On the subject of tweaks!
- Thread starter ddk
- Start date
-
- Tags
- daiza panzerholtz tweaks
Just want to make some comments on SRA. I had SRA craz3 rack before. I believe their rack is a piece of junk. It is so light weight. When I struck one of the pillars, the whole rack rings so much. I also do not buy their claim on specific component design isolation stands. How do they access the data of all audio equipments out there? Do they actually own them and measure them with their so called customize isolation stand? I remember one actually has cut open one of their isolation stands. It is nothing but a piece of plywood with good lacquer paint.
I got Daiza platform for Extreme server because the designer of both have actually used them both together and finds benefits. But I have not bought Extreme server yet because Roon is a poor choice for classical music. It is another story.
I got Daiza platform for Extreme server because the designer of both have actually used them both together and finds benefits. But I have not bought Extreme server yet because Roon is a poor choice for classical music. It is another story.
Hi adyc,
They did make some improvements in version 1.7 which was just released, I don't know if this makes matters better or worse for you though: Classical composer and composition views have been improved, presenting data more clearly and comprehensively.
Apologies for the OT.
Thanks Emile. If one checks with Roon forum, a lot of Roon users wtih large collection of classical music are very unhappy with Roon. Every new release, I expect major improvements on classical music browsing. And I am disappointed every time. But I have been PM with Mike from Roon. I made some suggestions to him. I think they also realize there is a lot of works to be done on classical music browsing.
Sorry for OT.
Last edited:
I don't know what your motives are adyc you're entitled to your opoinions, but, pardon me, you are spreading false and incorrect information.
SRA does not build racks and platforms for "all audio equipments out there." They build to order. SRA's component specific design is based on data about the specific model of component at hand: size, weight, resonance frequencies, transmission curves, propagation responses, etc. Over the years the company has accumulated a huge amount of data about individual audio components and they continue doing so today. The data feeds into in-house computer models that determine the material and type of construction for component solution before it is built. Unlike the vast majority of vibration abatement products, SRA doesn't sell one-size-fits-all. Whether you buy their claim or not does not matter - that's what they do.
If you "actually has cut open" your Craz3 rack you would find its complete titanium endo-skelton embedded within its maple outer shell. A Craz3 is roughly 48"x30"x22". Shelves are 1.25" thick. Solid maple or mahogany and titanium. It's not light weight. Tell us how much it weighs, adyc.
If you actually cut open an SRA VA-Class isolation stand you would find two Raft Isolation systems (look it up) derived from work SRA did for US Navy submarines. That system uses in-house created material that includes hundreds of thousands of pockets of vacuum. That's not "good lacquer paint" it is a proprietary nano-composite skin created in-house and designed to establish a fast coupling between the component and platform.
Almost all the materials used by SRA are created in-house and proprietary. I don't think you know anything about the company and its sister companies in the clinical and military areas that do work with hospitals, stealth aircraft and nuclear submarines. You need high-level government seurity clearance to enter their labs and factories. The owner is a hard core audiophile and the audio related efforts are a hobby that draws from their industrial work.
There is a lot more about SRA products you could learn but somehow I don't think learning is your interest. Maybe you had a bad experience somewhere along the way and are looking to vent, but - I'm being kind here relative to what I'd like to say - no need to throw dirt at a legitimate audio company.
Do you actually own craz3 rack? I can lift my two level triple wide craz3 rack with one hand. I can’t lift my Stacore rack off the floor with 2 hands. My Stacore rack weighs 500kg. That’s what I call heavy. I would say my craz3 rack weighs around 50kg at most.
When I bought my craz3 rack from an official dealer, they never ask me what components I am going to place them on. So what do they mean by customize? Furthermore, I can speak from my experience on craz3 rack performance. They don’t do anything on vibrations damping. Their performance is similar to other cheap rack. Whether you like it or not, it is my experience.
When I bought my craz3 rack from an official dealer, they never ask me what components I am going to place them on. So what do they mean by customize? Furthermore, I can speak from my experience on craz3 rack performance. They don’t do anything on vibrations damping. Their performance is similar to other cheap rack. Whether you like it or not, it is my experience.
Last edited:
Directly on Grand Prix Audio, SRA, CMS, HRS, StillPoints, Walker brass footers, FrankT Chang wood footers, Echole footers and probably 5+ other footers that I can't even remember the names of.
I have not done back and forth experiments as that's not what I do. I have 20 sets of electronics and 20 sets of speakers so I never have one constant system to do accurate comparisons, things change daily.
I install something and if I like it then that is what I use until something new triggers my fancy. Then I give that a try and if I like it more than what I had before I use it until the next new thing tickles my fancy.
IMHO introducing the complexity of recording with microphones in audio forum debates is just bringing one more uncontrolled variable to the problem. Do you expect that the air of the room will work as a decorrelator, allowing us to see differences we are not able to detect in electrical signals?
The need for very controlled conditions is the real reason why there is so little subjective scientific work in the high end. Although the subject is very interesting, no one is interested in spending the needed resources and time for such subject. The intrinsically hyperbolic subjective nature of stereo sound reproduction is an unsurmountable obstacle - BTW, do you see yourself making an Extreme for 5.1 sound reproduction?
Microstrip's second paragraph would be a useful addition to many accessory threads on WBF which invariably polarise between the owners/spenders/supporters and the non-owners/non-spenders/sceptics/detractors. So much copy would be saved and threads woud hopefully become more informative - not that this will happen of course.
I'm sorry, but i find this a bit amusing Tim. What is a nano-composite "skin" and how does "fast coupling" produce audibly better results? I can understand nano coatings on drivers, but amp stands is a stretch.
This just seems like a bunch of buzz words to get audiophiles excited.
That's alot of stuff, thanks. It's funny how the "hot footer" changes every few years
Yet another reason I just choose to stay away from this stuff.
I dunno. For many of us the ‘subjective science’ of audio is a kind of grasping. Also really not sure that slagging off at all subjectivity by claiming hyperbole is always incessant in all subjective comments isn’t just kind of hyperbolic itself. Is this really any more fair a comment than claiming science in audio is inflated in the way of it’s all knowing assumption (which some of it clearly is). Controlled tests are by their very nature always performed within limits. Scientific understanding is limited. Particularly neuroscience and human perception. Controlled subjective testing even more so than scientific objective measurement. Science in audio is of course helpful but it’s the technical aspects that usually have more immediate application over pure science. It may all hold value and some interest but it may really just not be the main show. The theorists enjoy their excursions but never seem to get how flawed their processes are when they try to take over and make objective understanding the primary evaluation in an essentially subjective pursuit.
Subjective responses to how something sounds are in many ways often just more interesting and potentially communicative in creating deeper layers of understanding. Flawed potentially but they ultimately can create far more involved frameworks of understanding. A measurement can realistically be a kind of quite blunt tool in our appreciation of exactly what a system sounds like. Even something as relatively exact as frequency measurement doesn’t really communicate any nuance. In reviews we tend to briefly look at the measurements but then read the review. As long as subjective responses are held within the perspective of more moderate notions that subjective responses are simply opinions and not absolutes. Scientific types occasionally sometimes like to hold us numnuts to ransom with their clever scientific ways. But just using measurements and theories alone is in reality a pretty rubbish way to put a system together to enjoy music. Everything has its use but controlled subjective testing as a default validity is just not particularly uhmm well valid... this is just a subjective opinion though of course.
Last edited:
One can take this even further and say that interpretation of measurements are purely subjective in this context, specially as they've been presented in this thread.
Your brain, ears and eyes are the most complex instruments available and when calibrated by knowledge, experience and common sense is the most objective tool available. When one doesn't know what one is doing or what to do next depending on measurement are in some ways even worse than depending on one's hearing. IME.
david
The need for very controlled conditions is the real reason why there is so little subjective scientific work in the high end. Although the subject is very interesting, no one is interested in spending the needed resources and time for such subject. The intrinsically hyperbolic subjective nature of stereo sound reproduction is an unsurmountable obstacle - BTW, do you see yourself making an Extreme for 5.1 sound reproduction?
What do you think every piece of your high end equipment is? They're the best examples of subjective scientific work, what high end is all about starting with Bell Labs and the origins of high end sound recording and reproduction!
david
Similar threads
