You are comparing two feet on one rack, where one set of feet is supposed to have synergy with the rack. You are not comparing racks. And for feet compares alone, for consistency, I would do it on two rack minimum
Which rack i can buy???????????????
- Thread starter gian60
- Start date
You are comparing two feet on one rack, where one set of feet is supposed to have synergy with the rack. You are not comparing racks. And for feet compares alone, for consistency, I would do it on two rack minimum
I'm not really concerned about that as Joe designed the feet to be consistent across different surfaces. Essentially the shootout will go from rack shelf as is, to adding SP's to adding CS2 feet, then following the progress through the break in process so it is an apples vs apples comparison (ie: both feet fully settled in).
There seems to be many contradictory opinions of what audio equipment supports do (aside from the obvious arrangement and spacing of components), which IMO is par for the course in high end audio.
As stated above by others, footers can, and often do, alter the resonant frequency of the interface between component and shelf, which are usually of two very different materials and mass. This is what you often hear when first installing them, and you react accordingly, positevly or negatively, when there is no change the system is not at the level that exposes the difference. The change may be subtle, but human's are sensitive, and us lot more than the majority to sound changes so we form opinions quickly, be they accurate or not.
A good rack, in my experience, does not do the above. It should have sufficient mass to be able to match the equipment on each shelf where possible, with individual isolation between all shelves down to sub 8Hz, provide some EMI barrier between sensitive components and amps for instance with large transformers. CLD damping, being in various forms, with various combinations of mass and materials can then be effectively used to 'damp' the equipment on each individual shelf. The result for long term success, which is the key here, is a calming effect, with no emphasis on any aspect of music, either pronounced or diminished.
Demonstrating this in A/B scenario is almost pointless. I have made many racks over my 30 years in audio, concluding with the Mirage, which implements all of what I personally have learnt, except how hard it is to successfully bring these to a very niche market! The most common comment I get here is that my system is very absorbing and 'listenable', which to me is the target. With footers, there is always going to be the need to tinker, move this foot, move that foot, try this here, that there, a never ending merry go round of trial and error, but with a good rack, all of that stops leaving you to simply play your music and enjoy it for what it is.
As far as Gian is concerned, it is worth moving on from your Target stands, for sure.. Ours may be beyond your budget, but you should take time of course and fully understand the implications of what you place a turntable on on a suspended wood floor. I have several user's who do this very successfully, even the 100Kg Melco, so it is possible
https://zaxisaudio.com/mirage-world-class-audio-furniture/
KR,
Paul
As stated above by others, footers can, and often do, alter the resonant frequency of the interface between component and shelf, which are usually of two very different materials and mass. This is what you often hear when first installing them, and you react accordingly, positevly or negatively, when there is no change the system is not at the level that exposes the difference. The change may be subtle, but human's are sensitive, and us lot more than the majority to sound changes so we form opinions quickly, be they accurate or not.
A good rack, in my experience, does not do the above. It should have sufficient mass to be able to match the equipment on each shelf where possible, with individual isolation between all shelves down to sub 8Hz, provide some EMI barrier between sensitive components and amps for instance with large transformers. CLD damping, being in various forms, with various combinations of mass and materials can then be effectively used to 'damp' the equipment on each individual shelf. The result for long term success, which is the key here, is a calming effect, with no emphasis on any aspect of music, either pronounced or diminished.
Demonstrating this in A/B scenario is almost pointless. I have made many racks over my 30 years in audio, concluding with the Mirage, which implements all of what I personally have learnt, except how hard it is to successfully bring these to a very niche market! The most common comment I get here is that my system is very absorbing and 'listenable', which to me is the target. With footers, there is always going to be the need to tinker, move this foot, move that foot, try this here, that there, a never ending merry go round of trial and error, but with a good rack, all of that stops leaving you to simply play your music and enjoy it for what it is.
As far as Gian is concerned, it is worth moving on from your Target stands, for sure.. Ours may be beyond your budget, but you should take time of course and fully understand the implications of what you place a turntable on on a suspended wood floor. I have several user's who do this very successfully, even the 100Kg Melco, so it is possible
https://zaxisaudio.com/mirage-world-class-audio-furniture/
KR,
Paul
I can second how listenable Paul's system is. Can't comment on his rack within that overall sound, but it must be having a part to play.
Great post Jack! Manufacturers usually look for consistency, something that is hard to get in this hobby. But is needed to create a market position.
Fully agree with you - it is why I said that the debate must be separated in sections and is not an absolute.
IMHO as soon as you address vibration you are changing their inherent sound. What should be considered the sound without vibration? Frozen down to zero? Used with the rack used by the designer in an isolated room?
This is the critical part. IMHO we must separate the internally generated energy from within the components themselves in this analysis. It enters in conflict with the need to isolate equipment from floor-borne energy
Excluding turntables or some CD spinners, I have not found any evidence that air borne feedback is significant with audio equipment. My room has some holes to allow cables and air tubes to go in close to the speaker zone and I have tried to move the system to the garage, separated by a thick solid wall that blocks most of the sound and there was no significant change in sound quality. I tried building a box around equipment with RPG abfusor panels and the sound did not change. IMHO if air borne feedback was significant I would expect people to sell sealed bell jars with vaccum pumps to assure us the best listening ...
However, floor-borne energy seems easy to isolate and objectively measure. We do it daily for scientific purposes. IMHO the only difficulty is that in audio it mixes with the internally generated energy from within the components themselves. When we isolate we break the path for draining this energy.
Active isolation is intrinsically also a noise generator. People hate considering this aspect of audio, but it can be a good thing - noise can increase perceived sound quality. But most of the time it is a taboo subject. Using the control software designers could easily emulate the response of a passive device. Would it sound like a passive isolator? My guess (just guess, surely) is that no!
The Tayko people should have many answers to these delicate questions - but I understand that it is there own intelectual property. Their idea of adding a specific grooved platform to the active table is really interesting.
The industry can get solutions to problems when they are clearly specified - specification of the problem to be solved is one of the most important phases of engineering design. Unfortunately stereo high-end is a poorly specified project.
Well there are no absolutes. Vibration physically alters audio equipment. The sound without vibration, or more likely with reduced vibration is ime typically much better - easily as much difference as could be made by cables - with a properly designed rack. Often, but not always, there is a gain in focus and clarity, tonality can improve, as well as various psychoacoustic characteristics. These can very much be a matter of degree, depending upon the vibration control in use - some are definitely better than others.
Otherwise the sound, that is without vibration control, is partly a function of whatever the component sits on.
Do you still have the original VA-Class platforms for your Lamm amps? Get used to the sound of amps without them, then put the platforms in place. Take notes of what you hear. Please tell me what you hear. Fwiw, Vladimir shows frequently with SRA platforms; he says "“SRA isolation bases are very serious, I highly recommend SRA products!” If you know Vladimir, he doesn't make such comments lightly. Listen for yourself to the effect of vibration control.
Different sources of energy. I don't understand the conflict you see; can you explain?
In one instance you're trying to prevent energy from entering the component - that should take place at the rack's feet, preventing that energy from entering the rack. Addressing internal energy is the more difficult imo, but not so much different than air-borne. Ideally you try to arrest sympathetic resonance from setting up - that happening will increase the vibration. Coupling of the component with the rack or platform is one key, near instantaneous response from the rack or platform is another as air-borne frequency changes quickly.
I agree. An active or passive device is in the same environment that it tries to address with components. There are somewht differnt opportunites there for racks vs platforms but the issues are the same. Not only does the device attempt to prevent, eg., foor-borne vibrations from entering the component, but prevent them from entering itself.
And yes, quite often the better solutions are proprietary.
That is the reasoning behind evaluating the vibrational characteristics of individual components along with where the rack or platform locates in the room, and what is the surrounding environment, etc. These are important for specifying the problem to solve - before building the isolation solution. That is one reason I like SRA; to them the problems are specified in order to determine the proper materials to address them. Audio does have its own problem domain, but solutions are not unique to it.
Good questions that deserve sufficient responses.
1. It helps to consider that for the past 40+ years the industry has brainwashed itself into believing that any product related to electrical and mechanical mgmt is nothing but a cheap accessory. Which should demonstrate that the industry and its leaders, if it has any, actually know very little about real performance. But we still have ourselves to blame for taking anybody at their word.
2. Without doubt, there is no less thoughtful and logical consideration given to any sector of high-end audio than managing vibrations. Incomplete, token, and dare I say half-assed efforts run rampant.
3. There exists 3 primary sources of vibrations. Floor-borne, air-borne, and internally-generated. But once captured at the component / speaker the source no longer matters.
4. It's imperative to note that one vibration source is not like the other 2. Two sources vary entirely on multiple variables while one vibration source is a constant the moment equipment is powered on.
5. There exists only 2 primary methods for managing vibrations i.e. isolation and resonant energy transfer. These two methods and their principles are so diametrically opposed that only one must be true and the other just a gross perversion of the one true method. Hence, hybrid solutions are not worth considering as viable methods.
6. Manufacturers are all over the map just as the rest of us regarding vibration mgmt. To this day most/all lack even a basic understanding between the 2 vastly differing methods. A careful study of the contrasts between most vendors' claims and their associated designs, materials, and installation methods should confirm that fact.
7. It is best to assume by default, every last component, speaker, and racking system out-of-the-box is already practicing the vibration isolation method to one degree or another. However, installing certain aftermarket products can slightly improve this default isolation level.
8. Because of #7, we have all already experienced to one degree or another the sonic benefits (if any) of isolation. Hence we should already realize such benefits are minor at best and usually with compromises i.e. better here but worse there.
8. Contrary to popular belief, it's impossible to simultaneously isolate an object from all vibrations. But with a little thought and commitment it is relatively easy to redirect vibrations (mechanical energy) away from our sensitive components / speakers before they can induce their catastrophic harm. Just like a lightning rod attracts and redirects unwanted energy before it can induce its catastrophic harm.
9. When one successfully prevents the travel of floor-borne vibrations from entering the component / speaker, they simultaneously just severed (isolated) the very same mechanical conduit intended to transfer all air-borne and internally-generated vibrations captured at the component / speaker, which now remain trapped within. This is why one vibration source must take precedence over other sources. IOW, choosing a vibration controlling method can never be a both/and but rather an either/or. Ditto when choosing which primary vibration source to address.
10. Mechanical energy, as with perhaps all forms of energy, seeks first and foremost to travel away from its point source (think components and speakers).
11. When an energy's ability to travel is impeded (think isolated and trapped), it will release all of its energy within. Think default out-of-the-box equipment.
12. To isolate an energy is to severe its conduit such that any potential ability of energy to travel ceases in a moment in time. Think of cutting an electrical cord, the act is instantaneous, implying there is zero settling-in time required to achieve any benefits when severing or isolating an energy's conduit.
13. Like a table lamp's electrical current flow along the electrical energy conduit, a mechanical energy conduit must be thorough and complete from beginning to end. IOW, there is little or no forgiveness for any compromise along a mechanical conduit's path and if there is, the entire conduit is deemed inferior and potentially becomes a victim of isolation with catastrophic results. Think default out-of-the-box equipment.
14. Isolation requires only one severing at a single point along the mechanical conduit's path to be deemed fully functioning. In contrast, every connection, fastener, and material must be of superior materials and designs before mechanical energy can sufficiently travel the length of the conduit.
15. In contrast, the benefits of a fully committed resonant energy transfer solution can be literally humongous. In all my experience and when staying within the confines of these basic principles, the sonic benefits of resonant energy transfer are many, they are massive, they are across the entire frequency spectrum, and there are no negatives whatsoever. Such results are to be expected when dealing with basic laws of nature. In fact, I find that the more extreme the effort the more extreme the results.
16. it's important to realize that electrical and mechanical energies are required for our playback systems to even function. Yet, when poorly managed, they will severely cripple our playback systems so they can only perform at their base performance levels due to a universal performance-limiting governor resulting from inferior vibration controlling methods (think hi-fi sound).
So why all the hub-bub about vibration mgmt? Though impossible to prove on paper where it seems every audio battle is won or lost these days, distortions induced by poorly managed vibrations are grossly under-rated as they and they alone are responsible for the universal performance-limiting governor crippling every last sensitive components' precision and accuracy. In fact, I attest the distortive harm induced by poorly managed vibrations easily outweigh all other distortions and possible component / speaker upgrades combined.
I could go on but hopefully I've sufficiently answered your first question.
Your other question was, what to do? If (and it so) that my claims above are true, I suggest seeking vendors fully committed to the resonant energy transfer methodology whose words, designs, materials, and installation methods seem entirely consistent.
Good luck.
BTW, you may want to reconsider your definition of a "top" company.
In these days i arrived at the end to choose the rack for my system and i am near ready to buy.
I have 2 choice,50% each.
Artesania Exoteryc or Finite Elemente,the new rack Pagode Master Reference MK II,that has more than old Pagode master reference,Honeycomb core shelf with ceramic ball coupling,so has a good improvement .
Luckily my friend is new distributor for Italy,so i can have very good discount.
For the look i prefer a little more Artesania,for the sound i don't know,i think very good both.
What do you suggest?
The suggestion of our dear Steve is not valid,because if i buy F. Elemente i can try his CS feet,while if i buy Artesania i cannot try and buy.
I am joking,dear Steve.
Regards
I have 2 choice,50% each.
Artesania Exoteryc or Finite Elemente,the new rack Pagode Master Reference MK II,that has more than old Pagode master reference,Honeycomb core shelf with ceramic ball coupling,so has a good improvement .
Luckily my friend is new distributor for Italy,so i can have very good discount.
For the look i prefer a little more Artesania,for the sound i don't know,i think very good both.
What do you suggest?
The suggestion of our dear Steve is not valid,because if i buy F. Elemente i can try his CS feet,while if i buy Artesania i cannot try and buy.
I am joking,dear Steve.
Regards
I suspect you could expect at best a 4 - 6% improvement (barely audible) with either design if all the planets are in alignment so you may as well go for the look.
This new rack looks gorgeous!
https://www.hifi-advice.com/blog/review/accessories-reviews/artesania-modular-rack/
https://www.hifi-advice.com/blog/review/accessories-reviews/artesania-modular-rack/
I have been using the SRA Craz Rack for over a decade. It is probably the only item in my audio system i would never sell. Built like a proverbial brick sxxt house and importantly to me, it looks like furniture. I am not as fan of silver and shiny looking racks nor black ones that reek of 70’s-80’s hi Fi.
Attachments
Easily the best looking audio rack on the planet. And, with its titanium endo-skeleton, perhaps the best made.
Lots of nice racks out there. I am happy with my 400 pound Mapleshade rack, but not crazy about the summer heat.
https://www.mapleshadestore.com/samsonracks.php
https://www.mapleshadestore.com/samsonracks.php
My custom rack is an attempt to practically address and incorporate all of the things that I have empirically found to be effective and important over years of experimentation and tweaking. I think it works really well but it is rather impractical to compare competing uber-rack products to each other, even if you have ready access to these sorts of products in your local market place.
Similar threads
