Do equipment stands have an impact on electronics?

Mapman stated - "gk your recall and logic are both flawed. You collect your facts selectively and draw conclusions as you see fit.

I totally agree with you mapman. He attempts to provide so much information (which is a good thing) but then takes parts of the discussion totally out of context for his own purpose only to argue or belittle his rival.

Just one Example of the many: Mr. Kait says -

“Funny. 88% reduction at 20 Hz is NOT normal. You guys apparently still don’t understand isolation or what a low pass filter actually is. What is not mentioned in the report - but is obviously the case - is that at frequencies higher than 20 Hz the isolation effectiveness is even higher than 88%, for purposes of discussion circa 97% at 30 Hz and 99.5% at 40 Hz.  Those number are fairly typical of ANY reasonably good mass-on-spring isolation device. Furthermore, it’s as obvious as the nose on your face that the 88% reduction was compared to the case without the isolation. You guys just can’t seem to catch a break. ;-)”

His Keywords are WHAT IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE REPORT - But Obviously the Case is....

Mr. Kait is making an argument that has no basis. He is making nothing more than a very large assumption. At the end of the day, the topic in conversation was to provide our opinion on independent third-party testing where this test was not. Therefore the data has no value outside of good marketing.

Mr. Kait should have come back when he or they have an actual formal third-party report that doesn't have homemade Microsoft XL graphs and poorly defined language. Then he could claim independent results that carry weight.

Mr. Kait says -

“http://www.solid-tech.net/products/discs-of-silence-4537455 Finally! Someone was smart enough to copy my original Nimbus Sub Hertz Isolation platform design;”  

Accusing Solid-Tech of being a copycat is really, really low. Please provide us any Patents or a Trademark on the original design that supports such a statement. 

Mr. Kait, in my opinion you tend to lower the bar wherever you go even when a mistake is made and apology follows.

Example:

Mr. Kait hammers back after an apology is made  - “Sorry to hear about your memory. If my memory serves it’s actually you who has been doing most of the name calling. In fact if I strip away the name calling and attitude and shilling of your products from the majority of your posts here there’s really not that much left. So that would make you a liar. A liar with a bad memory. If you can’t keep up with the discussion can I respectfully suggest you find someone who can?”

Calling anyone a liar is far below that of whale crap, so unless you provide undeniable evidence to back your claim, I suggest you go play daddy on someone else. Mr. Kait, you are stepping on thin ice here, liable for slander and defamation of character. Next time we will defend via other means.

I have related to you in comedic fashion on a few posts, feeling the need to 'reply in kind' to your 'observations' on the people posting, our company personnel and myself included (tit for tat) - but leave the audience to determine who the name caller is or better yet, anyone can review any of your historical 4,000+ posts in order to assist with their decision. You have been doing this long before my personal involvement on this forum. In my opinion, if you cannot on occasion take some of your own medicine, you might want to visit someone who can help you become a more positive person.

In audio - “product performance” and “value” always trumps the written opinions of anyone, anywhere, anytime and anyplace... including those who personally ridicule or insult others (accidently or directly) on this forum  that are seeking personal gain, self or company recognition, self satisfaction or whatever they were never able to accomplish in life (everyone included).

Very truly yours,

Robert - Star Sound

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 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.

She has authored and presented 14 papers on different aspects of interpretation and understanding compressional waves to the Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG) International meetings, European Association of Exploration Geophysicists (EAEG) meetings, Australian Association of Exploration Geophysicists (ASEG) meetings, SEG Summer Research Workshop and to SEG chapter meetings. Many of these papers were invited and some were awarded best paper. In addition, she taught a three-day course on seismic interpretation requested by the SEG.  She has also worked as a Geotechnical Engineer in the housing industry.

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.

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!

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).

In our humble opinion, the Townshend technical comparison and videos are “Creative Marketing” tools supported by audio theory and are lacking any proof from third party independent testing:

1. Comparing $0.90 cents worth of some kind of "typical" generic spike to an approximate $3,000.00 isolation product clearly puts the test and results in the favor of the host company. This would be like Star Sound comparing a Rhythm Platform™ next to generic springs which would not be a reasonable comparison or fair to the listenership either. This test or proof of effectiveness is reduced to marketing before the first physical tap on the speakers takes place.  

2. There is a level of noise displayed on “both” monitors before the experimentation of jumping and taping begins. Those noise levels are never analyzed to see what the differences are at the outset (between the cheap spikes and the ultra expensive product) in order to establish a ‘Control’ factor for the comparison.

3. Does anyone ask why they have to physically have to rap the cabinet or jump up and down to excite motion in the environment in order to get their 'desired' result? Do people do this when listening? Why not pulse the speaker system with frequency and high volume? So many more questions...

4. Then there is the technical data, charts and mechanical motion models. We will refrain from exploring those inefficiencies because this is not an equitable comparison. This ‘proof of effectiveness’ appears to be anchored on comparing two methodologies where one is heavily favored to the isolation spring side of marketing and gives the newest technical advancement and competition that our company is involved in - a bad rap.

NOTE: No two spikes or coupling devices are nearly the same in mechanical function and sonic performance AND one should note that before deciding coupling or decoupling is the way to go. Mass and Geometry play an extremely important role in mechanical grounding via high speed resonance transfer designs and products. The generic spikes used in this comparison are maybe a quarter pound of total mass? What is the total weight of the isolation device?

We have absolutely nothing against this company. Creating sales is first and foremost in order to advance products and fund technologies but if you really want to show the differences between coupling (mechanical grounding) and decoupling (isolation) then why not be a bit more fair and place a $1,700.00 Rhythm Platform or any other existing product from the same cost bracket as the Townshend and compare from there?

In my personal opinion, Townshend has a great storyboard depicting isolation as this methodology has been accepted for years. Staying away from comparisons might be the better way to go and avoid the rebuttals from the competition entirely.

Did anyone ever compare the two really strong products mentioned above side by side? Let me elaborate on what one may experience. Clearly the Townshend and Sistrum Platform are two totally different approaches to vibration management. The technologies are opposite one another and SO are the Sonic Results (highly subjective to end users of course). The products do ‘not’ sound similar as if someone is comparing subtle differences between two good amplifiers. In this case, the differences are extremely audible and will easily provide you a favorite choice.

Thank you for your time,

Robert

Star Sound.

Did anyone ever compare the two really strong products mentioned above side by side? Let me elaborate on what one may experience. Clearly the Townshend and Sistrum Platform are two totally different approaches to vibration management. The technologies are opposite one another and SO are the Sonic Results (highly subjective to end users of course). The products do ‘not’ sound similar as if someone is comparing subtle differences between two good amplifiers. In this case, the differences are extremely audible and will easily provide you a favorite choice.