Taiko Audio Daiza platforms.
- Thread starter Blue58
- Start date
No but that is most definitely compliant / soft suspension impeding energy transfer. It does not mean it will not net out positive, but it is going to be counter productive to the Daiza MOA.
In my experience, providing internal vibration with a way to drain and convert into work or heat has always been beneficial, as long as the same ‘drain’ doesn’t couple the unit to external vibration. On the other hand, adding compliance typically isolates a component from external vibration but also provides no means to drain internal vibration. So, a strategy that drains internal vibration and isolates external vibration will always be positive, while a strategy that decouples a unit from external vibration while preventing internal vibration from draining will depend on the relative impact on SQ of the external vs internal vibration and can generally be considered at best a partial solution.
anecdotally and intuitively i've always viewed any soft membrane type footer or material without very well engineered controls as detrimental to the sound. i see it used effectively as an impedance break when it's encapsulated somehow to only effect the vertical compliance. but when a soft membrane is also soft horizontally, or rotation ally, then it seems to predictably smear, cloud and blunt the sound. maybe just what some systems or tastes might need at that moment, but not any long term solution. it might be better than the alternative though.....so there could be worse choices.
again; not claiming any science here, just what i've seen (and heard).
again; not claiming any science here, just what i've seen (and heard).
Last edited:
There’s science in that, a weight loaded compliant material is a mass spring system, it will have a resonance frequency at which it will amplify, this can easily be up to 20dB. For these type of footers it can be anywhere between 50 and 250Hz depending on degree of compliance and weight. It is a pass through below resonance and attenuates above resonance. So it will look like this using 80Hz as a pretty typical example (simplified as it will actually be a slope, not a single peak) :
0-below 80Hz just passes straight through
80Hz is amplified(!)
Above 80Hz is attenuated
So it can very easily create a muddy sound.
This is why good “sounding” spring/mass systems use massive weight and stiff springs to get that resonance point down to very low frequencies and have an as little resonance amplitude as possible. I think (feel free to correct me if wrong) forum participant Stacore even manages to get down to a 2.5Hz resonance using a 80kg mass platform and adjustable air bladders.
The only resonance free system is active corrected isolation, this is a mass-spring system just like all the others, but it can mechanically counter/damp/correct the resonance by which means it can even isolate below 1Hz without any amplification.
0-below 80Hz just passes straight through
80Hz is amplified(!)
Above 80Hz is attenuated
So it can very easily create a muddy sound.
This is why good “sounding” spring/mass systems use massive weight and stiff springs to get that resonance point down to very low frequencies and have an as little resonance amplitude as possible. I think (feel free to correct me if wrong) forum participant Stacore even manages to get down to a 2.5Hz resonance using a 80kg mass platform and adjustable air bladders.
The only resonance free system is active corrected isolation, this is a mass-spring system just like all the others, but it can mechanically counter/damp/correct the resonance by which means it can even isolate below 1Hz without any amplification.
Dear Emile and Mike L,
I’ve had several Daizas in my system for some time and several more unused in storage as I had been redoing my system. Finally caught up with this thread and my system changes, and have now put many of the stored Daizas to use to wonderful effect.
My question to Mike L and Emile is with respect to using the Taiko footers (without the copper circle) between the Daizas and the component: why do you remove the copper circle? Is it because it is difficult to fit the footers properly under the gear with the copper circles in place? Or is it because removing the copper circle results in improved performance?
Thanks in advance for your reply.
And Emile thanks for your contributions to audio enjoyment and your willingness to provide endless and selfless support to the audiophile community. Always a pleasure
I’ve had several Daizas in my system for some time and several more unused in storage as I had been redoing my system. Finally caught up with this thread and my system changes, and have now put many of the stored Daizas to use to wonderful effect.
My question to Mike L and Emile is with respect to using the Taiko footers (without the copper circle) between the Daizas and the component: why do you remove the copper circle? Is it because it is difficult to fit the footers properly under the gear with the copper circles in place? Or is it because removing the copper circle results in improved performance?
Thanks in advance for your reply.
And Emile thanks for your contributions to audio enjoyment and your willingness to provide endless and selfless support to the audiophile community. Always a pleasure
i'm not the expert as to the technical rational for why it works; but for on top of the Daiza between the gear bottom and the Daiza, the little hollow panzerholtz rounds (filled with foam) seems best without the copper top. the copper top seems to slightly smear the sound when i've tried it either face down or up. intuitively i believe it's because you lose a degree of 'bite' (there is a degree of sliding on a micro level) since you are spreading the surface engagement over a wider area. somewhat analogous to a cone tip. you are looking for solid unambiguous connection to the benefit of the whole Daiza system. and as the gear settles after set-up, the bare panzerholtz round will 'meld/mate' into top and bottom surfaces and that helps the sound. the direct contact between the panzerholtz footer and both surfaces seems to work. the broad copper rounds can't do that.
this is, of course, only what i hear in my system. Emile i'm sure will post something more fact based.
at this point i might have 50-60 of those little foam filled panzerholtz round footers in my system.
as part of the whole Daiza system, those copper rounds are excellent under the Daiza working with the foam inserts. i have a stack of those spare copper rounds, and maybe at some point i might find a use for them.
btw; amazing system you have there cmarin.
Last edited:
Forum participant Stacore feels free to correct you
We have 1.6Hz resonance with the ball bearings (so the isolation starts at some 2.5Hz). The air bladders dont get that low - to some 4-5Hz depending on the load. The bladders are also pneumatically damped to lower the Q of the resonance. Cheers,
Thanks Mike for the reply.
I opened up my Daiza footers but they don’t have the foam inserts. Put them in anyway under my DAC (after removing the copper circles) and rearranging my Adona rack in order to add a second Daiza.
We shall see how that goes. In the meantime, I’ll reach out to Emile for the foam filled footers.
And thank you for the kind comments. I’ve been in this hobby for over 15 years and there’s always something to learn if you’re not careful. But in those 15+ years you, and the progression of your system, have always been a valuable and appreciated signpost for me.
I’d say the copper discs have too much contact surface area, there are micro oscillations between surfaces (distortion) and a smaller sfa can work better to avoid what Mike describes above.
You’d need the “new version” footers version for this application, or what’s been shipping for the past 12-18 months or so, you can indeed identify them by having foam inserts. We do not sell them officially but they are available to our customers of course.
You’d need the “new version” footers version for this application, or what’s been shipping for the past 12-18 months or so, you can indeed identify them by having foam inserts. We do not sell them officially but they are available to our customers of course.
As advised by the local dealer Volent, today put a Setchi USB D2 on top of the Lumin U1 Mini....Then it becomes a sandwich like structure. On the top cover center, there is a Setchi USB D2 which is also connected with Lumin U1 Mini's USB port. Under the Lumin, there are three graphite blocks to support it.
This change gives a very nice and unexpected surprise. And its amazing effects are definitely brought by the combination of Setchi and Daiza. In fact, both Setchi and Daiza are high value-added tweaks in the system.
Last edited:
I'm considering a Daiza between a Minus-K platform and a Technics SP10 Mkiii, which will be housed in an Albert Porter Panzerholz plinth. Will the location of the footers on the 483x600 mm version allow it to sit properly on the 18x20 in top plate of the Minus-K? Ideally, I'd want a little extra room for balancing the Minus-K.
i own 22 Daiza platforms. they are really wonderful for the sound in my room, and i highly recommend them when used as intended. on a solid shelf or solid floor, sitting on their panzerholtz/copper footers, with the solid round foam filled panzerholtz mini footers between your gear and the top of the Daiza.
are you already familiar with setting up a Minus K?
combining a Daiza with a Minus K is not something i view as a likely positive direction. my thinking is that combining different passive isolation products is typically a crap shoot to begin with. now you are adding a compliant layer onto an already challenging balance act with the SP-10 MkIII/ Minus K.
on the + side of things; the Daiza is not expensive and so you can always re-task it somewhere else useful if it does not work. i will watch for the results. good luck.
if you really want to do this; contact Emile at Taiko and talk it through. he really knows resonance isolation and might have ideas about this.
btw; i owned an SP-10 MkIII back in the day; it's an excellent turntable; and if you can tune the Minus K properly for that bad boy it should sound wonderful.
Thanks for your thoughts, Mike. I certainly respect your experience. I've been using Minus-Ks for a decade with a seqeunce of turntables (first a Clearaudio Innovation Wood, then a Nantais Ref II Lenco, and now a Brinkmann Oasis), so I am all too familiar with the balancing act they require.
I've always used an Adona multi-element shelf between the Minus-K and turntable to achieve proper mass and distribution of weight, and because the top plate on the M-K is just too small. I was planning on doing the same with the MkIII when I get it all put together. But then I thought about finding a Panzerholz shelf instead of the Adona shelf, given that the plinth will be Panzerholz and ebony; this thought led me to the Daiza. Its duty would be as a non-resonant interface, maybe helping to drain self-noise from the MkIII, which, if I take Albert's recommendation, would have Stillpoint Ultra 5s as footers. But perhaps that might not be the best idea. I will reach out the Emile. Thanks again.
Bill
I've always used an Adona multi-element shelf between the Minus-K and turntable to achieve proper mass and distribution of weight, and because the top plate on the M-K is just too small. I was planning on doing the same with the MkIII when I get it all put together. But then I thought about finding a Panzerholz shelf instead of the Adona shelf, given that the plinth will be Panzerholz and ebony; this thought led me to the Daiza. Its duty would be as a non-resonant interface, maybe helping to drain self-noise from the MkIII, which, if I take Albert's recommendation, would have Stillpoint Ultra 5s as footers. But perhaps that might not be the best idea. I will reach out the Emile. Thanks again.
Bill
ok, i understand a little more. you are a Minus K veteran.
since you have used the Minus K with multiple turntables, have any of those had suspended plinths? and did the action of the Minus K and those other suspensions have any un-wanted side effects.
i guess i got confused when you mentioned you needed to know the location of the foam inserts on the bottom of the Daiza, which led me to assume you would use the Daiza footers between the Minus K and the Daiza. but now you say above that the Daiza would be used as a non-resonant interface......which maybe means just as a shelf only, no footers. but then you add that the SP-10 MkIII would have Stillpoints. so that would be three passive devices stacked. hummm.
so the concern i have is that even 'only' Stillpoint footers would prove problematic with a Minus K. you are combining two different passive devices. sorta like a car with it's suspension, sitting on top of a platform with another suspension. the combination of the two is un-predicable. any bump would cause a cyclic feedback.
yet.....maybe you have already combined the Minus K and other passive suspensions?
my view is a combination of passive devices needs to be engineered. like the Taiko Tana active system. where you have an active shelf, and panzerholtz 10mm top layer, a rubber membrane, then a Daiza shelf + a dedicated panzerholtz enclosed LPS. it's a whole complete system. Emile engineered it.
but you are a 10 year experienced Minus K user......and maybe i am over-thinking this.
Last edited:
Not at all. I now believe I've been under-thinking it. And I did lead you astray by asking about the footers on the Daiza, not really thinking of them as passive devices in themselves. I just figured I'd blunder along and try with and without them.
None of my tables on the M-K have had any passive suspensions, only hard, coupling footers. But that being said, with all three I have found that using tiny discs of 60 durometer sorbothane, the size and number determined by load calculations and trial and error, between the Adona shelf and M-K top plate sounded much better than simply resting the Adona on the top plate or placing a turntable directly on the M-K. Two compliant zones shouldn't work but inthis case they do. Art and science and mystery.
I take your point about the Stillpoints. Maybe they are not the best idea in this application. Perhaps something solid instead, like bearpaws bolted into the plinth, coupling to the shelf atop the M-K. OTOH, Albert swears by them in conjunction with Vibraplane under his Mk3.
Either way, I'm tempted by the Daiza just to see.
None of my tables on the M-K have had any passive suspensions, only hard, coupling footers. But that being said, with all three I have found that using tiny discs of 60 durometer sorbothane, the size and number determined by load calculations and trial and error, between the Adona shelf and M-K top plate sounded much better than simply resting the Adona on the top plate or placing a turntable directly on the M-K. Two compliant zones shouldn't work but inthis case they do. Art and science and mystery.
I take your point about the Stillpoints. Maybe they are not the best idea in this application. Perhaps something solid instead, like bearpaws bolted into the plinth, coupling to the shelf atop the M-K. OTOH, Albert swears by them in conjunction with Vibraplane under his Mk3.
Either way, I'm tempted by the Daiza just to see.
Last edited:
Mike, the chap who has Rockport Arrakis w 6 REL subs, runs his Kodo The Beat on a Minus K. I believe I'm right in thinking The Beat has Stillpoints Ultra 5s built-in to the design, and so Ultra 5s and Minus K being used together.
Hi Wrm57,
Mike raises a valid point in that stacking multiple passive compliant "isolation" solutions is going to create a complex interaction of vibrational behaviour. Each one of these will have it's own resonance point at which it will amplify, you would not want to excite their individual resonance modes.
For example, say you have 3 passive solutions with their respective resonance frequencies at 10, 100 and 1000Hz. what it will do from a frequency spectrum point of view is:
Very much simplified so its easier to understand:
10Hz:
0-9Hz pass through, 10Hz amplify, 11Hz and up attenuate
100Hz:
0-99Hz pass through, 100Hz amplify, 101Hz and up attenuate
1000Hz:
0-999Hz pass through, 1000Hz amplify, 1001Hz and up attenuate
So this looks very predictable, and you could argue you could stack them to increase attenuation, sort of a double whammy above 100Hz and a triple above 1000Hz.
BUT it does not work that way because just by stacking them you will change all resonance frequencies because these are a function of MASS (which changes by different weight loading), COMPLIANCE (spring/stiffness/compliance),and DAMPING, this all of a sudden becomes very unpredictable and can create a whole range of various resonant modes throughout the whole complex structure.
A few quick graphs taken from google:
So this all probably does not help you much if anything at all but it's just to show it can become a very complex model, especially if you stack multiple solutions.
As for the Daiza, it has very minimal modes with very low amplitudes due to very high damping and is unlikely to significantly complicate things. It does not have significant "spring properties" so that part can be ignored.
In the end you're going to have to listen to it really as predicting the behaviour of different stacked solutions is going to be very complex.
Mike raises a valid point in that stacking multiple passive compliant "isolation" solutions is going to create a complex interaction of vibrational behaviour. Each one of these will have it's own resonance point at which it will amplify, you would not want to excite their individual resonance modes.
For example, say you have 3 passive solutions with their respective resonance frequencies at 10, 100 and 1000Hz. what it will do from a frequency spectrum point of view is:
Very much simplified so its easier to understand:
10Hz:
0-9Hz pass through, 10Hz amplify, 11Hz and up attenuate
100Hz:
0-99Hz pass through, 100Hz amplify, 101Hz and up attenuate
1000Hz:
0-999Hz pass through, 1000Hz amplify, 1001Hz and up attenuate
So this looks very predictable, and you could argue you could stack them to increase attenuation, sort of a double whammy above 100Hz and a triple above 1000Hz.
BUT it does not work that way because just by stacking them you will change all resonance frequencies because these are a function of MASS (which changes by different weight loading), COMPLIANCE (spring/stiffness/compliance),and DAMPING, this all of a sudden becomes very unpredictable and can create a whole range of various resonant modes throughout the whole complex structure.
A few quick graphs taken from google:
So this all probably does not help you much if anything at all but it's just to show it can become a very complex model, especially if you stack multiple solutions.
As for the Daiza, it has very minimal modes with very low amplitudes due to very high damping and is unlikely to significantly complicate things. It does not have significant "spring properties" so that part can be ignored.
In the end you're going to have to listen to it really as predicting the behaviour of different stacked solutions is going to be very complex.
Similar threads
