How do you deal with vibration?

Newbee...IF any sensitivity were detected, THEN a sweep of frequencies would pinpoint the frequency of greatest sensitivity. However, at least for my equipment there is no sensitivity.

Theaudiotweak...Your basic assumption doesn't make sense to me. Vibration will REDUCE friction in a mechanical system (the opposite of what you suggest) but I can see no reason to think that electronics would draw more current when exposed to vibration.

Theaudiotweak sez:

vibration control in a component will mean that it will draw less current than one with improperly implemented vibration control or none at all. It all starts with self induced losses within the component

It's interesting you think that. I have entertained an identical intuitive notion -- but haven't really researched the subject. I'd be VERY interested in your findings! Cheers

This has been very educational to this point.

As some one who has reached that stage of looking at vibration isolation as one of the next steps in the evolution of his system, I am very interested in the results of Theaudiotweak's experiment.

You can read the following about what we call PFM (Pure F****** Magic) or not it is your choice.

Electronics is based on theory. To my knowledge (Albeit a little outdated) it has no basis in fact. Take the skin affect of a conductor. One camp says below 20K there is no such thing the other says there is. Therefore I will use another area, capacitance. At extremely high frequencies a cavity filled with components and current has its own capacitance. In the IF section of some radar systems all you have to do is adjust the bolts on the cabinet for the final calibration. Also if you change the location of components on the circuit board the capacitance of the circuit changes. Let’s assume the same is true at lower frequencies. What happens to the capacitance of that cavity when vibration is induced? We aren't turning a bolt or a varister but inducing micro vibrations in the components is that enough to change the capacitance of the circuit (Thereby changing the frequency response) I honestly do not know. But remember this is theory therefore I believe it just may be possible.

A little story about PFM. There once was a spectrum analyzer with 200 MHz out of its reference oscillator instead of the required 100 MHz. To keep this story short the problem was a cracked base biasing resistor, not visible mind you but cracked all the same. Wish I could post a diagram of the circuit. All the DC voltages were correct and the 4 amplifiers operating correctly. In theory the amp circuits should not have worked at all. The moral is the resistor was turned into a capacitor allowing the circuit to operate properly except for the crystal oscillator. PFM.

There are many things in electronics that do not make any sense. Ask me I have had to troubleshoot some of them. Including the above.

Remember measurements don't always tell the whole story. Or some times it takes instruments that are highly sensitive and cost more than our audio systems.

So I guess I am in the vibration control camp and I haven't even gotten started yet. So down the road if I change camps I am apologizing now.

The one component that impressed me is the Rack of Silence by Solid Tech. Heard a great system in a local shop here both with and without the ROS and can absolutely say that the difference was stunning. The price may be a bit stiff, but you owe it to yourself to hear this component. The name may sound like a torture device, but having one in your system is like removing many many veils and the background is definitely blacker. Heard it with a top of the line Clearaudio table, Nagra electronics and Verity speakers, the background was amazing but, unlike, digital, all the music was there. Unfortunately in audio you get what you pay for. Like for every other component more money will provide more music.

Oy. The thing about this thread that's jumped out at me is that Twl has kept his big nose out of it! Actually, I thought he succumbed once, but I probably imagined it. ;->

Pbb vibration control in a component will mean that it will draw less current than one with improperly implemented vibration control or none at all. It all starts with self induced losses within the component, even at idle.This is what I believe and hope to document..Tom

>>I had a pair of silver/copper pro silway IIs that had some nice bass control and openness qualities when used with my CDP but they also had a horrific tiring glare. No getting around it. They sucked in that role to the point of being unlistenable.<<

This is the kind of thing that fascinates me. What in a cable would cause "glare?" These comments treat the cable as if one listens to a cable that plays music through a speaker, like a guiatr string. No responsibility is given to any other component for music reproduction. For some reason, cable enthusiasts are very trusting of their other components -- the ones that have the toughest most complex job -- and endlessly suspicious of their cables -- which have the easiest job in the entire chain.

Cable advertisers have done a superb job of getting audiophiles to overlook huge problems in their speakers and rooms and to fixate on their cables, inventing problems where none exist.

It is easily demonstrated that rooms have glare, but no -- it must be the cable -- even though there's no evidence whatsoever that cables cause glare.

Okay, I know this is a vibration control thread, but I just had to comment.

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.)

just my 2 cents on whether vibration control works; in some cases an unreserved yes.

I had a pair of silver/copper pro silway IIs that had some nice bass control and openness qualities when used with my CDP but they also had a horrific tiring glare. No getting around it. They sucked in that role to the point of being unlistenable.

I had some mixed metal chrome/sorbathane feet deals (about 1.5 in dia at the base) under my tube pre to help control vibration impacts to the tubes. I'm not sure if they really help out all that much under the pre but when i put them under the CDP the glare from the Pro Silways was gone and the whole shebang tightened up top to bottom. Points up vrs point down...no significant change that i could tell. would other vibration controls work better...can't say and don't really have time to try these days. However, controlling the vibration at the source at the macro level helped unquestionably. On a detail tweak side of things it did seem that the sound was a tad better with the cages off my amps than with them on but the arrival of toddlers ended that experiment.

The component will operate with greater efficiency? What is meant by "efficiency" in this context?

This is a classic thread that shows that some people are mightily convinced that audio is a one-man thing since no one hears the same.

As a complementary question what does it actually mean when one says that we all hear differently?

Surely if this were true any research towards advancing audio would be in vain.

Great how everything has been reduced to a question of individual taste; it is surely a sign of the times where magic thinking is the order of the day.

Hi JD,
Re:>>>"Civility is one word for it. I conceder it maturity and an appreciation for each other as human souls, Kindness goes a lot longer way in communication than anger and irrational comments. I for one have thoroughly enjoyed this thread, maybe the best I've participated in. Good job all!"<<<

Oh Geez, Jade.All this nicey-nice crap makes me sick.
Bite me.

; )
best,
Ken

ltns-how ya been,dude?

Theaudiotweak, I am very interested in hearing about what you can find. Without criticizing or confronting Eldarford I have been questioning to myself if his methods are the correct test in this case. I appreciate the fact that Eldarford is trying to apply science while at the same time not attacking those of us who will swear on our grandmother’s grave. Civility is one word for it. I conceder it maturity and an appreciation for each other as human souls, Kindness goes a lot longer way in communication than anger and irrational comments. I for one have thoroughly enjoyed this thread, maybe the best I've participated in. Good job all!

Reduction of vibrational influences within a component should make the component operate with greater efficiency. With this in mind.. hooking up a component to a Variac and adjusting the operating voltage and then recording the current draw with and then with out your faviorite method for vibration control should lead you down the road of greater or lesser confusion..I myself have my own beliefs and I will try to measure and record these influences.Tom

Tbg -- I hear ya.

I thought this thread was about vibration. Please don't extrapolate my views into other aspects of audio where they don't apply, and then criticize me for these views.

To reiterate..."There are many audio characteristics, like "soundstage", "transparency", "imaging", that I cannot measure and neither can anyone else. But some things, like sensitivity to vibration are easy to measure, so why not do it".

Tbg, A social scientist! You must find these forums mighty interesting. You could do a lifetime research project on us and still not figure us out.

Rsbeck and Eldartford, I am a social scientist with many published research reports. I firmly believe in test hypotheses with data. I know full-well that the mind can be fooled. I do not believe, however, that science can settle the issues of whether there are differences between amp, cables, with and without isolation, or whether the IC works. I feel no need to prove what I hear nor do I think the rigor or research designs in tests I have seen and even participated in allows conclusions that some might want to make. I merely report my observations, which are the basis of inductive theory development. When I have my science hat on, I want data to assess the hypothesis, but here all I want to know is whether my sound improves.

I am certainly not discouraging others from reaching other conclusions, but I very much resent notions that I am merely deluding myself. When others share my impressions, I feel more secure in my impressions. Guys this is a hobby not competitive football or finding a cure to cancer.

I would never try to convince you that you didn't "hear" what you
heard. The subjects in Dunlavy's tests "heard" large
improvements even though the cables were never even changed. All this
means is that the mind is powerful and can supply sensory experiences for
us, can make us "hear" things that are not there, but hear them
nonetheless. So, even in the worst case, no one can say you didn't hear what
you heard. The question is whether it was real or not. No one should feel
insulted by this question. Every scientist that does an experiment builds in
safeguards to protect against these types of influences, or else no one will
accept his/her results. Who would trust a scientist who said he/she didn't
need to build in such safeguards because he/she could trust him/herself not
to be influenced. Why should any one of us be immune? However, the last
part of your statement is true. There is no magic bullet to end these types of
debates. The best we can say is that some people believe in these things and
some people don't and each has their reasoning. (See Newbee's overview of
the divergent belief systems.) However, the idea that one camp enjoys music
more than the other is rather specious.

Tbg...Noone is trying to convince you of anything. I am trying to decide what I need to do, and, just as you report the results of your listening tests, I will report my results. Other guys might benefit from my experience as well as yours. Would you like me to test my turntable, so that I can show the kind of results you like? That would be a waste of time because I already know the importance of vibe control for turntables.

Peace.

Jadem6, I agree. You may notice that I am largely dismissive of those who say vibration control cannot help. If they believe that, it is fine with me, but if someone asks, I have many suggestions. I cannot understand why they care to try to convince me that they are right despite my hearing they are wrong. They often say that I am delusional but they cannot prove it and I don't think they are right. Enjoy.

For now, I have A GPA Monaco two-tier stand with a single F-1 shelf(Dac/transport) and a Townshend Seimic rack(for the rest). I try to stay with products/methods that have proven themselves. In the future, I may explore Stillpoints. BTW, I purchase most products used.

Sol322, i agree. it's all about the music, and for you and me these tweaks have improved the enjoyment. Those who posted above me do not find the same enjoyment, great so be it. As for having to prove I'm enjoying myself, look at my smile.

Rsbeck: touché!

>>If you got the impression that the untrained ears phrase was demeaning
for my friend that was not my intent<<

No, I did not get the feeling you were trying to demean your friend.

One of my problems with so many of the testimonials I see and the
arguments that follow is that it turns into something like a game of button,
button, whose got the button?

What I mean by that is -- you generally read these testimonials where a new
Cable or Vibrapod, or Halograph, or Shakti Stone is inserted into a system
and makes this HUGE difference. So big that ANYONE would be able to hear it
-- even with cheese cloth over their ears. And even my next door neighboor,
who is half deaf and didn't even know I'd changed anything walked in, his
knees buckled and he shouted out, "MY GOD, YOUR SYSTEM SOUNDS
SO MUCH BETTER, I CAN HARDLY WALK!!!"

But, then when you ask why no one can seem to pass a double-blind listening
test and reliably tell any difference -- the story always changes. Suddenly,
the story becomes all about how these changes are incredibly subtle and only
people who've been trained in Tibetan Caves by Zen Masters can hear the
difference and only with the right system and only when they are in the right
mood and only when their moon is in Sagitarius --- and that's why the
subjects cannot pass these tests.

That's all.

Rsbeck:

Many details were omitted in my post for brief purposes. Basic tweaking was performed like interconnect and power cable layout, the rack was on a small rug and it was removed so it was directly on the tile floor. Mass loading of the player was also tried but the cone effect mentioned was far more noticeable than any of the other tried things. Since he was so puzzled by this it was tried several times and the improvement was confirmed by him not by me.
If you got the impression that the untrained ears phrase was demeaning for my friend that was not my intent, I tried to convey the idea that in a not sophisticated listening environment and with people not complicated as we as a group are, there are ways to share our hobby without been or projecting the "complicated" image we have that is limiting in a way the number of people that could enjoy more music with lesser electronics but properly set up that could eventually become audiophiles.
I keep an open mind but first I love to listen to music and is far more important to me than the equipment itself. If tweaking improves my music enjoyment I do it. For me vibration counts and affects the enjoyment I obtain from my listening sessions.
Vibration tweaking has worked for me and is not my idea to "convert" anyone. Just again sharing experiences to motivate people to experiment themselves and take their own conclusions as you seem to have, I have no problem with that and I respect your choices since they are your own.
Cordially
Luis

Stehno, almost all posts here and on AA end up with the same division between those who hear benefits and those who either say it is illogical that it makes a difference or that measurements don't lie and show no difference. If you hear a difference unless you like to argue like me, just ignore the din of doubters. If you don't hear a difference, also enjoy in peace.

Oh how I wish I too were a relativist. Then I too would think we can all be right! Or was it wrong?

All I know is, I keep throwing my Jell-O against the wall, but it just won't stick.

I wouldn't be surprised if this thread is nominated thread of the year. Shoot I may even nominate it myself!

-IMO

OK. I did my DVD player, a Denon 2900 with Underwood mod.

As before, I appled a 125 Hz warble tone at 110dB measured by the mic resting on top of the player.

I used the Denon HI-FI Check CD, track 37 (digital zero) and track 38 (one LSB square wave). The player rms output was around -77dB and -76dB respectively regardless of whether the vibration input was ON or OFF. I paid careful attention to the peak reading (displayed numerically about once a second) because one might expect any effect to be of the nature of a digital data error. All peak data was consistent with the variations of the rms value.

Them is the facts. Make of it what you will.

Jadem6...No offense. And well-written comments. I drive a Honda CRV instead of an Acura, because it does everything I need and leaves me with enough money to fly my airplane. Same deal with audio. I could afford the most expensive gear (well almost) but I could never justify it.

This thread is about a general technical issue, vibration, and its possible effect on equipment, which would logically affect all levels of audio equipment. If anything, cheap stuff, with no designed-in vibration control would be most sensitive.

I know that vibration control is very important for LP turntables, and for tube amps. Some people have suggested that electronics are also affected, an idea that seems unlikely to me. However, rather than talk back and forth and work ourselves into a fit about this I prefer to simply make some measurements and find out what is really going on. There are many audio characteristics, like "soundstage", "transparency", "imaging", that I cannot measure and neither can anyone else. But some things, like sensitivity to vibration are easy to measure, so why not do it. If my findings do not please you feel free to make your own measurements.

Hello Jadem6,

Thanks for your help with this. It was good to discuss it with you. I am hopefully going to make a few platforms this weekend. It's always nice to get advice for someone who has experimented before (plus you have a resolving of enough system to be able to get a good idea what works.)

And don't worry, I don't take offense to my system being called middle of the road. I know where my system stands. Audio/music is my passion and all that stops me from having the system of my dreams is a few zero's at the end of my paycheck.

I could go work a job I hate and exploit people to make more money, and while it my be legally acceptable I don't think it's morally acceptable. So I purchase what I can afford, which lately is not much (I got married two years ago and bought my first house 1 year ago.) Maybe one day I will own a $15k+ system but not any time soon (unless I win the lottery). For now I am going to continue to enjoy what I have and upgraded it as I can afford too.

Happy listening,

Newbee --

Excellent overview of the two different mind-sets and their attendant concerns.

>>The original post here concerned how do people deal with vibration, not whether it is meaningful to do so.<<

True, but when a topic like this comes up, others lurk or peruse the thread as well. I think it is useful for people who come to this forum because they are interested in audio to know that there are people here with different philosophies and approaches. Otherwise, it would give the false appearance of a concensus around things like expensive cabling, vibration control, etc.

I think we're a better forum if people interested in audio know that there isn't any such concensus among audiophiles, that these topics are controversial at best, and that there is a place in this forum for skepticism, that it isn't a "church" for believers only. I think the "church" approach would make this forum weaker, less inclusive, more limited in its appeal.

I don't think we want that.

At least, I don't.

This only becomes a problem if one needs to live in a provable universe.

I'd rather take the Algonquin Round Table, United Nations, or ecumenical council approach.

We all weigh in, let the questioning poster sort it out.

I've decided that everything is imagined, even that I'm imagining.

So therefore, since everything in "reality" is imagined, it matters not whether we are imagining it or not, because everything we know is imagined. Even double-blind testing is no answer, because we could be imagining that we are doing double-blind testing, and imagining the results, and imagining that we are typing the results on the page.

Now that we've established that since I'm imagining my audio system, and that my system sounds better when I buy a new component, or put some cones under it, or use different cables, then it is quite ok that I'm imagining that it sounds better.

And there's really no cost to anything because we are only imagining that we are paying for anything anyway. So, buy anything you want no matter what the cost, because the money is imaginary, so spend to your heart's content.

See, it actually is simple.
You can never "prove" anything, because no matter what you do, you could be imagining it.

I choose to write a separate post for this comment. I was thinking last night about how to equate this thread to some other topic. I came up with fruit. Let’s say three of us are discussing the sonic qualities of our systems. Now let’s equate the sonic qualities to the physical properties of the inside of fruit. In both cases none of us ever explain what our system is (or in this case explain what fruit we are holding.) In my case I have an apple, Nickway has an orange and Eldartford has a banana. I explain that when I cut my fruit it’s crisp and juice. After tasting, it was sweet with a tinge of sour. Nickway doubts my findings and posts a nasty comment stating that I had no idea what I was talking about because the inside was juice like mine but clearly not crispy. He did however agree with my findings of taste. Now Eldartford writes in and slams both us because his is not crispy or juice, his was mushy and soft and very flavorful but neither sweet or sour.
You see the point; we all have completely different fruit. We all are right; but we discount the others comments because they do not have the same characteristics. Well, if we try to explain the effects of vibration control on our stereos, and not discuss the components, we will be arguing over nothing rational, and advising when it’s possible my findings will not match someone else’s. In the case of this thread, Eldartford has a nice entry level system. (Please do not take offence) and Nickway has a very strong middle level system. I have a low/middle high level system. I’m trying to share my many years of experiments in this area of vibration control, yet my system is extremely sensitive and thus my findings may not translate to Eldartford. Again no one is wrong, we all have had these experiences as we describe. It simply can not be assumed that each of us will have the same result. On top of this, each of us has strengths and weaknesses in our systems. What I consider a strength may not be what Nickway sees as a strength. This is why I feel strongly that we share real live experiences and trials of our tweaks, and not discount the findings. If we share experiences, and put it into context by looking into each others system as listed on the Audiogon system section, then we are able to draw our own conclusions. The only thing I know for sure is my apple is not mushy and soft.
J.D.

Tvad, another great question and one I would only be speculating to answer. There are three vibration issues (at least) regarding the speaker. First is that produced by the speaker and is retained within the speaker itself. For example within the MDF enclosure and absorbed by insulation products within the speaker casing. Second, the vibration created by the driver that has an ability to move the entire speaker cabinet in the room. If this was exaggerated we would physically see this movement. Third is the impact of the room and floor vibration, or call it the environmental elements. The bearing type products are designed to isolate or decouple the component from the environment. In the case of a speaker the floor and room vibration is isolated from the speaker. This is the area you said you understood. The second is the speaker physically moving from the vibration created by the driver itself. I’ll assume you can see how this happens, so the question is why does a bearing product stop this vibration? My speakers weigh 200 pounds each. They are being supported by a bearing. For the sake of discussion let’s simplify the bearing to a ball resting in a cupped base and a cupped top. In order for the speaker to move, it requires a sideways force large enough to move the ball “uphill” within the cup itself. If I walk up to the speaker and push it, I can easily move the speaker, and it will rock a couple times before it settles back into the cup. The question is, can the drives create enough sideways force to in effect push the speaker uphill. In my case, the drives appear to not have the force to move 200 pounds uphill. I assume if I had my first speakers from high school, (Jensen with 15” woofers, yet they weighed maybe 40 pounds) they would move “uphill” and thus I would feel the vibration. So my assumption is the movement associated with the drivers sideways forces are being dealt with within the ball in the cup. The only way I can see that happening is to assume the ball must move (vibrate) in place and release the energy as heat. I actually have no idea if this is true, just my speculation. At any rate, the cabinet movement created by the sideways force of the driver is no longer present. That leaves us with the internal vibrations created by all five speaker cones in my cabinets. I assume the bearing product has little effect on this vibration, and that this is being absorbed and or stored within the cabinets materials. I suppose some of the vibration could be transferred/ drained to the bearing, but I can not imagine it’s too much. My guess is the cabinet is significant enough in its storage capacity that when I put my hand on the cabinet side I feel very little vibration. That’s my best guess; I’m more than happy to hear other theories.

Nickway, you asked what I thought would work better; foam, bike tube, cork, bubble-wrap, other?? My personal observations and theories are derived from years of threads like this one. I believe the inner tube isolation is fundamentally flawed for two reasons. The platform that is being supported is allowed to “roll” or move sideways. This movement we have theorized smears the leading edge of the note and thus creates a tempo change and lack of clarity. The second issue is the inner tube material itself. It is a relatively thick rubber, used twice once under a shelf and once on the supporting surface. My personal experience is rubber has a negative effect in a number of areas, air, clarity, tempo, bass resolution and so on. (This is not scientific or provable. I understand that point, and I appreciate that there will always be those who will demand proof. I am not a scientist and am in no position to prove any of my finding. I’m simply sharing my personal experiences and those theories arrived at over many, many years here at A’gon.) Cork I have no real experience with, foam might have a positive effect, I never played with foam because of looks. Bubble Wrap as far as I know is my personal crusade. I ran across its effects and theorized it’s benefits on my own and reported the results over about a year and a half ago here at A’gon. I love Bubble Wrap and so any comment I make is highly slanted. First I love it because it’s cheap. Second it improved my system, when place as the center of a shelf sandwich. I recommend looking under my threads to research the actual effects if you’re interested. For now I’ll simply claim it improved my system My theory is that when Bubble Wrap is compressed and weighted between two flat surfaces each bubble (I use aprox. 5/8” bubbles) is in compression and the surfaces not in contact with the flat surfaces are in tension. When a horizontal force is applied to the top surface a single bubble would try to roll, much like a bike inner tube. In the case of Bubble Wrap, the bubble’s movement is oppose by the bubble next to it, in that it is under compression and is in effect pushing out in 360 degrees. My theory is each bubble is reacting with the neighboring bubble, this cancels the original horizontal force. The top layer is not allowed to move sideways. The second benefit of Bubble Wrap is the extremely thin wall material, thus having little ability to absorb or have a sonic signature. I think Bubble Wrap is one of the best DIY, super cheep isolation products. So my answer to your question, start with Bubble Wrap at the massive sum of maybe $1.00 and work from there.
Please keep us informed as your experiments move forward, I have found if a number of us work on a similar projects together and report in to a certain thread (this one) we all learn and grow. Thus my endless comments about trying to only have real shared experiences, not simple opinions without any experience. What your doing right now Nickway is in my opinion the best benefit of this site. Learning and sharing together, its fun and challenges our thinking plus we can enjoy our hobby with friends. Thanks for creating this post.

Mdp0430 I have tried marble and granite. With granite I tried two thicknesses, one was “tombstone” thickness, the other was ¾” countertop thickness. The marble was a bit thinner, just over ½’ bathroom vanity top thickness. I was not pleased with granite; it creates a bright, sharp, electronic, overly clear sound. For my system at the time that was the wrong direction. I might try it under a BAT product for example, because they tend to be a bit slow and dark compared to other products. That might be a perfect match. All of this “stuff” is so subjective in that I just gave a description to a very popular product that people might take offence to. Much like I might say Krell is bright and steely and would benefit from a maple shelf and soft rubber footers. These comments are where I get in trouble; I cast not judgment on these or any product, but opinion relative to my taste. That’s tough to justify. Anyway, I found sandstone to be a nice middle of the road, between the slower, darker wood shelf, verse the bright sharp granite. Reading the above paragraph I know why people feel the need to jump in and say…. I sound like a nut case.
J.D.

The high mass approach will only get you so far, since the high mass will move right along with the building structure under influence of sesimic type vibration. A much more effective approach is the mass-on-spring concept - i.e., decoupling the component from the environment. (Manufacturer of Nimbus Sub-Hertz Platform and Promethean Base - pneumatic and mechanical spring designs, respectively).

Regarding civility, I thought Ohlala brought up a very valid and very basic point.

-IMO

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. :-)

Mdp0430, in my string of stuff I have tried, I neglected to include granite. Yes, I have tried it under amps as well as under the Mana stands. Its greatest strength is its mass, which is hard to vibrate at low frequencies, but it does ring. Ultimately I had a Sound Anchor stand with a steel bottom sand box on top and then the 2 inch thick granite tomestone under the amp. This all preceeded my getting Mana stands and these proved not only easier to live with and more effective.

I did get bass with great punch and quieter overall sound with the granite on sand combo, but the Manas yielded almost as good bass but much better dynamics in the music. I should say that at about the same time I switched from solid state amps to single ended triode tube amps used with efficient horns.

I did try to get the best of both worlds by putting the granite under the Mana stands. This did liittle but going to multiple Mana stands in a pile, what they call levels two, three, etc., gave clearly better results.

I think the thickness of the granite is very important. Mine was only 2 inches thick. I once tried one on top the other and that was better. I was tempted to try it but never went to three layers. As you can see, I am inclined to excess.

All that I can really say is that mass is one important element in vibration control. I doubt if anything would be better than 8 inch granite under all your equipment, assuming that your floor would support it.

Tbg...I completely agree that turntables and tube amplifiers need all the vibration control they can get. I was very skeptical about SS circuitry, and the simple test I performed showed that, at least for my phono preamp, vibration has no effect.

CD players are still an open issue in my mind. However, I have figured out a way to test mine. I have a CD test disc which includes two tracks, digital zero (which should be zero signal) and one LSB (which is electrically measurable but inaudible). I can put the player in the test box, play these tracks, and see if the player output is affected.

Very interesting post... I'm not quite at the point to begin tweaking my system with stands, virbrapods, aurios, wood blocks, etc. as I am still in search of the right component synergy...

Though one question does remain on my mind:

I thought that I would ask what the effect of a slab of granite would have? What type of vibration does it remedy (ie. assuming there is vibration and it can be remedied, of course)?

Thanks!

Is it real or is it imagination? This is a reoccurring concern throughout Audiogon and Audio Asylum. Two additional factors seem always to also weigh into this dispute, namely is there a theory and can it be measured. Above and beyond this are two additional considerations-is there a cheap alternative to more expensive technologies and products and must benefits be proven to others to use them yourself.

The two paths of logic are as follows. First, without a theory to account for an observation, especially if the product is expensive, and if there are no measurable differences, it is imagination. Second, if there is an observed benefit, if you can afford it, buy it as it is real. The words, "scientific" and "sham" are words introduced into the first logic. The proponents of the second logic, if pushed, suggest that often science advances based on observations that defy old science theory, such as the impact of the X-ray discovery, etc. Man's scientific theories have often proven incorrect and often capture only a portion of what happens around us. They also suggest that they do not need protection by others from scams.

It is quite clear that neither of these logics can prove the other wrong. Much space has already been devoted to this useless enterprise, but I guess since we continue to participate, we must enjoy these crusades.

The original post here concerned how do people deal with vibration, not whether it is meaningful to do so. Perhaps we should answer that question.

For the last 20 years, I have devoted much time and money to controlling vibration. I started with marble shelves suspended on innertubes and racket or tennis balls with slits. Later I bought the first TipToes and ultimately got Valid Points, which in my experience are the best of this idea, although the Goldmund points are also quite good. I tried many stands and shelves and still have many Mana stands, which are basically spikes pointed up and down. Until the Acapella shelves, I consistently found the Neuance shelves the best, at least in my system.

About five or six years ago I got the first Aurios. I found them a real pain as the shelf had to be quite level to get the real benefit. Also heavy powercords and interconnects made their use a nightmare. I also tried the RollerBlocks and their Grade 3 balls. These and later Aurios, I always found, could not perform at the level of the original 1.0 Aurios, especially when used with tungsten carbide balls on top. On the Neuance stands, I never found feet to add anything to the quality of the sound.

Then I discovered Shun Mook pucks on top. These give a very subtle benefits in realism that cannot be otherwise achieved. I have tried ebony pucks as well as other pieces of wood.

I should also say that all along Goldmund has been advocating two soft feet and one grounding hard foot. Under their cd transport this clearly worked, especially with their quite heavy stand. Even with my Acapella shelves on Mana stands and using the Acapella feet, I do not get the purity of sound that I once got with the Goldmund transport.

I suspect that ultimately everyone will agree with me that this is a quest that is never achieved. I have been up many deadends but generally have advanced, often at substantial expense. All I can suggest is to try new devices but be prepared to conclude now or later that they are no benefit.

>>Nevertheless, at some level it is real and an explanation for why vibration
control can influence what we hear.<<

We have no *proof* that it is real.

Whether this sounds insulting or not. there are always at least two
explanations for "hearing" anything.

1) There is something "real" to hear.

2) It is caused by the imagination.

John Dunlavy used to do an experiment where he would invite audiophiles
and audio critics to his lab and position technicians behind a set of speakers.
The technicians would employ Zip Cord and the audience would be
unimpressed. Then the technicians would swap out the Zip Cord for exotic
looking speaker cables and the audience would exclaim enthusiastically
about the radical improvements they heard.

Only problem:

The cables were never really changed -- it was still Zip Cord.

Why did the audience "hear" large improvements when there was
absolutely no difference?

The mind is powerful and can supply us with sensory experiences that have
nothing to do with "reality."

So, it is always necessary -- for some of us -- to question whether any
testimonial is based on something real or something imagined.

Jadem6,

Thank your for taking the time for your in depth message. Much appreciated.

Upon reading your post, I think we are both on the same page, and you have reinforced my initial thought.

I agree that the stand should be isolated from the floor and be very rigid. I like how you are using the sandstone slabs to do this.

I also agree that keeping a stand isolation from the floor is only half the battle. The other part is individually dealing with each component as to meet each items isolation needs. I do like the Nuance platforms that you have.

I am hoping to make some DIY platforms this weekend for myself. I am currently thinking about a Sandbox to drain internal vibrations from the component, and then the sandbox will sit upon another isolation device to keep any vibration that I have in my stand out of the isolation device for the component. For this I am thinking about some more open cell foam or maybe a bike tube? What do you think would work better here? Foam, Bike tube, cork, bubble-wrap, other??

So to summarize I will have my component sitting on a sandbox which then sits on a softer isolation device (TBD per above) which will then sit on a shelf of my rack, Then my rack is spiked to my floor. I will probably look at getting some Sandstone or another rock to put between it and my floor as you have.

For my CD player I am also planing on using some DIY rollerbock in conjunction with a sandbox, etc...

Thanks again for you help,
Cheers,

>>I paused the player and placed it on brass cones (seating position was
lower than rack so he couldn't see under the player and I blocked his view).
Sat down and pushed "play". He immediately was puzzled and
asked me :WHAT DID YOU DO? THE SOUND IS RADICALLY IMPROVED!!!<<

There are several problems with this "conversion experience."

First, by pausing the music and doing something, then starting the music
again, you raised the expectation that you did something to improve the
sonics.

Second, if you are the audio expert here and your buddy is the "
untrained" listener, your buddy faced peer group pressure to hear an
improvement in order to measure up.

Third, your experiment was not done double-blind. In other words, YOU
knew you had made a change and whether you know it or not, your body
language may have been giving your buddy the tip that you wanted him to
notice, were testing him, had some expectation, or that YOU thought the
sonics had improved, which would make your buddy want to please you by
complimenting the change you -- the expert -- had made by pausing the
music, getting up to make a change -- you needed to place the cones -- and
then resuming the music.

This is WHY listening tests must be done double-blind to carry any weight.

If you did this test double-blind and your buddy with his untrained ears was
eable to reliably tell when the cones were in place and when they weren't --
that would be convincing.

Now, since you claimed the chage was so dramatic that your buddy had to
exclaim that the sound was RADICALLY IMPROVED, we should expect that it
would be easy for him to tell the difference in a double-blind test.

>>there is no need to debase someone else's beliefs.<<

>>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<<

This is not a church dedicated to one set of beliefs where good manners
means non-believers must sit reverently for fear of insulting someone's
"religion."

This is a site where audiophiles of every stripe are free to join in, offer
opinions, reservations, beliefs, skeptcism, and recomendations based on
many different approaches.

This way, the people who come here get to listen to many different
approaches and everyone gets to make up their own mind.

I have some experience supporting jadem6. I have two sets of aurios, and liked them under my cd player. At the suggestion of the Audionut folks I found a nice low profile 10 lb barbell weight stuck on some rubber feet and set that on top of my cd player with the aurios underneath. I perceived a little more 'air' in the sound.

Then I tried the aurios between my Silverline SR17s and my Osiris stands. The soundstage widened, and the players seemed more clearly to occupy specific locations. Roger Waters dog on "Amused to Death" started barking behind my right ear. The cd player will have to be happy with the DH ceramic cones for now.

Tbg...I just reported some facts, and everyone can draw their own conclusions. But I must point out that in dealing with 110 dB sound/vibration input, subtle resolution is a bit of a joke.

Pbb, don't assume that others have your ears or the resolution of your system or your biases.

Eldartford, my conclusion, as always were instruments are involved, is that they don't have the resolution of human ears. I do admire, however, your efforts to instrument tests.