Why are vibration isolation products still considered accessories?

[Testy Troll]

Wrt concrete: Everything vibrates and every thing has a resonance frequency. The earth vibrates around three cycles per second. Resonance occurs when the frequency of excitation equals the natural frequency of an object - the so-called critical frequency. When resonance occurs, the amplitude of the vibration increases; it is limited only by the damping or abatement available to the object.

What is the resonant frequency of concrete? According to this site, the resonant frequency of concrete is 100Hz - 200Hz. At what frequency do subwoofers operate?

How well does concrete transmit vibration? How well does rebar transmit vibration?

All good info.
It also depends on what type of soil one's house rests upon.
My land is largely ledge which helps a bit.

My subs work below the 100-200 hz region.
So if your info is correct, I would think they have little effect on the floor.

Would be interested to know the dB level of Earth's 3 Hz constant vibration.
Possibly too low to really matter...

 

[stehno]

i see it differently. in my experience i try things and listen over time. it sounds better......or not. it's my approach. and i've found that the same method is not ideal for each piece of gear.


i'm a listener, and the what and why are not important to me. in fact, i realize that my techie knowledge is limited so since i can only understand the surface aspect of science, i don't get caught up in that side of things. i only care whether it makes the music more real.


i'm sure you could teach these guys about your perspective. but.......maybe not. they provide products to industry and research facilities. scroll down to learn some real science about vibration attenuation.

https://www.herzan.com/resources/tutorials.html


and i have no reason to doubt your experiences and if they work then enjoy them. i like my own for myself too.

Real science? Too funny. Mike. I'm pretty sure I just demonstrated using only a video and deductive reasoning that from an audible perspective floor-borne (and air-borne) vibrations are of little / no concern. Of course the actual in-room experience at 105db is many times more convincing than any homemade video. Moreover, I'm pretty sure I established that the distortions audibly impacting our playback systems is always constant and never fluctuating. Thus substantiating my other claim that internally-generated vibrations must induce more harm than floor-borne and air-borne combined. Since internally-generated vibration is the only constant source of unwanted energy.

Again, you or anybody else can easily confirm this themselves. And you don't even have to put on a white lab coat nor take any measurements. IOW, as far as I know, my earlier posts were perhaps more "real science" on the subject of floor-borne vibrations inducing sonic harm that you've experienced in 30+ years. At the very least, it's observable and repeatable by perhaps anybody with any playback system. And if I'm wrong, it should be all too easy to disprove.

Go ahead and try it. You've got what, 8 subwoofers? Listen to any bass-intensive cut at 105db or higher and then listen to the same cut again at 65db. If there is no audibly perceived increase in fidelity at the lower volume, what does that tell you? Why not make a video of it and share your findings?

As for your switching on and off yoru active isolators and hearing some audible differences / improvements, I don't doubt that for a second. If you didn't, you wouldn't own them. But I guarantee you that if indeed you are hearing improvements when active, it's not because they are reducing the audibly harmful effects of floor-borne vibrations. For the simple reason that they don't audibly exist.

As for your vendor Herzan, they seem awfully heavy into isolation and floor-borne vibrations - the very things I'm confident I've just disproved at least from an audible perspective in this thread.

Here's a little fun factoid. Even though high-end audio embraces numerous folklore that in turn are often times treated like a religion (think isolation), it's not the only industry basing performance-related subjects on folklore. But what high-end audio does is allow us to approach a technology from an entirely different audible perspective than those in other industries practicing the same methodologies. IOW, we need not be swayed by somebody's "scientific" measurement BS alone which seems all too common. But with a little due diligence we can perform experiments without pretending to be scientists and with even minimal listening skills confirm, reject, or disprove what we've been told.

So you're just a listener, eh? I remember a vibration thread a few years ago where you claimed to have as much or more experience and/or expertise as anybody regarding vibrations and/or products. You might recall me saying, so long as you limit it to isolation, you'd get no argument from me. I also remember a thread about 6 - 8 months ago where you and others purchased little accelerometers or smartphone apps and discussed findings how vibrations were minimized here and there, etc. I refrained from participating but this does not sound to me like a listener who cares not how or what a device improves. To the contrary, doesn't it sounds more like you and others were attempting to play scientist or at least technician? Seriously, did you guys really understand what you were measuring or to sufficiently interpret your findings from a performance perspective?

Likewise and with the narrative already pre-established, I suspect companies like Herzan in their mainstream markets, their lab coat technicians go out to a customer site to obtain readings using their sensitive little measuring instruments, compile their findings, and submit their report (including many graphs) to the powers that be showing just how far short of the mark their customer's current environment is.

And as you somewhat alluded, just as companies like Herzan realized that they can take their same methods, practices, and products and apply them to sensitive instruments in other industries like high-end audio, I've little doubt I could go into their markets and have a fun time.

But who would listen to me? The narrative and folklore have already been so well established and driven into our brains over so many decades, that grandchildren yet to be born probably already believe it. IOW, they would just laugh and mock me, even though I can easily demonstrate firsthand they sometimes haven't the foggiest what they do.

Kinda' like here in this very thread. Nevertheless, I still demonstrated floor-borne vibrations are of little/no concern. Whether or not anybody cares to believe it or not, it's still true.

Just like I also recently demonstrated in this forum using an in-room recording and deductive reasoning that not only is The Room far from the most important component of a playback system, but that the room is simply a requirement (like AC at the wall) and any old reasonable-enough room will suffice - at least with a superior performing playback system.

And there are other things I can prove as well. For example. Within days of reading the Dec 2014 edition of TAS introducing MQA I posted numerous comments in various threads in this very forum trying to warn others there was no truth whatsoever to the off-the-chart performance claims MQA reps were throwing at us. To this day I've yet to hear an MQA recording. And that was when my technology was still very much near its infancy from a performance perspective.

But I can only prove/disprove such things based on my referencing the advanced performance gains I'm able to achieve from the resonant energy transfer methodology. Working of course in conjunction with my extremely humble but well-thought-out playback system containing a source and amps that combined retail for $4k. Which leads to yet another folklore I'm able to disprove.

You are far from alone but yes, you are without doubt a rather experienced and serious user of multiple vendors' vibration mgmt products. But can you disprove a single high-end audio folklore not just with vibration-controlling products but with anything you employ in your playback system and/or environment?

High-end audio for all of its flaws (and beauty) and all of its folklore offers numerous opportunities to evaluate old technologies from an angle that other industries have not considered and/or not prepared to test. And in some ways makes it rather easy to validate whether or not these technologies and/or methods are just soap bubbles. You pop a soap bubble and there's nothing there.

But high-end audio is intended to be a performance-oriented industry, not a maintain the status quo industry. So if you're formally contesting or rejecting my claims about floor-borne vibrations being of little / no audible concern, by all means, please offer up some real evidence.

And if it should ever come down to real performance comparisons, not to offend but if my humble yet extremely-well-thought-out playback system's level of musicality was similar to yours, I just might not have sufficient evidence to disprove a single folklore. Otherwise, you would have already done so, right? On the other hand, I'm petty confident I can disprove most / all major performance-related folklore. Primarily because of the vastly superior vibration mgmt method known as resonant energy transfer combined with the extremes in which I take it.

But as far as I know, it's only because of previously unheard of performance advancements from using resonant energy transfer which adheres entirely to basic laws of nature the the behaviors of unwanted energy. For which I think my lightning rod analogy is a fabulous illustration.

 

[Audio_Dog]

Vibration feet have been turning up in some products as OEM for the last few years. The only US brand I can think of is Aesthetix which offers some products with HRS Nimbus feet.

Mnpctech isolation feet are made in Minnesota, https://www.mnpctech.com/collections/turntable-lsolation-feet

Michael Fremer endorsed them in Stereophile (november 2018, technics SR-1000 article),

 

[tima]

Anyway, that got me thinking. The vibration isolation methodology presumably has a few tenets and if such tenets exist, no doubt its first tenet would have to be something like,

"Of the three primary sources of vibrations, floor-borne vibrations induce the greatest sonic harm and therefore it is paramount that we isolate our sensitive instruments from this most harmful source of unwanted energy."
I've included an in-room video recording containing snippets exhibiting various types of authoritative bass where the in-room volume levels ranged between 103 - 106db (note the in-room gestalt is far greater than what's exhibited in the recording). In the video you should also notice that the distance between my rack and my single 15" subwoofer is a mere 24-inches between closest points making superior contact with the sub-flooring and the rack and sub even share the same floor joist and maybe even the same sub-floor plywood panel.

I should also note that my components are so tightly coupled to their shelves with previously unheard of insane levels of compressive forces as is each shelf to the rack's base. For example. There is roughly 1000 lbs. of compressive force just on the amps toward its shelf. IOW, metal tightly coupled against metal with no intended isolation anywhere. No doubt, the death knell for my playback system if indeed floor-borne vibrations induce the most sonic harm, right?

Given my configuration and assuming floor-borne vibrations induce the most sonic harm,

1. Then why aren't any of these recording snippets wreaking even a hint of perceived sonic havoc on the playback presentation especially with in-room recording volume levels in the 103-106db range?

2. Given that my metal components are without doubt the most tightly coupled of any components to my all steel racking system which in turn is tightly coupled to the sub-flooring exactly as the subwoofer using the exact same coupling method and products (my own) and given these same listening volume levels, shouldn't my playback system experience more ill-effects of nasty floor-borne vibrations than perhaps every other playback system in the world?

3. Better yet, why aren't the distortions and playback fidelity going up and down in opposition to one another like yo-yo's before and after every significant deep bass note? Wouldn't that be indisputable evidence that floor-borne vibrations induce at least some sonic harm? Especially since many isolationists purport that lowest frequencies induce the most harm?

Yet, no perceivable audible evidence exists in this video or perhaps anywhere else and as such I can only think of three distinct but still inter-related possibilities:

1. Floor-borne vibrations are inconsequential to all of us.

2. One vibration mgmt methodology is based perhaps entirely on folklore and is so off-base it's first tenet or principle isn't even in the ball park.

3. Floor-borne vibrations induce little or no sonic harm but somebody decades ago experienced their 400 lbs. party guest dancing in front of their turntable causing the stylus to jump 14 grooves and confused vibrations with shock and impact. An entirely different problem requiring an entirely different remedy that's entirely outside the scope of vibration mgmt but still that mindset has prevailed to this very day. See #2 above.

Stehno,

I applaud your efforts to investigate the impact of vibrations on your stereo system. And it is interesting that you draw tenets or generalized principles regarding the impact of floor-borne vibrations from your examples. I think you have described your experience in your room but, with due respect I don't believe you have proved in any way a general principle that floor-borne vibrations have little or no impact on a stereo.

1. Just in terms of doing an experiment, have you measured for vibrations in your floor to establish that they exist? I know you have a subwoofer near your rack/stand. (Pictures would be helpful - the video image is not.) Without establishing that there are floor-borne vibrations with a certain frequency andd amplitude you have not established the existence of what you claim does not induce sonic harm.

2. Have you performed a before and after test? For example, measuring vibrations in your equipment without your various abatement efforts in place and with them in place to establish there is little or no difference in vibration impact when you use your subwoofer? Assuming the existence of the same floor vibrations in both tests.

3. You claim you do not perceive "a hint of perceived sonic havoc" from floor based vibrations.

First, that is your singular perception; I think drawing a general principle would require confirmation from multiple listeners, not just one. I'm not questioning what you hear, but believe additional listeners are needed to get to something general. And ideally additional listening rooms. Your information is interesting but anecdotal.

Second, what is "perceived sonic havoc"? What is it that you claim not to hear? How do you know you are not hearing it? Is it possible that your stereo is impacted by floor-borne vibrations and could sound different in their absence?

Third, can you distinquish between "perceived sonic havoc" wrought by floor-borne vibrations versus such caused by other sources of vibration?

Imo, the above are some of the issues and conditions that have not been addressed. It's partly a question of the methodology behind your claims. I believe you need to make a more rigorous case for them than has been done thus far. Characterizing the belief that structural or floor-borne vibrations do effect stereos as 'folklore' begs the question. Simply saying 'see what I'm telling you and prove me wrong' is, imo, not convincing.

There are many real world cases where extensive isolation solutions are put in place because of structural vibration problems impacting scientific instruments, particular visual imaging instruments such as CAT scanners. Why is audio different?

Thank you. I will leave this here.

 

[Kingrex]

I can feel something big about to happen. It's in the air, or maybe floor, or is it born within.

 

[stehno]

Stehno,

I applaud your efforts to investigate the impact of vibrations on your stereo system. And it is interesting that you draw tenets or generalized principles regarding the impact of floor-borne vibrations from your examples.

Thanks, tima, and I applaud your giving this your consideration. It was your post in the other thread that led me to opening this thread. Also I'm sure it shows that I've no science background whatsoever (if I did I'd no doubt be an isolationist) so I'm sure I've not covered my bases thoroughly as some but hopefully more than others.

That said, I've never set out to investigate anything related to vibrations or perhaps any other audio-related topic. That's just not my style. It's actually more happenstance than anything. Just like It was happenstance that I even became aware of the resonant energy transfer method and in the early days, not a huge deal. But where a few others adhering to this same methodology have gone maybe 2 blocks down this path I like to think I've gone maybe 2 miles further down the same path and it's made all the difference. But only because as I kept trying other more extreme variations of the same methodology the improvements just kept soaring.

To give you an idea, I've not touched ANY part of my playback system in 3 years except to fine tune my subwoofer (but never moved it) and yet I've still experienced 3 very nice improvements just in the past 6 weeks. That's one of the beauties of resonant energy transfer in that like an old dwelling the foundation never ever fully settles and the improvements keep coming. And as the musicality continues to soar, other things we’ve considered status quo or gospel become more questionable. Even participating in forums like this, those supporting the status quo can become rather dogmatic if not religious.

I think you have described your experience in your room but, with due respect I don't believe you have proved in any way a general principle that floor-borne vibrations have little or no impact on a stereo.

Although my focus of late is solely on my current environment alone, like many I've experienced plenty of other environments in time past e.g. my own previous rooms, friend's and customers' homes, dealers, audio shows, exhibiting at a few audio shows myself, etc.

As for not proving floor-borne vibrations have little / no sonic impact, well....

1) Are not listening rooms vibration-rich environments presumably at least due to the speaker's output impacting the floor and the air?

2) Do not many / most isolationists claim lower frequencies induce the most sonic harm?

3) Do not well-tuned subwoofers induce more low frequencies than the average speaker?

4) Do not isolationists attempt to "isolate" their speakers and their components from the floor?

5) Do not low frequencies played at higher volumes induce even more floor-borne vibrations?

6) Are not subwoofers and speakers anchored rigidly coupled to the sub-floor (or even the carpet) inducing floor-borne vibrations?

7) Are we not told that floor-borne vibrations wreak sonic havoc on our playback systems and that is why we must isolate?

8) Do not my components mounted metal-to-metal to my rack with a tremendous compressive force and the rack and subwoofer both rigidly mounted to the same sub-flooring make for an extremely tense and stressed conduit make my components potentially more sensitive to floor-borne vibrations than other configs?

9) Do not isolationists caution us over and over again about floor-borne vibrations entering our racks and sonically impacting our sensitive instruments?

10) Do not floor-borne vibrations fluctuate particularly with the music and volume and proximity of the objects causing the bulk of unwanted energy?

11) I've yet to ever encounter any playback system where the playback fidelity fluctuated like I presume floor-borne and air-borne vibrations do.

12) Are there not over 1.2M earthquakes around the world registering 2.3 or greater on the Richter scale each year? Is not the earth constantly shaking?

So I offered up my video of cuts exhibiting various types of authoritative bass playing at 103-106db with my subwoofer a mere 2 ft away from my oh-so-rigid rack. That said, I can't help but think if there's any truth to even half of the above conditions, perhaps more than any other my system should sound like absolute crap along with the fidelity potentially fluctuating between intense beats. Yet, I cannot point to any time with my own system where I've heard that.

Might floor-borne vibration induce negligible sonic harm in any way. Sure. But I can't say I've ever been able to pinpoint an experience to that.

If I've not proven anything "scientifically", I hope I've at least made the negative impact of floor-borne vibrations highly questionable.

To be continued…

 

[stehno]

Cont.

1. Just in terms of doing an experiment, have you measured for vibrations in your floor to establish that they exist? I know you have a subwoofer near your rack/stand. (Pictures would be helpful - the video image is not.) Without establishing that there are floor-borne vibrations with a certain frequency and amplitude you have not established the existence of what you claim does not induce sonic harm.

I've never attempted to take any measurements. Why would I? Where should I measure, the chassis surface? Which part? If I was serious about measuring shouldn't I be measuring circuit boards, transistors, op-amps, etc? Objects in the direct line of fire or closest to processing the input signal? Does ANYBODY really know which objects should be measured where everything already vibrates especially in a vibration-rich environment? Does ANYBODY really know how to interpret what they've measured? I'm reminded of my engaging a rather renowned component designer who claimed to also be a vibration expert by executing what he called "the ding test" where he would flick his middle finger against the chassis' top plate. He wasn't too happy when I suggested he call it "the ding-a-ling test." But of course when he mentions to his audience "the ding test" they gobble it up as if it means something.

2. Have you performed a before and after test? For example, measuring vibrations in your equipment without your various abatement efforts in place and with them in place to establish there is little or no difference in vibration impact when you use your subwoofer? Assuming the existence of the same floor vibrations in both tests.

My methods take weeks, months, and sometimes even years to settle-in / reach maturity so even if I did dismantle everything (I won’t) how does that change anything when the level of musicality collapses? IOW, nothing I do consciously anywhere in my system is geared toward isolation anyway so dismantling is a moot point. But as I said several times, due to my system’s extremely rigid configuration tightly coupled to the floor (not isolated), it should easily be far more sensitive to floor-borne vibrations than perhaps any other. For example. Say you were present when I disassembled all the resonant energy transfer items and then played a tune for you and it sounded very unmusical, what would you instinctively conclude? More importantly, why?

3. You claim you do not perceive "a hint of perceived sonic havoc" from floor based vibrations.

Indeed. Though I would not entirely rule out that any remnant of any unwanted energy did not at some level compromise the output even if it's so small it's not audibly discernable.

First, that is your singular perception; I think drawing a general principle would require confirmation from multiple listeners, not just one. I'm not questioning what you hear, but believe additional listeners are needed to get to something general. And ideally additional listening rooms. Your information is interesting but anecdotal.

But isn't that your singular perception that this is my singular perception? I'm half-joking but still. As I said in another post a few weeks back about the room being the most important component, how many times must one fly to the moon to prove it can be done?

Second, what is "perceived sonic havoc"? What is it that you claim not to hear? How do you know you are not hearing it? Is it possible that your stereo is impacted by floor-borne vibrations and could sound different in their absence?

Good questions. But again based on the extreme rigidity of my components and rack and subwoofer to the flooring system, their extremely close proximity, the volume levels, the very authoritative bass examples, etc, my config should be far more sensitie to anything coming up out of the floor. If you listened to the first video demo, hopefully you were just a bit impressed with the sonics. Hopefully you heard no fluctuations of fidelity between bass notes. I've heard plenty of systems that would never attempt to play that type of music at those volume levels, nor should they.

BTW, per your request I’ve included a still pic of my config. I've also included here a short but fairly torturous piece that has significant bass notes along with sustained vocals that on many/most systems should cause significant breakup and/or flattening out even at much lesser volume levels. Do you hear any such thing here especially during the significant bass notes?

Third, can you distinquish between "perceived sonic havoc" wrought by floor-borne vibrations versus such caused by other sources of vibration?

No I cannot. Nor should anybody else. Sonic havoc of any sort is caused by audible and inaudible distortions that really do nothing but raise the universal noise floor of a given playback system while superior remedies will lower the universal noise floor. The higher the noise floor, the more music info read and processed will remain inaudible below the much raised noise floor while that which remains audible at the speaker will sound more corrupted. And vice versa for a much lowered noise floor. IOW, a given playback system's noise floor is universal in that it does not discriminate between frequencies or instruments or even discern sources of distortions but rather everything’s impacted equally across the entire frequency spectrum even though we may perceive or notice some characteristics impacted more than others.

Otherwise, I've pretty much already addressed this directly or indirectly here and in previous posts. But bear in mind that I'm basing much of my argument on what we've been told for decades by both “science-minded” types and isolationists alike that floor-borne vibrations will induce sonic harm and that we must protect our components from these evils. Let me ask you. Why do you suppose the onus be on me to disprove the isolationists' claims that floor-borne vibration induce sonic harm? Shouldn't the onus be on those, including mfg'ers of isolation products claiming they do? Isolation has been a religion for well over 30 years now, if there's any truth whatsoever, surely somebody somewhere can prove audibly that floor-borne vibrations negatively impact our sonics. To the best of my knowledge it's never been done, nor can it. Except perhaps to show us on paper cute little vibration measurement readings and graphs. To the best of my knowledge it's a nothing burger or fake news only.

Imo, the above are some of the issues and conditions that have not been addressed. It's partly a question of the methodology behind your claims. I believe you need to make a more rigorous case for them than has been done thus far. Characterizing the belief that structural or floor-borne vibrations do effect stereos as 'folklore' begs the question. Simply saying 'see what I'm telling you and prove me wrong' is, imo, not convincing.

That's fine. I happen to think I presented enough overwhelming evidence and/or logic to at least bring matters into question. But regardless of topic, it's always difficult to compete with anything we've been told for decades. IMO, I've already gone above and beyond and did a reasonable or better job. I don't lose a thing if others choose to maintain the status quo.

There are many real world cases where extensive isolation solutions are put in place because of structural vibration problems impacting scientific instruments, particular visual imaging instruments such as CAT scanners. Why is audio different?

Thank you. I will leave this here.

High-end audio is most likely no different whatsoever. Whether it's a $30k atomic force microscope or a $60k CDP, a senstive electronic instrument where performance is paramount is a sensitive electronic instrument. We just happen have an opportunity to use a different auditory sense to confirm or deny much of what we’ve been told that's supposedly backed up with measurements and graphs. It's all too easy for any of us to be misled by measurements and graphs alone where even many of those taking the measurements are potentially guilty of drinking the Kool-Aid. But the problems of distortions absolutely crippling ANY sensitive electronic instrument should be absolutely universal as should its remedy.

Thanks for your thoughtful response,

 

[Kingrex]

I still dont get Stehno's point. So he focused down on internal noise. So what. Why would you think clamping all your gear together and coupling it to the floor is a good idea. There are so many differeing types of equipment that in my mind have individual considerations on how best to rack it.

And who's isolation, damping, clamping, footers etc take years to settle and be heard. I immediately hear the difference between a stillpoint and manufacturer feet or some concoction of my own under any component or speaker part in my system. As such I also hear different approaches to isolation render different sonic results. Some not so good.

Good for Stenho to feel what he did is best for his sytem. But it sure as heck may sound horrible on my gear. Then again it may sound great. I have never built a steel or wood frame rack designed to clamp each item solidly in place. Which now that I think of it may result in cross contamination of noise beteeen devices.

My floor is wood Ibeams. Transformers coupled to it act like sticks on a skin. The whole house resonates vibrations coupled to the floor. I have therefore had to spend time and money isolationg equipment such as refrigerators and fans from my building structure. Unfortunate for me they are loud in my living room where the stereo is.

I liked Blackmorec response because it was recognizing there are different vibrations from different sources with different effects and various ways that may be appropriate to mitigate them.

Even if there were 1 and only 1 source of vibration and it was internal, there are maybe numerous ways to deal with it. Hopefully the manufacturer did the heavy work and got rid of it for you. But I would agree with anyone saying its odd we have to mess with so many footers and stands to extract the most performance out of our gear as possible. Why isn't more done by the makers. Is it every home is a different environment and no one solution is a catch all correct technique to deal with internal equipment noise. Manufacturers therefore use a cost friendly approach and let us find what suites our individual situation best.

 

[stehno]

I still dont get Stehno's point. So he focused down on internal noise. So what. Why would you think clamping all your gear together and coupling it to the floor is a good idea. There are so many differeing types of equipment that in my mind have individual considerations on how best to rack it.

And who's isolation, damping, clamping, footers etc take years to settle and be heard. I immediately hear the difference between a stillpoint and manufacturer feet or some concoction of my own under any component or speaker part in my system. As such I also hear different approaches to isolation render different sonic results. Some not so good.

Good for Stenho to feel what he did is best for his sytem. But it sure as heck may sound horrible on my gear. Then again it may sound great. I have never built a steel or wood frame rack designed to clamp each item solidly in place. Which now that I think of it may result in cross contamination of noise beteeen devices.

My floor is wood Ibeams. Transformers coupled to it act like sticks on a skin. The whole house resonates vibrations coupled to the floor. I have therefore had to spend time and money isolationg equipment such as refrigerators and fans from my building structure. Unfortunate for me they are loud in my living room where the stereo is.

I liked Blackmorec response because it was recognizing there are different vibrations from different sources with different effects and various ways that may be appropriate to mitigate them.

Even if there were 1 and only 1 source of vibration and it was internal, there are maybe numerous ways to deal with it. Hopefully the manufacturer did the heavy work and got rid of it for you. But I would agree with anyone saying its odd we have to mess with so many footers and stands to extract the most performance out of our gear as possible. Why isn't more done by the makers. Is it every home is a different environment and no one solution is a catch all correct technique to deal with internal equipment noise. Manufacturers therefore use a cost friendly approach and let us find what suites our individual situation best.

If I take your comments on their face, I probably couldn't disagree with much of what you say here. Kinda' like vibration isolation and sonic harm induced by floor-borne vibrations which also sounds oh-so-right-on-the-money when taken on its face. Vibrations are bad for my gear, therefore I must isolate my gear from vibrations. Who besides me in the past 30+ years hasn't nodded their head in full agreement with such a simple concept? At the same time, who has really endeavored to determine if there's any substance to what we're being told?

But when it comes down to it, this seems to be the real problem with high-end audio when it comes to performance. So much is just taken on its face with nobody really and thoroughly diving deeper to see if there's truly any substance to what we're being told. Or maybe most just take for granted that others know what they're talking about.

It's called folklore.

But just so nobody thinks it's just me in my closet coming up with this stuff, here's a quote from an ultra-high-end distributor's website in Hong Kong who on the very first day of assembling my product opened a thread on their website describing their experience reaching out to the president of Zanden audio in Japan with the following:



This distributor installed one of my products in each of their two $500k showroom systems and there were numerous other and better feedback about performance but this one happened to be on the very first day when they just finished assembling and installing. Moreover, I licensed an "accessory" to another audio mgf'er that sold for $159 and near as I can tell every feedback they provided me included the phrase, "best kept secret in high-end audio".

BTW, this was all when my technology/performance was very much in its infancy and through continuing R&D, my current version is probably closer to 4 times the performer of the models I sold to this distributor.

So you see, it has nothing to do about how I feel, like I just tasted my favorite ice cream. It's about very real potential performance verses very real and very limited performance. It's about universal distortions absolutely crippling our sensitive instruments so severely that the poorly remedied distortions actually induce a performance-limiting governor or glass ceiling so that no matter what else one may do, they cannot go beyond that glass ceiling. To the best of my knowledge, the resonant energy transfer methodology is the only technology of any kind that at least when taken to extremes not goes beyond that glass ceiling but absolutely pulverizes it and keeps right on going.

IOW, there are not multiple paths, methodologies, and principles to get to the pinnacle of playback performance. Especially when the two methodologies are so diametrically opposed.

Like I said earlier, if others choose to maintain the status quo established 30+ years ago, I don't lose a thing. Ultimately high-end audio is about extreme levels of musicality from our playback systems as they strive toward the live performance and the enjoyment of such performance levels.

If others choose to maintain the status quo established 30+ years ago and I don't lose a thing, guess who does?

For the record, I've not been in business for 8 years so I've nothing to sell but a vastly superior methodology.

 

[tima]

...Even if there were 1 and only 1 source of vibration and it was internal, there are maybe numerous ways to deal with it. Hopefully the manufacturer did the heavy work and got rid of it for you. But I would agree with anyone saying its odd we have to mess with so many footers and stands to extract the most performance out of our gear as possible. Why isn't more done by the makers. Is it every home is a different environment and no one solution is a catch all correct technique to deal with internal equipment noise ....

This sounds exactly right to me.

Without meaning to lecture, here are simple truths: Vibration is an excitation or force oscillating at a specific frequency over time (expressed in Hertz). Vibration has a particular amplitude that describes its magnitude or travel distance.

Every thing has a resonant frequency. Resonance occurs when the frequency of excitation equals the natural frequency of an object. When resonance occurs, the amplitude of the vibration increases; it is limited only by the damping or abatement available to the object. Resonance can lead to unwanted frequency responses and phase distortions that may impair tonality and result in false coloration of your music. Vibration physically alters audio equipment.

Okay, let's imagine agreement on a core understanding of the problem domain. Is a core solution possible?

Exactly what vibrates and when it vibrates varies with the specific gear you have, the specific context in which the gear obtains, and with each piece of music you play. The very system that provides the musical object of your desire attacks itself in doing so.

From an abatement/isolation perspective, a collection of components in an audio room bring a staggering number of variables, not the least of which is context.

I don't know how reasonable it is to organize components into types, 'types' being a pretty squishy concept. Suppose for example we consider something straight-forward like electronic amplifiers, which can include amps, preamps, linestages and phonostages. Many (most) will include things like capacitors, resistors, chokes, transformers, inputs, outputs, printed circuit boards or point-to-point wiring, perhaps tubes, etc. Components reside in cases of varying design, materials, size, weight, etc. And each case will sit on something. I cannot see how one solution addresses all scenarios.

Even if we have a general understanding of how vibration impacts say just capacitors, even with all the different materials in different configurations of different capacitors, is it feasible to find the resonant frequency of each one and arrive at a single abatement solution - one that inhibits vibrations entering the cap while enabling extant vibration to leave it? Who would put the effort into doing that?

There are many many vibration abatement or isolation products available for audio gear. Some will work more effectively with certain components than others. And how will you know? Unless you have a specific solution already designed for a specific component, you have to try the product(s) in your system. No doubt any given product will have some effect that people will find desirable or at least yield different sonics. The tendency is to adopt one solution for all components in a system. Looking back over the last 20 or so years I see a lot of fads - the footer or platform of the month club is alive and well as audiophiles run from one to another.

 

[Blackmorec]

There are a few other issues that we haven’t yet touched on, namely:

• Certain methods of vibration control can themselves introduce emphasis and colouration, or can make the music sound slow and plodding. This happens if the controls somehow affect the microdynamics of the music and the initial pinpoint percussive start of each note is missing, making the music sound boring and uninteresting.
• Coupling the system tightly to groundborne vibration also has the effect of blurring the music, making lyrics difficult to understand for example.
• Resonant frequencies are the most easlily excitable, but their harmonic frequencies are not far behind
• Certain components suffer from a multitude of different vibrational sources. As a simple example, take a network component that plugs into the wall. Firstly there‘s external vibration caused by the wall vibrating in time to the music. Then there’s the internal vibration generated by the rectification of AC to DC and finally the vibration from the internal transformer. If you want the unit to perform at its best, you need to ameliorate all three sources of vibration
  As illustration, the following pictures show a modified wi-fi access point with anti-vibrational wall mounting and remote 5V DC supply.
  
  When it comes to vibration you’ve got to know whats present and treat it specifically.

 

[wil]

If I take your comments on their face, I probably couldn't disagree with much of what you say here. Kinda' like vibration isolation and sonic harm induced by floor-borne vibrations which also sounds oh-so-right-on-the-money when taken on its face. Vibrations are bad for my gear, therefore I must isolate my gear from vibrations. Who besides me in the past 30+ years hasn't nodded their head in full agreement with such a simple concept? At the same time, who has really endeavored to determine if there's any substance to what we're being told?

But when it comes down to it, this seems to be the real problem with high-end audio when it comes to performance. So much is just taken on its face with nobody really and thoroughly diving deeper to see if there's truly any substance to what we're being told. Or maybe most just take for granted that others know what they're talking about.

It's called folklore.

But just so nobody thinks it's just me in my closet coming up with this stuff, here's a quote from an ultra-high-end distributor's website in Hong Kong who on the very first day of assembling my product opened a thread on their website describing their experience reaching out to the president of Zanden audio in Japan with the following:

View attachment 66767

This distributor installed one of my products in each of their two $500k showroom systems and there were numerous other and better feedback about performance but this one happened to be on the very first day when they just finished assembling and installing. Moreover, I licensed an "accessory" to another audio mgf'er that sold for $159 and near as I can tell every feedback they provided me included the phrase, "best kept secret in high-end audio".

BTW, this was all when my technology/performance was very much in its infancy and through continuing R&D, my current version is probably closer to 4 times the performer of the models I sold to this distributor.

So you see, it has nothing to do about how I feel, like I just tasted my favorite ice cream. It's about very real potential performance verses very real and very limited performance. It's about universal distortions absolutely crippling our sensitive instruments so severely that the poorly remedied distortions actually induce a performance-limiting governor or glass ceiling so that no matter what else one may do, they cannot go beyond that glass ceiling. To the best of my knowledge, the resonant energy transfer methodology is the only technology of any kind that at least when taken to extremes not goes beyond that glass ceiling but absolutely pulverizes it and keeps right on going.

IOW, there are not multiple paths, methodologies, and principles to get to the pinnacle of playback performance. Especially when the two methodologies are so diametrically opposed.

Like I said earlier, if others choose to maintain the status quo established 30+ years ago, I don't lose a thing. Ultimately high-end audio is about extreme levels of musicality from our playback systems as they strive toward the live performance and the enjoyment of such performance levels.

If others choose to maintain the status quo established 30+ years ago and I don't lose a thing, guess who does?

For the record, I've not been in business for 8 years so I've nothing to sell but a vastly superior methodology.

Stehno, Your arguments and video demonstration are interesting, but I wonder what your ultimate goal is in sharing them?

Are you trying to find a manufacturer/distributor to license your methodology to? (I recall from your last foray on this subject, Taiko Audio expressed interest in talking with you. I guess nothing came of that?)

Or are you simply trying to spread your personal truth about vibration management and illuminate us to our misguided efforts? If this is the case, why not show us pictures of your setup that aren't obscured in darkness and a detailed guide for someone motivated to try this methodology?

 

[Kingrex]

If I take your comments on their face, I probably couldn't disagree with much of what you say here. Kinda' like vibration isolation and sonic harm induced by floor-borne vibrations which also sounds oh-so-right-on-the-money when taken on its face. Vibrations are bad for my gear, therefore I must isolate my gear from vibrations. Who besides me in the past 30+ years hasn't nodded their head in full agreement with such a simple concept? At the same time, who has really endeavored to determine if there's any substance to what we're being told?

But when it comes down to it, this seems to be the real problem with high-end audio when it comes to performance. So much is just taken on its face with nobody really and thoroughly diving deeper to see if there's truly any substance to what we're being told. Or maybe most just take for granted that others know what they're talking about.

It's called folklore.

But just so nobody thinks it's just me in my closet coming up with this stuff, here's a quote from an ultra-high-end distributor's website in Hong Kong who on the very first day of assembling my product opened a thread on their website describing their experience reaching out to the president of Zanden audio in Japan with the following:

View attachment 66767

This distributor installed one of my products in each of their two $500k showroom systems and there were numerous other and better feedback about performance but this one happened to be on the very first day when they just finished assembling and installing. Moreover, I licensed an "accessory" to another audio mgf'er that sold for $159 and near as I can tell every feedback they provided me included the phrase, "best kept secret in high-end audio".

BTW, this was all when my technology/performance was very much in its infancy and through continuing R&D, my current version is probably closer to 4 times the performer of the models I sold to this distributor.

So you see, it has nothing to do about how I feel, like I just tasted my favorite ice cream. It's about very real potential performance verses very real and very limited performance. It's about universal distortions absolutely crippling our sensitive instruments so severely that the poorly remedied distortions actually induce a performance-limiting governor or glass ceiling so that no matter what else one may do, they cannot go beyond that glass ceiling. To the best of my knowledge, the resonant energy transfer methodology is the only technology of any kind that at least when taken to extremes not goes beyond that glass ceiling but absolutely pulverizes it and keeps right on going.

IOW, there are not multiple paths, methodologies, and principles to get to the pinnacle of playback performance. Especially when the two methodologies are so diametrically opposed.

Like I said earlier, if others choose to maintain the status quo established 30+ years ago, I don't lose a thing. Ultimately high-end audio is about extreme levels of musicality from our playback systems as they strive toward the live performance and the enjoyment of such performance levels.

If others choose to maintain the status quo established 30+ years ago and I don't lose a thing, guess who does?

For the record, I've not been in business for 8 years so I've nothing to sell but a vastly superior methodology.

Ahhhhh, so your manufacturing a rack or something that goes onto an existing rack that clamps gear? Is that correct?

 

[stehno]

There are a few other issues that we haven’t yet touched on, namely:

• Certain methods of vibration control can themselves introduce emphasis and colouration, or can make the music sound slow and plodding. This happens if the controls somehow affect the microdynamics of the music and the initial pinpoint percussive start of each note is missing, making the music sound boring and uninteresting.
• Coupling the system tightly to groundborne vibration also has the effect of blurring the music, making lyrics difficult to understand for example.
• Resonant frequencies are the most easlily excitable, but their harmonic frequencies are not far behind
• Certain components suffer from a multitude of different vibrational sources. As a simple example, take a network component that plugs into the wall. Firstly there‘s external vibration caused by the wall vibrating in time to the music. Then there’s the internal vibration generated by the rectification of AC to DC and finally the vibration from the internal transformer. If you want the unit to perform at its best, you need to ameliorate all three sources of vibration
  As illustration, the following pictures show a modified wi-fi access point with anti-vibrational wall mounting and remote 5V DC supply.
  
  When it comes to vibration you’ve got to know whats present and treat it specifically.

Blackmorec, you and Tima are killing me here. It seems you guys (and many others) can't stop chasing the isolation windmills even for a moment. Who cares about any potential alternative solutions or ways of thinking? Even if isolation's all over map and defies basic laws of nature, just give me something anything I've been confortable with all my life so I can embrace it? Did I read that correctly?

Certain methods of vibration control? I'm only aware of two primary methods that are diametrically opposed to one another. Isolation and resonant energy transfer. Actually, 3 if you include a hybrid of the two which actually everybody everywhere in high-end audio and other industries is practicing to one degree or another.

Assuming a scale of 0 to 10 with complete isolation at zero and complete resonant energy transfer at 10. Zero is impossible to achieve as general laws of physic / nature prohibit it so nobody is practicing complete isolation even though some may sleep better thinking they are. 10 is theoretically possible to achieve where everything is essnetually a superior mechanical conduit but realistically unreasonable. Since isolationist mfg'ers all too often and unknowingly incorporate materials and designs and techniques borrowed from resonant energy transfer (yet still claim them to be isolation products) I suspect the vast majority are playing around 2 or 3 mark on that scale.

BTW, there's one sure fire method to determine whether a vibration mgmt product is truly isolation-based or resonant energy-based. Can you describe what that method is?

Not too far from the same mark on that same scale might be one who does nothing but use the soft OEM footers already fastened to their components at the factory. BTW, to the best of my knowledge, soft footers were never initially installed on electric components to isolate from unwanted vibratiions but rather so as not the mar the furniture its placed on. But with the birth and populatity of vibration isolation, isolationist mfg'ers can without any additional cost claim their soft footers are isolating their component from unwanted vibrations. Nice.

You also speak as though you have significant experience with resonant energy transfer and IMO that simply is not possible. You obviously have some head knowledge but I cannot believe it's from significant or real firsthand experience. Otherwise, you would have NEVER made perhaps any of these comments. If you have, I apologize and I ask you provide examples of firsthand experience. But yes, I suppose certain implementations of resonant energy transfer can induce a blurring effect. Since you've obviously experienced this, perhaps you're willing to share under what conditions this blurring may occur? If not, I'd be happy to share when and why.

Certain components suffer from a mutitude of vibration sources? So the isolation methodology discriminates between electronic components? I'd love to hear which components. Could you also please list just the top 15 or 20 vibration sources?

Resonant frequencies are an issue, eh? Tell me, since most everything within an electronic component is either snuggly, tautly, or tightly fastened, or glued or soldered into place, how does the act of joining these disparate objects together alter an object's resonant frequency? I would think even determining a singular internal object's resonant frequency at the test bench with 100% accuracy is impossible to achieve since that object must anchored, placed, or gripped by some apparatus just to take the reading and that apparatus would no doubt alter the object's natural frequency. Unless perhaps readings are obtainable while the singular object is levitating. But then we'd probably have to consider the altitude and oxygen content.

Since you obviously are pleased with going down this abyss of a rabbit hole, then you can't just stop at a transistor, circuit board, op-amp, etc. You have to keep drilling down to every last component's natural frequency on a given circuit board, inside an op-amp, inside a transistor, etc, even any solder and epoxies, glues, and fastener types of which each have their own resonant frequency. Now we're getting back to Tima's comments in another thread about vibration isolation problems and solutions being all over the map. And then some.

Have you considered the possibility of the electronic component's resonant frequency as a whole or single object since everything within is either fastened, pinched, or glued in some fashion? Hence, every resonant frequency within the component is impacting every other object's resonant frequency within, right?

But even if you did, then a single electronic component's resonant frequency is now impacted by the platform upon which it's placed e.g. grandma's coffee table, rack, shelf, etc. Which leads us to the resonant frequencies of every object and connection and fastener within that platform singularly and as a dependent whole. Not to mention that platform's resonant frequency is now altered by the electronic component just placed on it and is now compounded by placing any combination of other electronic compoents on the same platform, which in turn will now once again alter the other electronic components' resonant frequency within the collection.

Then we get to the unique sub-floor which takes us eventually to the unique dwelling's unique construction and materials, its unique foundation, and finally the earth/ground which also varies everywhere.

A truly infinite number of combinations for which you must now address. Nice job. You've just gone full circle and then some to substantiate Tima's claims in another thread that isolation problems and solutions are all over the map. To which I fully agreed.

Oh, yeah. And after you've completed your heroic feat of drilling down the infinite combinations of ALL resonant frequencies, according to your own prior post you're right back at square one because you yourself agreed that sufficently isolating one form of vibration inherently traps at least one other source of vibration. Seriously?

Talk about chasing windmills? But as usual, the true isolationist sounds soooooooooo good and even "scientific" on paper. But it gets one nowhere in the end. It's just soap bubbles except on paper. But it also becomes more clear why a customer considering isolation solutions can be soooo easily swayed. It's all soooo deep and scientific and the measurements and graphs are good enough to intimate and make the sale.

To demonstrate the absurdity of some of this, all one needs to do take the folklore's narrative to its natural conclusion.

In sharp contrast to the abyss of the isolation method you choose and are obviously most comfortable with, I again present the very simple concept and analogy of the lightning rod of which resonant energy transfer is near identical. The lightning rod's simple purpose, function, and high success rate at redirecting perhaps most/all unwanted and highly destructive energy away from the valuable object before it can induce its catastrophic harm. And without any mental masturbation whatsoever.

Exactly like the lightning rod analogy, at least extreme forms of resonant energy transfer works and works extremely well for one simple reason. Because its principles remain entirely within the laws of nature (energy's natural behaviors) while vibration isolation fails miserably at perhaps every turn. Some to which you even admitted to in your earlier post.

As for your last comment about having to know what's present and treat it specifically? Clearly from your perspective, that's pure BS going down the never-ending abyss. But from my perspective, that's exactly what I do. And it's so frickin' simple, even a child can understand it.

 

[Blackmorec]

Blackmorec, you and Tima are killing me here. It seems you guys (and many others) can't stop chasing the isolation windmills even for a moment. Who cares about any potential alternative solutions or ways of thinking? Even if isolation's all over map and defies basic laws of nature, just give me something anything I've been confortable with all my life so I can embrace it? Did I read that correctly?

Certain methods of vibration control? I'm only aware of two primary methods that are diametrically opposed to one another. Isolation and resonant energy transfer. Actually, 3 if you include a hybrid of the two which actually everybody everywhere in high-end audio and other industries is practicing to one degree or another.

Assuming a scale of 0 to 10 with complete isolation at zero and complete resonant energy transfer at 10. Zero is impossible to achieve as general laws of physic / nature prohibit it so nobody is practicing complete isolation even though some may sleep better thinking they are. 10 is theoretically possible to achieve where everything is essnetually a superior mechanical conduit but realistically unreasonable. Since isolationist mfg'ers all too often and unknowingly incorporate materials and designs and techniques borrowed from resonant energy transfer (yet still claim them to be isolation products) I suspect the vast majority are playing around 2 or 3 mark on that scale.

BTW, there's one sure fire method to determine whether a vibration mgmt product is truly isolation-based or resonant energy-based. Can you describe what that method is?

Not too far from the same mark on that same scale might be one who does nothing but use the soft OEM footers already fastened to their components at the factory. BTW, to the best of my knowledge, soft footers were never initially installed on electric components to isolate from unwanted vibratiions but rather so as not the mar the furniture its placed on. But with the birth and populatity of vibration isolation, isolationist mfg'ers can without any additional cost claim their soft footers are isolating their component from unwanted vibrations. Nice.

You also speak as though you have significant experience with resonant energy transfer and IMO that simply is not possible. You obviously have some head knowledge but I cannot believe it's from significant or real firsthand experience. Otherwise, you would have NEVER made perhaps any of these comments. If you have, I apologize and I ask you provide examples of firsthand experience. But yes, I suppose certain implementations of resonant energy transfer can induce a blurring effect. Since you've obviously experienced this, perhaps you're willing to share under what conditions this blurring may occur? If not, I'd be happy to share when and why.

Certain components suffer from a mutitude of vibration sources? So the isolation methodology discriminates between electronic components? I'd love to hear which components. Could you also please list just the top 15 or 20 vibration sources?

Resonant frequencies are an issue, eh? Tell me, since most everything within an electronic component is either snuggly, tautly, or tightly fastened, or glued or soldered into place, how does the act of joining these disparate objects together alter an object's resonant frequency? I would think even determining a singular internal object's resonant frequency at the test bench with 100% accuracy is impossible to achieve since that object must anchored, placed, or gripped by some apparatus just to take the reading and that apparatus would no doubt alter the object's natural frequency. Unless perhaps readings are obtainable while the singular object is levitating. But then we'd probably have to consider the altitude and oxygen content.

Since you obviously are pleased with going down this abyss of a rabbit hole, then you can't just stop at a transistor, circuit board, op-amp, etc. You have to keep drilling down to every last component's natural frequency on a given circuit board, inside an op-amp, inside a transistor, etc, even any solder and epoxies, glues, and fastener types of which each have their own resonant frequency. Now we're getting back to Tima's comments in another thread about vibration isolation problems and solutions being all over the map. And then some.

Have you considered the possibility of the electronic component's resonant frequency as a whole or single object since everything within is either fastened, pinched, or glued in some fashion? Hence, every resonant frequency within the component is impacting every other object's resonant frequency within, right?

But even if you did, then a single electronic component's resonant frequency is now impacted by the platform upon which it's placed e.g. grandma's coffee table, rack, shelf, etc. Which leads us to the resonant frequencies of every object and connection and fastener within that platform singularly and as a dependent whole. Not to mention that platform's resonant frequency is now altered by the electronic component just placed on it and is now compounded by placing any combination of other electronic compoents on the same platform, which in turn will now once again alter the other electronic components' resonant frequency within the collection.

Then we get to the unique sub-floor which takes us eventually to the unique dwelling's unique construction and materials, its unique foundation, and finally the earth/ground which also varies everywhere.

A truly infinite number of combinations for which you must now address. Nice job. You've just gone full circle and then some to substantiate Tima's claims in another thread that isolation problems and solutions are all over the map. To which I fully agreed.

Oh, yeah. And after you've completed your heroic feat of drilling down the infinite combinations of ALL resonant frequencies, according to your own prior post you're right back at square one because you yourself agreed that sufficently isolating one form of vibration inherently traps at least one other source of vibration. Seriously?

Talk about chasing windmills? But as usual, the true isolationist sounds soooooooooo good and even "scientific" on paper. But it gets one nowhere in the end. It's just soap bubbles except on paper. But it also becomes more clear why a customer considering isolation solutions can be soooo easily swayed. It's all soooo deep and scientific and the measurements and graphs are good enough to intimate and make the sale.

To demonstrate the absurdity of some of this, all one needs to do take the folklore's narrative to its natural conclusion.

In sharp contrast to the abyss of the isolation method you choose and are obviously most comfortable with, I again present the very simple concept and analogy of the lightning rod of which resonant energy transfer is near identical. The lightning rod's simple purpose, function, and high success rate at redirecting perhaps most/all unwanted and highly destructive energy away from the valuable object before it can induce its catastrophic harm. And without any mental masturbation whatsoever.

Exactly like the lightning rod analogy, at least extreme forms of resonant energy transfer works and works extremely well for one simple reason. Because its principles remain entirely within the laws of nature (energy's natural behaviors) while vibration isolation fails miserably at perhaps every turn. Some to which you even admitted to in your earlier post.

As for your last comment about having to know what's present and treat it specifically? Clearly from your perspective, that's pure BS going down the never-ending abyss. But from my perspective, that's exactly what I do. And it's so frickin' simple, even a child can understand it.

Instead of getting involved in a long debate with someone whose agenda i haven’t yet fathomed i would recommend readers do the following:
Go back to the original post, click on the video and listen to Bela Fleck’s Flight of the Cosmic Hippo (The first track). Pay attention to the perceived speed and rhythm of the music. Then go into Qobuz or Tidal from whatever device you use to read this Forum and use Search to play the same track and see if you notice any difference.

Regarding the lightening rod analogy, here’s the problem. Its not a one way street

 

[tima]

There are a few other issues that we haven’t yet touched on, namely:

• Certain methods of vibration control can themselves introduce emphasis and colouration, or can make the music sound slow and plodding. This happens if the controls somehow affect the microdynamics of the music and the initial pinpoint percussive start of each note is missing, making the music sound boring and uninteresting.

I would add that the emphasis and coloration can also go the other way: introducing a tightness and precision at the "initial pinpoint percussive start" of a note that is not natural. Not only can the tone get pushed up a half-step but it suggests an embouchure and tongue possessed by no man.

 

[wil]

Instead of getting involved in a long debate with someone whose agenda i haven’t yet fathomed i would recommend readers do the following:
Go back to the original post, click on the video and listen to Bela Fleck’s Flight of the Cosmic Hippo (The first track). Pay attention to the perceived speed and rhythm of the music. Then go into Qobuz or Tidal from whatever device you use to read this Forum and use Search to play the same track and see if you notice any difference.

Regarding the lightening rod analogy, here’s the problem. Its not a one way street

Not to get too off topic here, but while lighting travels form ground to sky, my understanding of a lightning rod is that it conducts energy to the ground. So, I think the analogy to moving vibrational energy to the ground might be a good one?

 

[Kingrex]

I was reading another post and Legonda was talking about packing clay with a vinyl setup. It got me thinking. Anyone ever wrap clay in plastic and set gear on it. Did it work with any type of product particularly well?

 

[Blackmorec]

Not to get too off topic here, but while lighting travels form ground to sky, my understanding of a lightning rod is that it conducts energy to the ground. So, I think the analogy to moving vibrational energy to the ground might be a good one?

If lightening was similar to and behaved like vibration it would be an excellent analogy. But it isn’t and doesn’t so the analogy is specious at best. The problem with linking components to ground is that all you do is connect the component to all the LF vibration going through the building and support superstructures, from compliance motors and compressors, water pumps, air conditioning, footfall, traffic, seismic activity etc. What you actually want is to remove the component’s internal vibration by converting it to heat, while isolating the component from ground-borne vibration. This rids the component of the majority of vibration from all sources instead of just swapping one kind for another.

 

[DSkip]

If lightening was similar to and behaved like vibration it would be an excellent analogy. But it isn’t and doesn’t so the analogy is specious at best. The problem with linking components to ground is that all you do is connect the component to all the LF vibration going through the building and support superstructures, from compliance motors and compressors, water pumps, air on, footfall, traffic, seismic activity etc. What you actually want is to remove the component’s internal vibration by converting it to heat, while isolating the component from ground-borne vibration. This rids the component of the majority of vibration from all sources instead of just swapping one kind for another.

The problem with heat is it takes time to generate. While this is taking place, you are losing transient energy and decay in your music. These products do well to show you an improvement, but they also come at some serious costs to the energy of the music. Sometimes you don't realize this until you pull the absorptive product out of the system. I've done this with two clients recently who used isolation/absorption products under their components. After removing the products, there was an energy to the music again. The clients listed those products for sale the next day.