Shocked removed spikes, used blue tack, what other non spike footer

millercarbon,

Somehow the idea of "grounding" took root. This idea always was at best a metaphor and never did have any validity. Vibrations do not flow like electricity from one place to another, cannot be drained, etc. Whatever. As if logic or physical reality ever stood in the way of an audiophile and his drive to misunderstand.

Are you stating that mechanical grounding techniques, Resonance Transfer theorems and methodologies are not valid?

Robert

An early-on theorem involving spikes:

While in high school I was introduced to a group of Bell Labs engineers who became audiophiles in the mid/late 50’s, my father being one of them. This band of intellects with rather large record collections spent time modifying Fisher, HK, Lafayette and Scott electronics and focused on DIY speaker design. They used penny nails (the equivalent of modern day spikes) under speaker systems to avoid what they determined as ‘acoustic coupling’ of the speaker cabinet with the greater mass of the floor long before vibration management products existed in audio.

The theorem being; if a speaker chassis rests flat on the flooring, the massive ground plane (energy sink) of the structural building in concert with gravity will negatively affect sonic performance of the enclosure and driver function, particularly the dispersion characteristics. ‘Spikes’ allowed for separation of the two planes limiting the effects caused by the greater mass, earth’s ground.

No one actually knows where the application of spikes under loudspeakers was initialized as this is but one story I thought worth sharing.

Why does the Majority of Speakers and Stands Come With Spikes?

Manufacturers continue to supply spikes because they are historic and one of the lowest cost footers available in manufacturing. Ask any manufacturer why their best loudspeaker comes with a set of $4.00 spikes and wait for the various explanations to unfold. Let us know your findings because we too wonder... what’s up with all those different replies and philosophies?

That Poor Darn Spike:

A typical nail-head spike costs $0.45 cents (Made in the USA) to manufacture so why do listeners and manufacturers continue to compare ‘spikes’ to devices costing hundreds of times more money?

They Call it Testing? - We Call It Marketing!

We witnessed electronic switching between two identical pair of loudspeakers in comparing a $4.00 set of steel nail-head spikes to a $600 set of spring footers where the $600 springs did sound better.

There is a video involving heavy foot stomping displaying visual results from self induced floor shock, noted on computer tablets, comparing a set of $8.00 steel speaker spikes to a $2,000.00 isolation device. You can easily guess which one maxed out the better result.

We find it amusing where both companies took their best shot at comparing mechanical grounding (direct coupling) principles to isolation theorems using the crudest form and cheapest competing parts available (a steel spike) in order to achieve their heavily favored one sided results.

If comparisons of methodologies, techniques and/or products are to be made, wouldn’t you prefer products close to the same retail price points be evaluated? No one appreciates being misled.

Form Follows Function:

Like all parts and devices; the materials, geometric shapes and functionality evolves over time. The first rubber tire was a solid material but nobody would consider comparing that part to a Firestone used in open wheel racing - right?... So why then spikes?

No two spikes, springs, discs, cones or wood blocks sound the same if they are shaped differently, even if they are manufactured from the same material. As an example, pick up any two different brass products and listen to their performance as the differences are surprisingly ‘not’ close at all.

It would be highly beneficial to specify the brand name and/or model number or dollar cost when making statements involving footers. Generic spikes have a place in audio history but the industry is moving well beyond the forty-five cent part.  

By categorizing ‘spikes’ into a single topic or understanding will cloud you from the reality of knowledge and sonic performance.

Would you consider an Audio Point™ a spike? After thirty years of continuous sales earning listener satisfaction year after year, we do not. There’s over a half million out there and are considered a rare find in the used marketplace so in our opinion the spike has definitely evolved.

Material science and applied geometry have proven that shapes and chemistry plays significant roles in the function and sonic outcome of ‘ALL’ footer systems, equipment racks and loudspeaker platforms.

Our Company was the first to provide financial return and satisfaction guarantees in 1999 where the majority of our peers told us we would be out of business within the year. Now days every competing entity, dealer or distributor has to consider participation in this business model. 

Take full advantage of the audition process as audible performance definitely separates reality from opinion.

Unfortunately, audio is aligned with other luxury industries where the price of a product figures into the level of satisfaction achieved - not saying more dollars necessarily establishes a greater value; after all, this is comparing sound reproduction alongside a few million sets of independent ears!

Thank you for your time,

Robert

Star Sound

Geoff,

This is what sometimes happens when a manufacturer shows up all of a sudden to gush (at length) over his product (spikes) before reading the OP that specifically pointed out spikes were not all that in his system.

If I offended the OP, he or she is welcome to delete my post but you have to agree, a lot of conversation here addresses spikes so I offered up a few facts defining the differences between them. We call that information sharing. If the OP contacts us, we would be willing to send some samples in order to hear exactly what those unmistakable differences are and improve upon his or her sound at the same time.  

Maybe the band of intellects the manufacturer referred to would be happy to see how isolation and damping have progressed in the past fifty years. Well, maybe they wouldn’t, how the hell would I know?

The band I refer to were responsible for the oversight in building the world’s first transistor production line. Obviously their genius was definitely ahead of their time. I saw microscopes everywhere so there is no doubt they knew more than most with regards to isolation techniques - of this I am sure.

These guys were some of our audio forefathers and my first mentors. I have no doubt they would be happy to see how far isolation has evolved. Anything that improved cymbal decay, depth of voice and instrumentation always put smiles on their faces as these guys loved listening well into their eighties. Pretty cool stuff…  

Robert

Say, aren’t you the guy who says isolation is impossible?

Geoff, to answer your question in short form is difficult so **warning** this is a lengthy read. Some of this information may be boring to you but for those who are new and want to increase their knowledge, please take your time in reading and refer back as many times as needed in order to increase your understanding.

I stated on record that our company has been involved in vibration management used in audio for twenty plus years and have history working with absorption, constrained layer damping, isolation techniques both individually and in combination with others establishing a Pandora’s Box scenario limiting the company from achieving its goals.

All these theorems involve the age old beliefs of killing, eliminating or somehow stopping vibration from taking place. We then took an opposite approach and built a high-speed mechanical grounding device that permits an object to vibrate then transfers amplitudes of “resonance” formed from vibration to earth’s ground.

We are very familiar with isolation, its heritage and benefits and have discovered the inefficiencies related to sonic performance, functionality and quandaries that are additional elements involving any theory.

The isolation theorem using the microscope analogy makes you want to believe sound rooms and equipment require eliminating vibration and/or chassis movement using the sensitivity of human touch as a testing method for electronic component and speaker chassis.

The concept why you should “not” feel any vibration has been eliminated from our program as we have deemed it irrelevant because one cannot eliminate vibration from any device that uses power to operate or generates acoustic energy – period.

When deadening a chassis, room environment or any product related to sound reproduction you also deaden or destroy harmonic structure and dynamics we humans seek and need to increase the emotion and enjoyment we get from listening.

Regards to Electron Microscopes:

No one has ever discussed why electron microscopes require isolation techniques other than seismic or outside structural born vibrations being present. A well known fact is alternating electric current vibrates the smallest of parts, optics, electronic circuits and chassis playing a role in limiting the performance of this type of sensitive device. When using power, both “AC and DC” current establish vibration that creates “resonance”.

Resonance and the buildup thereof limit the operational efficiency of any electronic or acoustic product or part.

Active Isolation Products:

We placed a $400 mechanical grounding Platform (brass points and steel mass) beneath a much higher priced name-brand active isolation table with a turntable residing on top of the iso-device. There was no doubt, the sonic changed for the better in every way so how is this possible?

Our opinion is; we allowed the iso-table and turntable combination to vibrate and transferred the resonance generated within and on the surface of the two products to the equipment rack (ground plane) below which in turn transferred resonance to the greater mass or energy sink known as the floor. How does this play into the isolation theorem as it makes no sense or does it?

We then placed a Platform between the turntable and the top of the iso-device and the sonic quality increased yet again delivering a substantial wow factor!

Disclaimer – these were in house testing methods with multiple listeners where test equipment resided on one of our larger Platforms although it would be interesting to see or hear results from other equipment racking designs. We believe the results will be much the same and encourage everyone to try this testing protocol in order to verify our assumptions and results. Call us if you own an active iso-device and we will be happy to talk should you wish to participate in beta-testing.

Isolation theory (decoupling) keeps resonance formed from vibration within the chassis and establishes operational inefficiencies per the laws of Coulomb.

The question now becomes; does isolation require combining other processes such as absorption or constrain layer damping or mechanical grounding in order to maximize the theory and/or sonic performance?

When we implemented our products beneath and on the top surface of isolation’s most talked about product, the sonic performance increased based on mechanical grounding principles and resonance transfer theorems exposing limitations of isolation theory.Therefore we posted this statement:

“True isolation cannot be achieved in ‘real world’ applications”.

Why?

Because the science and physics governing our planet dictates that all energy seeks earth’s ground and will gravitate there via the pathway of least resistance. Most everything on earth that consumes power requires a ground to function (real world applications) and earth is the ultimate ground plane.

We did not state isolation techniques do ‘not’ work however there are drawbacks to the various applications and questions regarding the theory.

Another example of this is a competitor who retails spring devices for loudspeakers recommends the use of their ‘spiked’ footers to be used in combination hence mechanically grounding the entirety of the device. I believe this information has just been confirmed by a listener on this thread.

Our studies and experiments conclude we have discovered a methodology that increases product operational efficiency and reduces temperature (heat) in electronic components. We titled it Live-Vibe Technology™.

Resonance Transfer (direct coupling) to earth’s ground at high-speed is our theory and basis for improving product operational efficiency and function. Over the years we have adapted the technology to electronics and loudspeakers, circuit boards, capacitors, AC wall panels and power distribution products, structural room environments and various musical instruments.

Live-Vibe Technology is scalable and also functions under large transformers, electric motors, microwaves and compressors as well.

Weight limits on our smallest Platforms exceed one-thousand pounds of mass so in audio weight tolerances are a non-issue, unlike many isolation products.

It all began with a metal resonance conductive sphere. The founding fathers originally tested spheres until an engineer drew a circle with a line through it and convinced everyone the contact points were too linear and were responsible for thinning out the sonic which then led to a cone shaped part titled Audio Points™. Those parts led to implementing additional conductive mass (steel) and advanced geometry arriving at Live-Vibe Technology.

Spikes are forty-five cent parts and this is High-End Audio - right? 

Robert

Star Sound

This demo says it all.

The video you refer to compares a $0.45 cent part to a $ Multi-hundred-or-thousand dollar product is bunk. Hard to understand why a company would open itself up to such an obvious dispute based on physics, unless it was produced as a marketing tool to increase sales.

If we were to compare a two bit spring even cryogenically treated, to a $2,000 Rhythm Platform™ you would never want to consider a spring again. Funny how that works - eh?

Here is a list of ten questions based on review of your video link.

1. Notice the meters without foot stomping? There should be a clear difference from seismic activity displayed prior to the foot hitting the floor. If seismic is that critical, shouldn’t there be a noticeable change between the meters at idle room noise? I do not see any changes do you?

2. Do you stomp around in your sound room when listening? Do you tap on equipment when you are listening – point being this is about sound reproduction and not self induced noise variables?

3. How do we know what they term is “ringing” displayed on their meters immediately following the stomp? Is the ringing audible? OR is the ringing the natural sustained decays and time dissipation which are extremely important musical characteristics when listening to music? We are "told" it is ringing - I guess…

4. What happens to each meter display with just music playing in the room?

5. The mini-earthquake theorem has been around and sermonized since vibration or anti-vibration appeared on the audio scene. It’s a great story crossing human imagination combining construction techniques and structural buildings that move with the earth’s rotation resisting the forces related to earthquakes and seismic phenomena.

Unfortunately those (+ or -) 4Hz “inaudible” seismic waves generated from the earth’s crust affecting audio equipment performance has a “tough prove”.

Why?

Music reproduction demands the "hearing range of humans" as the ‘controlling component’ used in testing speakers, electronics, cables, equipment racking, et’ all by the overwhelming majority of listeners.

Sorry to be in disagreement with the seismic quandary but are we to believe that seismic energy or floor vibration literally jumps off the heaviest grounding plane in the room and moves up the equipment rack avoid the “laws” of motion and gravity? The course of travel is quite lengthy. First up through the geometry of the cone footer, up the rods and across the shelving, up past the equipment or aftermarket footer system through the chassis walls and onto the circuits and then affects your components output capability - how? Keep in mind the majority of resonance is moving down to earth’s ground confirmed by physics and that’s why; in my opinion seismic has a tough believability factor.

6. What vibration comes first - seismic OR are the circuits, power supplies, transformers and component chassis already vibrating due to man-made AC or DC power?

7. How can anyone separate or begin to understand what frequencies are from the earth and which ones are from electric current flow?

8. Are the seismic waves more disruptive than that of the compression waves generated from man-made loudspeakers?

9. If their theorem could be proven and it cannot; in order to prove and validate product function can only be done via third party analysis, testing and “product validation”. Said proof of performance would have to be conducted in a respected laboratory such as ASTM International.

One must also take into consideration that audio reproduction tests (RTA, SPL,acoustic, etc) are viewed as “highly subjective” among the scientific community.

I personally would not approach anyone of science with two meters and a heavy foot.

10. The driver motion thing is unquantifiable. First; in anechoic rooms, the effects of Coulomb friction do not survive the room because the anechoic is designed to eat all energy. Secondly; there is no test for loudspeaker function in a live dynamic environment due to the laws of gravity, motion and Coulomb’s friction. Again they are estimating driver movement and direction and “telling” you unproven, unreliable or estimates at best measurements of driver motion. We call that storyboarding.

AND - THE BIG ONE!

Everything related to vibration and the management thereof in audio from methodologies to testing criterion, to human believability to sonic results is solely based on theorems. The key to understanding all this is everybody’s got one!

Once the music starts and volume of sound enters the environment, it becomes quite difficult to understand what we cannot hear. Does anyone have scientific evidence or proof beyond theorem that mini-earthquakes affect audio systems sonic audible performance?

There are far more elements involved in audio reproduction than the amplitudes of energy coming from the greatest energy absorber known to mankind - mother earth.

HOW ABOUT A TOTALLY NEW APPROACH TO VIBRATION?

Instead of attempting to stop, kill or eliminate vibration or attempt to prove where it comes from, we propose;

“We do not care where the vibration comes from. It doesn’t matter, because "resonance formed from vibration is on every surface that exists". 

Instead of theorizing what the sources of vibration are and how to stop them (anti-vibration); why not focus on what to do with resonance because there is no way to avoid resonance in a music or sound reproduction environment”?

That being stated and without argument:

Does one isolate resonance within the component allowing these amplitudes to build and propagate on all smooth surfaces per the laws of Coulomb?

Does one use added damping materials in unison with isolation products in order to dissipate, absorb or attempt to convert the resonance back into heat?

Then does the heat again become trapped in the chassis or is the heat drawn back to the metal chassis in search of earth’s ground and does that same old heat form resonance all over again?

Does one then have to take apart every component and speaker in there system to further dampen resonance? What materials should be used to dampen and then what happens when a signal or dynamics are overdamped?

OR

Does one transfer at high speed the amplitudes of resonance back to earth’s ground knowing that all energy seeks earth in accordance with known physics relying on the natural damping factors of the materials used in the geometrically designed product establishing a 'Basic is Better' approach to solving a problem?

The final decision is your choice of course but we would use the generous return with full refund guarantees provided by the finer companies as the real vibration test method. The bottom line for anyone is sonic performance.

In audio as well as other industries vibration management products appear to be strategically tested solely by the original manufacturer or designer with results always heavily favoring the product being promoted.

These testing methods are designed to increase sales through clever marketing, pushing theorem believability and storyboarding. 

Over the years there has been equipment racks placed on shaker tables, air hammers residing on shelving, various knock, banging, foot stomping and tap testing; all of which are self induced forces that do not exist in musical reproduction environments or when listening. These tests prove absolutely nothing with regards to science or listening in ‘real world’ applications. The tests always include a ton of graphs, charts and posters all claiming proof of concept and they too are manufactured by the company selling the product.

The company I represent is working to prove our theorem and become a useful technology. We use heat reduction as our method of testing for product validation as temperature, unlike sound quality is a well accepted topic among science experts.

ianderson asks:

What might prove useful to apply the seismic test to popular products like Herbies, Star, Gaia, Townsend etc and compare the results.

The seismic test is meaningless and proves nothing for reasons listed above, but if you include opinions and comparisons on the sonic performance of each product – “count us in”!

Please give us a call as that is one test we would love to participate in.  

Robert

Star Sound

Almost all competent isolation devices and systems use springs in some form or another so the only reason I can think of why someone would disparage cryogenically treated springs is out of desperation and/or ignorance of physics and strength of materials.

Geoff, you misunderstood my statement (again). I was attempting to make a point where a spring that is cryo’d provides an increase in performance but will not hold a candle in sonic when compared to a product costing in the thousands of dollars. And just so you are aware, we have a lot of experience using cryogenics as well.

We notice you use of the word “desperation or as an act of desperation” is stated often when put on the defense but I’m guessing we’ll call this one a simple misunderstanding.

R

Geoff,

Too bad on the LIGO thing, bet that one hurts since you have used that analogy on so many people over the past couple years.

I still can’t get my head around what LIGO has to do with music reproduction?

Maybe if they were to increase the mechanical grounding mechanism and improve the speed of resonance flow to earth, the isolation portion of the experiment might improve? 

I wish funding kept coming from outside sources when our experiments fail; that's what I call leading the good life - yes?

You haven’t been paying attention. LIGO must be at least 99.999% mechanically decoupled from Earth to be sensitive enough to detect gravity waves.

Mr. Kait,

I’m guessing it’s that .001% is the reason LIGO failed!

You also speak in past tense whereas due to recent reports gravity waves have yet to be detected.

Every image I’ve seen of these devices has what appears to be massive steel structures bolted to the earth holding the mechanism in place. What are they, pogo sticks?

Maybe it’s time for you take a science class. Then your experiments wouldn’t fail.

I am truly humbled by that statement. If experiments never fail, LIGO would be an absolute success and anti-vibration isolation theorems would be a proven science!

My Sincere Apologies to the Members:

This thread has turned for the worse. I will do my best to ignore the insults and avoid retaliatory strikes, stay on topic and provide information relative to vibration management related to our experience.

OP, give me a call. After turning your thread into a free-for-all, the least we can do is ship you a few products for your audition. Telephone the contact number on our website.

Robert

Star Sound

Getting back to sound reproduction if any are still interested:

As I’ve oft described, performance of cones is also a function of Hardness. Brass for example is a relatively soft metal, and carbon fiber is a relatively soft material, whereas tempered steel and NASA grade ceramics rank very high on the Mohs Hardness scale - and are audibly superior to softer materials like brass.

We disagree with this claim.

First, NASA does NOT grade, advertise, recommend nor receive any compensation for sponsorships of any material - whatsoever. NASA Grade Ceramics is a wishful analogy or marketing line of some kind that only exists in the mind of a person who once was employed there.

Does this work for anyone? - Saxophones, trumpets, tubas, bones and all musical instruments made or contain brass alloys in their manufacture should use NASA grade brasses.

The ‘harder the better’ distraction that is repeated all too often is one  “opinion” and has been disproven multiple times over. In some cases, hard materials reproduce the sonic effects associated with hard or edgy, brittle sonic and that is not a desirable result for most listeners.

Disclaimer: We’ve never heard or prototyped an audio cone made of diamond, gold, silver, platinum,glass, minerals or tin so cannot comment on those materials.

We have built using aluminums, all types of steels, titanium, various species of woods along with a few varieties of metal alloys used in the manufacture of modern day defensive armors (extremely hard/dense materials). The results in each case were not good for listening however to be fair, we applied known successful versions of our geometry to cut and test the prototypes so there is a slight possibility the shapes lessened the performance or did not match well with the materials damping factors.

Information for the DIY and Audio Designers:

All metal and ceramic alloys have different damping factors that affect the attack, sustain and decay characteristics of sound. These factors are a part of material science therefore it is very important to analyze, document, reference and learn how materials react to resonance formed from vibrations when designing anything related to audio reproduction.

Another Crucial Element Related to ‘any’ Vibration Device:

The overall function of cones (Not including $0.45 cent spikes), spheres, pucks or springs heavily relies on the mass and chemistry makeup of the two surface materials coming in contact with both the top and the base area of the device. These outlying surfaces, their chemistry makeup and mass greatly influence the functionality and sonic performance of any device.

Spring rates should be selected based on load.

Our primary issue with springs was weight limitations where you require a spring for this weight and another for that and every time you get heavier or lighter gear one has to match up the sonic result to or with a mass to spring ratio.

I can only speak for Star products where they are sensitive enough to function with an ounce of weight or up to one ton of mass so there is no concern over what type of equipment you place onto them. Not having to deal with equipment weight is a huge benefit when adapting a technology that serves multiple applications.

Since we are the company in audio with the most years of experience modeling, prototyping and manufacturing conical devices and are developing a newfound vibration technology, we remain extremely confident and have proven that our choice of brass and its chemical makeup delivers the function and sonic results essential for industry and product expansion.

We sampled, tested and listened to many materials including many brasses along with twenty-five different varieties of steels; applied multiple geometries to a host of prototypes that failed or had shortcomings related to limiting frequency response. The cost over time was extensive and most did not make the grade for our research and development projects, especially when it came down to the ‘all’ important musical and sonic relationships we require.

Moh’s has nothing to do with musical performance unless you include Larry and Curly in the band.  ⌣

Robert

Star Sound

Well how on earth can anyone learn anything more about sound reproduction with LIGO running wild?

Can I use it in our next studio design? Obviously music and sound has taken a by-line in this conversation where Geoff has yet again achieved lift off!

I said that hard materials should be used under components and under isolation stands for best results in evacuating residual energy from the system.

Anyone who calls anything the “BEST” is proof you are not an engineer or trendsetter so it's much easier to understand why you are so highly opinionated.

Since you have no experience with the entire range of materials of various Hardness - as I do - you have no real basis for your opinion.

Our founding fathers know a lot on that subject. We have a well written material science engineer and patent attorney, a couple mechanical engineers, an electrical engineer and a seismologist that you insisted we go out and get a few years back. That advice proved to be a winning moment for Star and we thank you. I truly believe their combined knowledge is well beyond your “expertise” on any subject and that is a substantial basis for 'our' opinion.

The one thing you didn’t experiment with that would be pertinent to this discussion is vibration isolation.

Obviously your statement lacks substance. While you were still in college or working at NASA, I earned my living in the Sound Industry and would like to share more experiences from applications and testing methods but there again, anything and everything that goes against your grain would be in dispute. When you get stumped or have no replies, the next move is attack the personality instead of answering or seeking answers to questions.

EXAMPLE: We believe that AC power immediately vibrates all parts involved in the product build because of the immediacy and release of man-made energy fueling all the parts. You never mentioned or considered that fact in your touts regarding seismic activities.

Question: Does seismic cause greater inefficiencies in comparison to the immediate resonance build up caused from AC power? Uh oh… I’m sensing the over used straw-man argument reply is being cut and pasted.

We experimented with isolation, springs, damping, cones, spheres, discs and various materials, etc., and spent years studying and listening to the old ways including my personal purchase of your favorite conical back in 1995 before Star was ever established. 

Do you think we blinked and there it was... a newfound vibration management technology?

Your favorite cones weigh in at a few ounces of material and in my opinion, prejudice as it is, we will stick with a fourteen pound high speed mechanical grounding plane as there is quite the difference in performance. Both products are sold at the same price point so we are comparing two different methodologies or are we?

I personally offered to ship our products free of charge for your audition as witnessed multiple times on this forum. We thought you would enjoy knowing there is something “new” going on in audio and you refused. We invited you to visit an Energy Room at our expense and experience a new dimension in listening and you refused so I’m figuring you are more about proving you're the best of the best than actually learning something new in sound.

The audible differences between isolation and resonance transfer is “not” like hearing and comparing the subtleties between two amplifiers or DAC’s. The differences are much more than that where one makes your stereo sound better and the other takes you to an entirely new listening experience. And Geoff, that’s not “marketing blather” because we are capable and happy to prove it!

Robert