room for further improvement.
Because we stop too soon.
Because we are satisfied with so little.

Dear Dan_Ed, agreed on the large scale.
And yes, - there will always be "some" (I hardly can write the word...) "compromise".
However NOT SO FAST.
I do get the impression that most designers are seeking for the nearest possible compromise.
That the real goal for most is: finding the best (read: cheapest and nearest....) compromise as fast as possible.
I have no problem with a compromise when there is NO OTHER CHOICE possible. That is early enough.
And frankly - that point will never be reached in turntable design.
We should get real, we are talking about turntables - not about space shuttles, Formula 1 racing cars, atomic submarines or the hubble telescope.
A turntable - a simple mechanical machine....... sorry, I can not see any need for compromise here. And we do not need back-up by the Pentagon or Northorp Aviation to be able to design and build a near perfect turntable.

Ah, so now we are cutting to the chase.

In the real world, there are always compromises. Even the equations that we use to model real world behavior have compromises built in. One can certainly chose which to address, but on cannot avoid accepting compromise in one way or another. Even if one is not aware of the compromise(s) at the time. That is the leap from paper to reality. EVERY system, mechanical or biological or whatever, in the universe has built in compromises. It is unavoidable. So I propose that we drop the pretense that any system can built without compromises.

I agree that all turntable designers/manufacturers will make decisions based on commercial interests. Absolutely. They want to be able to sell what they have made. However, even those who profess to have spared no expense and made no compromises are deluding themselves, IMO. Look closer, I say to them. Compromises are there.