Vibration Management
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
Never finished it. Started out with 20 claims and perhaps the most renowned patent attorney in the country but after about 4000 hours of time between 3 of us over a 2 year period, it seemed pretty clear this patent lawyer was either further into retirement and/or dimentia than we thought. We ended up just walking away from it to keep what little sanity we had remaining.
20 claims is a lot but even so, a patent of this nature with a sound patent lawyer should have taken no more than 500 hours max and maybe 3 - 5 months tops.
I have no component sitting on provided feet. I have found the Star Sound Technologies Audio Points and Rhythm racks to my tastes. Their key is using special brass and the Audio Points shape and materials to get vibrations in component out a swiftly as possible to ground. It seems to me that theirs is a trial and error process, but whatever, it is outstanding. Their original 1.5" Audio Points have sold over 385,000 of the 1.5AP1Ds. There is little question in my opinion that the brass, finish, and shape all contribute to what they do. Also the APCD2 coupling piece not only works well on the point of the Audio Points but also on connectors throughout the system. The new 2.5AP-1AINT which is basically a larger original 1.5 increased to 2.5"s is clearly better.
I have also found that Stillpoints are outstanding and, of course, use ceramic balls to convert vertical motion into horizontal with it dissipated into steel and thus to heat. They have a different sound than the Star Sound but are not as fast or detailed.
I have tried mass loading of gold bars, silver bars, iron bars, boxes full of shot, including on top of Audio Points. All of them harmed the sound. I have nothing on top any of my components other than some APCD2s on some components where I've used trial and error to find what works.
I have found realism in music reproduction to be very fragile but quite exciting if you can achieve it. I seek the recording event entirely before me in my listening room and occupying the entire speak end of my room. By very fragile I mean that even moving the signal wires can take three hours to get back to previous quality. I have even found that some amps prefer to be off overnight while other prefer to be on.
All of this is a real pain but worth it.
My last paragraph in my earlier post caused me to reread many of the earlier posts on this thread that lead to this posting.
In undergraduate school I tried multiple majors. I started in ME then EE and then CE and finally Physics. One of my underlying thoughts is that especially EE thinks we know all that we need to know. I think that may be true of doing a circuit that will work but hardly one that is a quality one, such as is needed for realism in musical reproduction. There the science is short of what is needed. Vibration control, the intrusion of electro-magnetic waves on music signals, grounding the circuit, and even the impact of metals around circuits all shape what we hear. Our science is just not sufficiently developed in these areas. We need better science in these areas, not just verbiage from different points of view.
I was one of the first to use science in political science and spent my career gather the best data I could about how people vote, whether different policies to cope with social problems worked better, what difference which political party was in power made or even whether it affected tax rates and deficits. All that I can say is that despite my efforts we really know nothing other than that rich states spend my on governmental services and that right now the party that least wants such services controls mainly poor states. Political science definitely needs more scientific understanding.
I have many pieces in my stereo system from designers who come from military electronic backgrounds where the focus is to get something working, some have no academic backgrounds but excellent intuitive awareness. I know that measurement and valid concepts are essential, but I wish more sought to find patterns that reveal nature's laws.
In undergraduate school I tried multiple majors. I started in ME then EE and then CE and finally Physics. One of my underlying thoughts is that especially EE thinks we know all that we need to know. I think that may be true of doing a circuit that will work but hardly one that is a quality one, such as is needed for realism in musical reproduction. There the science is short of what is needed. Vibration control, the intrusion of electro-magnetic waves on music signals, grounding the circuit, and even the impact of metals around circuits all shape what we hear. Our science is just not sufficiently developed in these areas. We need better science in these areas, not just verbiage from different points of view.
I was one of the first to use science in political science and spent my career gather the best data I could about how people vote, whether different policies to cope with social problems worked better, what difference which political party was in power made or even whether it affected tax rates and deficits. All that I can say is that despite my efforts we really know nothing other than that rich states spend my on governmental services and that right now the party that least wants such services controls mainly poor states. Political science definitely needs more scientific understanding.
I have many pieces in my stereo system from designers who come from military electronic backgrounds where the focus is to get something working, some have no academic backgrounds but excellent intuitive awareness. I know that measurement and valid concepts are essential, but I wish more sought to find patterns that reveal nature's laws.
I am a fan of vibration control to insure 'better' sound from the stereo. In this case, 'better' means what I like. My stereo has been an evolution of gear, cables, and racks. Generally, each change has resulted in 'better' sound.
The vibration control aspect started with reading about this on the Mapleshade website. I purchased some brass footers for my gear, and sure enough, it sounded 'better'. This was with my first rack and 'good' gear.
Well, this led to trying other footers, and buying other gear, and a Mapleshade Samson rack, which weighs 500 pounds empty. Needless to say, this sounds better than the rack it replaced, but that could be because it is open on the sides, and the sound flows through it. Of course, the gear, cables, and power help. LOL.
Anyway, until proven different, give me vibration control.
Before:
After:
View attachment 32010
Very nice setup, Bud. This may be controversial of me but I’m doing it anyway.
I hope you don't mind but since you were kind enough to publish these pics and since the OP asked on several occassions for some details, ideas, etc. and you have such a nice, clean, reasonably well-thought-out system that I'd like to use it to point out a few things that may benefit. IMO, your system is indicative of a rather typically serious audio enthusiast who has performed reasonable due diligence or better in the attempt to minimize distortions and maximize performance. And I mean no slight whatsoever against your vibration mgmt config. as it’s certainly better than many. But since this is a high-end audio forum and a vibration mgmt thread, I’m gonna assume the name of the game is performance and striving for better. And there’s nothing better than a real world example.
BTW, FWIW, and IMO your sys config is already on the right path as there’s not a hint that screams evil isolation even though there are a few areas that scream incomplete or overlooked. This is important because I assume part of Peter’s reason for starting this thread is to open us up to potential alternatives to the historic vibration isolation methodology.
Bud’s rack empty, though not ideal for max performance, seems to follow the basics of the resonant energy transfer methodology without a visual hint at trying to isolate anything from anything. Whether or not the mfg’er Mapleshade uses the term isolation in their reading materials, there are other vibration controlling manufacturers who use even more superior materials and designs to transfer energy but always use the term isolation as though they are indeed following some type of isolation methodology. What does that say about such designers and their actual understanding about vibration mgmt?
As you read, please think in terms of taking matters a bit to the extreme in order to extract the absolute max balls to walls, pedal-to-the-medal type of performance from your very nice system and without the need to replace anything.
1. It's a beautiful wood finished rack and aesthetically appealing. However, wood makes for a very inferior conduit for mechanical energy to transfer. Years ago I started out with some of the hardest, most dense exotic woods, primarily Mexican cocobolo but also some highly-figured African bubinga woods whose properties are closer to a hard maple, which I suspect these shelves are made of. Hard maple is a significant step down in hardness and density from the more exotic purple heart, ipe, or Mexican cocobolo woods. Some of these more exotic woods are so hard and dense that they will not float and have the same fire retardation as concrete as they will not catch fire - though they will eventually burn. Regardless, even the hardest wood (Wendge??) is simply no match for a hard metal when attempting to create a superior conduit for mechanical energy to more easily transfer.
2. Notice the rack has 6 legs / points making contact with the floor. Racks typically have 4. Maximum performance is 3 legs. Three points make a plane, 4 points leads to instability / rocking (think never settling in), and more points leads to weight too evenly distributed. For example. Think of a women's high-heeled shoe where the pounds per square inch on the heel alone for an averaged sized women is say 1200 psi. 1200 / 3 legs = 400 psi, 1200 / 4 legs = 300 psi, and 1200 / 6 legs = 200 psi. Clearly 3 legs / points at 400 psi is going to make a more superior contact with the flooring system and hence, potentially generate a more efficient means of transferring mechanical energy to the floor. Obviously, sharp brass points will have multiple times the psi going into the floor but hopefully the point is made.
3. Brass points / spikes. Brass is a metal but a softer metal. It's wonderful for horns, etc. but it also is too soft and no match for a harder metal when it comes to allowing energy to travel more freely.
4. Bud is using some weights on top for mass loading. May have realized a bit of an improvement. Can never have enough weight for mass loading to ensure superior connections and damping a chassis top plate. Also, with lighter weights, there is the risk of not being enough weight to fully damp an easily excitable top plate and the weights themselves may lightly vibrate along with the top plate that’s not supposed to vibrate. This is potentially counter productive.
5. Under several components on the middle shelf it seems Bud is using mechanical conduits sandwiched between the component base plate and its shelf. Very good idea and preferably no more than 3 since 3 points make a plane. However, you may notice what appears to be a Pass Labs X-1 two-chassis preamp with the power supply in the lower chassis the line stage in the upper chassis, there is no mechanical conduit between these 2 chassis' perhaps due to limited shelf height. Potentially the greater harm induced by distortions will more greatly affect the upper chassis but here it seems soft stock footers are used. Thus leaving potential gains limited pretty much to the power supply / lower chassis only.
6. More importantly, these mechanical conduits sandwiched between the component bottom plate and shelf are free floating. IOW, they are not fastened / bolted tightly to the shelf or to the component. And since the components resting on them are somewhat lightweight (a feather is more easily excited by vibrations than a brick), any opportunity to "mechanically settle-in" with zero movement is minimal at best and their performance potential is compromised. Tightly coupled is the name of the game.
7. Two higher-powered Pass Labs amps weighing maybe 120 lbs. each have no such mechanical conduit placed underneath connecting to the shelf and instead are probably resting on soft stock footers. Hence, little to no opportunity for mechanical energy to exit so the rack is unable to provide much benefit potential here.
8. Everything said above applies to speakers too as they too are like a component chassis capturing much unwanted resonant energy. Don't know what the spike material is but the primary downfall here is that the spikes are resting on coupling discs - perhaps to preserve the nice flooring system. Even if a mfg’er says otherwise, coupling discs are primarily for this sole purpose only and not for performance.
9. Perhaps I should stop here but this next point really is quite important and such a fundamental that hits so many of us. Bud's config consists of at least 9 components / chassis' including one hidden on the floor. Less always means more when striving for best performance. More chassis' mean more vibrating power supplies and more vibrating wires and electrical parts. More chassis' also mean more opportunity for the chassis' to capture air-borne vibrations. More chassis’ also means more work and more money to rectify. Not to mention more noisy AC or more costs to purify, cleanse, or condition all the additional AC requirements for 9 chassis.
Bud has certainly performed some due diligence. However, Bud is incomplete and/or inconsistent in his execution and hence any performance gains can only be minimal. Again, I'm trying to be constructive here by pointing out some seemingly obvious performance deficiencies. And I'd be remiss to not make a few minor suggestions that just might turn Bud's system into a bit of a screamer compared to what he may be hearing today.
1. Install 3 short harder than brass points under each amp and line conditioner. The amp's heft alone should keep things from moving but I’d still try to find ways to mass load them.
2. Remove the coupling discs from under the speaker points/spikes. Yes, you'll end up with 6 tiny dimples in the floor but I doubt anybody will notice and you'll be glad you did. Also, make sure the spikes are tightened at the speaker.
3. Remove all components except for line conditioners and amps and remove all upper unneccesary shelving.
4. Ensure every connection / fastener at the rack is extremely tight or taut.
5. Since we’re talking performance and minimizing unwanted mechanical energy and an excellent way to do that is to minimize the number of components being crippled by this energy. Purchase and properly install a CDP like an OPPO 105D for $1300 - even if it’s just to try. You can get one on a 30-day or ask for 60-day satisfaction guarantee or money back with the intention of using the OPPO's passive volume attenuator and its USB ports for connecting to your music on a SSD drive. You'll also need an iPad to use as a remote for your music server. If you utilize these two options on the OPPO, it's actually quite a serious performer. And since your amps are fairly high–powered, the dynamics should not suffer in the least and in fact the dynamics should sound far more natural back on the soundstage and not so much in your face.
There are other suggestions like upgrading the rack, etc. But with just these 5 fairly simple suggestions, I'll bet dollars-to-donuts Bud just might be more than slightly blown away (quite impressed) with his system’s performance within a few weeks of making these proposed changes. Not to mention improved aesthetics with less equipment, the money saved if Bud sells the items he no longer uses, and the regained wall space. And over time Bud can easily fine tune things much further.
Last edited:
stehno, thanks. All good points, and I agree. Whether, I do any or not is a different story. 
I will be purchasing Magico's new SPODs to replace the spikes on the speakers, and so far the early adopters are all positive about the improvement. At some point I will rearrange the rack to separate the Pass XP-20 pre, but the cable is so short they need to be side by side.
I will be purchasing Magico's new SPODs to replace the spikes on the speakers, and so far the early adopters are all positive about the improvement. At some point I will rearrange the rack to separate the Pass XP-20 pre, but the cable is so short they need to be side by side.
stehno, thanks. All good points, and I agree. Whether, I do any or not is a different story.
I will be purchasing Magico's new SPODs to replace the spikes on the speakers, and so far the early adopters are all positive about the improvement. At some point I will rearrange the rack to separate the Pass XP-20 pre, but the cable is so short they need to be side by side.
Thanks, Bud, for taking this in the light in which it was intended. Very much appreciated.
Not only your opinion Mike. Stehno's affiliation and web site should be listed in his by-line
+1 and no doubt many more
Stehno, we've been in a bit of private contact
I thought it would be good to communicate w you mainly online so others can chip in
So, I run a rim drive tt w air bearing linear tracking arm, cdp, 2 box tube linestage, 211 tube monoblocks (pair of NOS '48 GEs and dual transformers per chassis), floor standing spkrs w built in Lundahl Hypex sub amps
My other electrical component is a 180lb behemoth 8kVA balanced pwr transformer
In effect my gear is all supported on Symposium Isis/Rollerblock Module isoln
And I'm putting serious consideration into maxxing out tt isoln by investing in a rock solid Rogoz inert rack to house one of: passive mechanical sprung Minus K BM-8/passive pneumatic sprung Stacore Advanced/active piezo electric Kuraka E-Mini 450 (variant on active Herzan)
I thought it would be good to communicate w you mainly online so others can chip in
So, I run a rim drive tt w air bearing linear tracking arm, cdp, 2 box tube linestage, 211 tube monoblocks (pair of NOS '48 GEs and dual transformers per chassis), floor standing spkrs w built in Lundahl Hypex sub amps
My other electrical component is a 180lb behemoth 8kVA balanced pwr transformer
In effect my gear is all supported on Symposium Isis/Rollerblock Module isoln
And I'm putting serious consideration into maxxing out tt isoln by investing in a rock solid Rogoz inert rack to house one of: passive mechanical sprung Minus K BM-8/passive pneumatic sprung Stacore Advanced/active piezo electric Kuraka E-Mini 450 (variant on active Herzan)
Dude, my comments already are credible. You only flatter yourself to think my comments need your validation.
TBG said:
Without any scientific evidence this is nothing more than an opinion. I'm not aware of any controlled listening tests where any of this has been investigated. Science is not only not sufficiently developed in these areas, to the best of my knowledge it's simply non-existing, but maybe I'm all wrong, so should there be anyone around here on WBF knowing of real science, please come forward, I'm always willing to learn.
Klaus
Sorry for the delay, Marc. First of all, with the contensious types potentially lurking, I'd better qualify things a bit. For the record, you pm'd me several times and not the other way around and you also have alluded to possbily be interested in purchasing something from me but I've not responded. Secondarily, I've been out of business for years although I have several demo units that have been collecting dust. WBF has "industry experts" advertising their wares in their posts and it has "addicted to best" types selling their wares to each other and I get the sneaking suspicion that a few contensious types are observing this very exchange. So I prefer to dialogue openly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
That said.
Ahhhhhh, the joys of everybody's systems being so unique and different and special. Regrettably your sys config isn't quite as nice and concise and tidy as BlueFox’ i.e. your very hot running tubed amps, TT, and several other pieces on individual platforms scattered about. My own design is perhaps the most ventilated and a hefty TT on top isn't an issue either as my machine shop estimated that each shelf of my rack can sustain 2000 lbs. (I like to over-engineer). But for other products available, these can be very limiting issues.
It's not that I don't have suggestions from the pics you provided. I do. But any suggestions I might have are moot without knowing more about what you are seeking. So I'm compelled to ask a few questions.
1. What is your ultimate goal with your playback system?
2. What is your budget at this time to get closer to that goal?
3. Based on your pm's, I get the impression you are content with everything you have except perhaps your vibration mgmt matters. Is that accurate?
4. How flexible are you with #3 and #2 to get closer to #1?
I have several reasons for asking the above. But one reason is because of the varied componentry you presently own, a sufficient solution (not even talking best solution) isn't inexpensive.
If your budget is small, perhaps with some imagination there may be ways to find a reasonably inexpensive solution where perhaps I could sketch something out and you go have it built locally. Or perhaps, there's enough with your existing platforms that with a smaller budget there may be enough there to shore things up to maximize any minimums or vice versa.
But whatever you're thinking, since we're supposedly talking about improving our playback systems' performance hopefully beyond levels we're currently familiar with, vibration mgmt specifically in this thread, and the OP's possible intent to get us to start thinking outside the box, I'd suggest you pursue this quest with a different mindset. Specifically, the mindset that your foundation (AC mgmt and vibration mgmt) ultimately determines the performance level of whatever is on top of it. That includes thinking building upward instead of downward.
For decades, common folklore has been that at least 25% of a system's budget should be alotted to speakers. Common folklore has also dictated that AC products and vibration products are tweaks / accessories. In my case, roughly 65% of my entire system budget is spent just on my system's foundation.
John, Im happy to talk online here or by PM
Was unsure of your preferred method of comms
Re my system and my journey, Im actually at a place Im pretty happy to step off re component upgrades, w poss exception of a new tt/arm and SGM server/Dac8
I've pretty much blown 2-3 years components upgrade budget on creation of my new room/bespoke electrical supply
The upstick w these has been so startlingly good that I'm off the gear change merry go round
The only area that I think could enhance things further might be vibration management, and to this end I'm going to trial active v passive to tt
If this is really fruitful, I could consider same solutions to each component
At a cost of $3k per piece of gear
Ie pre X 2, monos X 2, cdp, spkrs X 2
But, w no idea of what you're offering, the ball is in yr court to inform me of solutions further
Aims? Improved transparency, noise flr, microdynamics
Usual checklist
Was unsure of your preferred method of comms
Re my system and my journey, Im actually at a place Im pretty happy to step off re component upgrades, w poss exception of a new tt/arm and SGM server/Dac8
I've pretty much blown 2-3 years components upgrade budget on creation of my new room/bespoke electrical supply
The upstick w these has been so startlingly good that I'm off the gear change merry go round
The only area that I think could enhance things further might be vibration management, and to this end I'm going to trial active v passive to tt
If this is really fruitful, I could consider same solutions to each component
At a cost of $3k per piece of gear
Ie pre X 2, monos X 2, cdp, spkrs X 2
But, w no idea of what you're offering, the ball is in yr court to inform me of solutions further
Aims? Improved transparency, noise flr, microdynamics
Usual checklist
stehno said:
How much energy is transferred between two different media across the interface depends entirely on the difference in acoustic impedance of the two media concerned. The higher the difference in impedance the more of the energy is reflected.
Acoustic impedance Z is density x speed of sound of the particular material. The coefficient of reflection R at the interface is (Z2-Z1)/(Z1+Z2), the coefficient of transmission is T = 1-R. Looking at density and speed of sound of different woods and metals the metals always have the higher impedance so energy will always be reflected more on a metal interface than on a wood interface.
In view of the above, I'm not sure, but maybe you can explain this issue of energy transfer across the interface between media having different acoustic impedances in more detail and why steel should be better than wood to transfer energy away from the audio component.
Klaus
Yes, mechanical impedance... solid diamond racks would be ideal I guess.
One thing I have to strongly disagree with is spiking speakers to the floor, it sounds horrible with either concrete or suspended wood floors. Stands/footers like IsoAcoustics offers always make for huge improvements over spiking speakers. I have not found one review or even comment where people preferred spikes to IsoAcoustics stands. The advantages of speaker isolation include not making everything in your home sing along with the bass notes, which lowers the noise floor and leads to cleaner sound, better resolution, better soundstage, etc...
Also, room acoustics not mattering... achieving a 3-D immersive soundstage isn't a black and white phenomenon, it's a continuum... so when you get the system right you can achieve this presentation with somewhat marginal room acoustics and it'll sound better than most systems in dedicated billion dollar rooms... but if the room acoustics are also right it makes the system sound even better. How this is debatable at all is way beyond me and I suspect it has more to do with lacking experience in the area than it actually being anywhere close to true.
Klaus, I'm guessing in my case, it's volumes more unwanted mechanical energy than what your's is transferring.
I could get those measurements for you if you really want them, but I'm in a bit of a quandry here. I realize "real science" types (perhaps like yourself) are satisfied with whatever they read on paper. But for accuracy, should I first mount the sensitive instrument in my rack and wait until it's fully settled-in to ensure it's operating closer to its full potential? Or would a smart feller like you be satisfied with my findings if I just placed the sensitive measuring instrument on top of the little coffee table and doily I inherited from my grandmother, like somebody with a "real science" background might do?
And what about addressing the sensitive measuring instrument's AC needs. Surely you realize some of us are more than convinced our sensitive audio components' precision and accuracy are significantly compromised by the universally noisy AC coming in from the street. Is it safe for me to assume, perhaps like one possessing a "real science" background, that the universally noisy AC discriminates between sensitive instruments where it affects my sensitive audio components' precision and accuracy but not my sensitive measuring instruments?
Would any sensitive measuring instrument suffice? Unlike our sensitve audio components whose performance can vary significantly, are all sensitive measuring instruments the same? Which make and model do you recommend? Does price directly correlate to performance? What about calibrating the sensitive measuring instrument? Who do you recommend I have calibrate it? Or is it sufficient enough for me to just follow the owner's manual?
And once I settle down at my state-of-the-art test bench, would you trust that I know exactly what I'm doing with that measuring instrument?
You can see my quandry here, can't you?
Tell me, Klaus, when was the last time you audited the company, their building, lab, test bench, and their technicians to ensure they met your "real science" standards before you believed any of their reported measurements?
It's a rather easy test actually that you can try yourself. Take a 18-inch stick of balsa wood and strike it against your head until you hear the stick ring. Then do likewise with a 306 stainless steel rod. Try not to lose count (most do) because it's the number of strikes that are measured and reported.
DaveC said:Yes, mechanical impedance... solid diamond racks would be ideal I guess.
The impedance of diamond is about 50% higher than that of steel, so no, not ideal at all.
The question is: what is right room acoustics. There is not much science on that, and the science which does exist is blissfully ignored by most audiophiles and room acousticians.
Klaus
stehno said:
Why measurements? Don't need measurements! Just a simple but factually correct explanation for why acoustic energy should transmit into steel at the interface better than into wood when physics me tells that it does not.
Sure I do, but so far I haven't seen the slightest shred of evidence for this claim.
Pretty cool little online calculator for Acoustic Impedance measurements showing the amount of reflection involved
https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Ultrasonics/js_apps/acousticImpedance/
Brief explanation of calculator function:
"The following applet can be used to calculate the acoustic impedance for any material, so long as its density (p) and acoustic velocity (V) are known. The applet also shows how a change in the impedance affects the amount of acoustic energy that is reflected and transmitted. The values of the reflected and transmitted energy are the fractional amounts of the total energy incident on the interface. Note that the fractional amount of transmitted sound energy plus the fractional amount of reflected sound energy equals one."
https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Ultrasonics/js_apps/acousticImpedance/
Brief explanation of calculator function:
"The following applet can be used to calculate the acoustic impedance for any material, so long as its density (p) and acoustic velocity (V) are known. The applet also shows how a change in the impedance affects the amount of acoustic energy that is reflected and transmitted. The values of the reflected and transmitted energy are the fractional amounts of the total energy incident on the interface. Note that the fractional amount of transmitted sound energy plus the fractional amount of reflected sound energy equals one."
Similar threads
