Boost system performance via isolation?

thanks Tvad &g Jgiacalo, good stuff.

I've one thing that's been bugging me as I've not run across the "Why" of it...

"How come the use of 'three' gizmos instead of four like the feet of the device?"

...and then of course, Where? Leave the feet on the component? (I left the feet on and placed the Vibra thingy's underneath them... the CD however has the cones 90 degrees out from the pods, or like in between the pods and under the half inch particle board shelf).

I've tried both putting the pods right under the feet of the BAT preamps feet, and above the PBS & under the PBS... can't remember just where now as the whole thing is torn apart... (I'm putting in new receptacles onto the dedicated ckts... and I'm running out of bandaids too)

I can't spike this rack. I can and will fill the tubes with something though before the gear gets back onto it.

I'm trying to save space and add mass to the exsisting rack, by combining two metal racks into one... and I do need the space for sure.. ultimately I'll build one this winter.

thanks, Tvad. I'll bear that in mind. Intellectually speaking, of course. I have seen folks mention those mini slabs or rocks that sit atop rotating sources... I can't see any other reason for them save their damping effect... and Lord, the prices! ...for rocks! It is gonna be a while before I get into that arena... that's the one where I'd have more dollars than sense.

Looks like with the 'adding of weight' or reducing of pods I'll need another set to account for the poundages... or maybe not I think I got the ones that range from 10-15 lbs... certainly, I'll give these I have, a shot first. Thanks.

listener57 ...thanks.

I'm inclined to try several of the above notions in isolating system devices... which one, however,is another matter entirely.... tube rings are for sure... Symposium roller blocks are likely too... and those platforms from nuance are also on the list of candidates. Perhaps even those wood blocks that were mentioned.

As I've torn down the rig's rack and am reassembling it to redistribute and consolidate I've already seen the advantages of going with three 'pucks' vs. four.. as I put them into play on the HT system components. Marvelously open and with far less fuzz about things... again, a subtractive measure that until tried, isn't really noticed much, if at all. But I was impressed. those iso pucks were the pods and cones I was using from Vibrapod. They'll stay in the HT rig... as it's the 'trickle' donw system... that gains it's improvements as the main system improves...

Thanks for the mention and reminder of the mat too. I did forget all about it concentrating on the tube gizmos... it's now on the list too.

Lastly... to either dispell or confirm... is there indeed truth in the notion a 'good' rack is in no need of ancilliary iso devices?

...or will all racks allow performance boosts from the incorporation of pucks and/or platforms?

My thinking here is that if, (and I likely will), go the route of pucks and/or shelfs that'll run upwards of 700.00 - 800.00 or so... looking at both enhancements and esthetics, would the additional expense be the bhetter route, and just buy a decent rack, say like adona or the like for around $1200?

Thanks much

Jadem6
Thanks... I read all the items you posted... Apparently you didn't get my email following up on things. But things are fine since i've rebuilt & reconfigured, the $100 rack… which now is maybe $200… given the additional materials employed to dampen and/or isolate.

Actually, i've learned a number of things over the past few weeks. Probably most importantly is you don't have to spend lots of money on a rack to get good sound. I do think it helps, but it's not the only way to go about it.

Wether you're containing, draining, coupling, decoupling, etc... The 'isolation' needs of the system are dependant upon the components, and whole of it. I found myself compensating for my compensations on occasion. That's what happens if you do a thing and it's not quite right and you must do another thing to that move, to make it better, right? Well, IMHO, I think it is… and I can see where a person would want to do that having laid out a fair amount of money for the previous tweeks… and true, maybe more than one tweek is necessary at times.

What amazes me is how much positive change can be had for so little in expense… but quite a bit more in time and effort though.

I added hospital grade outlets to all the dedicated ckts… finally. Deoxited everything, even me. I filled the hollow tubes supporting the rack with fine sand, removed the amp from the rack and made a ‘DIY amp stand from two x fours.
Spruce and pressure treated (one pair for each ch.). Rescaled the number of items on the rack. Centered them all. Removed the vibra things almost completely. Kept the MDF... given the advice in this thread about spikes – I did some homemade 'spike' treatments to the preamp and cdp. Using a 'particle board shelf or two, i robbed from an old roll around stand, i used the PB as platforms for the CDP & preamp. Drilled three #10 x 1 inch zinc wood screws into the mdf. Set the pb platform onto them and the cd & pre on top of their PB shelves. I’m still playing with this last thing.. in terms of location of the screws but that part alone, (using 3 screws), immensely improved things in terms of imaging and SS development.

I also used the Vibra cones under the BAT amp… that was a bad move. It ameliorated the bass. I went back and removed the cones (4 of them), and added some pressure treated 2 x 4 to the current pair of Spruce 2 x 4’s, for the amp’s base/stand…. Connecting them with some 2 inch wood screws. That way is better. The bass returned and with more tightness than before. I’ll attribute that too the pressure treated… and I’ll be going to a three inch maple block soon . . I found a more than reasonable source for Maple as well…. Above inch and a half, their laminated, which may well be best given the heat of my amp… http://www.tonyswoodshop.com/... This source was far more inexpensive than is the price I got from timnbernation for the same thing….

Isolating everything… via lifting it or decoupling it, from the rack gave a tremendous enhancement to the upper mids and above… but lessened the lower register almost entirely. Apparently some devices work best ‘coupled’. With all these ‘tweaks’ I got way more focus and improved SS width and depth. Far clearer tonal balance and dynamics improved easily 40 – 50%... total cost? Several hours of my time, and about $20, for the sand, screws, and the dismembered roll around stands which cost $20 each a year or two ago.

Now all I’m saying is using the items I did was solely based upon finding out if all these thoughts about spikes, isolation, and dampening are on the right track …. And/or which ones that will serve me best. Instead of spending hundreds to do so…. OK I agree. There is definitely something to it. It is also remarkable how little money needs be spent to gain solid improvements.

I’ll now move up to another level with some other goodies shortly…. Herbies and Neuance are on the list…. Perhaps the materials I’ve used aren’t the best… and perhaps I’ve been quite lucky in that not too awful much was really needed in my instance. I’ve also confirmed a couple things… “You don’t have to spend tons to do better by your system’s rack or isolating components.’ …and As was said, “Everything matters’…. I’ll add, “Every change regardless the cost changes things too, and just because it costs a lot doesn’t make it better.”

What was most surprising was how long the system took to get back on track after being down for only a couple weeks…. I freaked on that part but it’s better now… and different. Not nearly as dark but still very musical and sweet… and I’m still repositioning screws and their relationship to one another… and yep, they don’t have to be in a equilateral triangle. I think ‘rooting’ the screws into the ‘boards’ instead of simply setting them under or on top is also better, and trust me here, If a person who can barely see can do it, anyone can. I wonder if they make brass screws?

Well. Again, thanks.

reckon three instead of four is cheaper too. Hmmmm. Now which to try. ...but first the wood on top of the pods seems the, or 'a', way to go.

I truly thought living in a hunters paradise, shot would be most available. It ain't. Well not for cheap anyhow. About a buck a pound. If you can find it. Most gun shops don't sell it, not even the bigger ones. Trap & Skeet clubs do though... at a buck a pound or so... Needing some for my current speakers, looks as though I'll be adding to the shot inventory soon enough..

Is there anything substantial to the notion of rings or caps for tubes? With ten tubes in my pre, which ever path proves both less expensive and better would be one I'd probably follow.

Ever stop and think what folks that ain't into audio may think when or if they were to hear all this stuff? My friends think I'm card carrying certifiable when I tell them about a recent addition to the system... they may be right.

well, now we're talking... Thanks for the Herbie update. I had forgotten all about that one.

I've seen the changes that come from using 'spongy' iso devices first hand. I tried some styrofoam under some lightwieght itmes like mass fi DVD players and cable boxes... there are some advantages there... as it sofftens things up a bit in the upper ranges... also lowers/lessens the bottom end punch too. But it sure opens up the Sound scape. It's currently the 'thing' for the cable box and 400 carosel, (which really needed some attenuation in the treble and was a big help in that regard). 2 inchs thick insulating styrofoam. Maybe a tad thicker but less than three inches

I've also seen the advantages of wood.. different sorts should wel be able to introduce different characteristics... having a 'thin metal' rack, using the MDF was a help but using spruce was better. Other sorts depending upon their, I suppose, 'densities', should change things accordingly. I do suspect it is the density that allows for the differences, as density relates directly to resonance transmission/reduction.

I "E'd" Peter, at Symposium today. I'm going to get with him about trying some of his product (s) pretty soon.

My main concern is losing the richness and warmth my main system provides currently. As related above in the "I should have done..." department by another poster, I've had others and they were quite dynamic, articulate, and bright... very clean and clear and for rock, not bad at all. I've changed up a bit now and am looking to gain a touch more resolution as I think it and myself, can take it... Adding some new power cords and another passive conditioner presently, is helping me towards that end... so isolating things some with warmth and sweetness still in mind does interest me a good deal. Cleaning up the sound a mite also shouldn't hurt, though it's uncleanliness isn't audible to me. I liken it to power line conditioning though... I didn't hear the junk on the line till I plugged in a conditioner. Same, same I guess.

I've also heard Walker makes some iso pucks... but I've not heard any first hand thoughts about them.

lastly is there myth or magic to setting cones on top of tube gear? I suppose on top of the cover just above the tubes...???