That would be worthwhile. They do work together and they're derived from the same DNA and that's a big plus.
But you identified a good option tailored to your budget too.
Footers or platform isolation
- Thread starter sbo6
- Start date
But you identified a good option tailored to your budget too.
Personally, I have a 300 pound maple rack with the gear sitting on solid brass footers. This sits on a wooden floor which sits on a concrete slab that sits on the ground. Sounds great to me. Good enough that I have zero interest in wasting time and money trying something different.
Some of my audio friends refer to it as satisfaction. This is particularly important for rack systems because they are so difficult to compare and replace. Footers are relatively easy and inexpensive, and one can experiment with them under one or two components only to get an idea before committing further.
If this ever happened, 90% of the charlatans would disappear overnight!
I suspect footer commitment is much shorter term. Somewhat rare to see used racks for sale. As you suggest, part of this has to do with cost.
As a reader, do you feel you need to be protected?
You might see a wholesale drop in the total number of review publications and reviewers. Not because they are charlatans, but because they would not put up with the BS. What's next, unionization of reviewers to protect themselves from more bureaucracy and regulation.
For those who think reviewers are charlatans -- it's easy to hurl armchair accusations -- name names, point to specific examples of intent to deceive.
It is a natural (sorry, using the word out of stereo context) attitude in this hobby. There are many variables in stereo sound reproduction and we focus on a few, disregarding others. This does not mean we consider them less important, just that we have found something more relevant to perfect in our systems.
Racks and footers express the preferences of their designers - we learn a lot from their interviews when they explain their intents and how they affect sound quality. I have a tried and owned a few brands - Finite Elemente, Artesania Audio, Zoethecus, a custom DIY made with Taiko Audio platforms. I could easily live with any of them, excluding a few unhappy combinations or rack and particular equipment that did not sound good to me.
No, I feel no need at all. Zilch. I was talking about manufacturers anyway not reviewers. I enjoy reading reviews even though I don't base my purchase decisions on them much.
I was not really meaning externally driven regulation Tim but framing this more towards reviewers setting up a industry standards group… more like a communities of practice approach which many professions use to support the industry and also each other in working towards best practice and in sharing experience and also develop training as a resource in this case for audio reviewers.
More a voluntary code within a collaborative of reviewers to work towards sharing and developing models for best practice in the reviewing profession. Not exactly a guild but something along those lines so that maybe it’s not just publishers alone who are setting up aims or building resources or self regulating standards but a collaborative across the industry from individuals and small online operators up to the larger more established publishing groups.
The significant proportion of any audio review at this end of the hobby is heavily weighted in qualitative subjective assessment so by increasing the range of values being inputed in the development of assessment tools you can refine the process. By developing shared models you can make the process better for the readers as well who can possibly get a better sense of relevant points reading across a range of reviewers findings. By taking in broader perspectives and experiences from a greater range of reviewers it could become a way to more efficiently improve the industry from within. That was what I was referring to in terms of developing rubrics and shared criteria bases in audio assessment.
A great way to improve in a group that all help to balance and reflect and cooperatively maintain the energy to improve and learn and grow. Particularly valuable when it’s a process mentored by more seasoned reviewers like yourself who have a strong compass so for those new to the industry they have great learning support network and available to all who join and who work towards building a continuously well tested quality framework for best practice approaches in audio reviewing.
Last edited:
I have found that most groups are unwilling to self-regulate unless there is a distinct advantage in doing so or unless forced to do so. For the life of me, I can't think why they would change the system in place now unless there is a distinct shift in reader preferences or pressure.
I probably worded it poorly when I used the term self-regulated but I’ve found a communities of practice approach is really valuable and after teaching it is the best part of the professional experience that I’ve found Howie. Developing a self regulating approach in society through education is far more efficient than enforcing codes of behaviour externally and is one of the most profound tenets for me in looking to ways of thinking such as in Confucian ethics.
I’ve learnt more looking to traditional models in education that can in many ways give so much wisdom to teach and inspire. Not the least of which is to work collaboratively and to share and the importance of finding our inner navigation and to share finding the way. I’ve been more involved in working with indigenous educators here over the last decade and concepts on how to learn in a less formal non linear non hierarchical way and in a more shared model of collaborative learning where all can learn from all.
Last edited:
personally i think it's wrong thinking to try and impose any template to subjective reviews. i don't want to feel like someone is pulling strings of reviewers. i'd rather read/hear their own thoughts unencumbered. not that i don't want them to strive to evolve and improve their reviewing skills, but i want the straight stuff. let reviewing excellence happen organically. i think that is how we are best served.
let Tim, be Tim, and others the same.
YMMV.
That is the nature of best practice, that it evolves. Each generation of understanding adapts and learns, for me it’s a cyclical process. There is a waxing and a waning in each cycle. We are currently on one point of an extreme and perhaps looking to find our way home again… back to the music again. Not sure it’s just about reviewers at all. If they choose to lead that’s good. If the reviewers choose to set new standards for themselves that’s great. If not it makes no difference.
Edit: there are music loving audiophiles (or even audio loving musicophiles) here already doing it for themselves.
Edit: there are music loving audiophiles (or even audio loving musicophiles) here already doing it for themselves.
Last edited:
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Gentlemen
The OP is worded Footers or platform isolation and this thread has taken a turn into something totally different. Might I suggest starting a new thread on the topic you are discussing and let’s get back to the thread created by sbo6
The OP is worded Footers or platform isolation and this thread has taken a turn into something totally different. Might I suggest starting a new thread on the topic you are discussing and let’s get back to the thread created by sbo6
it's up to the reader to recognize marketing script as such. there will always be an element of the manufacturer's views in reviews. we want to know that the reviewer did their homework. we have to filter that for ourselves.
Great idea Steve. Sorry sbo6 for my part in the derailment. Posts deleted.
Last edited:
Yes my apologies also in this especially and back to origins of the thread, thanks Steve.
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
I think both topics are very interesting and i think the philosophic discussions about reviews to be very much worth reading. Two good topics deserve two good threads.
Getting back to the original post - I use racks/platforms to isolate together with footers to drain/tune internal component resonances. You need both. My amp sits on the floor on Marigo Mystery Feet, on top of a DYI Corian amp stand. My sacd player is on Dalby Audio Lignum Vitae footers, on top of a Townshend Seismic Sink air platform, on top of a Salamander Archetype rack. Power conditioner on the bottom shelf of the rack is on Clubwood mpingo cones/Star Sound brass cups and a Sound Mechanics isolation platform. I have custom isolating spike receptacles under the rack's spiked feet. The separate Modwright power supply for the sacd player is on ASI Top Line Feet, on top of a custom isolation platform which sits on the floor. The Dalby, Marigo, and ASI footers are expensive, top of the line items. They are the best I've encountered at any price. The Salamander rack and DIY isolation platforms are basic and relatively inexpensive. The Dalby and ASI footers are unique in my experience because they seem to both drain internal component resonances (increasing clarity and articulation) and tune the components' resonant signature (increasing naturalness and musicality). Footers of course work differently with different components so you have to experiment. I have not been in a position to try any of the really high end racks/platforms (e.g., SRA, HRS, etc.) which are supposed to isolate and drain so I can't comment on them. I also have not owned components that came with really high end feet that you would not want to replace (e.g., like the Stillpoints built into the Vinnie Rossi amps). With most racks and platforms I've seen, including Grand Prix Audio you will still need draining/tuning footers. Top shelf footers between components and relatively inexpensive platforms/racks have worked well for me - much better than just the platforms/racks by themselves. Top shelf footers and the highest end platforms/racks together might be better still - no experience with that. Photos below:
Attachments
Last edited:
Similar threads
