Well I have to admit, this thread is starting to get tiring having to provide a defense so to speak for our expenditures on active isolation. The antagonists are making statements based on no real first hand experience. I certainly don't spend money on my stereo for the hell of it. If I hadn't tried the expensive stillpoint devices and realized their real benefit, I Probably would not have gotten this 12k isolation shelf. The point is, I don't take spending money lightly. There must be a real benefit for me to change something. This item was a no risk proposition. If I didn't like it I could return it. Having my first unit go bad after 2weeks and having to wait another 3 for a replacement, my vinyl playback suffered and I missed it terribly. I can assure the detractors that the benefits are real and very significant, at least for my TT setup.
http://www.audiotechnique.com/reference/accurion/364_accurion_eng.pdf
For those who are interested but maybe not yet convinced a review of the Accurion/halcyonics silencer
Christian ,
I have to say I admire you and Mike for supporting all this pressure. I have really enjoyed your posts and learned a lot from them. The evidence presented by the technical data of these tables and my readings about their features is enough to show me we are in presence of something of great interest. I can assure you that soon I will be able to participate with first hand experience. Perhaps as someone has wisely written (not in high-end context, I must say ) "An absence of problems becomes a measure of excellence".
BTW many high-end manufacturers spend a lot of effort and money in the mechanical properties of the cases of their electronic equipment, I am finding difficult to find why people seem so surprised with these vibration suppressing results.
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?ymisc&1337621698
seems that ~$15K is the price.
Of interest the member sold both his units after changing gear and finding that the changes weren't there any more
Here is a video of it in action
Ideally, wouldn't it be better to have the motor controller completely isolated from the platform (and associated anti-vibration device) on which the turntable itself rests? In other words, have the motor controller subject to its own anti-vibration or decoupling devices?Mike and Christian,
I've been meaning to ask you both. Do your respective turntables also have separate power supplies? I ask because I found that the power supply of my SME benefits from also being isolated. This is why I had an extra large custom steel ballast plate cut for above my Vibraplane. It is designed to preload the Vibraplane but also so that I could place the power supply away from the motor side of the turntable and on top of the Vibraplane. The improvement was not as great as with the turntable, however, it was quite noticeable and about as significant as isolating each of my amps. Unfortunately, I don't know if the top plates of the Herzans are large enough to do this.
Ideally, wouldn't it be better to have the motor controller completely isolated from the platform (and associated anti-vibration device) on which the turntable itself rests? In other words, have the motor controller subject to its own anti-vibration or decoupling devices?
I raise this only as a theoretical point. In actuality, I think I'd be hard pressed to hear much difference in isolating the motor controller of my table, though I have experimented with different 'passive' solutions.
I would say no - the two separate active systems with six axes freedom to cancel vibrations would affect the stretching of the belt, causing speed changes in the turntable. But please consider I do not have an active isolation platform yet.
Micro, just to be clear - my 'motor controller' (and i think the same is true on the SME) is not integrated with the motor itself, it is simply the electronic box. Perhaps I wasn't clear in my question.
Micro, just to be clear - my 'motor controller' (and i think the same is true on the SME) is not integrated with the motor itself, it is simply the electronic box. Perhaps I wasn't clear in my question.
Ideally, wouldn't it be better to have the motor controller completely isolated from the platform (and associated anti-vibration device) on which the turntable itself rests? In other words, have the motor controller subject to its own anti-vibration or decoupling devices?
I raise this only as a theoretical point. In actuality, I think I'd be hard pressed to hear much difference in isolating the motor controller of my table, though I have experimented with different 'passive' solutions.
I would say no - the two separate active systems with six axes freedom to cancel vibrations would affect the stretching of the belt, causing speed changes in the turntable. But please consider I do not have an active isolation platform yet.