Do equipment stands have an impact on electronics?
randy-11That would be troll singular. Please expound on why a spring doubles dynamic range? Is that before or after they are treated in that tinfoil wrapped Microwave aka a "morphic resonator"..... |
agear OP 1,238 posts 11-21-2016 9:48am randy-11 223 posts 11-18-2016 4:47pm I agree that the mods should close this thread and get rid of the troll If we got rid of all the trolls on this thread there wouldn’t be anyone left to post. 😥 That would be troll singular. Please expound on why a spring doubles dynamic range? Is that before or after they are treated in that tinfoil wrapped Microwave aka a "morphic resonator"..... What?! so all of a sudden I’m the bad guy? So typical of trolls to try and pin the blame for their own ignorance on someone else. Like naughty little boys with their fingers in their ears. How about expounding sand? |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
Remember that the SS stands takes days to settle so start with those and then flip to the Townsend. You are in for a surprise given all the aspersion cast upon their humble "cone" based technology. The walls of my listening room are engineered around their technology and it crushes everything else I have heard. It has a vibratory life of its own like a tuning fork. It is not some disembodied stereo which is what most systems I have heard at shows and in homes sound like. Imagine an orchestra without the room in play. Just plain silly. |
An interesting test would be spectrum analysis of speaker output with and without stands. While the Youtube video of the Townsend product is visually intriguing, it tells us nothing about changes in frequency performance and output. Will the spring cause cancellation of the smaller motor forces of mids and highs? With attenuation of high frequencies, I believe there will be a perceived increase in bass output due to a change in spectral balance. Like using a spring as an endpin on a violin, I would assume that there will be attenuation of dB output and thus my prediction is that the SS stands will be louder and more dynamic. I could be wrong. Look forward to hearing your findings. Wish I could be there as well. |
Hmmm, there seems to be a lot of interest in this comparison and some speculation as to what the results might be. Personally I'm not in any rush to attempt this as the thought of trying to get 250lb of Magico Q3 up onto the Sistrum spikes scares the hell out of me. Spiking Q3s alone is easy as you install each spike at a time, and installing the Townshend podia was also easy as I could manhandle them onto the platforms and then slide across (these are used sans spikes) but the Star Sound platforms would need me to get them onto upward facing spikes, no easy task without help. Seems I will need one of you round to give me a hand Anyway FWIW my speculation is that the impact would be similar to the effect I found moving from Magico spikes (themselves carefully designed and contoured in a similar manner to the SS spikes). Contrary to what others have speculated the apparent effect of moving to the Townshend podium from spikes was to lower the perceived bass -- mainly through the complete elimination of floor borne bass transmission. The reality is that the same level of air borne information was coming through but without the overhang and boom of the floor borne transmission the quality of the bass was much improved, and the sound of for example Heather Masse's double bass now mirrored that I experience live. Bear in mind also that the Q3 cabinets are "quite" solid and well designed they should have no problem dealing with and managing resonances contained within the cabinets. Also the speculation that the drivers are somehow pushing back on and moving (via the sprung base) a 250kg mass seems far fetched -- there's actually a discussion of specifically this point on the Townshend site if you care to look it up My concern then with an ideal energy channel approach such as SS deliver is where is all of this energy going? Into my floor (wood on concrete) and then dumped into my listening chair? I hope not. I can see how a full SS room where energy is then channeled out of the room would work but simply dumping energy into an uncontrolled room/floor seems problematic Anyway while this may be an interesting comparison it may be some time before I have the time (and the extra pair of hands) to try it out -- in the meantime I'm having too much fun with my system as is and not worrying about why it works 😉 -- my next addition is going to be a new cartridge but that's another story |
Folk, it will be an undertaking that takes a second set of hands. Having a concrete floor is a bonus and will not cause uncontrolled room rumble. I have had speakers of a similar weight on stands with wood floors and it did not cause issues. Magico's are indeed well engineered (compared to a lot of speakers) but should still benefit. My previous speakers (Mosaic Illuminations) were absolute tanks and benefited from SS stands. It is interesting that the Townsend stands seem to decouple the speakers from the room which I guess can be an advantage depending on room nodes, etc |
Agear wrote, "It is interesting that the Townsend stands seem to decouple the speakers from the room which I guess can be an advantage depending on room nodes, etc." Huh? As Townshend points out on his web site, and as I’ve pointed out as well, isolating the speakers has two advantages: (1) it prevents low frequency vibration from getting up into the speakers and affecting wiring and electronics, RCA connectors, etc. and (2) it prevents speaker cabinet vibrations from feeding back via the floor to system cabling on the floor, electronics, turntable, CD player, what have you. That’s also, by no coincidence, what my springs do for medium-size speakers and Subwoofers. |
Agear wrote, "You are in for a surprise given all the aspersion cast upon their humble "cone" based technology." I'm pretty sure no one has cast asperions on their technology or even suggested it wouldn't work. But to suggest that their technology is the only technology or offers a complete solution to the whole vibration problem is a little bit of an exaggeration. |
Further to the speaker room interface I wonder if my room, being an Art Noxon design intended to be sound isolating (i.e with bass traps and damping built into the walls) may be less conducive to a SS type "grounding" arrangement in so far as the excess energy has no easy path to ground and hence causes problems in the room. Geoff's point about speaker induced floor borne vibration affecting the sound of the cables is certainly very well taken, isolating my main (30') interconnect run on Shunyata supports (springs again - actually rubber bands) had a profound effect One thing I did not get with the Townshend supports was a reduction in bass transmission outside the room. Bass is the one sound that leaks out to my wife in the room above and it seems it does so via the window surround rather than the floor, floor would probably be the path for leakage down but as the room is at the ground level this is not relevant. I suppose SS would not recommend their setup for speakers in a high rise 😏 |
Huh? As Townshend points out on his web site, and as I’ve pointed out as well, isolating the speakers has two advantages:All theoretical advantages only. Again, the raison d'etre of this thread. |
Further to the speaker room interface I wonder if my room, being an Art Noxon design intended to be sound isolating (i.e with bass traps and damping built into the walls) may be less conducive to a SS type "grounding" arrangement in so far as the excess energy has no easy path to ground and hence causes problems in the room.That is an interesting question. What does Art use for dampening again? My hunch is it would work just fine as demonstrated by the video of an 18 inch sub fed 1400 watts and spitting out 104dB. I know people who use Sistrum racking with rooms like yours. That would be a question for Robert. My room is a hybrid design in that sense. I have greenglue sandwiches of drywall floating on an isolation clip system engineered by Cascade Audio on the external walls and ceiling along with spray foam insulation for noise reduction purposes. Corners and waveguide elements use sand and/or foam insulation. The internal walls use the SS constructs only. |
Agear -- are you bent on simply ignoring all evidence to the contrary and pimping SS above all else? As I and many others have observed and attested to these effects are far from theoretical, they are real and the impact of addressing them (via suspended or spring solutions) is real and profoundHuh? As Townshend points out on his web site, and as I’ve pointed out as well, isolating the speakers has two advantages:All theoretical advantages only. Again, the raison d'etre of this thread. |
agear OP: "decouple the speakers from the room which I guess can be an advantage depending on room nodes, etc" Geoffkait:Depending on room nodes? Huh? What on Earth are you referring to? to which Agear replied, "Not anything to worry about with your Walkman...." That’s what I thought. You don’t even know what isolation is. Let the insults fly! |
agear OP Geoffkait:Huh? As Townshend points out on his web site, and as I’ve pointed out as well, isolating the speakers has two advantages: (1) it prevents low frequency vibration from getting up into the speakers and affecting wiring and electronics, RCA connectors, etc. and (2) it prevents speaker cabinet vibrations from feeding back via the floor to system cabling on the floor, electronics, turntable, CD player, what have you. That’s also, by no coincidence, what my springs do for medium-size speakers and Subwoofers. To which Agear replies, "All theoretical advantages only. Again, the raison d’etre of this thread." It’s not only theoretical, silly. Vibration isolation is a very well established science. Even for advanced audiophiles it’s been well established for at least 20 years. Now that I think about it, by inference that would make anyone who doesn’t use isolation as not advanced. As I’ve oft pointed out on this forum one need look no further than LIGO for the absolute proof that the seismic vibration problem is solved by vibration isolation, that vibration isolation is not some theoretical machination. LIGO could not have succeeded without vibration isolation. Scanning electron microscopes won’t even work without vibration isolation. Geez, you’d have to be living in a cave to believe isolation is only theoretical. But I can certainly understand why you make these ridiculous arguments and "scathing insults" having dealt with the Tuning Meister himself every day for more than two years. I totally get where you guys are coming from. As I intimated the other day all of this confusion on the part of you guys could have been prevented if you had been paying more attention all this time to what others were doing and what progress was being made and avoided the pitfalls of stove piping vibration solutions. |
Agear -- are you bent on simply ignoring all evidence to the contrary and pimping SS above all else? As I and many others have observed and attested to these effects are far from theoretical, they are real and the impact of addressing them (via suspended or spring solutions) is real and profoundNope. There is no evidence for any of this stuff and thus the point of the thread. There are apparently "engineers" involved with some of these products but no data whatsoever, just pseudoscientific intuitive and fights of fancy (and youtube videos). You heard a "change" in your speakers. Why? Spectral analysis would be easy to do with and without stands (for an actual engineer....maybe not a NASA custodian). In audiophilia, an audible change is often the end game. Philes experience a change and that keeps them going without knowing what changed and why. |
Nope. There is no evidence for any of this stuff and thus the point of the thread. There are apparently "engineers" involved with some of these products but no data whatsoever, just pseudoscientific intuitive and fights of fancy (and youtube videos) You are obviously not trying very hard to unearth this evidence? Here are several examples using your preferred method (accelerometers) supporting two of the items I use in my system 1) Shunyata Dark Field Elevators for cable isolation http://www.shunyata.com/images/technical_features/dfss-chart.jpg 2) Grand Prix Audio racking systems -- which include a variety of isolation methods including ball/cup feet exactly to deal with floor borne vibration (Apex footers) http://www.grandprixaudio.com/research http://www.grandprixaudio.com/products/apex#product-features And for a more insidious problem here is a technical discussion of vibration induced jitter in CD playback http://www.industrial-electronics.com/DAQ/optical_discs_digital_data_and_vibrational_jitter_effects.html None of this is mumbo jumbo, it’s all established science -- two minutes of online research turns all of this up -- personally I thought this thread had morphed into more of a discussion of how to address these issues rather then whether they were worth addressing |
1) Shunyata Dark Field Elevators for cable isolation If the claim is that these images demonstrate the benefits of cable vibration isolators then I call BS. Notice please:
Also please note, all these statements above (including BS) are in the engineering domain. All the attacks that follow will be personal, name calling, etc. Well, let them begin. I will always look forward to careful thought out replies like "Hey Erik, you missed this link which explains...." or "I like mine!" Those are all fine, I’m not challenging your subjective experience, just saying, those pics don’t make sense. Best, Erik |
Erik -- I have nothing to add to your comments, best take them up with Shunyata directly. My point was mainly to surface some instances of data on even the most "implausible" of vibration related effects (e.g. on cables and on electronics) and point to data discussing the potential causes, which is not hard to find despite agear's attestations to the contrary |
@folkfreak 2) Grand Prix Audio racking systems -- which include a variety of isolation methods including ball/cup feet exactly to deal with floor borne vibration (Apex footers) Well at least these tests and measurements are a little better documented, but not really reproducible nor do they make any specific claims. The charts have no units at all. In the test results they make no measurements of improving sound quality just vibrations. Not at all the same thing. Material and Industrial engineers have had established methods for doing this for ages. Nice to see someone, anyone, in audio taking up this approach, but whether or not they are relevant to audiophiles is not demonstrated here. Best, Erik |
As I've said before, testing and measuring the benefits of vibration control in home audio should be easy, and inexpensive. I've yet to see the loop closed. Doing this work could lead to cheaper and better sounding equipment when we have definite, exact, nuanced information to guide our manufacturing choices. If any of this exists for audio, I've yet to see any of it. Best, Erik |
erik_squires As I've said before, testing and measuring the benefits of vibration control in home audio should be easy, and inexpensive. I've yet to see the loop closed.Agreed! Mind you, I'm rather certain that I've heard the benefits of vibration control in my system and because this is just a hobby to me, I'm satisfied with that. But measuring the results of isolation and correlating that to listening tests shouldn't be that big a deal for manufacturers. The absence of that documentation is what helps fuel the skeptics. |
Cleeeds wrote, "Agreed! Mind you, I'm rather certain that I've heard the benefits of vibration control in my system and because this is just a hobby to me, I'm satisfied with that. But measuring the results of isolation and correlating that to listening tests shouldn't be that big a deal for manufacturers. The absence of that documentation is what helps fuel the skeptics." We've been through this already. Manufacturers actually shouldn't be the ones making measurements for vibration control/vibration isolation, it should be some third party independent agency. Furthermore, even under ideal conditions, and with competent testers, because of the obvious variations and vagaries in vibration environments from town to town and city to city and system to system, the results of such tests would not necessarily be that helpful. As we have seen ever since the dawn of audiophiles, listening tests are not particularly reliable for anything. Besides, nobody measures cables, room treatments, CD treatments, tweaks of any kind, so why should vibration control/vibration isolation be any different? |
geoffkait Manufacturers actually shouldn't be the ones making measurements for vibration control/vibration isolation, it should be some third party independent agency.Why? Aren't you making measurements as part of your design and manufacturing efforts? If so, why not share the results? If not, are you simply relying on trial and error? Furthermore, even under ideal conditions, and with competent testers, because of the obvious variations and vagaries in vibration environments from town to town and city to city and system to system, the results of such tests would not necessarily be that helpful.Yes, perhaps. But without initial measurements to use as a benchmark, we'll never know if there's any truth to your speculation. |
Erik -- from your lack of critique of my third link (the discussion of jitter) do you thereby accept that this is a meaningful, and meaningfully measured, effect? Agear -- If so perhaps this is enough to put your original question to rest, to whit The question is does it [i.e. vibration effects] 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? i.e. we have a demonstration that vibration matters in regard to electronics, and that this effect can be measured (at least for disc players) Maybe then we can all go back to sleep ps I would be listening to my hi-fi but unfortunately I accidentally pulled the power on it and it takes 48-72 hours to settle after that which stinks, maybe we can have a new thread on why it takes a system such a long time to settle electrically 😉 |
Hi @folkfreak Anything mechanical and spinning has known susceptibility to vibration noise, including CD’s, DVD’s and of course phonograph players. I wouldn’t be surprised if CD players were susceptible to jitter or even flat-out read errors with enough vibration. Very few CD players have buffered, asynchronous outputs. The Sonic Frontiers, and Parasound players were some of the very few. As you probably know, some other boutique players use large memory buffers to play from. However, with good clocks and buffers, this effect should be completely eliminated. So, I am completely skeptical of hard disk / USB 2.0 players having any such issues at all. I’m also leaving the door open to electronics or even cables having vibrational susceptibility, but again, it’s so freaking easy to begin to measure this, and I’ve seen zero. Invariably some one points out to vibration isolation for laser measurements of gravity waves, or earthquake damping .... yes, they have problems... and you know what? They are freaking measurable!! That’s how they arrive at the optimal solution. If vibration control is a real issue then magazines should be testing preamps and platforms for it. Nada. Best, Erik |
It is quite possible we are approaching the real problem the wrong way. What if the real issues are not that electronic signals are being contaminated by vibrations, but that we are hearing our equipment stands resonate? Same for cables. I could see them vibrating on the floor. Maybe we need quilts instead? :) But lack of measurements leave this up in the snake oil and trial and error. We might as well be trepinating each other in the hopes of reducing headaches. |
cleeds geoffkait: Manufacturers actually shouldn’t be the ones making measurements for vibration control/vibration isolation, it should be some third party independent agency. to which cleeds replied, "Why? Aren’t you making measurements as part of your design and manufacturing efforts? If so, why not share the results? If not, are you simply relying on trial and error?" The Government employs independent contractors to test manufacturers’ products, e.g., weapons, software, radios, etc. it wouldn’t make any sense for the manufacturer to be the one providing test results. It’s competitive so the manufacturer cannot be trusted to be honest, one assumes. I use mathematics and testing in development, usually but not always, some things are not amenable to measurements, if you know what I mean, you know, what with Mr. Clock and the Teleportation thingie. Geoffkait:Furthermore, even under ideal conditions, and with competent testers, because of the obvious variations and vagaries in vibration environments from town to town and city to city and system to system, the results of such tests would not necessarily be that helpful. cleeds paused for a moment then pulled the trigger, "Yes, perhaps. But without initial measurements to use as a benchmark, we’ll never know if there’s any truth to your speculation." Sorry but there's no such thing as a benchmark for these devices as I just explained. Truth? Speculation? You’re kidding, right? What are you, god’s gift to skeptics? |
Excerpt from Peter Bizlewicz of Symposium Acoustics interview in Positive Feedback Online: PF: How do you sway remaining skeptics of the efficacy of resonance control, or what ever name we give it, in high performance domestic audio set ups? PB: I don’t worry about potential members of the Flat Earth Society who may have a problem with the more advanced aspects of high end audio, and this includes vibration control. Ultimately and unfortunately, it’s their loss. The world has a generous supply of skeptics who seem compelled to mask ignorance with sophistry. The irony is that the usual modus operandi of these types is to accuse the audiophile community of sophistry, but the reverse is usually true: the casual skeptic has not done any research, and we have. The first year I did CES, I had a small table set up with a CD player and I was doing demonstrations of the improvements in sound quality, through headphones, by placing the CD player up on Rollerblocks and a platform. When you physically demonstrate something, that is science, and we made a lot of believers with that simple setup. One very technical-looking fellow (who seemed a bit lost in the high performance audio area) was hurrying through the aisle of high end accessories, doing his very best not to make eye contact with any of the audio lunatics (such as myself) occupying the tables on either side. As he rushed past, I called to him "How about a demonstration?" Without changing his gait, he almost shouted, "I’ll believe it when I can see it on an oscilloscope!" I thought, what does looking at an oscilloscope trace have to do with listening? I understand his perspective; such "tech heads" (I have also been called one of these) have been formally trained that nothing exists that cannot be quantified or defined (I am not speaking of mathematical theory here such as Gödelian Incompleteness Theory or Randomness, I’m referring to so called "real" phenomena). However, the greater reality is that this position assumes that everything is known. Unfortunately (or fortunately), everything is NOT known, and therefore, if something is perceived, but is not or cannot (yet) be quantified, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is not real. If more than one person perceives the same phenomena under repeatable and controlled conditions, it is either a case of mass hallucination or it is a real natural phenomenon. Ruling out the former, such phenomena may be quantified or defined tomorrow or in a hundred years, but to state that until that time it does not exist because we don’t know how to measure it yet is neither logical, scientific, nor intelligent. |
erik_squires wrote, "It is quite possible we are approaching the real problem the wrong way. What if the real issues are not that electronic signals are being contaminated by vibrations, but that we are hearing our equipment stands resonate? Same for cables. I could see them vibrating on the floor. Maybe we need quilts instead? :)" Actually it would be quite easy to eliminate the equipment stands from the equation. I’m not particularly fond of racks or stands in general because they often do add vibration to the equation, audibly so, even If they’re very rigid. Thus removing the electronics from its rack and placing it on a real isolation device should demonstrate the efficacy of isolation. Furthermore, tube dampers must certainly operate by reducing the vibration effects on the audio signal, rather than the idea we're heating the glass vibrate instead, no? And if cables are suspended by thread and the sound improved that would seem to indicate that structureborne vibration is to blame, leaving the static electric field issue aside for the moment. erik_squires then wrote, "But lack of measurements leave this up in the snake oil and trial and error. We might as well be trepinating each other in the hopes of reducing headaches." I hate to disagree but it’s not really trial and error at this point in time, you know, twenty years after the first audiophile isolation stands were introduced. It’s probably more accurate to call it a slam dunk than trial and error. You know, 40 thousand audiophile isolation devices later. |
You are obviously not trying very hard to unearth this evidence? Here are several examples using your preferred method (accelerometers) supporting two of the items I use in my systemau contraire. I have read exhaustively on this stuff (and regret doing so). I have a "science" background, have done bench research, and published in peer reviewed journals as have many of my family members. I know all about the discipline and energy it takes to generate "data" that leads to something new. Its much easier to make things up or take flights of fancy or do radioshack grade measurements after the fact to provide some proof of concept (aka a "white paper"). Do you realize that John Atkinson was using an accelerometer for speaker testing back in the early 90s? Not exactly cutting edge....and it certainly tells you nothing about speaker "output" or frequency changes or electrical epiphenomena (which is again the point of this thread). Sigh.... |
It is quite possible we are approaching the real problem the wrong way. What if the real issues are not that electronic signals are being contaminated by vibrations, but that we are hearing our equipment stands resonate? Same for cables. I could see them vibrating on the floor. Maybe we need quilts instead? :)Touche Erik. Thus my suggestion of frequency analysis after plopping our speakers on some magic stand. On a related note, some speakers are voiced a certain way (including using cabinet vibration as part of that voice like Harbeths or AudioNote) and stands can most certainly change that voice. I know this to be the case....with SS, Stillpoints, etc. |
PB: I don’t worry about potential members of the Flat Earth Society who may have a problem with the more advanced aspects of high end audio, and this includes vibration control. Ultimately and unfortunately, it’s their loss. The world has a generous supply of skeptics who seem compelled to mask ignorance with sophistry. The irony is that the usual modus operandi of these types is to accuse the audiophile community of sophistry, but the reverse is usually true: the casual skeptic has not done any research, and we have.I agree with his sentiment and there can certainly be sophistry on both sides of the aisle. That being said, it is also self-serving as he is in the industry and the onus is on him to some degree.... |
Remember that in audio, the FTC sets some standards, but doesn't measure the gear. It's up to the equipment makers to measure and make claims, and occasionally magazines test them to see how close they are to the specifications. We are far from any of that I'm afraid. It's up to academia and manufacturers and even interested hobbyists to explore and then define measurement protocols since there is a complete lack of them in audio. If someday that happens, then maybe down the line we'll have legal standards for labels on racks like food nutrition content. But for now I can claim my home made rack improves temporal cohesion and reverses digital blur by 40%. Best, Erik |
@geoffkait Then please tell me a model to mathematically describe the effects of microphonics and vibration. Lacking that, it IS trial and error and devoid of engineering. Weren’t you a few pages back arguing it was impossible to use basic engineering practices to stands? Perhaps it was another camp. Or we are stuck at trepination and therefore unable to develop even aspirin and ibuprofin for headache relief. I’m sure there are makers who can test their stands and make them vibrate less. What’s lacking is an explanation and model for what of these characteristics makes an audio system sound better. That’s what I mean about the loop not being closed. You can take a course in loudspeaker driver design, where you would dissect and analyze everything from an AMT to a fan-based woofer and know how to put those numbers together to explain the subjective effects of your choices in materials, magnets and coil geometry. We have no such thing for vibration control in audio. Usually around here some one responds "But we don't need engineering...." and we go all the way back to making holes in customer's heads for pain relief. They could sell a bazillion "vibration isolators" and it’s no proof to me of anything besides good marketing. Imagine even a light bulb being made today without a thorough understanding and accessibility of the sciences involved. Power, current, efficiency, materials and emitted light spectrum. Forget a light bulb, a chef’s knife has more science behind it than vibration control in audio. Best, Erik |
erik_squires @geoffkait "Then please tell me a model to mathematically describe the effects of microphonics and vibration. Lacking that, it IS trial and error and devoid of engineering." Ironically, we don’t have to model microphonics or vibration. We model the damping method or isolation method. Thus whatever vibration one has to do with we will know the effectiveness of the solution. For isolation devices for example we know that the ISOLATION EFFECTIVENESS - for whatever the local vibration environment looks like - is a relatively simple calculation based on spring rate, load and resonant frequency. So, obviously one would want to design his iso device with the lowest possible resonant frequency. Then the isolation effectiveness for any given frequency of vibration will be the highest. As I’ve said repeatedly no model can describe all vibration situations since there are wide variations in local seismic vibration (traffic, etc.), audio system characteristics - e.g., transformer noise, motor noise, speaker SPL, etc. Erik again, "Weren’t you a few pages back arguing it was impossible to use basic engineering practices to stands? Perhaps it was another camp." No, it was not me. It must have been someone else. Since I am an engineer and a theoretical physicist I tend to use engineering practices and correct physical engineering theory. Erik again, "Or we are stuck at trepination and therefore unable to develop even aspirin and ibuprofin for headache relief." No we are not stuck at trepination although this thread is starting to give ME a headache. Erik again, "I’m sure there are makers who can test their stands and make them vibrate less. What’s lacking is an explanation and model for what of these characteristics makes an audio system sound better. That’s what I mean about the loop not being closed. You can take a course in loudspeaker driver design, where you would dissect and analyze everything from an AMT to a fan-based woofer and know how to put those numbers together to explain the subjective effects of your choices in materials, magnets and coil geometry. We have no such thing for vibration control in audio. Usually around here some one responds "But we don’t need engineering...." and we go all the way back to making holes in customer’s heads for pain relief." No need for all the drama. Vibration control and vibration isolation is a VERY mature science. Not need for hystryonics. Here is a quick study page for vibration isolation from Kinetic Systems. Save the drama for yo mama. http://www.kineticsystems.com/page306.html Erik again, "They could sell a bazillion "vibration isolators" and it’s no proof to me of anything besides good marketing. Imagine even a light bulb being made today without a thorough understanding and accessibility of the sciences involved. Power, current, efficiency, materials and emitted light spectrum. Forget a light bulb, a chef’s knife has more science behind it than vibration control in audio." There are many vibration control and vibration isolation devices for audiophiles. Your job is to study up on what vibration control and vibration isolation is all about so you are knowledgeable enough to make an informed decision regarding such devices, the cost of which range all over the place. As I keep saying the most technically challenging scientific project, or at least one of them, LIGO, was forced to employ vibration isolation in order to reduce the instrument’s sesitivity enough to observe gravity waves. This is not really a case of trial and error. It’s a case of understanding the underlying physics and requirements. Although now that you mention it, TRIAL AND ERROR is actually part of the scientific method and can be quite useful. Nothing wrong with them apples. In fact a lot of things in this hobby are unpredictable Inasmuch as how they will work out in a given system, no? geoff kait machina dynamica give me a strong enough spring and I’ll isolate the world |
erik_squires wrote Remember that in audio, the FTC sets some standards, but doesn’t measure the gear. It’s up to the equipment makers to measure and make claims, and occasionally magazines test them to see how close they are to the specifications. >>>>>Really? The FTC sets standards for home audio? Id be curious to see any more info. as i already stated, manufacturers are under no obligation to either measure anything or make any claims. They can if they wish. there are some things in this hobby that are simply not amenable to measurement. See if you can name 3. >>>There are no measurement requirements or protocols for home audio. Obviously there are certain standards involved such as Redbook CD and DVD and Blu Ray. There are no standards for noise, distortion or even Dynamic Range of home systems. Standards and protocols are not legally binding AFAIK\, CDs are produced that are not Redbook for example. Where are you coming up with this stuff? Have a nice day |
