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?
reading through this thread i did not see any mention of 'active isolation'.
passive isolation/decoupling can get the job done in most situations, which was where i was at. then I switched speaker systems to a 2 tower system which was -3db at 7hz and -6db at 3hz. and this bass tower was 6 feet from my turntable. it took me a couple of months to understand that the sudden occurrence of noticeable groove distortion on female vocals, cello's, and other previously wonderful passages was feedback from these massive 750 pound, 7 foot tall bass towers.
since active isolation needs a grounded rack with zero compliance and some mass loading I also switched my rack system to the Adona GTX.
active devices are stiff and very fast. they use piezoelectric sensors and actuators, and sense resonance and compensate for it. and that happens in real time. they are designed primarily for using electron microscopes in laboratory conditions. which happens to be the same job we need done for our electronics. the feedback from music and background hash of reality needs to be eliminated from our reproduction chain so it does not overlay our music.
passive devices settle and overshoot since they are soft. an active device is stiff since they can stop and start. active is 500x stiffer than passive devices. they can attenuate noise down to .5hz. there is a graphical display on the side of the Herzan TS platforms that displays noise in horizontal lines that is being attenuated. if you clap your hands you will see the lines get squiggly and get sensed and compensated for. it's that sensitive. these active devices are built to also auto level. when you turn them on they first level the top platform. after that they just do their thing.
while not cheap to buy, when combined with a modestly priced grounded rack they are not much more costly than the more spendy racks used by many audiophiles and in the context of uber systems they are sensible products. and science and industry proves that they really work.
any system will get a boost with an active shelf since they objectively out-perform any passive device. period. OTOH some systems and specific situations actually 'need' active to solve specific problems like I had.
ive had both my Herzan's for 4 years now and they have been flawless. they bring a level of nuance and solidity to the music in the ultra dynamic system that must be heard to be believed. coherence on musical peaks at warp 9 is outstanding and allows the music to have an ease and authority not otherwise possible. they do require a good foundation ideally; I have 6 inches of concrete as my floor. a suspended wood floor might compromise an active device as it would be continually compensating for the sensed compliance and burn out.
when you get it truly right individual sounds are isolated, transparency enhanced, low level details and imaging articulated and with no changes in tonality
the electronics are not being stressed by resonance
this occurs in both tube and solid state equipment
where you hear this is in detail and separation of instruments, with no smear and decay in time. There is a strong sense of silence between notes, natural decay and sharp attacks
One way you can hear this nicely is on a full swipe of a pianists hand across the keys or fast articulated playing with distict quick gaps between notes. The notes will sound out distinctly without overlap.
it real is like a veil removed in a time sense things jump out ar you by their lack of resonace and enhanced separation
I have found two major products that have taken isolation to a great level in my system.
Silent Running Audio racks and isobases and Daedalus DIDs - Daedalus Isolation Devices footers.
Silent Running Audio is serious isolation. I have their Craz rack and a number of their isobase platforms. Kevin Tellekamp works on contracts dealing with precise control of resonance with the US nuclear submarines and with other groups including demanding micro level medical applications.
The Craz rack contains an indo-skeletion of titanium, custom material shelves and is a major investment, but it will make a huge difference and will be the last rack you ever buy. It is a work of art - very substantial..
you can also buy SRA isobases that go on any rack shelf or on the floor commonly with monoblocks. SRA custom makes each shelf to your specific equipment. My turntable base was designed around my Gavia Galibier and is a thing of beauty. Everything comes wood crated.
another isolation device that is garnering great attention is Lou Hinkley at Daedalus DIDs - Daedalus Isolation Devices. Lou who build's exceptionally crafted hardwood speakers has come up with isolation footers that work very effectively.
I have utilized these on my Billy Bags digital rack and they provide enhanced resolution, transparency and isolation with no changes in tonality. Lou's comments - Resonance control is crucial in the design of great speaker systems, and now we have applied that knowledge to isolation devices (footers) for components. These devices utilize dissimilar materials to dissipate resonance coupled with bearings to also isolate the electronic component from vibration. Precision made of highly polished billet Aluminum, solid Cherry and Brass with steel bearings.
Lou has been effectively bringing these to audio shows and demonstrating their impact by adding them component by component to the system. Then removing as well. The sonic benefits are very apparent.
It matters very much and the higher the level the more it matters. I have put all electronics on a heavy brick wall (1200kg/m2) and only the speakers are on the groundfloor. The floor is made of 5,5m3 concreet and is floating on 300mm polystyren. By taking the equipment away from the floor the level jumped up at once. After that i experimentet a lot with shelves, haveing diffrent, kinds of quartzsand and led build in the shelves, using birchplywood at lot. I did again help. The idear was that the sand i vibrating and through friktion is turned to heat and away from the equipment.I have also good expirience with ebony both under and also direct on the equipment, inspired by Shunk Moon. Then all dampingacessories started and after many kond of difrent manufacturs i ended in the Stillpoint line, Universal => Ultra SS=> Ultra 5 where i stand now, the are very good. Even the powerdistributor gains from standing on a Ultra 5. They to reacts very much in relation to what you put under them. Next step will probaly be the Ultra 6. Dampingvibration in equipment is a abselute must but also your windows give a lot eve n if you have the special ones with heavy argongass and 4 and 6 mm thick glass. Nice lisining
YES beyond any doubt. I have generally stayed away from woods no matter how well aged, etc..as my system and others never sounded quite right (to my ears) but that's a personal bias and should not be counted on in any way for anyone else's system. I have taken the approach of using at least 2 levels of isolation/equipment stands, (1) coarse grade for stability, think heavy duty stands, multi-layer platforms, etc...and (2) component platforms on each stand shelf for full frequency spectrum vibration absorption and dissipation. There are lots of ways and products to go about this; given when I started on this many years ago, the weight of all my components and budget, I found it most effective to go with Adona AV45 line stands and platforms adding Composite Audio platforms over and above the Adona to tick the box on both coarse and fine-grain as mentioned above. There is still much airborne vibration in the room (at higher SPLs for certain) and from the world itself and the components so I am going to be giving HRS Dampening plates a test in the next 1-2 weeks on all my gear. It should provide the 3 layer of vibration control/absorption I am looking for. That stated there are alot of other fine solutions out there to accomplish all 3 goals...
Here is a description of what I did some years ago...
Massive and rigid speaker stands are much in vogue today,
precipitated by the desire to minimize relative motion of the speaker and
listener. I have largely overcome this
relative motion by mounting the speaker stands directly into the granitic
bedrock underlying the listening building.
An expanse of about two acres of solid granite was selected as the site
for the listening building and all topsoil was removed from the area. Four
mounting holes for the stands of each speaker were then drilled to a depth of
seven feet into the bedrock and stainless steel supports were press fit into
the drill holes. Glues and cements were
rejected as interfering with coupling of the stands and bedrock; instead, the
supports were cooled to cryogenic temperatures to shrink them. Expansion locked the supports in place as
they warmed to room temperature.
Speakers sit atop the supports on diamond points. I am currently contemplating the use of large
counterweights from a drawbridge to clamp the speakers securely to the
supports.
Despite the considerable attention given to speaker
movement, no provisions have heretofore been made for isolating the listener's
head. As "all motion is
relative", I elected to purchase a head and jaw clamp assembly from a
retiring brain surgeon. This is mounted
to bedrock as described above and provides a secure and stable support for the
listener's head. An ancillary benefit is
that it completely prevents any jaw motion during serious listening, thereby
eliminating changes in the shape of the ear canal documented by psychoacoustic
studies.
The top model of the Codia rack line uses resonators on the bottom of each shelf. It is the BAB model. It is expensive, but I don't suppose they could charge so much if it wasn't really good.
Q - Do the audible effects from a more dense wood reduce the sonic signature that vibrating wood adds in a sound room?
A - Maple generally sounds "good" better than many materials yet is not particularly dense. Going one step further materials like hardwoods that vibrate when excited by external forces are not necessarily bad for the sound inasmuch as the wood, maple or whatever acts like a resonator, dissipating the vibration in the rack or stand. Similarly stand or racks that are less rigid than others can actually sound better since seismic type vibration will not be transmitted quite so easily as rigid structures. Thus, the popularity of the Flexy Rack, for example. Isolation effectiveness is a function of how easily a stand or rack can move in the direction of interest. A flexible, or wobbly stand would approximate or approach the behavior of mass on spring systems, one might observe.
Q - Do denser woods actually sound more musical or are we hearing less colorations or noise? Keep in mind we are listening to a block of wood vibrate in a listening room environment and not that of a spruce inlay on a tuned up Martin guitar.
A - Density is not the most desirable characteristic of the material, otherwise maple wouldn’t sound so good. It’s a medium density wood. Let’s look at Moingo as in Mpingo disc for a second, which IIRC is African rosewood, a rather dense wood AND it resonates like a son of a gun. Yet, used sparingly, it’s very good for the sound. A resonator? You decide.
By the way, I would like to see Graphene used more widely in audio applications. Graphene is now used in fuses and high end tennis racquets since it’s *extremely* strong and lightweight. How about tonearms, cartridges, iso platforms....hmmmmmm.
Years ago I was fortunate enough to grow up surrounded by musical instruments of all kinds and had a few friends who also spent their lifetimes involved in music. Among those, Jay Thomas, a sound engineer by trade and incredible cabinet maker along with Dick Boak of the famed Martin Guitar Company. During those early years Dick was in charge of purchasing the exotic woods and adobe for the Martin Company. He exposed the looks of those woods to Jay who as a cabinetmaker would purchase some and build racks to elegantly hold all of our stereo gear. Initially we had no clue what was going on but soon realized that the denser the wood used in the equipment racks, the better our hi-fi gear sounded.
Fast forward to today. I am no longer a fan of wood racking when absolute sonic performance is the goal. A block of wood or shelving vibrates and produces frequencies well within the audible range of human hearing. We commonly refer to this noise as ‘rack chatter’. The company I represent prefers to use metals for the building of equipment racks where the frequency range of the shelves, support rods and metal cones vibrating is well above or far below that of the human ear’s capability of detection. We prefer to entirely remove the audibility of vibrating wood racks from the overall environmental formula.
Example: listeners always state that MDF sounds OK but a hardened maple sounds much better. When comparing the two, MDF is made of sawdust, air and glue (polymers-plastics) and produces a very wide and very audible frequency range when subjected to vibration. Maple is denser containing less air molecules, no glues and has the advantage of a grain structure where laminar resonance will flow along the grains pathway and locate an exit via metal rods (shelf supports) or cones hence establishing an energy transfer methodology similar to the technology we are developing for use in audio and video equipment racking.
As Maple produces less audible frequency byproduct compared to MDF, the question remains… Does the solid wood actually sound better or are we just hearing much less of the audible frequencies caused from the density of the Maple wood vibrating?
Second Example: We have worked with clients where the aesthetics of steel is not an option; to them wood is preferable. I generally suggest they sample mahogany. Mahogany is much more difficult to work with due to its high density as compared to maple but the end result in every case to date: the listeners preferred the mahogany.
Questions to ponder:
Do the audible effects from a more dense wood reduce the sonic signature that vibrating wood adds in a sound room?
Do denser woods actually sound more musical or are we hearing less colorations or noise? Keep in mind we are listening to a block of wood vibrate in a listening room environment and not that of a spruce inlay on a tuned up Martin guitar.
As evidenced here on AudioGon feedback, clients repeatedly state Sistrum Platforms dramatically lower floor noise. As well, the soundstage immediately grows north, south, east and west. Despite other technical functions present within the Sistrum design, metals used in racking reduce the resonant frequency of wood via mechanical grounding and remove the effects leading to audible rack chatter hence providing the speaker system with more open space to play into.
There are many who say they prefer the sound of wood in their systems and there is nothing whatsoever wrong with that assessment or enjoyment, however until one attempts to remove or reduce rack chatter one may never know the full sound capability of their electronics and loudspeakers. We are extremely confident one will definitely and easily hear the differences.
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!
agear OP 1,155 posts 10-06-2016 5:08pm Geoff, what an artisanal drum maker. Wow.
Wow, indeed. Of course the take away of the Charlie Watts snare drum is that the shell is steel, not maple. Maybe audiophiles should use steel plates instead of maple boards. And Ferrari leather for damping. Lol
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!
Maybe such stands could be incorporated as system tuning devices.....nothing wrong with that concept. I know some speaker manufactures ascribe to that philosophy.
bdp24 1,567 posts 10-06-2016 1:01am 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.
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!
jab 351 posts 10-04-2016 9:04pm I believe that maple has a profound affect with electronics, more so with electronics than with speakers. Try maple before you decide.
one thing to consider is that the material used for the top plate of an isolation device, for example one placed on a shelf of a rack, is considerably less important than when used alone, supported by cones. For example, many folks complain that granite and marble ring too much and shouldn’t be used for audio. In fact - for isolation applications - granite and marble are very appropriate for isolation device top plates since they are very stiff and hard materials. Hardness and stiffness are important attributes when resisting rotational forces. The potential for ringing is minimized by virtue of the fact the top plate itself is isolated along with the component. I’m also a big fan of bluestone for use as a top plate on springs or air bladders as it’s inexpensive and can be found in nice 3" thick slabs. I think you’ll find 3" slabs of bluestone don’t ring a whole lot.
IMO/IME its really important that that the system have the ability to not sound loud even when it really is. An orchestra can play peaks of 115db; the stereo should not add anything of its own during playback. At high sound pressure levels vibration can affect turntables, CD players and all electronics whether tube or solid state (if you think transistors are immune to microphonics you've not spent time working with them!).
So a stand with vibration control for the front end of the system (sources and preamp) is not only in the signal chain but can be considered a component in its own right.
That's great feedback Ralph and describes precisely what I have experienced. Since you are an engineer and manufacturer like Geoff, any thoughts on why SS devices would be vulnerable?
Had a few racks, homemade with nice wood and bought online, which held the equipment but offered little in sound quality improvements. Then I bought a Star Sound Sistrum rack and SP-101 platforms for my speakers. Both the rack and the speakers improved the sound considerably so that I was able to remove some traps and get great increases in clarity, transparency, and dynamics with no drawbacks.
dorkwad, that is also a good observation. So less of a need for in-room energy management. That has been my experience as well.
I've always found that stands with speakers on them must have zero back and forward motion, as the drivers move this way. Any back and forward motion of the stand will be lost energy being projected into the room, being waisted by the drivers instead trying to make the stand move back and forward, even in unmeasurable amounts. You loose micro detail and screw up your imaging.
Hi George (of Lightspeed fame). That is an interesting point. I am a big fan of time/phase alignment of speakers. It would be an interesting thing to measure.
I used to have troubles with footfalls when I ran my turntable.
I got a Sound Anchors stand which helped quite a lot but did not solve it.
I used to have a Sota Cosmos; replaced it with a modified Empire 208 turntable (equipped with an SME5 arm). It sounded better than the Cosmos until you turned up the volume, then the Cosmos sounded better at volumes above that (the Cosmos had a fair amount of damping control; the Empire did not).
I solved that by going back to Sound Anchors and had them build a stand that was customized to accept an anti-vibration platform (Ultraresolution Technologies) for not just the turntable but also the preamp. Now I could play much higher volumes without strain using the 'Empire' (which was further customized with a new plinth machined of solid aluminum, damped platter which was machined to accommodate a better platter pad and the arm was replaced with a Triplanar). I still got some footfalls. I added some Aurios Pro bearings beneath the footers of the stand and the footfalls were gone.
Now I can play the system to some really high volumes (+105db) and it always sounds relaxed with no hint of strain, and its really hard to tell how loud its playing unless you try to talk to someone beside you.
IMO/IME its really important that that the system have the ability to not sound loud even when it really is. An orchestra can play peaks of 115db; the stereo should not add anything of its own during playback. At high sound pressure levels vibration can affect turntables, CD players and all electronics whether tube or solid state (if you think transistors are immune to microphonics you've not spent time working with them!).
So a stand with vibration control for the front end of the system (sources and preamp) is not only in the signal chain but can be considered a component in its own right.
A Star Sound Rhythm RP5 rack and Starsound Apprentice amp platforms made a huge improvement for me. Underneath unsuspended turntables I’m into Stillpoints Ultra Fives on a heavy sandbox over soft springs (borrowed from Geoff Kait’s Machina Dynamica idea.) As a finishing touch, racks and platforms pull my chain much harder than expensive cables.
Had a few racks, homemade with nice wood and bought online, which held the equipment but offered little in sound quality improvements. Then I bought a Star Sound Sistrum rack and SP-101 platforms for my speakers. Both the rack and the speakers improved the sound considerably so that I was able to remove some traps and get great increases in clarity, transparency, and dynamics with no drawbacks.
actually we're not rotating through space. We're rotating about the Earth’s axis. The speed around the sun of the Earth is a different story. Care to take a gander how fast that is? Then there’s the speed of the Earth as part of the Milky Way Galaxy, rotating in the spiral galaxy. In addition let’s not forget the speed that the Milky Galaxy is traveling towards what, the Great Attractor? Anyone care to take a gander at the speed of the expanding universe? The Earth is moving at great speed away from the Big Bang along with everything else. The take away from all this is that speed is relative to your frame of reference.
pop quiz: if the universe slows down and starts to contract does time start to go backward?
Have you ever noticed the speed at which we are rotating thru space 465 meters per second? You will notice the speed change when it suddenly stops. We as humans have adjusted to that speed over millions of years just as we have to the background noise level the Earth makes some 50 db below the ambient noise level of your living environment. If you notice your chandelier in motion (well it's really your house that's moving) then you may want to step outside and have a drink or a smoke or even a panic attack...because you may then be in the midst of a earthquake. Other than those extremes sudden stops and an actual Earthquake humans have adjusted to these ambient sensory levels of information over millions of years. Tom
I think the state of our socialized knowledge is something like this:
There are plausible reasons why vibration reduction could work in solid state gear. A) Microphonics in the components, or B) You are actually hearing the preamp/DAC, etc. mechanically vibrate.
There are known issues with tubes and things that move like turntables and speakers.
There is almost no known electrical or acoustical measurements of vibration control being needed, or improving solid state gear in the audio/home environment.
As far as I know, the only "evidence" is from listener impressions. This doesn't make it false, it just means we have not progressed from subjective to objective yet. I hope that comes in the future.
@georgelofi Point about being 100% sure your speakers are not moving in 3D space is right on. Not only must you isolate the vibrations of the cabinet from any other surfaces such as the floor, you have to ensure the cabinet doesn’t rock in response to the woofer movement, causing a dopler like effect to muddy the sound.
I've always found that stands with speakers on them must have zero back and forward motion, as the drivers move this way. Any back and forward motion of the stand will be lost energy being projected into the room, being waisted by the drivers instead trying to make the stand move back and forward, even in unmeasurable amounts. You loose micro detail and screw up your imaging.
I agree 100%. I have had good results with tubed gear in particular. I had a fire breathing dragon of a SET amp in a previous system, and I noted that the room stayed cooler (which the stand manufacturer, Starsound Technologies confirmed in their own experiments).
Some people also claim some capacitors can be microphonic or at least their is a theoretical piezoelectrical relationship between vibration and electrical performance, but I am not an engineer and have no idea of the veracity of such claims.
It does have potential merit as some electronics are microphonic. Tubes are vulnerable to microphonics and I once had a set of interconnects which were surprisingly microphonic.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
