PLINTH DESIGN - Motor decoupling & Seperate tonearm pod
I've started looking into redesigning my Garrard 301 plinth. I have one simple question and would just like a consensus of opinion. My objective is to limit vibration getting into the headshell. My intentions as stated in the thread title are to decople the motor from the Garrard 301 and use a seperate arm pod. What it be fair to say that by using both techniques, it should maximise the chances of vibration getting into the cartridge? Sounds like the answer is pretty obvious but I would like comments and input from you guys.
Many thanks, Andy.
SS
CD Teac VRDS25X(Audiotuned) DECK 1210 Mat Crystal Audio Mods MN Base/Bearing/Platter+Ebony armboard Feet Isonoe PSU Paul Hynes SR7EHD-27XL/DCSXL Ag DC lead/3 Stage Regs/Recap PCB+No Pitch/Strobe/Light ARM SME V(Kondo Ag Rewire&Tags) MC Cadenza Black FGS CABLES Arm Yannis SPD-4 IC Yannis 222 Litz+Ag bullets Power WAR PRE ATC SCA2 SPEAKERS ATC 50ASL STANDS Atacama PHONO Sugden Masterclass PA4 SUT Ortofon ST80SE POWER PSAudio P10
VALVE
PRE Croft Epoch(Modded) AMP Sondex S100 (Modded) SPEAKERS Tannoy 15"MG+RFC Warwick cabs+ Ref XO + Batpure supertweeters DECK Garrard 301 Mat Teunto Bearings 401(Bastin) Plinth Bamboo Arms 3009/3012 PSU Eagle+Tachometer MC Ag Meister II/FGS + Ortofon SPU MONO CABLES Arm Yannis 420.5 Litz+ SpeakerPC Tripple C+WBT-0681 Ag IC Oyaide FTVS-510 AgWBT 0110Ag Phonostages Paradise(4 Box Mega-Modded) / Croft Musicmaker