Do equipment stands have an impact on electronics?


Mechanical grounding or isolation from vibration has been a hot topic as of late.  Many know from experience that footers, stands and other vibration technologies impact things that vibrate a lot like speakers, subs or even listening rooms (my recent experience with an "Energy room").  The question is does it have merit when it comes to electronics and if so why?  Are there plausible explanations for their effect on electronics or suggested measurement paradigms to document such an effect?
agear

Showing 33 responses by bdp24

I can't say about hi-fi platforms, but maple is the preferred wood for drum shells because of it's desirable (for drums) resonance and timbre. Maple's resonance characteristic is of long sustain (when you hit a piece of maple, it rings for a long time), it's timbral character brightness. If one desires their support structure to produce no sound of it's own, I don't know why a wood known for it's long sustain and bright timbre would be a desirable material from which to build one. I am NOT saying I know why it shouldn't be used!

Thanks Geoff, great video. The drums I was describing are traditional wood ones, which is how bass drums (kicks) and toms are pretty much all made. Snare drums are a different matter, available in many different woods and metals.

Charlie Watts likes old Gretsch drum sets (he’s been playing a natural maple finish set on stage since the early-70’s), the "round badge" ones made in the original Brooklyn factory in the 50’s and 60’s. In the 50’s the shells were 3-ply, the outer two maple, the inner gumwood. In the 60’s the shells were 6-ply, with alternating layers of same. They sound fantastic! A lot of Pro drummers having endorsement deals with other drum companies play those drums on stage, but record with Gretsch.

Steel is a commonly used material for snare drums, but not usually high end ones. Brass is the preferred metal for snare drums by many, myself included. Saxes and other musical horns aren't made of brass for no reason---it sounds good! Can you imagine a steel sax?! How about steel cymbals (they too are brass)? I have three Ludwig’s made in the 1920’s (14 X 5/8-lug, 14 X 5/10-lug, 14 X 6.5/10-lug), one in the 30’s (14 X 6.5/8-lug), all nickel over brass (NOB), and fantastic. I had a spare 14 X 5/10-lug Ludwig Standard that Abe Laborial Jr., McCartneys drummer, bought (I used to deal in vintage drums) and played when they did the Super Bowl Half-Time show about ten years ago. Look for it!

Thanks Robert, I'll look into your products. Some of the drum company's have introduced accessories designed to allow their drum shells to resonate as long as possible (sustain is very "in" right now in drums), by suspending their mass in free air. Mounted toms holders are no longer mounted directly on the toms' shells (metal parts bolted onto drum shells seriously affects their ability to resonate), but are instead attached to the drumhead hoops. Pearl offers rubber feet for floor toms legs which contain an air pocket designed to prevent the shell from being "grounded" to the floor, robbing it of it's full vibrational resonance.

For hi-fi product support, isn't a lack of resonance the goal? And whatever resonance (vibration) is inevitable to be prevented from entering hi-fi components? Absolute isolation may be an unreachable goal, but it's a correct one imo. 

Robert, the drum suspension system I referred to is called R.I.M.S., the letters standing for Resonance Isolation Mounting System. An L.A. studio drummer named Gauger invented and introduced them in 1980, and licensed the manufacturing rights first to DW (Drum Workshop), one of the most progressive drum companies around. R.I.M.S. revolutionized drum mounts, almost every company now using them or making their own version of the same principle. R.I.M.S. attach to the drumhead tensioning hoop rather than the drum shell, allowing the shell to freely vibrate, increasing it’s sustain (the length of time the shell "rings") considerably. A mount attached to the shell itself "chokes" the sound of the drum.

The term resonance in reference to a drum shell is in regards to the length of time it "rings", it’s sustain. But the nature of the construction of the shell also affects it’s resonance; thinner shells usually resonate longer and at a lower pitch than do thicker ones, the extra wood of thicker shells raising the shell’s resonant frequency (it’s "fundamental") and acting as a form of self-damping. The timbre of that resonance is a different matter, timbre being what civilians ;-) call "tone". Timbre is determined by the relative strength of the harmonics of the fundamental. Drums are not considered a "tuned" instrument (an exception being the tympani and Caribbean steel drums), the way guitar and bass are. That’s because drums produce so many overtones (not just harmonics, but intermediate notes) having as much strength as the fundamental itself, that the fundamental is hard to distinguish.

Drums used for recording often have damping applied to the heads, to change the sound of the drum towards the "tighter" sound you mentioned. Tighter in, ironically, having less ring, but in this case of the higher overtones only. The damping absorbs only the highest overtones, making the fundamental more audible. I saw studio drummer Jim Keltner (Traveling Wilbury’s, Ry Cooder, George Harrison, Randy Newman, hundreds of others) playing live on a sound stage in Burbank, and his DW’s rang so long the drum sound was a real mess---far too much sustain for my liking. The struck notes were not audible individually, each still resonating loudly as the next was played---one big, rumbly mess. The opposite of that is the sound Levon Helm of The Band is known for---"thumpy". Gene Krupa’s drums also sound thumpy on those recordings from the 1940’s, but that’s because plastic drum heads had not been invented yet. Plastic heads weren’t available until the late 50’s, and they rapidly replaced the calfskin used until then. Calf heads don’t need damping, as they already sound dead (pun intended ;-).

I’m no mechanical engineer, but I do know that a spring is an isolator starting about an octave above it’s "effective" resonant frequency. That frequency is determined by the spring rate and the mass placed upon the spring, such as a pre-amp. Max Townshend explains the theory behind his Seismic Isolators, and demonstrates their effectiveness in a video viewable on You Tube. I would include a link to it if only I knew how---I’m somewhat of a luddite!

Below it’s resonant frequency a spring is a coupler, as are all objects (right, mechanical engineers?). That’s why getting as low a resonant frequency as possible is desirable---that provides the most isolation. Isolators made of rubber materials, as well as cones and spikes, have a much higher resonant frequency than does a well-designed spring system---Max has a chart on his Townshend Audio website showing the resonant frequency of rubber isolators, cones and spikes, and his Seismic products.

All this assumes one actually desires isolation; some designers, and audiophiles themselves, are instead interested in "draining" vibrations out of their components---the noise from turntable motors, amplifier transformers, spinning CD transports, etc. When the Mod Squad introduced the Tip Toe (the original cone isolator, as far as I know), they claimed it acts as a mechanic diode---a one-way "path" that evacuates vibrations entering it from above, and preventing vibrations entering and traveling up it from below. That claim is disputed by some mechanical engineers, who say that cones and spikes are in fact NOT mechanical diodes, NOT a one way street for vibration. That a cone or spike allows vibrations to enter it as readily from below as from above, providing isolation only above a fairly high frequency (10Hz or so resonance, 20Hz or so effective), acting as a coupler below, with vibrations traveling in both directions into and through it. As I said, I’m no mechanical engineer.

Max Townshend uses an oscilloscope to display the effectiveness of his Seismic Isolators in a video viewable on You Tube. He gives a rap to the side of a speaker enclosure spiked to a concrete floor, then again with the speaker on his Isolators, the vibrations/resonance of the enclosure visible on the scope in both instances. The Seismic Isolators apparently not only prevent floor vibrations from entering a speaker enclosure, but also provide either damping of that enclosure or a pathway for the evacuation of vibration. I need to watch it again, as can you. Max also does a demonstration on a table top, displaying other capabilities of his Isolators. Good stuff, but not cheap!
For anyone interested in the concept of isolation from seismic (or any other) vibrations, there is no need to wait for a seismologist. Simply watch Max Townshend's video on You Tube, and make of it what you will. We don't need no stinkin' seismologist!
That’s how I see it too Geoff (your summary on page 10). Approach addressing those low frequency vibrations coming up into the equipment stand, and the components therein, however you choose, but address them you should. What on Earth (unintended pun, but apropos ;-) is there to argue about in regard to that? It is simply, inarguably, fact. IMHO.

Seismic simply means very, very low frequencies, like 5Hz down. And it is no boogey man, they are quite real. Ask anyone who has put the Townshend Audio Seismic products (or perhaps Geoff’s springs) under his speakers, turntable, CD player, or tube electronics if they are effective at providing isolation from floor-borne vibrations (which transmit up into a speaker cabinet or an equipment rack, and through a turntable’s suspension, none of which provide isolation at seismic frequencies. That is why the microscope isolation tables selling for $2000-3000 sell as well as they do to those of sufficient means). There are a few here on Audiogon, one in Portland who has invited me over to hear them under his speakers for myself. I already own the older Seismic Platforms (used in conjunction with roller bearings, effective down to around 3Hz), and will be adding Pods shortly.

Again, Max Townshend has an excellent video on You Tube in which he explains and demonstrates his Seismic products. It is definitely worth a half hour of one’s time to watch.

The guys who have $2000-$3000 microscope isolation tables (first reported on in TAS about twenty years ago, now made by Newport, MinusK, and others) have them only under their turntables. One under every component in a system would be a whole lotta dough, as well overkill imo. The suspension of a turntable seriously affects the sound of LP’s, and a serious isolation table for them is justified.

Geoff is again correct (and correct in correcting me!) in the matter of affected frequencies. I used a 5Hz figure for seismic activity only because it is vibrations below that frequency that cannot be provided isolation from except by herculean effort. Spikes and cones are effective down to maybe 10Hz, Sorbothane and Navcom about the same (see the chart on the Townshend Audio site for exact figures).

Roller bearing devices provide isolation down to about 5Hz in the horizontal/lateral plane, but coupling (the exact opposite of isolation) in the vertical. Audiophile recording engineer Barry Diament (from whom I learned of the bearings) postulates that vibration travels largely across the surface of the floor (the lateral plane), and roller bearing are very effective at isolation in that plane. But vibrations also travel vertically, and roller bearings act as couplers in that plane. The combination of roller bearings and either metal or air springs (which decouple in the vertical plane, providing isolation) provide isolation in all three axis down to perhaps 3Hz, about as good as you can do outside of the $2000-$3000 Newport and MinusK tables, and the Townshend Seismic Pods at about half that. I’ll let Geoff speak in behalf of his own springs!

Barry uses roller bearings of his own design (manufactured locally for him only for his own use, not for sale) under his Maggie 3.7 speakers, and both the bearings and air springs (an under-inflated inner tube between two pieces marble or granite, I believe) under every piece of his recording and playback electronics.

No Randy, but turntables are arguably more than any other component affected by the stand they are sitting on, as well as from all other sources of vibration. The physical dimensions of the LP groove walls that the cartridge is "measuring" are on the order of microns, often smaller than the amount of physical displacement in the legs and/or shelves of the stand the turntable is on.

agear, for anyone desiring measured proof of the effectiveness of the Townshend Audio Seismic Isolator, let me once again state that Max Townshend has a video on You Tube in which he explains the theory and design of the product, and demonstrates its isolation capabilities and effectiveness in a couple of ways. One demonstration is of a speaker with its enclosure having a surface mounted microphone (there is a name for them, but I can’t recall it. It’s the type John Atkinson uses to measure cabinet resonances in the Stereophile speaker reviews) attached to it, the output of the mic displayed on an oscilloscope. Max stomps on the ground near the speaker, both with and without the Seismic Platform installed under its enclosure, the oscilloscope displaying the cabinet resonances produced in response to the foot stomping both ways. He also raps on the speaker cabinet with his knuckles, again both with and without the Platform under the speaker, the mic output again displayed on the oscilloscope. Max does another demonstration proving the effectiveness of his products in regard to minimizing (or eliminating?) internally generated resonances. Very interesting and informative, to me anyway.

There is an Audiogon member who lives not far from me, an owner of a very nice system (the member has posted it in the Audiogon Virtual System section, but I don’t feel I should assume he doesn’t mind me identifying him) with loudspeakers under which he has installed the Townshend Seismic Platform. He found it to provide a very noticeable improvement to the sound of his speakers, and has extended to me the offer of an invitation to come over and take a listen, which I intend to do very soon. I will then consider whether or not to acquire a set of the Townshend Seismic Pods for my own speakers (as well as perhaps for my turntable and CD player).

Even better folkfreak, let me know when you have tried the Sistrum, and I'll take you up on your offer and come over and hear your speakers with the Townshend Seismic platform, and then the Sistrum.
Rather than waiting for measured "proof" that any given product marketed as providing isolation from vibration actually does so (and further, that such isolation is not just academic, but actually provides an improvement in sound), you may in many cases try one and decide for yourself. Symposium Acoustics, makers of a couple of different roller bearing feet (named Roller Blocks) and isolation shelves, sell their products with a money-back guarantee. If you don't hear a difference, or one too small to justify the cost, return the product for a refund. Unless you aren't secure in your own ability to hear, and need an authority figure to validate your purchase decision ;-).

Isolation from seismic vibration proponent and recording engineer Barry Diament, previously mentioned by myself as introducing me to the concept, had his Soundkeeper Recordings "Equinox" release by Markus Schwartz and Lakou Brooklyn awarded Recording Of The Month in the February 2011 issue of Stereophile Magazine, and is again mentioned by Jim Austin in his November 2016 review of the Mytek D/A Processor/Preamplifier.

You may take that with a grain of salt, as Wolf Garcia proclaimed Mr. Diament "delusional" in his November 28th post in this thread.

agear, Mr. Diament would be the best person to ask. He's pretty responsive to inquiries, and a nice, non-confrontational guy ta boot.
It was David Hafler (I believe) who proposed the "null" test for power amplifiers. Once an amplifier so tested produced zero sound, it would ipso facto be producing zero audible distortion, for any audible artifacts produced by an amp in a null test would be, by definition, distortion. Hafler put on demonstrations of his then current (late 80’s?) amplifier, in which the amp produced no sound when nulled. The test, and Hafler’s claims regarding the threshold of distortion audibility, was covered in both Stereophile Magazine and TAS at the time.
You just don’t get it Ethan. Kavi listens to the direct mic feed, then to his recording of that mic feed. He listens for any difference between the two, for any degradation caused by the recorder. He has concluded that his recorder is the most accurate, lowest-distortion, transparent recorder available at this time (when he finds something more transparent, he will use it.). You claim he’s wrong? Gee, I just don’t know who has more credibility here---a Grammy Award-winning professional recording engineer, or you. Who are you again?

There is a select group of professional recording engineers now working who are considered the best in the business, responsible for some of the best sounding recordings ever made---lifelike instrumental timbre, high resolution and transparency, who can record on any equipment they choose. They have no allegiance to any system, just to getting the best sound possible. One such engineer is Kavi Alexander of Water Lily Records, located in Santa Barbara California.

Kavi not only continues to prefer analog tape to digital (though higher bit rates and sampling frequencies---24/192, are narrowing the gap), but he uses a very customized recorder that employs tubes! He does so NOT because of any "musical distortion" the recorder adds to the direct mic feed, but for the exact opposite reason---it is the most transparent, least distortion-adding method of recording he has found.

Kavi’s has produced some of the most astonishingly lifelike recordings ever made, including the Grammy Award-winning "A Meeting By The River", on which master slide guitarist Ry Cooder plays. Ry is VERY serious about the sound of his guitars (both live and recorded), which led him to make the first digitally recorded Pop (non-Classical) album, Bop Til You Drop. He HATED it! When he heard a Water Lily label recording he asked "Why don’t my records sound this good?". He sought out Mr. Alexander, and plans were undertaken to make the AMBTR album. It is World Music, and one of the handful of best recordings I’ve ever heard..

The Water Lily recorder’s tube circuits were designed by Tim Paravicini, who has also done work for the David Gilmore/Pink Floyd Studio in London, considered one of the best in the world. Tim also designs consumer Hi-Fi products for EAR-Yoshino, including tube pre-amps, power amps, and digital products. EAR-Yoshino has one phono pre-amp that is all solid state, which Tim preferred in that application. He, like Kavi, generally prefers tubes to solid state, not for their "musical distortion", but for their sonic superiority. One may disagree with that preference, but one can not truthfully claim that their preference is based on a desire for "musical distortion".

Man, I’m still surprised by the amount of hubris out there.

I’ll never forget the first time I heard a direct-to-disc LP, the second Sheffield. That label’s recording engineer Doug Sax went back in time, resurrecting recording without an electronic recorder at all, cutting a lacquer directly from his mixing console. The transparency, the "aliveness" of that recording, was astounding. It showed how much distortion was being added by the recorder itself.

The bypass test, in which the component being tested is inserted into the reproduction chain, the audibility of it’s insertion being listened for, is the ultimate test of a components transparency. That audibility will vary according to who the listener is, it has been established. The "better" the listener, the more audible the component. Perhaps Kavi Alexander has a much lower tolerance for digital and/or solid state distortion artifacts than your average AES member. To claim that his recordings sound "good" because they contain pleasing "musical distortion", when one has not even heard one of his recordings, and further that Mr. Alexander is "wrong" for preferring analog to digital (and tubes to solid state!), is not only ignorant, but arrogant.

The lack of humility is a very unflattering trait.


Things that are more noticed when they are removed than they were by virtue of their presence. It wasn't until I heard the transparency provided by an electrostatic loudspeaker that I realized just how colored, veiled, and opaque cone speakers were.

One of the intrinsic benefits of the long term listening audition of any given component is that the character of that component is often more readily apparent when the component is removed from the system than when it was inserted.

Some people's ego doesn't allow them to contemplate how little of our brains do we use, how little we know. A healthy dose of a psychedelic can help with that.
I felt a certain kinship with Ralph and Michael Green, we three the only longhairs at CES in the 90's. I cut off my mop in 2003 when Pearl Harbor (whose band I had just joined) asked me if I would not mind doing. She was a London-type Punk/Rockabilly singer (three albums on WB, Stiff in the UK), and didn't cotton to anything remotely hippie-ish. She had been married to Clash bassist Paul Simonon, and liked her band to look "manly"---50's greaser style. I actually love that look, and gladly acquiesced. But I'm back to the biker look, like Steve Earle in his hard-rockin' period. I prefer to think of it as biker, 'cause I never liked the Hippie style. Love beads, bell-bottoms, and a headband? Yuch!
Oops, forgot Pearl spells it Harbour. She's half Japanese/half American, so the name has a special significance. She useta do "Fujiyama Mama", the old Wanda Jackson Rockabilly song. Funny! Pearl is quite an amazing looking woman, very sexy. And what a clothes horse! Her house in L.A. is a two-bedroom, one of which she made into a walk-in closet, complete with a bunch of those racks with wheels that stores hang their goods on. And the house is decorated with posters of 50's Striptease artists, whom she now kinda resembles. Whatta gal!
In the 1980's I saw Tim Leary at a record store in Glendale California. He paid for his album (Devo ;-) with a Platinum American Express card. So much for "dropping out"!
For those still with me ;-), an inference that can be drawn from the feeling of being outside the physical universe is that the source of our collective consciousness, such as it is, is itself ("His" self) outside of it; the Creator and his Creation. Mystical, man.

I was aware of the out-of-body-experience phenomenon, but this was beyond that. It was an "out-of-universe-experience" ;-). And it was not just my own individual consciousness, but a feeling of being part of a group consciousness (for lack of a better term), the source of which was "outside time and space". THAT was the spirituality of it for me.

By the way, I experienced the same thing the first time I listened to J.S. Bach's Concerto for Four Harpsichords and Orchestra. Who needs Acid?!

Geez, I go to sleep for a few hours, and my post and four responses get deleted. Wonder what I missed---musta been good stuff!

I can’t smoke---makes me very paranoid. I stick to the booze. Lower chakra ;-).

I again attempted to point out the fact that there are a number of cases of acid casualty musicians, this time not naming names but only providing hints that would allow the reader to determine the identities of those musicians, thereby removing any concern on the part of AudiogoN about libel. That post was also deleted.