Question for DIY people: Butcher block shelving??


I picked up the "Spar" maple butcher block from IKEA the other day. (Link to the butcher block is here) => http://www.ikea.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10101&storeId=12&langId=-1&productId=15241

I am going to use these blocks to replace the cheap MDF shelves on my welded steel Target rack. I believe the blocks are unfinished. They are not solid chunks of maple -- there is some hollowness inside.

My question is, what should I do with them next to increase their effectiveness as shelves and to increase their durability? Should I oil them? Put a coat of lacquer on them? Glue cork and/or rubber to the underside?

I will be placing them under a variety of components (Cd player, amp, power conditioner), so I could customize each block to suit the component it sits on.

Any suggestions would be appreciated!!!! Thanks!!!!
marc_dc

Showing 5 responses by sean

When you add mass, you simply lower the resonant frequency. On top of that, you also make it harder to stop the resonance once excited. By lowering the center frequency of the resonance, you also increase the potential to excite this resonance in the listening room. Why is that? Simple.

Bass is both the most potent part of most any recording and it is also omni-directional in the frequency range where most "weighted" devices will resonate. The end result is that the low frequencies will "float" to wherever your equipment is located and resonate the rack, adding bloat and ringing bass. This makes music sound slow, thick and lifeless, just like "over-damping" the room acoustically does.

You need to find a way to damp / absorb vibration without adding mass. The higher in frequency that you can get the system to resonate, the less likely it is to be sonically noticeable. Not only do signals become more directional as frequency rises, they also lose intensity as distance increases at a faster rate due to their shorter wavelengths. As such, there's less potential to excite these resonances due to directionality. The energy that is able to excite them isn't as potent due to the wavelengths, reduced intensity and shorter duration of the signals involved.

As such, something that is rigid yet light in weight and has a high level of "self damping" i.e. is a "lossy material" is FAR superior to something that is rigid and a good conductor of vibration. Materials that tend to ring or oscillate quite easily, even if at a higher frequency, should be avoided. That's because you'll not only hear the sound coming from your speakers, but also the secondary oscillation as a source of sonic energy. Why in the world someone would want to put something that is "ringy" and easily excited in the same room as their audio system, i don't know. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

The one exception to this is when you use a "ringy" material ( like thin yet relatively stiff metal sheets ) in conjuction with another material that is low in mass and high in "self damping" traits. Constrained layer damping definitely works and can offer excellent rigidity with a high level of damping / absorption, but finding the right combination of materials can be tricky, time-consuming and you still have the potential for increased mass with a lower resonant frequency.

Quite honestly, i would not have believed that any of this could have affected the sonics of my system until i learned the hard way. That is, i changed racks in one of my systems and the sound of that system turned to crapola. After putting 2+2 together, i was on yet another search in terms of how i could solve this problem while moving forward.

It should be noted that different woods have varying "loss factors" i.e. rigidity to density ratios. Same goes for different types of "styrofoam". There are also different grades of Carbon Fiber, Fiberglass, plastics, metals, etc... Even the glues that one might use to bond specific materials together have different traits.

I know that some of you will think that this is crazy, but if you build a rack or shelf and keep it light yet rigid and moderatly damped rather than resonant, you'll instantly be able to hear the benefits. Sean
>
Good observation Jadem6 and welcome back. Glad to see a familiar moniker from the past show up again : )

Much of what led me down the path to investigate this area of system building were "bad experiences" with a specific rack and timely posts made by / conversations with Ken of Neuance. Ken's comments / suggestions / experiences were of a great help to me and what prompted me to do my own research on the subject. The fact that we ended up coming to many of the same conclusions shouldn't come as a surprise. Then again, i also think that the approach that Barry of Bright Star mentions has validity, but it is a more complex system with quite a few more variables involved.

As a side note, this thread and another thread have somewhat become inter-twined in content and reference points. I wish there was some way to "pick and choose" parts of individual threads and combine them into one, but there's not. That is, other than cutting and pasting, which duplicates the info at multiple points. Given that some of the comments made in the posts that would be transplanted into another thread may have been made in response to previous comments, that gets too confusing. As such, i'm providing a link to the other thread for reference purposes. Those interested can read it at their own peril : ) Sean
>

coupling vs isolation vs damping/ self-absorption
Lapaix: I don't doubt that your homebrew air suspension device works quite well. The problem with many homebrew damping / isolation systems is that they either don't take the system / component resonance low enough in frequency ( like yours does ) or that they only address part of the problem, bringing other side effects with them. Sean
>
Reducing "ringing" in a system, whether it is electrically or mechanically based, can change what one hears from a system. Whether or not one likes this is up to their personal preferences. Sean
>
That's a good observation that Jadem made about the horizontal displacement of energy in an air bladder type device.

As to bearing type devices, i think that they act as kind of a vertical coupler with a horizontal damping valve built in. That is, due to the mass forced down on the bearing, it pretty much will act as if the device is coupled to the support underneath it, at least in the vertical plane. If there is enough energy involved to displace the bearing, this energy would cause horizontal motion rather than vertical motion due to the mass loading effect.

In effect, the horizontal displacement would only come into play during severe situations, acting as kind of a "pressure relief valve". Obviously, i'm just babbling here as i've never studied this type of device or the principles that they are based on, so i could be completely off in left field on this one.

As to the comments about bubble wrap, i remember reading your first posts about this. I also remember Ric from EVS discussing using bubble wrap underneath his Millennium DAC's several years ago, so there has to be some validity to Jadem's results.

As to Greg's original question, see my response discussing combining mass loading / coupling / absorption in a random fashion in the other thread that discusses rack building, etc... For optimum results, you really need to do the math and look at the system as a whole. Without the math and everything taken into account, you're back into the "chaos theory" of system tweaks with anything being possible. Sean
>