Geoff,
The conversion of energy to heat you profess appears to be a prime working model for the anti-vibration belief camp. I ‘never stated’ anything in our previous discussions about Heat so this so called heat maybe what is generated from your model but not from mine or others of the pro-vibration group. The only heat generated concerning me is when you put words in my mouth and publicize it in your rhetoric.
Heat generated in your model is a disruptive byproduct resulting in an extremely sluggish process of managing vibration. Similar to musical instruments, we have found that high speed resonance transfer delivers a livelier musical sound quality regardless of your many prohibiting quotes and public mentoring regarding theories relating to heat conversion. I find your methods do not and cannot discern between good vibes and bad...or if there are any.
Certain wave forms occur in all audio components, agreed? These are commonly known as compound waves where ‘interfering energy’ occurs. The selection of materials you have chosen multiplies these compound waves resulting in greater heat buildup and a much greater loss in component operational efficiency. The materials used in the majority of your discussions and products are inherently nonlinear due to their varying chemical makeup and multiple shapes. They lack direct signal pathways resulting in constant speed changes and in my opinion are ‘old school’ types of geometric design. Do you agree that materials have signal pathways where every chosen material and shape has a voice in your sound system? We do too.
Have you ever applied your methods for a tympani drum placed on a giant sandbox or placed an upright bass or cello on a sheet of Sorbothane supported by springs and played? If you can predict the results, what would the temperature rise across the surface of the instrument be as the vibration is very slowly, bit by bit, converted to heat?
Would this temperature change result in better sound and remain musical without altering the character of the instrument?
I have removed the rubber materials from the mentioned instruments and replaced those with materials and shapes that conduct energy and couple that vibration to the higher mass of the stage floor. These instruments are now ‘direct coupled’ to surface boundaries and measure an acoustic gain of .5 db to 2.5 db. No energy is lost through those slower methodologies of heat conversion although I never attempted to measure a heat rise, as in theory your doctrine does. You always talk about heat and when you return comment with your torturous forms of putting words in the mouths of others… Please, Answer me this:
What is the conversion ratio for changing vibration to heat?
What is the reference in real time for this conversion of energy forms to take place?Can you display the instantaneous heat rise of a component when vibration is converted to heat? How is that done and with what measuring tool is used?
The products we offer at Star Sound provide a simple, direct orderly pathway for ‘interfering energy’ to run at high speed to the higher mass of ground. We offer the same technical approach for musical instruments that result in providing musicians a higher level of sound quality. We prefer to maintain energy rather than burn it.
Tom
