How an audio rack can enhance your amp/pre




Just thought I would share my recent experience with upgrading my sound star technologies rack to the new rhythm rack.

Every now and then, I have a visiting audiophile who really appreciates my system…and traditionally asks – “wow, what makes it sound so good?” My typical answer is it all makes a difference, even down the equipment rack, which can and certainly should be considered a component…but in many cases is overlooked…

Star Sound introduction

About 10 years ago, I was introduced to Star Sound Technologies Sistrum platforms and Audio Points. Audiopoints has always been known for its manufacture of well-designed and beautifully manufactured brass cones used under equipment and as an integral part of an audio stand. This ultimately led to the design of stands designed to transfer vibrations out of components and down to ground. What I didn’t know at the time was how good the Sistrum platforms ‘sounded’. So, I bit the bullet and tried several Sistrum Platforms - what intrigued me about the stands was the design of the Sistrum Platform which allowed a pre-determined pattern of energy, known as Coulomb Friction to develop and dissipate via a high-speed calculated conductive pathway to earth's ground. Which made sense…how do you deal with airborne energy dissipation? I know you could put cones to reduce vibrations from the ‘ground up’ so to speak, but how could you eliminate airborne vibration? We’ve all held our hand on our equipment when music is playing only to feel the equipment vibrate, so how do you deal with it? Draining it quickly to ground made sense, but at the end of the day, all I really wanted to know was…does it improve the sound?

To say I was shocked is an understatement - the Original Sistrum Platforms offered – smoother sound, better transients, dynamics and a lower noise floor. And, the cool part is that you could turn up the sound and the music would flow with greater ease…well worth the investment. Robert at Star Sound was extremely helpful in guiding me through which racks made the most sense for my system.

Rhythm Platforms

Which brings me to 2015…it had been a while since I last spoke with Robert curious as to what his engineering team was up to…which led me to check out the ‘new’ model of Sistrum Stands – the Sistrum Rhythm Platforms.

These new platforms / shelves were substantially heavier, with a nicer overall finish than the original stands, with more grooves allowing for substantially more options to place points in various places under your equipment to refine the sound even further. In addition, the shelves were engineered to deal with resonances in a more efficient manner…The brass cones at the bottom of the rack were substantially bigger in size - 3 inches and quite heavy. The brass cones under the equipment were attached with nicely crafted screws that could be hand tightened and no longer required a screw driver… a nice feature making it both easier to put together but also the amount of tightening could influence the sound. The brass and platform rods are modular, making it easier to put together and painted in a beautiful black finish – in combination with the brass I would say the improvement in the WAF factor is significant – the stands are really impressive to look at. As for structure, these things were a solid as could be – and heavy! Not going anywhere, even in an earthquake!

My system includes VAC equipment, preamp, amps, DAC and a transport. As well as power supplies. Most of which now rested on the new Rhythm Platform.

Listening Impressions:

My first impressions were clearly a lower noise floor with enhanced dynamics, while also being able to hear deeper into the soundstage, which now extended well outside of the speakers. Tempo was faster, due to better-defined, leading edges. The high end was ‘cleaner’, with more sheen and decay on symbols and hi hats. Brass had that right bite to it, without over doing it…Bass lines were tighter which led to better ‘rhythm’ … and best of all, I could crank up the volume and the dynamic range seemed to extend effortlessly, which was a nice surprise.

One thing I noticed, that was true of my initial experience with Sistrum Platforms, is that the newer Rhythm Platforms sounded progressively better after 3 days of ‘settling’ and reached full potential after about 1 week. So some form of break in is required.
Over the years, I’ve tried different racks and various cones under equipment, whether if be soft, hard, ceramic, rubber (or some variation of ‘absorbing material’ etc.) you name it. All of which ‘altered’ the sound, but nothing came close to the Sistrum Stands holistically; while the new Rhythm stands, just take it all to a higher level…
While I cannot expound eloquently on science of Coulomb’s Friction, I can tell you that whatever they are doing at Star Sound visa vie their racks, it works…and it’s not subtle. This is a very audible improvement in your listening experience. If you want your system to perform at its highest level, I would suggest that you maximize your investment in your equipment by letting it do what it does best and put it on a Sistrum rack that will allow it to perform at its best. And if you want the best, I would strongly recommend the Rhythm Platforms.
wisper

Showing 24 responses by roxy54

Jaxwired,
You are correct; self-delusion is a powerful thing, but in this case, Wisper is not deluding himself. I use their products, and only wish that I could afford more of them. Everything that he says about them is true in my experience.
Have you had any experience with any Star Sound products?
Mitch2,
I agree that elaborate and scientific explanations that are difficult for the common man to fully understand are certainly part of marketing hype with many products , including this one.
The thing is, we don't live in a laboratory, and what matters is performance and what we hear using these devices, and for whatever the specific reasons, they are effective.
Tbg,
Agreed. And you'll notice that the two members who made the negative comments have refused to answer my question asking if they had experience with these products.
Thanks Charles,
Another sane voice heard from; and one who has actually used them before pronouncing them "a bunch of garbage".
Audiotweak,(Robert)
I don't care what anyone says, you and the other people responsible for the design of Star Sound products are the real deal.
Thanks, John
Really surprised to hear that you use sorbothane pucks Wolf. Many years ago, I did as well. I also used special wood blocks. Then came the tip toes, and Goldmund cones.
Anyway, since then, I have moved on to Sistrum supports and Audio Points, and I still use the Goldmund cones beneath my DAC. Just for fun 3 weeks ago, I took them out and replaced them with the Cardas wood blocks. What a difference for the worse!Just as Tbg described. The musuc sounded dull and flat. Reconsider and see if you don't hear a very positive difference.
I would say from my experience that Sorbothane is the worst of all.
1extreme,
As I noted before, the member who made the comment about garbage, Jaxwired, and the member who agreed, Bojack, disappeared rom this thread after their initial attack, apparently unsupported by fact or experience.
Correction, it was Bojack who called the OP's comments garbage. Jaxwired said that self delusion is a powerful thing. I think envy is as well.
Wolf,
Damping and draining are 2 different things, and Sorbothane isn't draining to ground as Starsound and some other products do. You may like it, and that is the only thing that matters, but the two technologies work in different ways, and they do not sound the same.
Wolf,
I have followed this thread from its inception, and after reading your most recent post, I went back to the OP's review, and re-read it in its entirety.
His writing was far from florid. It is concise, well balanced (if enthusiastic) and simply presented not as a hard sell, but as that of a former Starsound customer who was already satisfied with their products, and was pleasantly surprised at his perceived level of improvement brought about by the new platforms.
There was no indication whatsoever in Wisper's comments that he was a shill for Starsound, and hearing you echo that accusation casually, which happens far to often on the forums here has a desperate ring to it.
You call it "an insulting and inappropriate use of this space." That's just plain exaggeration.
I'm not sure what axe you have to grind, but it's getting pretty sharp. Maybe you'd be happy if we all agree that Sorbothanne is great. Perhaps we should all have our components on mini trampolines...even better, right?
Thanks Tbg. I just didn't like seeing Wisper get skewered for what was actually a very useful review.
Tbg,
I couldn't have stated it better. If I'm understanding correctly, Starsound is giving him platforms to review. If so, that makes me sick. How could he possibly be impartial when reviewing platforms when he has already decided that they have no merit and are no better than sorbothane.
His ego-driven rants are really boring too. I hope that he discovers how good Starsound products are just so he'll have to eat...crow.
Geoff,
You're a good guy, and I enjoy your posts, but until you or Shannon Dickson come out with products that are as effective as Starsound, I will have to give the nod to Robert on this one.
Geoff,
Are you addressing me? I am aware of most of those products you mentioned as well as others, but how does that connect with my comment?
Maybe you were addressing Robert.
Good post to Wolf Agear, and as expected...crickets. But not for long I'm sure.
I usually find common ground with Art Dudley on a number of things, and I was really taken aback by his suggestion of removing spikes, especially since he didn't (in my opinion) give any clear supporting reasons for doing so.
That's my concern...he's a fan of too many things. As far as Tvad is concerned, I have no idea, but I hope that he's well.
I wish the reviewer was someone other than Clement Perry. I'd love to read a review of a starsound designed listening room but I have no faith in Mr. Perry's judgment or honesty. I have read too many reviews by him that are largely composed of self-praise and techno babble from the manufacturer's website.
In addition to that, he often seems to be uncomfortably chummy with many of them. His writing style is long on hyperbole unsupported by facts, or even useful comparisons to other products. When he does mention a possible sonic shortcoming in a product, he usually backtracks on his comments and says it was his system, or maybe just his imagination, or in any case no big deal. I would say he's the opposite of a Martin Collums or Anthony Cordesman.
Charles,
No problem at all. I was speaking about Clement. I have nothing but affection and respect for Robert.