Taiko Audio Daiza platforms.

[MarkusBarkus]

...well, these things do get complicated quickly, having so many variables.

I did have a flashing thought to write back: audiophiles are confused because it's a complicated topic and there are reasonable, intelligent designers making products that seem to work in completely different ways!

Drain the vibrations away with rigid footers...or...isolate the devices with more compliant products?

Both approaches make sense, but I think one would have to run the tests with "your" system and draw the conclusions for that set of variables, which comprises the only set that really matters (to a user).

My system sounds terrific, but I often tinker around a bit and consider what I might do to improve. I wouldn't say I'm compulsive about it, but I do wander into the "what if" zone at times.

I was considering: double-Daiza strategy, and/or Critical Mass footers? Existing Daiza on Symposium amp stand for Extreme?

I ordered the heavier EVPs yesterday and will put them under the Extreme and run the test. What else can one do? The tests with smaller EVPs under the MSB are excellent.

I take that to mean, in my room, whatever vibrations are present internal to the dac or external in the room are all working within the goals/limitations of the MSB engineering team, and their understanding of the physical properties of the planet.

I think where the Taiko team have a real advantage, and what was the tipping-point for me to become a customer, is that they are trying to integrate a system for the Extreme...to integrate and control the variables to the extent possible (hardware, software, USB, network, etc.). They make the Daiza and the machine it was built for. It works well for other devices too, but it *must* work for the Extreme.

We use these forums to communicate our varied use cases and how we think we hear things at home. Some of the things don't seem to make sense...but seem to sound good. That's a sticker.

There are a lot of variables, and every reader owns the obligation to consider any comments in the context they were provided and whether the person seems to make sense if one were to adopt their strategy, or try a given product.

BTW: To me, you are within the Laws of Physics and Forums (101!) to highlight the various comments you called out. In fairness, I did only post an excerpt from the email to add to exiting posts, but it was not atypical of the whole.

 

[Cellcbern]

For components drain vs. isolate is not a choice - you have to do both. Best combination I've ever tried is an isolation platform with the Dalby Audio or ASI Top Line "draining" feet on top (see photos). In particular, the last generation Townshend Seismic Sink air platform in combination with the Dalby Audio Lignum Vitae feet (2nd photo) provides the clearest, most articulate, most musical sound I've ever gotten from a disc player.

 

[MarkusBarkus]

Perhaps in the case of active platforms, that does makes sense. Having rigid/hard footers that better communicate between the device and the platform, in both directions.

For passive platforms, wouldn't it be an either/or proposition? If you add weights on top and/or rigid footers below, aren't you just changing the mass and frequency of the "new" device...new in that it has greater mass and different resonance characteristics as a "unit."

Not that it wouldn't sound "better" that way to some listeners. Not really disagreeing with you, per se, @Cellcbern just reasserting my premise that it gets complicated and probably benefits from experimentation, per your images. Seems likely the CD device manufacturer didn't advise: sounds best with x + y + z add-ons! But that's what we share in these forums...experimental results.

 

[Cellcbern]

Perhaps in the case of active platforms, that does makes sense. Having rigid/hard footers that better communicate between the device and the platform, in both directions.

For passive platforms, wouldn't it be an either/or proposition? If you add weights on top and/or rigid footers below, aren't you just changing the mass and frequency of the "new" device...new in that it has greater mass and different resonance characteristics as a "unit."

Not that it wouldn't sound "better" that way to some listeners. Not really disagreeing with you, per se, @Cellcbern just reasserting my premise that it gets complicated and probably benefits from experimentation, per your images. Seems likely the CD device manufacturer didn't advise: sounds best with x + y + z add-ons! But that's what we share in these forums...experimental results.

I think you are right - it is more complicated than it appears. An air platform is supposed to move slightly in response to both floorborne and airborne vibrations, helping to isolate the component on top from them. Having tested components on it with just the cheap factory feet it is clear that the air platform makes a significant difference by itself. Does a rigid platform by itself achieve the same thing? I don't know. All of the rigid platforms I've tried including Sound Mechanics which has the same crystals as the Taiko Daiza have sounded better with draining/tunning feet between them and the component. The ASI and Dalby feet drain my components' internal resonances but also seem to tune them some, which I suspect is why I prefer them over Stillpoints and every other metal footer I've heard, all of which add a hard edge to the sound. Resonance tuning isn't much talked about on this forum, but is a "third way" of dealing with resonances, i.e., changing them so they are more "sympathetic" to the music with the same types of tone woods that are used to make musical instruments. This is what the Harmonix line of tuning feet do, and while they don't work well with every component I have heard them sound spectacular. The simple and much cheaper Yamamoto ebony cones/cups also improve the sound of many components by tuning (as opposed to draining) the resonances. But even this gets complicated, because I have read that tone woods like ebony have micro pores in them which trap resonances. Dalby describes the big wooden disc in their feet as resonance sinks not tuning devices and they contact the component only via three tiny ceramic bearings (three metal bearings for ASI). Yet substituting mpingo for brass spike cups under both significantly alters the sound. Can't explain it. At the end of the day I have no hard and fast rules, and have arrived at my preferred collection of isolation devices by trial and error.

 

[Blackmorec]

When it comes to vibration control of a component, careful consideration of the techniques employed is critical in order to solve the dichotomy of needing to both isolate and ground at the same time.

Component generated vibration is best conducted away from the component to ‘ground’ , while the component itself must be isolated from all ground borne vibration which is usually man-made or seismic in origin. So you want something that grounds vibration in one direction, while isolating in the other. An interesting engineering challenge.

One of the most important things to recognise is that for vibration to transfer from one medium to another, the interface must have a low impedance, which means that the materials must be similar in terms of hardness and compliance. The closer 2 materials are, the more effectively and efficiently vibration will pass between the 2.
For example, sorbothane under a component will isolate in both directions because vibration has a hard tIme to pass from a hard shelf into a soft and wobbly sorbothane footer. Similarly it will also prevent the internal component vibration from passing through it into the shelf or rack, so it remains trapped, bouncing around and exciting resonances within the component.
So while sorbothane by itself is a bad idea, when engineered into a solution with other ingredients, it can work extremely well.

As an example, lets take a Taiko Extreme. Ideally the Extreme should be placed on a platform or rack engineered to isolate it from ground borne vibration. The Extreme itself should also be either placed on feet or footers designed to either convert the internal vibrational energy to work and heat or to conduct the vibration into a shelf that performs the same function of converting the vibration. In this way, internal vibration is lead away from the Extreme and converted into a more harmless type of energy, while the rack isolates the unit from seismic vibration. Devices used to convert energy from vibration to work or heat typically operate in a distinct weight range, due to the fact that the necessary compliance layers within the device need to have appropriate weight bearing properties. Too little and it fully compresses and essentially ‘shorts out’ the device. Too much and you end up with an inappropriate impedance match where the compliance layer is too stiff and vibration doesn’t flow into or through the device. Whenever you think about vibration control, its essential that you provide ‘synergistic’ solutions for both the ground borne and component generated vibration. In this case, synergistic means that the 2 solutions are either specifically designed to work together or clearly perform their function with no interference from or with one another.

 

[MarkusBarkus]

...so the EVP pads arrived late Thursday.

Installing them is a two-person job, due to the extreme gravitas of the Extreme.

A/V Room Service is clear that you should avoid squishing the interior material irregularly or unevenly (e.g. as in lifting one side and sliding them in, hoisting up the gear for the other side, etc.), if possible.

Sweetie helped slide them under the server, but after doing so, I noticed and was reminded, how nice the footers are on the Extreme. A delicious sandwich of metal feet and panzerholtz? discs.

Because of the footer design, I thought it better to place the four pads (A/Vs recommendation BTW, although three would work weight-wise) under the footers, rather than the chassis.

It sounds excellent, although it sounded excellent before the footers.

What I feel comfortable saying is that the lower end seems a wee bit more there. Not emphasized, I wouldn't say, but perhaps a bit more foundational, if you'll allow the slipperiness of that usage.

Isolating the server (with the pads) on top of the Daiza may become more helpful when volume increases and low frequencies build more room pressure and floor vibration); that is TBD until Sweetie takes the dog for the long weekend walkkies, whereupon I will increase my listening volume and whisky uptake.

BTW: A/V RS recommends the pads under the gear, vs. under the platform and gear. I may try other configurations, but I'll need a hifi pal next week.

BTW2: Via email exchanges, wherein I noted audiophile marketplace confusion on isolating against vibration vs. draining vibration using various solid footers,and platforms, it was noted: "drain" is not a thing. I may add that to my signature!

I will quote a brief excerpt for context:

"...EVPs don't care what is above or below them from a performance POV, but the unit may prefer not to have reflected or resonant vibrations from the platform itself."

I think this gets at our recent exchanges about the characteristics of an individual component being different from a component on a platform, with whatever footers, etc.

All said, perhaps the Extreme benefits from the EVP pads isolating from a mechanical coupling, while still retaining benefits from air-born or other vibrations that exist around the server.

As I wrote previously, I think the Daiza/Extreme combination is unique in that they work well together, and were "voiced" for best SQ (but work for other gear too).

For those not using Daiza, or if you've forgotten, material has been CNC-ed out of the platform, specifically changing its resonance characteristics vs. what it would be at a given set of dimensions.

Context: Listening room is in a basement. Room is well-treated with assorted acoustic panels and "traps." Walls are double-walled: drywall and homesote with constrained layer, hung on Z-clips away from studs. Room shape is odd, but end result for audio is excellent. I don't have measurements other than my ears. I built it myself.

Floor is engineered plank, over thin felt/plastic vapor barrier, on concrete slab.

 

[Taiko Audio]

"drain" is not a thing. I may add that to my signature!

This is true. Using these between the Daiza and Extreme though you’d make less use of what the Daiza “does”. Not important if it nets out positive ofcourse!

 

[MarkusBarkus]

...I really puzzled over this line of experimentation, because Extreme + Daiza is an engineered solution and a known quantity.

That said, it does seem best-practice, to isolate gear from the floor. I will report back on my impression of SQ with EVPs under the Daiza, with the Extreme and Daiza paired, per original set-up.

 

[Taiko Audio]

...I really puzzled over this line of experimentation, because Extreme + Daiza is an engineered solution and a known quantity.

That said, it does seem best-practice, to isolate gear from the floor. I will report back on my impression of SQ with EVPs under the Daiza, with the Extreme and Daiza paired, per original set-up.

If you “couple” as in using an intermediate which vibrates in tandem with the component, and you place that on something with high internal damping, you can reduce ringing time. Think tuning Fork.

 

[Blackmorec]

Hi MB, glad you’re having some fun during these tough times. Thank heavens for this hobby.

Regarding your set up….if I may just recap, there are 2 things you need to achieve…
1. Isolate your component from seismic ground borne vibration
2. ’Ground’ or convert the Extreme’s intrinsic vibration so its not left to excite the chassis and components.

So you really need to fully understand what each vibration management component is doing so you know:
1. At what point the seismic vibration is isolated i.e stopped from travelling into the Extreme
2. At which point the internal vibration is grounded or converted to heat/work or both
3. How the internal vibration is lead away from the Extreme and into the ground connect/energy conversion, ensuring that the pathway is of low impedance.

The order in which units are installed should be based on both listening and a detailed understanding of the logic behind exactly how the vibration is being managed, step by step.

 

[MarkusBarkus]

OK, I spent some quality time with my Extreme today, including moving the EVPs to support the Daiza platform.

That is, Extreme on Daiza, Daiza supported by EVPs on the floor. Daiza feet were removed.

I do think this "tightens up" the sound a bit.

Bass is still abundant and balanced, but perhaps the overall sound is a bit more balanced. I think this is a net-positive compared to EVPs under the Extreme feet. Good fun.

As an FYI for context, here is a partial list of test tracks. I listened for hours...to much more than this... but I go here for various sonic cues:

Muddy Waters: My Home Is In The Delta

Gregory Porter: God Bless the Child

Melody Gardot: So We Meet Again My Heartache

June Christy: A Sleepin' Bee

Diana Krall: Autumn in NY

Kenny Burrell: Tres Palabras

Duke Ellington: Purple Gazelle

Hot Tuna: Troy Savings Bank: Barbeque King

Tash Sultana: Musk

Billie Eilish: Xanny (wow! bass)

Strauss--B.Haitink/LSO: Eine Alpensinfonie: VIII.

 

[audiopie]

Here's a question for Emile; regarding the current Daiza standard copper feet with foam at the bottom, is the foam supposed to hold the foot off the floor, or whatever the Daiza is sitting on, or just float inside the foot letting the copper foot sit on the floor?

 

[MarkusBarkus]

...here's a pic with no load.

 

[Taiko Audio]

Here's a question for Emile; regarding the current Daiza standard copper feet with foam at the bottom, is the foam supposed to hold the foot off the floor, or whatever the Daiza is sitting on, or just float inside the foot letting the copper foot sit on the floor?

The foam compresses when under "load" so it then effectively just sits inside.

 

[audiopie]

thank you

 

[Mike Lavigne]

there is foam compressed between the copper disc and the panzerholtz inset, and foam inside the small hollow panzerholtz footer.

 

[audiopie]

Mike,
thanks for posting, but I have 5 Daiza's so I'm familiar with the setup. I was just wondering if the foam inside the foot (mine are copper, not ph) was supposed to hold the copper foot off the floor or whatever. According to Emile's response, the answer is no, it gets compressed and just sits inside the foot.

 

[MarkusBarkus]

@Mike Lavigne thanks for the pics. I have not had my platform belly-up for a long time. I have mine on EVP pads. The foam inside the routed out platform recesses stay in place, ergo my mistaken response to @audiopie when I removed the footers. Sorry @audiopie. Your question makes better sense (to me) now.

 

[Levitator]

Hey guys

I’m trying to understand the best way to utilise my Daiza platform before acquiring more. At this stage I’m just using one Daiza platform directly under my Taiko - the Daiza itself is sitting directly on my Quadraspire SV2T bamboo rack on the top shelf and the Daiza has its 3 copper foam feet attached sitting in the cut out holes.

The rack itself is on spikes that sit in the Quadraspire QX7 floor protectors on a wooden suspended floor.

Next candidate for a Daiza is my amplifier given it has a large aluminium chassis so from what I’ve read, the Daiza should be beneficial.

This might be a question for Emile, but I’m just curious whether I’m using the most relevant footers on the rack itself and whether placing the Daiza directly under a component which sits on it’s own original feet is my best bet.

Thanks in advance for any help offered!

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Hey guys

I’m trying to understand the best way to utilise my Daiza platform before acquiring more. At this stage I’m just using one Daiza platform directly under my Taiko - the Daiza itself is sitting directly on my Quadraspire SV2T bamboo rack on the top shelf and the Daiza has its 3 copper foam feet attached sitting in the cut out holes.

The rack itself is on spikes that sit in the Quadraspire QX7 floor protectors on a wooden suspended floor.

Next candidate for a Daiza is my amplifier given it has a large aluminium chassis so from what I’ve read, the Daiza should be beneficial.

This might be a question for Emile, but I’m just curious whether I’m using the most relevant footers on the rack itself and whether placing the Daiza directly under a component which sits on it’s own original feet is my best bet.

Thanks in advance for any help offered!

from the top down;

gear chassis (with stock footers removed if possible) -> typically 3 naked small panzerholtz round foam filled with the open side down -> top surface of the Dazia -> Daiza in normal config with full round foam -> copper top assembly with small foam filled footers -> (if you have the Daiza's on hand and the vertical space) another full Daiza assembly.

i call this 'double Daiza'. where i have the space i use it. very natural and lively. very balanced. not found a bad match for this. even better musical synergy with the whole greater than the parts, when the whole digital chain has double Daiza.