AV Racks. What difference does it make?

Slappy, your best bet would be to check out some white papers at StarSound.biz. They are the mfg'er of the leading performance-oriented rack called the Sistrum (and Audio Points). Reading some of those materials should be enlightening.

But in essence, there are two major philosophies toward the handling of air-borne vibrations and resonance: 1) Isolation and dampening and 2) mechanical transfer to ground.

1. Some to many believe that one can effectively isolate and dampen air-borne vibrations.

2. Some to many others believe one only alter the vibrations (for better or worse) via isolation and/or dampening but cannot effectively isolate air-borne vibrations. Therefore, these others believe one must provide an efficient exit path must be provided to allow for their escape. Hence, the mechanical transfer to ground priniple.

3. Then there are some to many mug-wamps with their mug on one side of the fence and their wamp on the other side who believe they can effectively merge to two diametrically opposed philosophies who somehow think they can obtain the best of both worlds.

My experience tells me that isolation and dampening is the worst methodology of the three. And that it's a crap-shoot if altering the vibrations makes sonics better or worse, that mechanical transfer to ground is the surest and best methodology, and the mug-wamp is the second best because it can still provide some mechanical transfer to ground if done correctly or incorrectly (depending on one's point-of-view).

And given the right system and environment, if one chooses the right method, the differences can be so much more than subtle.

-IMO

Edartford, regarding TWL's posting, I believe it was you who used the word 'rediculous' for those believing anything other than what you believe in this regard.

Although I may have chosen different wording, I think TWL made some excellent points in every respect.

Prlscs also makes an excellent all-encompassing observation about the sum being greater than it's parts and is right on the money IMO. Even though I disagree with his chosen methodology for the handling of vibrations and resonance.

-IMO

Personally, I read TWL's posting as directed toward Eldartford only. Not to the originator of this thread nor anybody else. And it also appeared to me that TWL responded in a certain way because of that individual's use of the word rediculous in describing what I thought was directed toward the owners of certain performance-oriented racks and associated pricing.

Eldartford was kind enough to clarify later what he meant by his use of that word and it obviously was a misunderstanding.

I also misunderstood Eldartford's original choice of words in his first post and applaud TWL's willingness to go out on limb via his response to that poster.

Sure it was a misunderstanding this time. But all too many times there certainly are some to many on this web-site who believe simply because something has not worked for them, therefore, it cannot work for anybody else and will even resort to rediculing those who's experience has demonstrated otherwise.

For example, we've all heard of component and cable burn-in time periods where the sonics improve over a certain amount of hours. Some to many believe burn-in is real whereas others believe it's snake oil.

But who would believe there is also a mechanical burn-in or break-in period of time for certain products i.e. racks, points, etc.? I'm sure there are some people would just snicker at such a thought and then look to ridicule and belittle anybody who believes such a concept as this.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that it is this ridiculing attitude that TWL thought he was responding to.

-IMO