Do stands make a difference for equipment?

Rox,

YEs, I agree 100% on the purpose which is to enable peak performance of target gear, nothing more.

Mapman,
Love your posts, but this time I must respectfully disagree with one of your statements. I do not believe that stands, racks or platforms are always meant to "tweak the system for a particular sound".
Using Starsound as an example, because I use a couple of their products, the idea is to drain vibrations, and lead them away to ground. What you hear when that is done should be the actual sound of the supported component less the vibrations and the noise they cause. I wouldn't consider that tweaking the sound, but rather revealing it.
Your point about the importance of room acoustics is certainly true, but people who have not experimented with effective vibration draining devices are truly missing out on a cost effective (depending on the brand) sonic improvement.

Its been suggested. No takers.

There's what, fifteen or twenty competent vibration isolation stands and platforms for audiophiles since ye olde Seismic Sink and Vibraplane, you know, Hacyonics, Ginko, Relaxa Magnetic levitation, air bladders, mechanical springs, Mana, Minus K, not to mention a plethora of Newport platforms, TMC isolation platforms, roller bearing assemblies, etc.? Has anyone ever considered a comprehensive comparison of these devices and writing up a review? That would be cool.

Most equipment works best on a solid and stable platform/foundation. That's the job of a good audio stand, keep components safe and an insurance policy against harmful vibrations, when needed. Matters most for a turntable, almost all the time, less for other devices that are not as sensitive to physical vibrations case by case. Each case is different.

Best practice is put your stuff on a solid foundation any way possible that works for you and be done with it. Tune all the other stuff for best sound rather than worrying about tweaking the stand for a particular sound, which is a little crazy. Turntables are a different story. These are very vibration sensitive and sound quality affected by external vibrations in most cases. Same thing with speakers but speakers are the source of vibrations including unwanted ones sometimes due to room acoustics, not the victim. Other things, vibration is less of an issue. Maybe with some CD players but not all if vibration is affecting ability to read CDs accurately. Still one off the last thing sI would worry about there. Many other more predictable ways to get teh digital sound you want than swapping one good stand for another.

My gear including turntable and excluding power amps sit on a very solid oak wood coffee table, $30 at used furniture store. Table sits on bottom level of house with solid concrete foundation covered by thin dense pad and carpet, as do speakers. Vibrations/resonances are a total non issue for the first time ever for me and I have been at this for well over 40 years. Even with gear on my upper level, turntable and speakers are the ones worth worrying about regarding stands and vibrations.

Go digital music server and headphones only and stands become a total non issue for sound quality. Probably also the case with most modern CD players as well.

If not for turntable, the stand alone would be mostly a non-issue for me. Amps sit on a solid but fairly light and mundane antique wood stool. Amp stand choice was determined much by aesthetics. Many things would work fine. Everything sounds quite good I would say as long as turntable is well isolated and speaker/room acoustic interactions are under control. Room acoustics have nothing to do with stands.

DEfinitely worry first about speakers and room acoustics and the right amp to drive the speakers!! That'll make or break any deal. Not much to worry about stand-wise otherwise most likely though if no turntable, other than appearance, though splitting hairs via a/b sound tests is always a possibility I suppose. Exact sound with solid stand A versus solid stand B might still make a difference, but at this point its way down on the list of priorities for good sound, in the really splitting hairs realm most likely. Not worth worrying about unless you are just inclined towards experimentation rather than listening.

Stands, vibration control,etc. are tuning devices. They may alter the sound, but whether for better or worse is entirely a matter of taste and what the system may need. I use several Symposium products and like what they do IN MY SYSTEM. I use Ultras under the amps (sitting on the floor between my speakers) and my preamp and Svelte Shelves under my speakers. However, they make little or no difference when I tried them under my CD player (I have been too lazy to experiment now that the CD player has been replaced by a music server).

When the Ultras were tried under an Audio Aero Capitole CD player in a dealer's system, the result was decisively negative--the sound became too lean and sterile sounding. This is all a matter on tuning, there is no "more" is better or "less" is better answer to what one should do.

Vibraplane platform, it will improve everything.

Just joking, I love ya' :)

After years of this I have happily ended up with Sound Anchor stands under everything, that are spiked with either Eden Sound Bear Paws (speakers and component rack) or Audiopoints (amp stands and subwoofer). These provide very solid support and hard to beat build quality.

Just noticed that way back near the beginning of this thread, Elizabeth, who is normally sensible and well informed offered the opinion that high quality racks make nearly no difference. That is definitely not so Elizabeth. It is as important for amps and digital components as it is for turntables. If you disagree, it is because it has not been demonstrated to you in your own system.
I recently started using a Starsound Apprentice rack beneath my transport on an Adona rack already, and the difference is easily noticeable.

A Symposium Ultra under my toilet will give me a "E"xcellent "B"owel "M"ovement? Just kidding :)

Try Symposium Ultra platform it will improve everything.

Just a quick update. I ran across a good deal on a Solid Steel 5.5 demo, and pulled the trigger. I've been wanting something a little bigger than my Target 5 stand since purchasing my Krell Phantom III pre, which barely fits on the T5 rack.
The biggest difference in construction of the Solid Steel and my T5 is that each shelf is supported by 3 cones, and the T5 shelves were supports by flat corner tabs.
Even though I had filled my T5 with lead shot, I tried the new SS without shot first, and was surprised that it did clean up the sound a bit. I then filled the SS with shot. It only holds about 1/2 the amount that the T5 would because only the leg tubes are fillable. The T5 would allow shot to get into the cross bars as well. Still the lead did make another slight improvement. The results are a quieter background, wider and deeper soundstage, allowing a bit more fine detail through.
Now this isn't an enormous improvement, but well worth the cost of the rack. So in my case at least, racks do make a difference, but I didn't spend thousands on a rack either. Now the question is, how much do you have to spend to get all the improvement available? Will a rack two or three times the cost of my SS give that much more improvement, or will the diminishing returns set in quickly with a rack? As with any tweak, I realize the system it is used with will have an impact on how much the tweak is noticeable, so ....?
Any more thoughts?

I think that there is no substitute for a solid and massive rack. I also think that mixing materials lessens the likelihood of developing resonances. Sooo...I built my own.

For the vertical supports, I bought eight decorative concrete blocks and painted them with white semigloss enamel. I applied heavy felt to the top and bottom of each block.

I made the shelves from 1/2" granite tiles laminated on top of 1 1/8" high density fiber board. The mortar for the tiles acts as a dampening material. I edged the shelves with oak door stop stained semigloss black.

The whlole project cost less than $300. The beauty of it is that you can use any color granite (or marble) you want and you can paint the blocks any color you want.

I put one self directly on the carpet and built up from there. The rack is 78" long x 27" high x 17" deep. It weighs about 500 pounds. It has a total of 9 spaces (including the top)

Yeah, the rod is encased in a proprietary Bentonite slurry developed by Lyncole, the designer of the rod.

Agear, everything matters the Troy will let you hear more of the ionic grounding rod benefits. Are you using bendonite to lower resistance with the rod? In the future I would love to ground your room to the Troy for a ride to audio heaven.

Miguel, I have all my Sistrum racks grounded to a binding post that connects to a dedicated ionic grounding rod for the room but hope to one day use one of your boxes....

Agear, I'm currently using a Sistrum rack that is grounded to my Tripoint Audio Troy using a Tripoint Thor grounding cable. Due to the high sensitivity of the TROY, you can hear dielectric materials, purity of metallurgy, shielding designs/materials all are very audible when grounding the rack. The key lies in the dispensation of the energy coming from the rack at a higher speed. It's all speed!In the future I need to change the shelves to brass. Resonating frequency in proportion to their equivalent mass also becomes critical for ultimate voicing. When your room and system become that revealing not only do the scientific principles apply but also materials choices become critical. Folks get caught up with the gear, source material and never address these other issues in their systems. They really never get to hear their electronics or the recorded materials due to all the noise. I know you know this but I can't ilustrate the importance anymore of addressing grounding.

Miguel, what stands have you used and what grounding schemes have you employed with them ala Maher? Results?

Ivan, Higher resolution is the road I've taken and it has taken me years to find what I was looking for. High resolution + noise removal is the only way to bring out the soul of musicians. The euphonic road like you said is not as demanding and is good enough for the majority of folks. Maximizing a higher resolution system is very costly and technically challenging. Once a high resolution system is maximized there is no going back. Happy listening.

Himiguel: I think everything you just said is dead on and basically all of it will always be, for anyone who pursues this level of higher resolution in their system, a double-edged sword. Some will see that possibly 'never-ending' pursuit as a time and resource drain and will be content to pass on such a challenge and I can respect choosing to do so really. But, while investigating it, I actually found it all to be just what I was looking for: the key to maximizing the gear I have and yet continue to build a system with what has proven to have more than just a few genuine high-end traits, but with less cost, for me. You're quite right, it IS a technically challenging key, but, as I see it, it has not proven to be insurmountably so. I've seen most of my longest-held sonic problems steadily crossed off my list and in fact, even in the absolute sense, very few of them remain to be dealt with for me and I find myself now reliably closing in on what I've always wanted sound-wise...probably doesn't get too much better than that.

Miguel, can you comment on your experience with grounding Sistrum stands since that dovetails with what Maher appears to be doing....

Higher resolution systems translates to higher speed.The more resolving the system the more challenging it becomes to control mechanical groumding distortions, phase timing issues, AC noise, room standing waves, and resonating frequencies. Like Ivan explained fixing one variable without addressing the other just exposses weaknesses in other areas. As we see from everyone's responses mileage will vary from system to system. Maximizing higher resolution while maintaining musicality is not an easy task.

Agear:

"Bravo. Someone is taking the "discipline" forward through innovation. The whole concept of self noise is integral to this discussion".

I certainly agree. In general, electrical stands like these purify the DC and power conditioning purifies the AC. But, doing one alone only ends up revealing the shortcomings of the lack of the other. BUT, when you do Both, it seriously transforms your system...and I do mean 'transforms'! All this Alan Maher gear for me is now the single-most important 'component' in my system...by far the first one I'd take toward building a new rig if I could only take one. But, you know what?? I'm not EVEN thinking of ever doing that. I'm sure some will think me crazy for giving so much attention to "tweaks", but I've come to realize that any of my prior notions of spending on tweaks "according to (any monetary) scale" were really a myth...you must spend according to a performance scale (same as any other component) to reap the best and most relevant benefits. And I think That's the way forward. But, by being well on my way toward having done that, I find myself already laughing like Renfro!! Regards. John

The first thing to do on your way to the design table for your first rack or platform rendering is to say to yourself over and over again..isolation is only possible in the absence of matter. Now to step two. Tom

tweed coats and crooked, yellow teeth

Yeah baby, yeah!

The OP has to decide if he seeks isolation type products or energy conduit -transfer engineered products such as Star Sound.They are very different.
Regards,

Syntax,

I agree that one must not spend exuberantly to achieve positive results to damp or quell harmful vibrations; which in my opinion, negatively impact the playback of music from source components. The Schroer udn Schroer glass rack was a step up from the Saturn Spectral rack I owned before.
http://www.justhifi.de/Schroers-und-Schroers_Fly-Audio_a5080.html

I am wondering why you opted to use the Ikea wood series of platforms which you are using now versus the Copulare you owned previously? I think your new implementation of vibration control would be a great solution for a few audio geeks wanting more than just standard vibration control. Es war ok, war aber nicht mein Geschmack. It is not my taste for both; looks and vibration control.

My analysis and decision making process wa sbased on aesthetics and proven results. I tested the Copulare racks at home before I purchased them. Both my wife and I agreed on the looks and well, the sound decision was also both of ours.

Here is a brief description of the Copluare racks I own.
Each Copulare wood platform is filled with a mix of two variations of sand to further dampen the internal grids. Each of the rack assemblies are fully welded and powder coated to whatever finish a customer wants and also filled with sand. The wood platforms can also be painted to whatever color the customer wants. Each wooden platform on the rack is spiked the braced metal frame with a screw-in spike and then rests on a leather strip which sits atop the mounting area. It is a three leg and three spike per platform system. The music was simply more focused, refined, articulate, and had more authority, whereas before, I thought the music seem to have an etch, something I always fought with. In comparison, the Clearaudio MontBlanc turntable stand is such a mass loaded beast, weighing in at over 225p pounds, I never have vibrational issues with the turntable. Enough has been said here about mass and the pros and cons.

Again, my opinion is that specific mass characteristics are more beneficial than others to achieve positive results in reducing or damping vibrational issues.

To better help the OP better answer the question, it is important to know and realize that any form of vibrational control, no matter what the costs, can impart a change to the reproduced sound, both; in a positive or detrimental manner. It is that alteration in sound reproduction where the OP must make a decision if it is acceptable or not to use the specific vibration control.

This is also about the best way I'm aware of to take a direct shot at reducing digital "self noise" inside a component.

Bravo. Someone is taking the "discipline" forward through innovation. The whole concept of self-noise is integral to this discussion. It is akin to what Nordost demonstrated with jitter and cabling changes using software measurements. I know Starsound has provisions for formal testing in the works.

Total cost, about $500. How much better can a expensive stand improve on this?

There is only one way to find out! I have used Herbie's stuff in the past and it is a very good value. One thing to remember is that a lot of this comes down to system voicing. Herbie dots or Sorbethane or possibly Equarack can soften a front end that is prone to brightness. I have heard that....

...at the end of day most stands should be seen as a design element.

Au contraire. It is not decorative but is an engineered, holistic extension of your equipment. Again, that thought is a vestige of yesteryear. By way of analogy, look at how speaker manufacturers are pursuing mechanical grounding and isolation. Gone are the days of hollow, MDF boxes along with sideburns, tweed coats and crooked, yellow teeth...

Syntax,
Having tried Sorbothane padding vs. small pieces of blu-tac, I must disagree. You may prefer the Sorbothane to other interfaces between speaker and stand, but I didn't, and they certainly sound different.

When you want a real vibration transfer, the speakers should be screwed into the stand

Not necessarily, or at least not as long as you believe in the Star Sound scientific perspective - simply bolting speaker to stand will not effectively accomplish "real vibration transfer".

Oh, did I mention that for any of Alan's facebook friends, each Q-stand (what I use now, and will be buying more of soon) are only $350.00 each? Better hurry though, when Alan's new and only B&M store being built in Nashville comes online in the next few months, they will be a few thousand dollars each, according to Alan.

Agear, at the end of day most stands should be seen as a design element. When you put some Sorbothane devices between Speaker and Stand (no matter which one) you have a very good working solution without spending big bucks.
When you want a real vibration transfer, the speakers should be screwed into the stand, no one does it, so you will find all kind of window dressing :-)

Agear: His stands are made with a 1/4" of proprietary material sandwiched between two 1/2" sheets of acrylic. There is a wire to be plugged into the system powerstrip, but it only actively connects to ground so no electricity is drawn from the wall. Posted the following reaction on his FB wall (business). At this point Alan had already stated that a component on his stand was allowed to operate entirely above its own internal noisefloor:

"Something else I discovered that I didn't expect. Using a modified DEQ2496 as a DAC. Stock or modified, there was always a slight dynamic penalty imposed when using the digital parametric EQ. Choosing a frequency and slope (or q) is no problem - until you go to move the level away from 0 db, either up or down. At the minimum step of .5 db there is always a noticeable reduction in dynamics that extends the width of the slope you've selected, but, oddly, no more than that. For example, if you choose a q of 3 octaves you'll hear that reduction in dynamics within that 3 octave band, but not beyond. Once you go beyond the first .5 db there is no additional reduction in dynamics no matter what level you choose, but there is always that initial penalty imposed as soon as you move away from 0 db. Normally this is a minor annoyance by itself, but if you select nearby center frequencies that have overlapping slopes, then you take multiple hits in that one general area and that's when it all begins to be a real limitation on the sound. As a matter of practice, I've learned to use the EQ for as broad and as gentle a curve as possible with the fewest number of overlapping center frequencies as possible to minimize all this (not really a bad rule of thumb with analog EQ for that matter anyway). But, a few hours after placing the DAC on the Q-stand, I noticed I could no longer hear this effect. If it is there at all, it is no longer audible. Then I remembered what you said Alan, that Q-stand allows the component to operate, in effect, free and clear of it's own internal noise floor (or words to that effect). Huh...no more problem."

This was Alan's reply:

"John - In effect what you are experiencing with the Behringer is its version of digital circuit clipping most people confuse clipping with db output but clipping also applies to all internal circuitry amplitudes .so increasing/decreasing causes ringing artifacts to be super imposed on the signal but using the qCell or Tri-Cell platform under the component eliminates the ringing artifact at the source which quickly becomes apparent via playback just imagine the potential for project quality when this technology is applied from studio capture to playback".

Afterward, I then realized that the slightly increased tolerance of the main digital input meters on the DEQ (which hadn't been touched) was not my imagination playing tricks on me after all. This is also about the best way I'm aware of to take a direct shot at reducing digital "self noise" inside a component.

But, it was the overall change in sound quality that did it for me...far better vocal and instrumental hues and textures and ALL that good stuff!

Syntax,
I can understand your components may gain no benefit from that particular wood product. I believe that properly approaching vibration management with solid engineering-grounding solutions would improve the performance of all components to some noticeable degree.I agree that the level of change will vary depending on specific applications.
Regards,

Elizabeth,
I frequently agree with your no nonsense, common sense views on sound systems. If I were you, and had not experienced the difference that Sistrum stands could make under my speakers, I too would consider them a wasteful purchase. I recently spent $60.00 on EVS ground enhancers, and while they did add to soundstage coherency a little in my system, I probably would not spend the money again for the small difference I perceive. The $20.00 AMR fuse is a different story. A substantial improvement in midrange clarity for very little money. Would I spend 60 or 100 dollars on a different fuse if I knew for a fact that it was a little better sounding? No.
My point is that sadly, it is nearly impossible to know what is or is not going to be "worth the investment " in your system until you try it. It is always a gamble.
Where I disagree with you in this case is believing that spending more than a given amount on such things is foolish. I don't see why it would matter by what means improvement is made, as long as it is genuine. In the case of the Starsound speaker supports, there is a shocking level of improvement. Of course, in your case, you use Maggies, so I don't think it is possible for you even if you cared to do it.

" Total cost, about $500. How much better can a expensive stand improve on this?
..."

Excellent question. I can only relate actual experiences and not anecdotal experiences.

When my hardware gear (amp and Cdp) went from $4K to $24K the stand and isolation tweaks eventually went from $850 to almost $5K with no other stand tweaks. The speaker cables and ICs also went from $2K to $6K also.

Did I Gulp and sweat it? - U betcha. But did it make a difference? Again U betcha... and a very noticeable improvement difference - Go figger!

Acoustic room treatments with Echo Busters became the integral matched steps. Room nodes, first order reflections, bass damping and reverberation times et al all needed attention, along with tinkering with the speaker - to - listener positions .

Can I directly parse out with near accuracy just much of the overall improvement was attributed just to the stand?

Hmmmm ... not exactly, other than to say it was not subtle. Again I was the ultimate skeptic before.

My steel stand has spiked feet and each shelve is also spiked. Under each shelve I have another shelve with 5 of Herbies big fat dots sandwiched between.
Total cost, about $500.
How much better can a expensive stand improve on this?

Charles, it is not arrogant. I had Copulare racks :-)
Yes, my components are so good that there are no further improvements based on wood blocks. But you can try it yourself without spending a fortune...click me

Syntax,
Are you familiar with the make up of Audioquest4life`s system? Why do you assume yours is of better design than his? your comment is arrogant and presumptuous.A good componeent will benefit with attention given to vibration and resonance.Are you saying your components are so well designed they are immune to further improvement?
Regards,

When your doodads cost as much as your basic electronic equipment, you are in lala land. Even spending 25% on doodads is insane.

Conjecture is not germane to the discussion. I will ask you for the second time: what stands have you yourself tried and what does your current system consist of?

Investment in better brain (Design) is the way to go.

Yes and no. What constitutes better design? A lot of us get suckered into paying gobs of cash for "better design" only to find out its slick window dressing. Syntax, what is your experience with dedicated stands, etc?

Elizabeth wrote a very good comment. Normally nothing can be added except you have such rattling units like Audioquest4life owns, then you'll run in a real problem, when a piece of wood (= Copulare, a German Brand) makes tremendous differences :-)
Investment in better brain (Design) is the way to go.

I went from heavy duty glass shelves to Copulare wooden shelves and it made a tremendous difference in the playback of my source components and the amps. The sound improved tremendously. I also upgraded to a heavy mass Clearaudio MontBlanc turntable stand from a standard wall mount one, and again, it was an improvement in sound.

Ivan, you bring up another important point regarding your Maher stands: electrical isolation. How is this implemented in that stand? I presume you mean some grounding scheme using leads, etc. I am a big fan of electrical grounding schemes, and rather than run leads from my equipment chassis, I actually incorporate my sistrum stand instead. This was suggested to my by Starsound. It theoretically creates a larger grounding plane from what I was told.

Elizabeth, your position is a little contrarian in light of what most of us spend over an audio lifetime. However, I do agree with the allocating money wisely and according to scale. A $250 CDP does not necessarily warrant megabuck stands, but there are many good options out there. In terms of performance, you would be shocked by what a good stand like a Sistrum sp101 can do under a relatively modest set of speakers. It becomes a whole new entity and it is not simply 7.5% better....

I guess it depends on what particular products Elizabeth, some are more expensive than others.The Star Sound Audio Points I mentioned are quite reasonable in price yet yield very worthwhile improvement that`s more than subtle. Their Sistrum stands are more money but are`nt excessively so, and boy do they work! It`s all a matter of perspective. These well engineered products will expose the often 'hidden' potential in good quality components.Effectively addressing vibration is worth the effort.
Regards,

My general impression of them is that on the whole they probably make a worthwhile difference, although I myself have only owned a pair of isolation platforms from Alan Maher that I finally pulled the trigger on only recently. But they've been some kind of wonderful. These are of the newer kind that offer electrical noise reduction and isolation in one product. My rig is a $5k, CD-only, preampless system and I started by placing one stand under the Oppo 103 transport and the other under a Ric-Schultz-modified DEQ2496 DAC...no contest, a night-and-day difference for me. I will be buying 2 more stands for my monoblocks. For me too, there's no going back.

The guys who say I put XyX stand under my amp and it was amazing improvement.. are magnifying the change all out of proportion.

Rather, the people who say I can hear what another person hears .. are magnifying their aural/psychic abilities all out of proportion.

It is one thing to offer one's opinion on what they themselves have or have not heard, but to claim to know what all others have heard is preposterous.

The British and American approach to audio stands is very different. The Brits favour a "lighter is better" approach to manage and channel away vibration and jitter. The US approach is a "heavier mass" isolation approach.

Not true. Sistrum, a US company, favors the former approach as does Stillpoints. I guess it may depend on how you define "stand."

Interestingly, the article which I forgot to post (http://www.stereophile.com/features/806/index.html) references some of these issues.... Enjoy.