How do you deal with vibration?

Pbb, Why do you care about what others worry about. Seems like it would be more fun for you just to listen to more music? :-)

Pbb, What I'm actually saying is that I feel that there is no need to debase someone else's beliefs. Other than some ego satisfaction you might gain, it serves no purpose.

Personally, I would feel just as comfortible saying "based on my experience I could hear no differences when solid state devises were isolated from or coupled to other surfaces" and then go on to speak to how I would treat vibrations as they relate to tube products and turntables.

The poster wanted to talk about DIY vibration control techniques and materiels. I didn't note that he asked for any opinions about the efficacy of such controls.

There are a lot of things out there that a lot of folks feel good about believing that can't be explained or even proven to exist. Start with God. With your mentality I could visualize you going to church to proclaim to the folks in prayer that they were wasting their time, that no one was listening.

Now since Nickway has reposted, and your post implied that vibration controls can be effective for TT & tubes why not sieze the opportunity and share your experiences on how to deal with these components. That would be a nice positive thing to do.

Nickway, FWIW, I have achieved the best results in DIY isolation products for components and turntables, much the same way as you have, by using a sandwich of materiels, usually a soft wood and a medium density foam product. What I use depends on the sensitivity and the weight of the component, but my purpose with all components is to prevent incoming vibrations and to allow the vibrations from components (either airborne or self generating (as in CD players) to flow to a substance that is absorbent such as soft wood. Unlike others I don't subscribe to hardwoods or stone products, and I usually want the mass of the vibrating component to exceed the mass of the substrate. IMHO sandboxes can work just fine with the sand taking the place of the foam product. FWIW, except with ultra sensitive equipment, I don't believe in fussing too much about this process. Much of the damaging vibrations your system will experience are airborne and most the damage is done before the vibrations reach the control devise. The cost of materiels is relatively cheap and its a fun Saturday project in the workshop. :-)

Nickway, If you've done the sandbox thing well the sand should be absorbing, and not passing, any vibrations in any direction. But, if I were to do something like that, I would probably use some medium soft rubber product and spread it over a broad enuf area that it doesn't compress much with the weight of the box and component. Adding mass is advocated by Bright Star who, I'm sure you are aware makes sandboxes. I sort of agree - as I indicated I think the mass of the component should exceed the mass/density of the materiel it sits on in order for the vibrations to be absorbed - I'm not on overload on the subject. What I do believe in though regarding mass loading, is putting non resonant weights on things that do resonate easily and can as easy be heard, that is transformer covers, metal cases etc (however, that is not a universal indorsement of putting "magic bricks" on every thing in sight). Again, experiment and do what you think sounds best to you. BTY I do not use metal, glass or stone of any type for two reasons, they all ring (hit one with a hammer and you hear it) and because of their density they are not capable of absorbing vibrations in any meaningful way.

Stehno, Just for fun, my answer to your penultimate sentence is floor borne and airborne. Vibrations produced within a component have always done their damage, and except for allowing vibrations at their resonsonce frequencies to pass out to an absobing substrate, there's not much you can do - I guess some mass loading might change the resonance frequencies but that could concievably make it worse or better. IMHO YMMV Etc Etc.

rsbeck, There is a difference between sharing experiences when the shared experiences are differing, and saying (or implying) that folks who don't agree with your position are deaf, dumb or blind. The implication of Pbb's last sentence was that anyone who worried about SS devices and vibrations were, in my words, a bit anal about something that didn't exist. I gave an prototypical sentence in my post to Pbb illustrating how he could have conveyed his experience with out the judgmental factor. He does not know, in fact, what other folks can hear, only what he can hear, or not hear.

Lest you think I'm picking on the naysayers, I find the insistence of the believers that just because they heard something it must exist and if you can't hear it, or imagine that it can be heard, then your mind, ears, or system must be faulty. That tactic is one of the mainstays of marketers of useless gimmicks based on the latest technologies in other endeavors which has no logical and or scientifically proven extension to something audible in a sound system. I call it sale by intimidation. Its not unknown in these forums.

A little civility can go a long way. And, in case you think I'm riding the fence on the issue of isolation, I'm not. In my home I have found little sonic benefit from isolating or coupling SS devices - it may exist, and I have thrown salt over my shoulder by employing some - but I can't say I have really heard the differences that others describe. On the other hand I'm a DIY type of audiophile and I'm just using my limited knowledge of physics to create my own devises - probably if I experimented with some of the professionally designed and promoted systems I would hear the difference, but with limited resources I'd rather spend my money on music. :-)

Eldartford, Re your testing protocol, do you think that generating a 125hz signal is sufficient or would it be more revealing if you were to do a frequency sweep? I've never tried what you are doing, so I haven't got a clue.

Pbb, re your comments on the "we all hear different". I think a good analogy to demonstrate that we do hear (and see) differently, involves our eyes and vision - we all look at the same scene at the same time and we will all describe what we see differently. Those differences will depend upon what our interests at that moment cause us to focus on, even though, apart from issues of acuity, our eyes probably can see everything there is to see.

Much the same thing for how we hear things - recall the old game of telling some one a short story and having him pass it on to the next listener, who then passes it on to a 3rd listener, etc. By the time you get to the last listener, the story bears no resembalance to the original version. If you haven't already tried this, do so. Its not about a process of the eyes or ears that is determinitive, its the brain. You would certainly have to agree that our brains are in fact different in subtle, if not gross, ways.

Can you learn to refocus your attention visually or acoustically to "hear" or "see" other things. Of course. Will you if you are closed minded or, for what ever reason, unmotivated. Unlikely. (I'm not implying that you are closed minded.)