As an outsider to the US market, I have the impression that the US audio community seems to under-rate the importance of equipment stands. Equally, while the UK audio community has grasped the importance of very rigid equipment stands, they have not done so with using room treatments. While these are necessarily generalisations, I find it quite odd that someone would buy an amp as good as the Aleph 2s or 3 and not put it on a decent stand. What is more I do not think the Salamander stands are in the same league as your amps either. From experience, putting a power amp on a decent stand will tend to; increase instrument separation (particularly depth), provide much better timbral balance, and most noticeably improve treble purity.... but the list can go on endlessly - the sound just gets better. However - it is not uncommon for a good small 'un to beat a good big 'un when it comes to solid state amps - particularly bipolar designs, regardless of what Pass have to say. Go with what makes the music most enjoyable. |
I find interesting the comments by those who "do not see how an amp stand can make a difference with a solid state amp". These comments rank alongside those from people that could not see how competent amplifiers could sound different, or how cables with suitable electrical qualities could sound different, or how CD players could sound different. Further, the suggestions to use a concrete block, or some other stone, do not seem to be backed up by any comparisons between this and using a welded steel rack. Having tried these myself, I say get a welded steel rack. Concrete blocks and stones all "ping" to some degree and you hear it. You may not pick it up in a double-blind test but it is mighty irritating over time. The suggestion above concerning using a Vibraplane is spot on. I have tried a lot of different approaches to vibration control with my amps (and with several different amps), and have settled on using a welded steel rack, a shelf made of thick perspex bonded to thin MDF, and then a bladder product between shelf and amp. The use of a bladder product with my amp has a larger impact than using a bladder product anywhere else in my system. |
Hi Ejlif. I only have time for a quick response on the bladder stuff at present, but here goes. Obviously you can buy a Vibraplane or Townshend etc. But to make your own you need a minimum of a top plate, a bottom plate, a bladder of some kind in between, and some kind of footer. The rules for the top and bottom plates are pretty much the same as for shelves - ie a trade-off between light, rigid, and acoustically inert. MDF is OK but I find thick perspex is good. The plates can be less acoustically inert than for a shelf since bonding the bladder to it reduces resonance. The Townshend products use steel plates, but use constrained layer damping inside to deaden the steel. The "best footer" question depends on what they sit between. Rubber or polymer is perhaps best when they sit between rigid but noisy plates, and cones are perhaps best when they sit between floppy/dead plates. The bladder is where it can get very tricky. The easy DIY methods are to use; squash balls sitting in O-rings - ie. the o-rings are to stop the whole thing rolling off onto the floor; a 12" or 14" bicycle inner tube (but it needs to have the valve refitted to the outside so you can get at it); one of those air cushions that haemorrhoid sufferers use; maybe even a whoopee cushion... you get the idea. But the squash balls do not provide much isolation, and the others (have not tried the whoopee cushion) suffer from a tendency for the component to pitch and roll rather than bounce up and down. So the commercial products attempt to overcome this by having complex bladders like you might find in a car with hydraulic or pneumatic suspension ie. some way of providing independent suspension. The cheapest and easiest way of doing this is to have three or four separate small bladders (if it was four then you would have one at each corner), but you may need to construct these by cutting down and resealing an inner tube. This is how the top-of-line Arcici rack achieves independent suspension (ie. it has separate bladders), and it has the benefit of providing a means of levelling components that have uneven weight distribution. Note that Arcici decided to move from four to three bladders some time ago - hopefully because they figured it worked better, so that might be a clue. I hope this is enough to get you started. I recommend you start by putting a 12" bicycle inner tube between your rack's shelf and lay another shelf on top of it, and then put the component on top and inflate the tube only so much that the top plate just floats. Then listen to what this does to the sound - it will free the sound from a lot of mud and grit and the music will breath. If the result is in the right direction for you, then you will have a better idea as to whether you want to go ahead and make a proper one. The result is not always beneficial. An already bright system can become too lively, or you may like the particular cacophony of your existing rack - but these problems are not born of the bladder. Otherwise the only downside I have found with bladder products is that sometimes, if you get the wrong amount of compliance in the system, you can get a "suck-out" effect in the audio band. |
Albertporter, I finally got around to reading your post again and thinking about it. I think I understand what you said. I interpret your answer as saying that with so many variables at play we ought to attack the problem by observation followed by deductive reasoning ie. learn from listening to components and tweaks for what they do and then deduce the impact it might have on another system. I often get a bit riled when I see too much inductive reasoning of the kind "if all amps measure flat then they must sound the same, so if you hear a difference it has to be a placebo effect". I am very impressed with the AC power work you have done. I thought my efforts were obsessive, but are clearly the work of an amateur. Your own transformer - I will look into that one further. |
Long term listening isn't a trick - it is the objective! If blind testing improves your ability to predict what will work over the long term, then fine. For me it is a pointer only. I am currently going through a choice between two DACs. I have a bias towards one rather than the other - since the latter means I will probably need to have a new equipment rack built. I am in about the sixth week of evaluations and feel I am only just getting to the point that I fully understand the trade-offs I am facing in making the decision. Needless to say (as per sod's law) the new rack is likely to be purchased. My retirement fund will be richer for ensuring I make decisions I can live with. |
I rather suspect Nanderson will quit while he/she is yet to go around far enough to disappear up where the light does not shine. I too am interested in the way his amp is set up. But I am even more interested to discover the "correct criteria" that we should all be using so that "double blind testing can tell what will work over the long term". Unlike Garfish, I am quite happy to shorten the journey and just groove to the music. Enlighten me Nanderson. |
Hi Nanderson. I did not mean to offend you and was merely agreeing with Mikela's observation that your arguments were contradictory. But I must admit my language reflected the fact that I was just a bit ticked by the condescention in your post "kind of amusing really". Your attempted put-down offends me and, I suspect, everyone who posts here. What is interesting is you continue to deflect direct questions that are very germane to your argument. You are confirming my suspicion that these "correct criteria" you claim to use will not be revealed. |
Thanks Nanderson. But, with respect, I find your criteria underwhelming. I suspect the reason why we differ here can be sourced to your view that software, speakers and room make the biggest difference. This leads me to the view that our perspectives on reproduced music are very different. To simplify what I mean (and therefore shorten this post) let's just consider the relative importance of speakers versus a power amp. The very common view appears to be that speakers make more of a difference than power amps. This is true if you believe that the distortions in a stereo are completely measured by measuring frequency response anomolies and that bigger anomolies are always worse than smaller anomolies. Amplifiers tend to measure ruler-flat, but no speaker ever does, therefore speakers make more of a difference? I disagree. Differences between speakers are always very obvious in the short term (such as in a double-blind test). Differences in power amps are much less obvious in the short term (hence why people get confused during double-blind tests). But I still do not agree that speakers make more difference. Why? Whether you are listening to live music or a stereo, the sound that reaches your ears includes distortions that your brain attempts to resolve in order to make coherent sense out of what it hears. What I and many others have found is that certain, seemingly small distortions, which the brain appears to resolve in the short term become irritating distractions from enjoying the music over the long term. Perhaps the nature of the distortion is such that the brain can resolve it with some effort, but over the long term the effort is fatiguing, and therefore not conducive to musical enjoyment. This can come down to small things like whether you use brass spikes or steel spikes under your amplifier stand. While these things can be insignificant in a brief demonstration, the relief when they are removed after prolonged listening can be enormous. A good example of this is the way many sigh with relief when they replace their solid state amp with a tubed one - yet in a brief listen or with measurements the solid state amp may be objectively more accurate. So, back to speakers versus amps. For me, the distortions that are important are the ones that detract most from long term musical enjoyment - since that is my goal in this endeavour. In the case of speakers, I find there are very few that cannot be made to sound musical by appropriate set-up, room treatment and partnering electronics. On the other hand, I cannot say the same about power amplifiers. It is almost impossible to make an unmusical power amplifier sound good. Hence, for me, both your steps are flawed. I can well imagine that these steps work for you. No doubt we all have different musical values and different distortions irritate us differently. Perhaps those distortions that are obvious at a short listen are the only ones that irritate you. Perhaps you very rarely listen to your stereo and so short term listening is relevant to your listening habits. Perhaps you have lousy hearing and the effects of bad electronics are lost on you (lucky you). Perhaps you have such good hearing that distortions that only reveal themselves slowly to me are immediately obvious to you. Any one of these explanations makes us both right. Who knows? |
Thanks so much Garfish. I have been a little ungracious in my replies to Nanderson, and hereby apologise (again). But years of hearing from the measurement clones trotting out the same or similar stuff has led to me getting worked up about this topic. I do not expect them to accept my opinions about how something sounds, but when someone asks for opinions on such a thing (as occurred here), you get these flat earthers insisting your opinion is deluded and demanding proof. It might even be tolerable if it wasn't so repetitive. Even if our opinions are deluded, at least there is some variety to them. |
Thanks Albert Porter. There are some questions I have been meaning to ask you (and anyone else, of course), since we seem to have some things in common. I note that you have clearly spent a good deal of time and money on the issue of vibration control. Although I have spent a lot of time on this too, I feel I am at best only half-way there to understanding how to use this variable wisely. Any insights would be very much appreciated. The other question I had concerns your thoughts on an appropriate strategy for putting a total system together. I raise this with you because of my whole-hearted agreement with your comment that all of the variables in a complex system have to be addressed. For example it is probably obvious to all that one should spend more on your amp than your amp stand. But it is equally wrong in my mind to state that you should never spend money on an amp stand because that money will always have been better spent on the amp. In building my most recent system, it was only when I had dealt with everything from the power lead into the house, through each and every cable, each and every component, and each and every support or isolation device, and each and every room treatment issue, that I really felt I had eliminated all significant unmusical artefacts. It sounds to me like you have come to the same conclusions. But what this means is that the number of variables we are dealing with is very long indeed, and our opinions on individual components will be clouded by the deficiencies of our existing system. Therefore it would seem that some simplifying rules would be of considerable benefit if we are to get good results. In another post I had a wee spat on this point. I was advocating attempting to select each component with neutrality in mind rather than using components to balance colourations in other components. This is because the apparent lack of neutrality of a component is not always due to it acting like a pure filter. For example, a CD player may smear some high frequencies and therefore sound peaky in the highs, despite appearing to be ruler-flat when measured. Balancing this with a warm and soft preamp is trying to turn two wrongs make a right. I have heard some advocate getting good quality components and then use cables (as filters) to get a neutral balance. Personally I see this as being similar to the "soggy preamp with etched CD player" idea. When playing with isolation I at first thought that this was a better place to do the final voicing of the system. But I found that warming things up with different isolation devices tended to destroy pace and rhythm, and that sharpening things up with different isolation devices tended to do so by smearing higher frequencies. I am very interested in any insights on the appropriate strategy for compiling a total system, given the very large number of variables at play. |
Thanks Albertporter. I don't have any immediate response, and will read your post over a couple of times before responding. There is nothing I disagree with, much to agree with, but also some to explore further I think. |
Carl's problem is he does not suffer fools easily. But of the two problems implicit in this statement, I prefer Carl's any day. |
I suspect Nanderthal is really just a computer virus set out to infect sites with meaningless negativity. Alternatively Audiogon has realised that Carl's outbursts are great for ratings and they created Nanderthal with this purpose in mind. Call me a conspiracist, but either way, I have stopped responding since it is obvious by now that Nanderthal has nothing helpful to say. |
