cats squirrel wrote:the belief that one can 'damp the life out of the music'. Many have stated this, whether they have experienced something like this, or just repeating hearsay..........sometimes, when all is stripped bare, we don't like the result
It's a great divide. Not just philosophical, but in preference and taste.
Various descriptions, such as 'life', or "complete loss of sound staging ,dynamics and sparkle in the sound", mark that some (or even most) people simply find certain extras attractive. On assumption that vibration damping subtracts extras far more than it affects original programme material, which seems true enough for these purposes.
Plenty of studio effects exploit the psycho-acoustics of such things, of course.
Then TTs, arms, even cartridges that have high reputation might have got where they are today by Darwinian selection principles. i.e. being both good at what they basically do, and having selective 'augmentations' that prove popular. ie people positively prefer how they self resonate, and therefore sound. Being mechanical devices, all such augmentations must arise through vibrations, of course.
My personal preference for critical playback listening is to attempt to perceive as little augmentation as possible. Philosophically, I suppose that is most people's goal too. But, being at least partly psycho-acoustic, the means to that end is plainly not universal. Personally, I find that easiest when pretty much all is as dead as its possible to be.
I think it was mattlynch who posted a question on another thread as to whether one would add damping to a Dunlop guitar? By analogy, the TT being an instrument. I thought at the time, this is the crux issue of a great divide. Rodrigo by Yepes, or with a hint of Dunlop ? Which is 'correct' and which do you 'prefer' ? Not always the same answer, and knowing that can be quite insightful.
General platter/plinth damping influences this, of course.