Herzan/Table Stable "Active" Isolation table.

[spiritofmusic]

Peter, as you know from my mild skeptical comments on this thread, I have a real problem with every new tweak producing a quantum leap fwd in SQ. My system is pretty revealing, we've swapped comments on my choice of tt/arm versus the various SMEs, TW Acustics, Brinkmanns, Grand Prix Monacos I could have bought, and with the Straingauge cart, it's as open a transducer to the recording I've ever experienced. So, with due rspect to them, I don't feel Mike, Christian, or anyone else will have a totally advanced playing field beyond mine to get quantum leap impvts from.
So yet again I got an improvement, but not the life changing experience that others have had. Actually I went in pretty much arms folded, skeptical I would hear much, but was v. pleasantly suprised. Not night and day, but an across the board calming and ordering of the soundstage. Going back to standard passive has been quite informative.
I would still say the improvement was less than my move to balanced power which was revelatory, but greater than the move from standard cheap rack to Symposium Isis, and greater than any cable upgrade I've made. But remember, these tweaks in the 17 yrs of my upgrading path have been pretty hit and miss.
Re active v passive operation on the i4, sorry we didn't get round to doing this comparison. If it's of any interest, analysis showed the Symposium to be keeping on the heels of the active i4, so why would I move to another passive platform, esp at the i4's price? Also, there isn't much active action above 500Hz, it seems passive pretty much carries on up, but in the bass/lower mids, active is what gives the i4 the edge. Also, active seems not to work below 15 degrees Celsius, this nmay be true with Herzan as well, not sure if this would put off some buyers.
Additionally, there was no option except to put the i4 on the floor, and tbh at $12k a pop, with such an uber engineering approach, there'd be no point contemplating it if it couldn't perform there.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Also peter, I never found any passive racks (Grand Prix, HRS, Finite Pagode) made a big enough change in my system before I tried the Symposium, so passive Symposium v active i4 fine as final comparison. Whether Stillpoints, Artesania etc would float my boat, have you tried to a-b racks? Nervous breakdown territory !

 

[PeterA]

Also peter, I never found any passive racks (Grand Prix, HRS, Finite Pagode) made a big enough change in my system before I tried the Symposium, so passive Symposium v active i4 fine as final comparison. Whether Stillpoints, Artesania etc would float my boat, have you tried to a-b racks? Nervous breakdown territory !

Can't say I've really compared different racks. I did own a Zoethecus 4-shelf rack which was not very rigid. I replaced this with my DIY ultra rigid birch-ply and cherry rack (designed to match my speakers, see system photos) on which I have passive air-bladder type isolation under each component. This solution is far superior to the Zoethecus. I think it would be extremely difficult to demo and compare competing commercial racks in one's system.

So as far as racks go, I've gone the rigid/grounded direction like Mike with his Adona and then individually isolated components via passive air solutions.

Your comment about the active isolation operating to about 500Hz and then passive isolation filling in above that seems consistent with the results that Mike is hearing. IOW, there may be some cases in which passive footers could improve the performance of a component which is placed on active isolation. And then the only way to really know is by

So Spirit, will you hold off on the decision to buy the i4 until you demo the SET amps?

 

[Bill Hart]

Just a passing observation on making evaluations of a change in gear or a 'tweak' (no matter how expensive):
methodical evaluation usually means only changing one variable- the 'new' item in question. But, sometimes, that change necessitates other changes. Spirit says that the introduction of an isolation platform deprived his system of a little heft- and I am not doubting his impressions. But, to give an analogy, when I changed the record clamp on my big Kuzma from the factory supplied, heavy screw down to the Stillpoints LP1, I found a similar affect- the system seemed to lack the propulsive effect it had with the factory clamp in place and actually did not sound as loud, overall. But, by changing the woofer crossover and gain settings, and goosing the volume a little more, what seemed to me missing with the Stillpoints was restored, and its benefits (everything sounded a little more relaxed, less 'etched' and there was more detail to be heard at the same time, the midrange and high frequencies were a little more natural) outweighed the apparent negatives when first installing this. Perhaps this is not rigorous scientific method, but we expect a change in the system to exhibit a demonstrable 'change.' And that change may necessitate other changes in the system to fully realize its benefits.

 

[jazdoc]

Just a passing observation on making evaluations of a change in gear or a 'tweak' (no matter how expensive):
methodical evaluation usually means only changing one variable- the 'new' item in question. But, sometimes, that change necessitates other changes. Spirit says that the introduction of an isolation platform deprived his system of a little heft- and I am not doubting his impressions. But, to give an analogy, when I changed the record clamp on my big Kuzma from the factory supplied, heavy screw down to the Stillpoints LP1, I found a similar affect- the system seemed to lack the propulsive effect it had with the factory clamp in place and actually did not sound as loud, overall. But, by changing the woofer crossover and gain settings, and goosing the volume a little more, what seemed to me missing with the Stillpoints was restored, and its benefits (everything sounded a little more relaxed, less 'etched' and there was more detail to be heard at the same time, the midrange and high frequencies were a little more natural) outweighed the apparent negatives when first installing this. Perhaps this is not rigorous scientific method, but we expect a change in the system to exhibit a demonstrable 'change.' And that change may necessitate other changes in the system to fully realize its benefits.

That is an excellent observation that makes A/B testing difficult. Personally, I just rolled some new National Union 56 triodes in my phono stage -- definite improvement but necessitated a little change in cartidge/tonearm set up to realize the full benefit. Going back to the previous RCA triodes sounded best with the prior set up and confirmed my preference for the National Union tubes...

 

[Bill Hart]

That is an excellent observation that makes A/B testing difficult. Personally, I just rolled some new National Union 56 triodes in my phono stage -- definite improvement but necessitated a little change in cartidge/tonearm set up to realize the full benefit. Going back to the previous RCA triodes sounded best with the prior set up and confirmed my preference for the National Union tubes...

And i can't take credit for it, because it came out of a fascinating discussion I had at one point with someone in the industry, but it certainly made me think more about direct A/B testing isolating all other variables.

 

[mep]

Just a passing observation on making evaluations of a change in gear or a 'tweak' (no matter how expensive):
methodical evaluation usually means only changing one variable- the 'new' item in question. But, sometimes, that change necessitates other changes. Spirit says that the introduction of an isolation platform deprived his system of a little heft- and I am not doubting his impressions. But, to give an analogy, when I changed the record clamp on my big Kuzma from the factory supplied, heavy screw down to the Stillpoints LP1, I found a similar affect- the system seemed to lack the propulsive effect it had with the factory clamp in place and actually did not sound as loud, overall. But, by changing the woofer crossover and gain settings, and goosing the volume a little more, what seemed to me missing with the Stillpoints was restored, and its benefits (everything sounded a little more relaxed, less 'etched' and there was more detail to be heard at the same time, the midrange and high frequencies were a little more natural) outweighed the apparent negatives when first installing this. Perhaps this is not rigorous scientific method, but we expect a change in the system to exhibit a demonstrable 'change.' And that change may necessitate other changes in the system to fully realize its benefits.

Wow, wow, wow. Honestly, If I substituted one record clamp for another and my sound deteriorated with the addition of the new record clamp, that record clamp would have come off my table pronto and that would have been it for me. I wouldn't expect in a million years that adding a new record clamp would cause me to have to adjust woofer crossover and gain settings in order to climb back to where I was before I switched clamps. Changing out electronics or main speakers-I get having to readjust woofer crossover points and levels. Substituting one passive record clamp for another, I can't get there from here in my mind. It sounds like the Stillpoints LP1 over damped your table somehow and deadened the sound. This caused you to adjust the crossover and turn up the volume in order to compensate. Since a record clamp is a passive device and you ended up turning up your volume and adjusting your crossover, that would change the sound all by itself and possibly explain the changes you heard and liked. Did you try leaving everything as it is now that you have made the changes and go back to the clamp that came with your table?

 

[Bill Hart]

Wow, wow, wow. Honestly, If I substituted one record clamp for another and my sound deteriorated with the addition of the new record clamp, that record clamp would have come off my table pronto and that would have been it for me. I wouldn't expect in a million years that adding a new record clamp would cause me to have to adjust woofer crossover and gain settings in order to climb back to where I was before I switched clamps. Changing out electronics or main speakers-I get having to readjust woofer crossover points and levels. Substituting one passive record clamp for another, I can't get there from here in my mind. It sounds like the Stillpoints LP1 over damped your table somehow and deadened the sound. This caused you to adjust the crossover and turn up the volume in order to compensate. Since a record clamp is a passive device and you ended up turning up your volume and adjusting your crossover, that would change the sound all by itself and possibly explain the changes you heard and liked. Did you try leaving everything as it is now that you have made the changes and go back to the clamp that came with your table?

Mep, the factory clamp made the sound more propulsive, but in some ways, it seemed less real than with the Stillpoints. The Stillpoints seems more 'pacific' so perhaps I was living with a 'bump up' in the upper bass region with the factory clamp. I spoke to Franc Kuzma about it, and he actually recommended his own ebony wood weight, which is lighter and doesn't get torqued down like the screw-down clamp that came with the table. Yes, I did switch back and forth between clamps and settings on a variety of records when I first got the Stillpoints, and liked the latter better. It's certainly not irreversible, and takes a couple minutes of tuning to switch back and forth if I want to- but, I guess my point is, one change begats another; if the system is set up or tuned in a certain way for certain components, doesn't it make sense to change the set-up or tuning if you make a change? For example, you change amps- which admittedly sound different. Do you reconsider speaker placement when you do? I guess we are wading into the subjective, non-scientific, unproveable stuff, which is why I caveated my initial remarks by saying they are not 'good science,' but that's my take.

 

[mep]

Bill-My question to you is that after you readjusted your system so that the LP1 sang, did you not touch a thing and put your original clamp back in the system and give it a whirl at the new changed crossover frequency and gain level? If you switched clamps and the settings when you went back to the original clamp, that would negate the differences.

You also had a larger point that you made, and that is it is hard to just change out a single component without making any further changes to your system and really compare apples to apples. You would think that you could certainly do this with a damn record clamp. When I changed out my Def Tech speakers for the awesome little KEF LS50s, I was also forced to change out the speaker cables which violates your rule of only making one change at a time. My MIT cable are bi-wired and the LS50 only has a single pair of binding posts. I had to hook up the LS50s with another pair of speaker cables which added another ingredient to the recipe.

 

[Bill Hart]

Bill-My question to you is that after you readjusted your system so that the LP1 sang, did you not touch a thing and put your original clamp back in the system and give it a whirl at the new changed crossover frequency and gain level? If you switched clamps and the settings when you went back to the original clamp, that would negate the differences.

You also had a larger point that you made, and that is it is hard to just change out a single component without making any further changes to your system and really compare apples to apples. You would think that you could certainly do this with a damn record clamp. When I changed out my Def Tech speakers for the awesome little KEF LS50s, I was also forced to change out the speaker cables which violates your rule of only making one change at a time. My MIT cable are bi-wired and the LS50 only has a single pair of binding posts. I had to hook up the LS50s with another pair of speaker cables which added another ingredient to the recipe.

Mep, if i left the woofer settings at 'Stillpoint' and put the factory clamp back on, it would be too much bass. Getting the Avantgarde Duo to sound right is very tricky in my experience- trying to match not just level, but sound character between active cone woofer and horns driven by SET. (The woofer amp is solid state and takes its input, not at line level, but by binding posts from the output of the SET amp that drives the mid and tweeter horns). If the woofer is adjusted so that it sounds more in character with the horns, there is not enough bass; if you get the woofer to play with aplomb, it clearly sounds disconnected from the horns. So, the trick is to manage the gain and crossover settings, room set up, acoustic treatments (as well as everything in the chain in front of the speakers). They are persnickity in the extreme to get right.
Now, I say all this, not to justify one clamp over another, but to say that the system (at least the speaker system) rides on a knife edge- it is not forgiving at all. Anybody that has heard these speakers sound bad can tell you that (and they can sound bad if everything is not 'just so.') I'm not claiming that the system has 'more resolution' than another- Tim has said that I'm more into 'tone' than accuracy, and I'll probably concede that to a degree- just saying that the woofer 'balance' issue is a known vulnerability with this particular speaker.

 

[mep]

Mep, if i left the woofer settings at 'Stillpoint' and put the factory clamp back on, it would be too much bass. Getting the Avantgarde Duo to sound right is very tricky in my experience- trying to match not just level, but sound character between active cone woofer and horns driven by SET. (The woofer amp is solid state and takes its input, not at line level, but by binding posts from the output of the SET amp that drives the mid and tweeter horns). If the woofer is adjusted so that it sounds more in character with the horns, there is not enough bass; if you get the woofer to play with aplomb, it clearly sounds disconnected from the horns. So, the trick is to manage the gain and crossover settings, room set up, acoustic treatments (as well as everything in the chain in front of the speakers). They are persnickity in the extreme to get right.
Now, I say all this, not to justify one clamp over another, but to say that the system (at least the speaker system) rides on a knife edge- it is not forgiving at all. Anybody that has heard these speakers sound bad can tell you that (and they can sound bad if everything is not 'just so.') I'm not claiming that the system has 'more resolution' than another- Tim has said that I'm more into 'tone' than accuracy, and I'll probably concede that to a degree- just saying that the woofer 'balance' issue is a known vulnerability with this particular speaker.

What I bolded is the same way that my Def Techs normally operate. You can tell a big difference between amps over the subs when configured this way. The Def Techs also allow you to connect to the built in subs via an RCA jack which was really designed to take advantage of using the LFE output from a HT receiver or preamp. For the here and now, I'm daisy chaining my outboard subs to the BP-7000SC speakers via ICs.

With regards to your amps and speakers, I'm still amazed that changing out a record clamp would cause you to have to change crossover points and levels. The LP1 has to be dampening the sound big time if you have to turn up the levels I would think.

 

[rockitman]

The LP1 has to be dampening the sound big time if you have to turn up the levels I would think.

Not in my system, even prior to the active isolation table, it added focus and clarity...nothing dull about it if that is what you mean by over damping.

 

[mep]

Not in my system, even prior to the active isolation table, it added focus and clarity...nothing dull about it if that is what you mean by over damping.

Christian-Did you have to change anything in your system when you added the LP1 like Bill did?

 

[rockitman]

Christian-Did you have to change anything in your system when you added the LP1 like Bill did?

Nope. The LP1 was the first stillpoints product I tried in my system, which had no changes to it for months. As far as the discussion regarding the active table reducing bass extension, that was not my findings, rather the ts140 reduced bass bloat and made the entire bass frequency range more clear, transparent with more bass drive. I have said my system sounded closer to RTR playback than it did prior to adding the TS 140. Orchestral music really benefited the most from active isolation if I had to pick a music genre, not too mention all of my original Japan MoFi's that sounded bloated prior to the TS now sound fantastic with clear, punchy bass. As with all things, YMMV since no one has the same room nor components.

 

[mep]

I just thought it was interesting that Bill had to make changes to his crossover level and gain because he changed to the LP1. I would never have suspected that in a million years.

 

[rockitman]

I just thought it was interesting that Bill had to make changes to his crossover level and gain because he changed to the LP1. I would never have suspected that in a million years.

While I think his TT is very similar to mine in ways...heavy, non-suspended mass loaded design like mine, his power and speakers are completely different. Low wattage SET with super efficient horns vs my brute force SS class a and very efficient dynamic type speakers. I guess it's a case of one size does not fit all.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Whart, so what happens in your system if cd sounds best with the xover setting at the original/factory clamp level? Do you now adjust btwn two parameters before listening to one source or another? What a palaver!
Christian, a day's reflection results in me being in your camp re the bass issue being preferable with active isolation. When I switched a year ago from traditional belt drive/pivoted arm to rim drive/air bearing linear arm, a whole layer of bass 'warmth' was stripped away - initially I was sure I was losing information, but soon I realised I was losing veiling. And now I'm tuned into leaner, but more accurate bass. I suspect the i4 is doing something similar, and I would be confident at going down this route. But I did find changes a closer call than either you or Mike.
Peter, I am going to audition a couple of pairs of SET monoblocks in my system, Audion Black Shadows and NAT SE2SEs. Only if these don't float my boat will I refocus on the i4. And together with upgrading balanced power, this is most likely my final destination re my 17 yr long upgrading path. Hoping to wrap up before two decades elapse!

 

[Bill Hart]

Whart, so what happens in your system if cd sounds best with the xover setting at the original/factory clamp level? Do you now adjust btwn two parameters before listening to one source or another? What a palaver!
Christian, a day's reflection results in me being in your camp re the bass issue being preferable with active isolation. When I switched a year ago from traditional belt drive/pivoted arm to rim drive/air bearing linear arm, a whole layer of bass 'warmth' was stripped away - initially I was sure I was losing information, but soon I realised I was losing veiling. And now I'm tuned into leaner, but more accurate bass. I suspect the i4 is doing something similar, and I would be confident at going down this route. But I did find changes a closer call than either you or Mike.
Peter, I am going to audition a couple of pairs of SET monoblocks in my system, Audion Black Shadows and NAT SE2SEs. Only if these don't float my boat will I refocus on the i4. And together with upgrading balanced power, this is most likely my final destination re my 17 yr long upgrading path. Hoping to wrap up before two decades elapse!

There is only one source in this system- the turntable.

 

[rockitman]

There is only one source in this system- the turntable.

purist !!!

 

[spiritofmusic]

Aha, that's it, like listening to hifi circa pre 1983! I like to formulate my thoughts on upgrades a couple of days after experiencing them when I can comment on the totality of what I've heard. What I think swings me in favour of active is the non-homogenous nature to the improvement. I really felt no "character" was being imposed on the music. Listening to Led Zep '2', I was struck by greater bass articulation; 'Discipline' by King Crimson, greater palpability of drum kit; 'Hemispheres' by Rush, greater crispness. I'm sure all these improvements were present on all three recordings, but the sense of ease and order in the music brought to the fore these different perspectives, maybe they were most lacking in the experience pre-active.
As I'm reaching the termination of my upgrading, I need to work out whether these improvements justify the admission ticket. As I've said, SET remains an avenue, but I'll use the same criteria I always do, esp wrt any improvement possibly being a voicing that may impose itself on long-term listening. Other than SET, and tweaks like active or balanced power/grounding solutions, there's nowhere else for me to go.