That's what we need to make--a well-damped turntable. Plastic arm except for the gimbals, but mounted on a decoupling washer (sorbathane?), on a suspended sub-platter hung from very soft plastic grommets instead of elastic springs (gel-filled rubber balls?), high-mass plinth mounted on more very soft pads, etc.I was only involved in the R& D and design of the record players themselves and my knowledge of record cutting is learned from that.
I had heard of records cut that way but saw it as a novelty.
Also, the market was very different then. LP was the main music source and making a substantial increase in the accuracy of pickup was always targeted at inexpensive clever engineering since the majority were not able to buy expensive kit.
Today record players are mainly an expensive and stylish hobby and whilst the engineering is still important there is a lot more non-technically correct BS in the marketing than there was 50 years ago
I remember one mod one of the engineers came up with which was simply a hole punched into the (pressed steel) chassis which prevented one of the vibration modes getting to the arm base at a frequency where it would pass up the arm to the cartridge body, where it would falsely appear in the cartridge output as signal. The production cost was negligible yet the improvement was measureable.
Now the buzz is all about "rigid" which is just wrong since firstly, nothing is rigid over the full range of audio frequencies and the more rigid the arm and plinth the higher up the frequency range spurious vibration can get up the arm to the cartridge body .
It is static thinking applied to a dynamic system and wrong, but even lots of engineers have trouble getting their heads round dynamics. My first boss of the first R&D department told me he saw what the maths showed but couldn't get his head round it so preferred statics!
It's impossible to completely remove displacements caused by structural motion, but I'll bet we could remove audio frequencies utterly. This might have been too costly to do back in the 70's when products sold for a reasonable amount, but boutique pricing these days makes nearly any cost feasible.
I tried in discussions of bicycle technologies to persuade people that the stiffer the frame, the higher the frequency of vibration for the same structural strength. But they kept insisting that aluminum was harsh-riding and steel was soft-riding. Nevermind that the aluminum bikes that were harsh had tubing diameters of nearly two inches with wall thicknesses nearly three times that of the thinnest parts of lightweight steel tubing, and the steel frames that were soft were more like 1 or 1-1/8 inches. They weren't even thinking in static terms, let alone dynamic terms.
Rick "a gullible market is awfully tempting..." Denney