Nude Turntable Project

Chris,
Pneumatic or 'compliant' footers are designed solely to try to prevent the passage of Structure-Borne feedback into the turntable plinth/bearing/platter/tonearm/cartridge system.
Suspended turntables are an attempt to achieve the same result and can be somewhat successful compared to the alternative?
Suspended floor systems....whether timber-framed, steel-framed or reinforced concrete.....are all subject to Structure-Borne feedback which can suffer frequency transmission between 4-10 Hz and depending on amplitude.....can cause physical movement in the flooring system.
The more a compliant footer is compressed....the less successful it is in attenuating these low frequencies yet the less the footer is compressed....the more movement (in all planes) is possible.
That's why a Minus K stand is 'tuned' to specific weights and is able to move alarmingly when pushed?

Because of the problems in effectively designing an integral 'compliant' or 'sprung' footer system for turntables.....most new racks and shelving systems utilise a Stillpoints type of ball and cup isolation as well as constrained layer damping.
This Stillpoints type of footer is used for turntables, speakers and even amplifiers these days.

As you know that my turntable is placed on a masonry wall-mounted shelf and avoids any form of Structure-Borne feedback......I'm puzzled by your suggestion to 'improve' my set-up by using compliant footers?
In my situation....all this will do is introduce possible movement of the footers due to weight shifting of the tonearm and cartridge as well as temperature and humidity variations?
There is no possible 'up-side' to compliant footers if there is no Structure-Borne feedback.

Now if your system is sitting on a suspended floor-mounted rack or shelving system........there may be advantages to your method of support? :-)

Dear Lew, I forget alas your quote of the comment by Twain about Wagner but I have similar comment about our moderators. They are not as bad as they look. Propably little bit 'prudish' but well sportsmanlike because they allowed my post from 08-23-13 which was not very nice for them. However I fear that my panishment with moderator
approval is meant for life. They obviously have no idea how old I am.

Hi Henry - just as you heard a profound difference with the change in TT support and spikes on your masonry wall shelf.
You will also hear more difference if you put a shelf just big enough to hold the TT and armpods on your existing shelf and decouple it further. I used the word decouple not compliant. But I did reference the at-616.
This is what I meant by a dedicated shelf and I was selfishly wondering what it would sound like to you.
Just curious. I thought it would be fun.

I have found many times in this hobby that going against your beliefs can lead to interesting results.
As an example my old VPI JMW 12 tonearm never sounded better than when it was sitting on an armpod which sat on 3 symposium roller block jrs.
With the sp10 setup I showed. I can go from a spiked setup to a bolted in one in a couple of hours.

btw - Have you seen Des' (Dgob) most recent setup?
His sp10 is also on the wall. Guess what lies under it ?

Once you have used the AT-616's its hard to let them go.
probably work great under big amps too.
Continue to have fun and inspire ...

Ecir38 - I just saw your pics. very cool too. nice looking project.

Cheers

isolated/decoupled or coupled. Chris looks to me you have the best of both worlds on your SP10. As a basis a table that uses pods I would couple, a table with fixed armboards I would decouple. But nothing is fixed in stone since it would be hard to compare any two situations for any examples in this thread, just too many variable independent to each users platforms. i.e. Halcro, it looks to me that your TT is decoupled from its steel structure sitting on those rubber pads which has given you a positve result. I would suspect the changes you are hearing are not so much the metal shield but more from how the deck is now suspended.

Chris, Without getting into the debatable issues, I am trying to figure out how your own description of that SP10 matches with what I think I see in the photo. From the photo, and the two smaller inset photos which I cannot get my computer to enlarge for me, I think I see that the SP10 sits on spikes that are inverted such that their pointy tips are going up into the threaded bolt inserts on the bottom surface of the SP10 escutcheon. I don't see anything "compliant" in that. Then I see also that you are a Copernican; your tonearm is on a heavy brass pod. Is all of the above correct? Just by eyeball, your brass pod appears to be canted with respect to the SP10 platter surface. Probably an optical illusion.