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

@livinon2wheels 

What on Gods green earth are 'gravity waves'?????  From my study of physics, gravity is a constant force that exists in proportion to an objects mass. Thereby it is a constant for any given object. For gravity to be a wave the mass would have to vary at the frequency of the wave...how many objects do you know of that their mass or weight fluctuates in a wave-like fashion? Sorry not buying this concept at all.

​​​​​​​You might wanna give the Nobel Committee a heads-up before word gets out about their embarrassing mistake:

In 2017, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Rainer Weiss, Kip Thorne and Barry Barish for their role in the detection of gravitational waves

"Necro-thread revival festival?"

- Does not exist ....

Not everyone has gotten the memo yet.

"Necro-thread revival festival?"

- Does not exist ....

Wow, you had to go back to a 5 year old thread to find something more to complain about?

Necro-thread revival festival?

Vandersteen has footers for his speakers.....I'm using them - cheap and an improvement

Wow, you had to go back to a 5 year old thread to find something more to complain about?

'LIGO must be at least 99.999% mechanically decoupled from Earth to be sensitive enough to detect gravity waves."

What on Gods green earth are 'gravity waves'?????  From my study of physics, gravity is a constant force that exists in proportion to an objects mass. Thereby it is a constant for any given object. For gravity to be a wave the mass would have to vary at the frequency of the wave...how many objects do you know of that their mass or weight fluctuates in a wave-like fashion? Sorry not buying this concept at all.

If ones' speakers are under 70 lbs., the GAIA III at $200 per set of four ($400 of course for a pair of speakers) is not TOO bad, I guess (assuming the loudspeakers are good enough to warrant advanced isolation). But the GAIA II will set you back $600 for 8, which is only 50 bucks less than a pair of the new Magnepan LRS speakers. And a set of the GAIA I is $1200, which will buy a pair of LRS' and subs.

But for $200, one set of the GAIA III might earn its' keep underneath a turntable, as Art Dudley just discovered.

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  

Announced by the LIGO collaboration in February 2016, the discovery of ripples in spacetime known as gravitational waves was momentous enough to merit the 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics. Now, another Nobel laureate says LIGO has unknowingly made another spectacular discovery: gravitational waves from merging black holes that have been amplified by the gravity of intervening galaxies.

Called gravitational lensing, this phenomenon is routinely used to study light from objects in the very distant cosmos. But the new assertion, if proved correct, would make it the first such sighting for gravitational waves. The controversial claim, which has been dismissed by members of the LIGO team, comes via physics Nobelist George Smoot of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and his colleagues. “We are wagering our reputations on this,” he says.

LIGO (for the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory), comprising two detectors in the U.S., and Virgo, a detector outside Pisa, Italy, have together so far announced observations of gravitational waves from the merging of 10 pairs of black holes as well as a pair of neutron stars.

Getting back to sound reproduction if any are still interested:

Geoffkait wrote,

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.

>>>>I never said NASA did any of those things. I use the term NASA grade ceramics to show that the particular ceramic material used in those DH (diamond hardness) Cones is the next HARDEST material next to diamond on the Mohs scale of Hardness.

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.

>>>>I never said ceramics should be used for musical instruments. Do you have attention deficit disorder?

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.

>>>>Again, you’re distorting my words. I said that hard materials should be used under components and under isolation stands for best results in evacuating residual energy from the system. 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.

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.

>>>>Exactly! By contrast, I have had experience with those materials and many others.

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.

>>>>Again, I only referring to Hardness related to cones.

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.

>>>>Once again you demonstrate your ignorance on the subject of vibration isolation in general and springs in particular. A spring with low spring rate cannot support a load over its weight range and that a spring that’s too stiff, high spring rate, cannot achieve a sufficiently low Fr. Sonic results of isolation are related to Fr of the isolating system. Obviously one spring can’t be used for all loads. Geez, Robert, have you considered spending some time in the library? Perhaps you can have your seismologist give you and your team a short non technical tutorial on vibration isolation.

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.

>>>>>marketing blather.

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.

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

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

>>>>Yuk, yuk. This illustrates once again you failed to comprehend what I actually said, that Energy dissipation effectiveness is related to the Hardness of the cones.

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

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

Tom

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.

>>>>>And you still don’t understand the analogy.

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

>>>>Yes, I know. Or maybe you’re pretending. Who knows and who cares?

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?

>>>>Yeah, sure. Are you out of mind?

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

>>>>The funding keeps coming for good science. Maybe it’s time for you take a science class. Then your experiments wouldn’t fail. It occurs to me we haven’t heard anything from the Danish team recently. What’s up with that?

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?

For an instrument that needs to remain as still as possible, it is ironic that LIGO is so sensitive that it can feel the smallest vibrations from near and far. LIGO is essentially a giant seismometer capable of sensing vibrations from traffic on nearby roads, weather patterns on the other side of the continent, staff biking alongside detector arms, ocean waves crashing on shores hundreds of miles away, and of course nearly every significant earthquake on the planet. Since gravitational waves will make themselves known through vibrations in LIGO’s mirrors, the only way to make gravitational wave detection possible is to isolate LIGO’s components from environmental vibrations to unprecedented levels. The change in distance between LIGO’s mirrors (test masses) when a gravitational wave passes will be on the order of 10-19 m. To achieve this level of sensitivity, LIGO was constructed with multiple levels of active and passive vibration isolation systems. Many of LIGO’s larger infrastructure systems that provide some additional levels of isolation are discussed in previous sections. But LIGO’s most sensitive components (its optics) required even more complex and highly specialized mechanisms for isolating them from even the smallest imaginable vibrations.

Outside of its pre-stabilized laser, LIGO’s vibration isolation systems are comprised of two basic elements: Optics Suspensions and Seismic Isolation.

LIGO Receives New Funding to Search for More Extreme Cosmic Events

News Release • February 14, 2019

Since LIGO’s first detection of gravitational waves from the violent collision of two black holes, it has observed nine additional black hole mergers and one collision of two dense, dead stars called neutron stars. The neutron star merger gave off not just gravitational waves but light waves, detected by dozens of telescopes in space and on the ground. The observations confirmed that heavy elements in our universe, such as platinum and gold, are created in neutron star smashups like this one.

"This award ensures that NSF’s LIGO, which made the first historic detection of gravitational waves in 2015, will continue to lead in gravitational-wave science for the next decade," said Anne Kinney, assistant director for NSF’s Mathematical and Physical Sciences Directorate, in a statement. "With improvements to the detectors—which include techniques from quantum mechanics that refine laser light and new mirror coating technology—the twin LIGO observatories will significantly increase the number and strength of their detections. Advanced LIGO Plus will reveal gravity at its strongest and matter at its densest in some of the most extreme environments in the cosmos. These detections may reveal secrets from inside supernovae and teach us about extreme physics from the first seconds after the universe’s birth."

Michael Zucker, the Advanced LIGO Plus leader and co-principal investigator, and a scientist at the LIGO Laboratory, operated by Caltech and MIT, said, "I’m thrilled that NSF, UK Research, and Innovation and the Australian Research Council are joining forces to make this key investment possible. Advanced LIGO has altered the course of astrophysics with 11 confirmed gravitational-wave events over the last three years. Advanced LIGO Plus can expand LIGO’s horizons enough to capture this many events each week, and it will enable powerful new probes of extreme nuclear matter as well as Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity."

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

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