i respect that Stehno likes extreme mass loading. but i disagree that his preference proves anything at all. it's simply one approach where he prefers what he did to other alternatives he tried. mass loading can only change the resonate frequency of vibrations, it does not eliminate or drain them.....in fact they can be 'held' and reflect with additional mass as that mass and it's inertia sets up oscillations.
and excuse me if my post here has missed the mark of the point you are making Peter.
i would challenge Stehno to compare his extreme mass loading to the best active isolation approach. until he goes down that road his broad view is missing an important comparator.
and mass loading the top of a chassis proves nothing about whether the mass loaded gear will sound better sitting on a grounded rack or active or passive isolation. some chassis do benefit from some sort of treatment to the top or inside. what they sit on is another matter. depending on how much mass is loaded on top of gear, it can affect what sort of isolation might work. common sense must be applied. if you use 300 pounds of mass loading on top of gear then trying to isolate/decouple that somehow gets challenging.....but it can be done.
further; between extreme mass loading and ultimate active isolation we have an almost infinite amount of variations of mass loading to variations in passive isolation or combinations of both where it's about execution and preference.
i would agree that for a DIY'r; mass loading can be a cheaper approach. it is cheap (and ugly) to add bricks on top of gear. again, that is separate from which approach works better.
as far as what a circuit requires for ultimate performance we turn to science/industry. and for their most delicate processes they mostly take the resonance isolation approach. not extreme mass loading.
reproducing music is not building a bridge abutment, it's capturing and relating the delicate nuances of music.
and generally mass loading will change the tonal nature of gear compared to decoupling/isolation, many times deadening the sound compared to it's designed intended tonal balance. but each situation is different.
in my system i have examples of extreme mass loading (3000 pounds of speakers), and active isolation for most electronics and tt. i do mass load the top of some gear with Walker lead filled pucks that have a resonate chassis, but still passively isolate that gear below it. the proof is in the listening.
Stehno is just down the road in Oregon, he is welcome to drive up and visit my room to hear for himself.
This is interesting, Mike, as I had no idea you too were a vibration mgmt. expert. Then again, it seems these days everybody here gets to be a vibration mgmt. expert but me. Perhaps you should take a stab at answering Peter’s questions. Maybe your responses will make more sense than my own.
It’s funny that you speak as though you are intimately familiar with the vibration controlling methodology I adhere to and my designs and executions almost as though you’ve had firsthand experience with the methodology and with my design. Yet I don’t think I can agree with even a single thing you’ve said in your context here. How can that be?
By your own words you adhere to the traditional vibration isolation methodology and recently mentioned that isolation-based racks are a tweak/accessory based on their rather dismal performance with all historical evidence to substantiate your claim. You also mention that you have since advanced to active isolation. I on the other hand, based on isolation's historically dismal performance record and given what I consider reasonable explanations how isolation works against mechanical enery's natural behavior and why isolation is just a grotesquely inferior methodology and hence, could never use the word isolation in a positive sense. I also claim to invoke a little-known methodology that seems to work hand-in-hand with mechanical energy’s natural behaviors. Moreover, I've taken those principles to the extreme with resulting extreme improvements unlike anything I thought possible and with little more than a trickle of evidence to substantiate my claims. IOW, as meticulous as you are about your system and as musical as it may be compared to other systems, you introduce nothing extraordinary. Yet, you invite me to drive 500 miles round trip to hear your system that employs essentially the same ol’, same ol'? That makes no sense to me.
Moreover, I also claim (well, actually I haven’t publicized it yet but will now) that a superior and extreme racking system following a diametrically-opposed and vastly superior vibration-controlling methodology can demonstrate among numerous other things that it is our components that are the real tweaks and accessories. So much so, that for anyone who puts performance above all else, should a component not mate well with the rack (the foundation), then it is the component that must be replaced.
This is not to slight superior components in the least, as I’m all for component and speaker upgrades. But I’m not aware of a component or speaker or room upgrade, nor any combination thereof in existence that can so dramatically improve an otherwise well-thought-out playback system by catapulting it far closer toward live music. In fact, I can pretty much guarantee it’s impossible. For the exact same reason despite all its promises (including technical white papers, etc) it’s impossible for MQA format recordings (or any other high-rez format) can provide little more than marginal improvements and I even doubt that. Several years ago in this forum and in other forums I wrote why it’s impossible for MQA to fulfill any of its performance promises for ultimately the exact same reason your system cannot generate anything too special as well.
I appreciate the invite to listen to your system as I've no doubt of its superiority over many or most or perhaps even all of the other 1000+ systems I’ve heard over the years and you are genuinely to be commended for your efforts. But to be frank, I’ve little doubt I'd be bored within 10 – 20 minutes even though I’d probably be saying wow, that sounds amazing so as not to hurt your feelings.
I don’t put a lot of stock in Jonathan Valin of TAS, but every now and again even reviewers can leak out a little intellectual honesty. Like the time he wrote, “We are lucky if even our very best playback systems (I suspect including systems like your’s) can capture at most 15% of the magic (I translate that to believability) of the live performance”, he wasn’t just a woofin. In fact, I remember a few well-trained ear types with a real passion for live music tell me that even 15% was optimistic.
Now Valin wrote that 7 or 8 years ago and we know not a whole lot has changed performance-wise since then. But for sake of argument, let’s say today Valin wrote our best playback systems are somehow now able to capture 25 or even 35% of the believability (magic) of the live performance and that miraculously your system is capturing maybe 45%. My ears would probably perk up telling me you’re obviously doing something far better than the next guy. But IME I’d still be bored.
I guess what I’m saying is, thanks for the invite but no thanks.
Well, Peter. I made it thru the first post anyway.