Tom: That was a very interesting post and test results. I do have some questions for you though. I am NOT doubting the results, just curious as to your thoughts on the subject.
1) If the Sistrum system of resonance control claims to drain both air-borne and chassis generated energy away from the component and sink it to ground, how could using such a device increase the amount of energy generated by the system itself? Wouldn't your test infer that energy was being ADDED to the system as a whole rather than being drawn away from the component on an individual basis?
2) When taking these measurements, was the boost / reduction a broad-band effect, concentrated over a narrow spectrum or quite random in nature?
Either way, i'm sure that your buddy was quite impressed one way or the other. The fact that you were able to measure ANY difference with a "doubting Thomas" seeing the results for themselves had to be an eye opening experience for them. Sean
> |
Twl: If the shape or size of the cone doesn't come into play with the quantity or direction of energy transfer, why did they choose what they did to work with?
What i'm getting at is that you can't have your cake and eat it too. The marketing that Sistrum has chosen for their products tends to point out the merit of using cone points but then uses them the opposite of what their claims state. They do this as they see fit to suit their marketing purposes. As such, consistency in ideology and products doesn't seem to be one of their strong points. Sean
> |
How is it that one device of limited mass and surface area could "couple" or "drain" all frequencies equally? If it can't, isn't it introducing non-linearities into the system via selective nodes being generated / left behind? Sean
> |
Twl said: I think you are reading more into what I wrote than what I intended. I never said that the shape doesn't matter, I only said that it does not act as a mechanical diode.
Sean: If such is the case, energy is transferred equally in both directions up or down a cone. Okay, we'll have to keep that in mind.
Twl: As far as the materials and geometry are concerned, they affect the ability of the Audiopoint to be more effective than a simple foot.
Sean: "More effective" in what way? If they transfer energy equally in both directions, what is taking place here other than some form of "coupling"?
Twl: The material and geometry are designed to reduce Coulomb's Friction(with regard to the resonance characteristics) in the Audiopoints, which allows the Audiopoint to rapidly transfer the resonant energy toward ground without damping. / When using a simple set of Audiopoints ( by themselves ), the point is downward because there is a maximum contact of the top of the audiopoint to the component, and a focal point for energy transfer under the point.
Sean: If the cone is not a mechanical diode, offers no damping and conducts energy equally in both directions in a linear fashion, how is it conducting energy to ground more efficiently than it is from ground to the component? In effect, there is nothing to stop the energy that has accumulated at what you refer to as "ground" from flowing back up into the component? If what you said above is true, mechanical energy would be travelling in both directions in a highly efficient manner.
Twl: When using a simple set of Audiopoints, the point is downward because there is a maximum contact of the top of the audiopoint to the component, and a focal point for energy transfer under the point.
Sean: In effect, you are saying that cones are "polarized" i.e. have specific sides and orientations. From this statment, we can also gather that the flow and conductivity of mechanical energy is manipulated as it traverses through the cone due to the specific shape that has been utilized. If this were not true, there would be no need for a specific orientation.
Since you stated that one side is designed to "collect the energy" due to increased surface area at the point of contact and that the other side is designed to act as a "focal point", that would lead one to believe that there is a difference in conductivity from one direction to the other and vice-versa. Hence, the cone IS acting as a "mechanical diode" based on your own description and suggestion that they need to be oriented in a specific manner. Either that or there is so much "double-speak" going on here that i'm completely confused.
Twl: When using a Sistrum Platform, there are 2 points being used in opposing vertical configuration with a platform sandwiched in-between. The upper points in the upside down cofiguration serve to maximize the contact to the platform, while the lower points serve to drain the resonant energy.
Sean: As we all know, a rack, shelf or "platform" is susceptable to both air-borne and floor-borne vibrations. This point is NOT debatable, at least if someone has one iota of common sense.
Following your description, you have the side of the cone with the most surface area coupled to the platform pointing up. Since the side of the cone that is contacting the support structure is the side that offers the most surface area, wouldn't the energy that is coupled to the larger surface area want to travel from the support structure back into the component? This would especially be true due to having the component resting directly on the point of the cone. If we look back into the text, this is where you stated energy naturally tends to "focus". One would tend to think that focusing the energy INTO the component would be the opposite of what was trying to be achieved after reading all of the Sistrum sales "hoopla".
If the above is NOT true, what "magical" properties have been instilled in the Sistrum platform to keep it from being sensitive to both air-borne and floor-borne vibrations and self oscillation once it is excited?
On the other hand, we have to keep in mind that we've been told that these cones aren't "mechanical diodes" and supposedly transfer energy linearly in both directions. As such, what purpose do these cones serve in this design other than cosmetic purposes?
Twl: Since we have pioneered this concept, designed, tested, and used these products in the field, and we are in the best position to determine what works most effectively with these items.
Sean: From what i can remember, i think that Steve McCormack aka "The Mod Squad" was the first to introduce "cones" to the audio industry. I could be wrong though. On top of that, this claim wreaks of pompousity. It is as if one is saying that nobody can improve upon or refine a design that someone else initially devised. I personally don't buy that as i make my living by proving that idea to be false i.e. improving / revamping what are already existing designs. I will admit that your later statements pertaining to "breakthroughs and improvements to be made in the future" somewhat softens the previous statements though.
I won't go into the rest of Tom's post. Most of it has to do with advertising hype / policy for the company that he represents and is employed by. I'm not interested in any of that, so i won't go there.
To keep things in context, i have NO problems with Tom personally and am not attacking / insulting him. I am simply "arguing a point" and trying to better understand a product that makes phenomenal claims. As i have shown, many of these claims are self-contradictory and / or speaking out of both sides of one mouth as the situation best suits their marketing goals. You can't make a specific claim for a product and then refute it within the same product and not have questions asked. This is not to say that the product doesn't work as claimed, only that if it does, the manufacturer and those selling / representing / using them are not even clear as to how or why it works as it does. From an educated consumer's point of view, this is not very encouraging. Sean
> |
Flex: you are right on the money. Since one can't "channel" or "couple" ALL of the energy at every frequency universally equally, there will always be "residual energy" at various frequencies left behind. What does the Sistrum do with the "residue"?
This is not to mention that ANY hardened metal in itself is quite resonant and tends to ring once excited, contributing its' own "sonic signature" to the situation. While mass loading the metal by stacking components on top of it will alter the amplitude, center frequency and bandwidth of resonance for the rack / support structure itself, that resonance and mechanical energy is still there and has to be dealt with. This in itself contributes more "residue" to be dealt with.
Given that the component is rigidly coupled to the support structure along with all of the residual energy that it wasn't able to "channel" away to "ground", guess what gets to "absorb" or "deal with" that energy? If you guessed that it was your components, you would be right. In my book, this is where "selective damping" comes into play. If properly applied, coupling and isolation compliment each other, not work against each other. Neither solution ( coupling or isolation on their own ) is an absolute, so you have to combine the best features of each while minimizing their drawbacks if you want to achieve optimum or near optimum performance.
The Sistrum approach seems to forget about all of these factors while bad-mouthing any attempt that doesn't follow their line of "rigid coupling" double-speak. It is one thing to lack consistency in a point of view and not be able to fully explain why you have that specific point of view, but it is another to try to use your own inconsistencies and lack of understanding to your advantage as a weapon against your competitors. If some of you can't tell what is going on, that is just what is happening with this manufacturer.
Once again, please bare in mind that i'm NOT doing this in order to throw my "support" behind Neuance so much as i am trying to point out flaws / hypocrisy in the design and marketing approach taken by Sistrum. I have NO affiliation with Neuance, have never given Ken a penny of my money and never received any "complimentary" or "demo" products from him. To be completely up-front, i do own a Neaunce shelf, but it is still sitting in the same box that it arrived in when i purchased it used several months ago. Given that bit of info, i hope that you can see that this "debate" is more about ideologies and principles than it is actual recommendations or specific products. Sean
> |
Twl: Robert of Sistrum has posted in these forums before. He has never responded in a coherent manner to any of the same questions brought up here in those earlier threads / responses. Given that he should consider this a golden opportunity to advertise his products and "explain away the myths" supposedly being promoted here, i can't understand why he or someone else in a suitable position to do so hasn't already been all over this thread. Given that a public education on the subject could only bring in more business for them, the only things that Sistrum could be avoiding by doing so would be the truth and public scrutiny of their products, ideologies and marketing techniques.
On top of that, and as i've mentioned many times before, i would far rather discuss things publicly for all to learn and share from, as this accomplishes so much more than individual enlightenment. As such, i won't be calling anybody privately that can't say the same things publicly for mass edification. They can feed us all the excuses that they want, but there is a bottom line and many of us know what it is. That is, it is impossible to logically defend "double-speak". Sean
> |
Twl: Regarding "double-speak", my stating that the Audiopoints are not a mechanical diode does not preclude the items from having certain characteristics that may differ somewhat directionally, nor having characteristics that may behave differently when operating in conjunction with other devices(while being able to conduct in both directions). I feel that you have set up a "straw man" and then knocked it down, while claiming to have "defeated the argument". You placed words in my mouth to suit your own purposes.
Sean: Much of my response was directed to your rebuttals, but quite honestly, it probably looks like i was badgering you personally rather than "attacking" the information ( or lack of ) that Sistrum has provided on their website and in these forums on previous occassions.
Twl: I clearly stated that the Audiopoints operate as a rapid conduit for resonant energy, and never stated that they cannot conduct in both directions. I stated that the resonant energy would seek ground via the path of least resistance, as the 2nd law of thermodynamics states, and that is how the directionality of the movement would be defined.
Sean: You basically stated that the cones are NOT mechanical diodes and at the same time, alluded that they conduct mechanical energy in a more linear fashion better in one direction than another. To me, non-linear transfer of energy in one direction as compared to the other is "diodic" in nature. As such, comments of this nature seem to both cloud the issue and be of a "double-speak" nature.
As to the comments about energy seeking ground, let's look at this with some common sense. Anything that mechanical energy comes into contact with will end up dissipating some of that energy in one way, shape or form. As such, you can "couple" all that you want, but some of that energy will be lost through motion, heat, etc... and passed on to anything else connected to what is acting as the "coupling device". As such, anything that is capable of moving or disippating energy as heat WILL do so. How much energy makes it to "ground" will depend on how "lossy" the path that it takes to get there is. This means that a component that is easier to resonate will absorb and dissipate more of the energy than some other material that is higher in mass and less resonant.
Twl: Your concept that the vibrations are moving up the point is muddy, because the energy that affects the component on the Audiopoints is simply a side effect of the floor transferring its vibrations toward the greater mass or ground. Everything standing on the floor will be moved along with the floor's movement.
Sean: Poor analogy. You forgot about air-borne vibrations resonating the rack or platform. The floor would be harder to modulate / resonate due to having greater mass / being less resonant. On the other hand, the rack is nothing more than a resonating metal mass waiting to be excited. As such, the rack would act as a "net" to capture air-borne vibrations and pass on that excitation into the gear. Given that your previous description of how cones work, the upturned points would actually "focus" that energy into the component, regardless of how much was drained away using other methods within the support structure.
Twl: The problem with this idea that floorborne vibrations are more deleterious than airborne vibrations is that one should then sacrifice the ability to properly deal with airborne vibrations in order to try to tame floorborne vibrations with a rubbery storage device. In our experience, it is the airborne vibrations that are considerably more deleterious to performance, and that the proper handling of these airborne resonances is far more important than floorborne considerations.
Sean: Proper damping does not use "rubbery storage devices". Smart folks use high loss, low mass devices. These devices are quite efficient by nature due to high internal losses, but at the same time, they are too lightweight to store and release energy. As such, the "rebound" reaction that "rubbery" devices bring with them i.e. stored and released energy is avoided.
To take that a step further, any energy that is fed into the component via airborne vibrations that the "high loss, self damping device" can't dissipate would be passed onto the support structure / rack that it is coupled to. The support structure / rack should be a "coupling" design by nature, letting us take advantage of its' own "energy draining" design. This is why i said that "damping" and "coupling" are complimentary IF properly executed.
Reversing the flow of energy from the floor would mean that the energy would have to travel all the way up the rack, being dissipated along the way, and then have to go through the "low mass damping device" before making it into the component. In effect, a well designed damping device acts as a "buffer zone" regardless of where the energy tries to enter the system.
Twl: Now maybe you don't agree with this, but that doesn't make us wrong. I have often stated that it makes no sense to reduce the performance of components by blocking the airborne resonance evacuation path, in order to make up for a deficiency in the construction of the floor. If the floor has a structural problem, then fix the floor. Don't wreck the sound of your system trying to make up for a floor problem.
Sean: You won't get any argument from me here on this specific subject.
Twl: Again, maybe we disagree on this, but I feel you have tried to create a perception here that I am speaking in a contradictory manner, and I am not. I have stated my position, and the company's position on the basic workings of this product, and given the reasons. If you don't agree, fine.
Sean: As mentioned, i'm not attacking you. I'm trying to explain my point of view, which happens to conflict with yours. At the same time, i'm also providing rebuttal for those that are interested in comparing notes and ideas on what works best as a component supporting device and why it works as it does. Since we are coming from different vantage points, my job is to both clarify the flaws in the opposing team's platform AND provide credible information as to why my points of view are more valid. The fact that i have no vested interest in this field means that i have NOTHING personal to gain and everything to learn from reading / studying various points of view.
Twl: And regarding other methods such as damping, how many rack company salesmen can recite the Zener Viscoelastic Model and explain how it relates to their O-rings or rubber feet, complete with amplitude and frequency ratings in every person's listening environment. Really, I think you are being pretty hard on us, given the fact that nobody else has to back up any of their statements on this subject. I'm trying very hard to give a good explanation of this, and I'm only the salesman.
Sean: This thread and subject came about because someone posed a specific question. Like most of the other threads that i participate in, i'm simply sharing my point of view based on past experiences, education and the powers of deductive logic. The fact that we are on "opposite sides of the fence" on this one may seem like i'm "gung ho" to bring you and / or Sistrum down, but that is far from the truth. As many others will attest, i have shared MANY "negative" points of view concerning a wide variety of well respected products. If you doubt this, try taking a look in the archives concerning my comments pertaining to Analysis Plus, PS Audio, Bryston, Pass Labs, Philips, Michael Green Designs, etc... The fact that you are "feeling the heat" of my big mouth is probably something different than what you are used to. Like i said though, this isn't about me and you, it is about some specific products and ideologies that we don't agree on.
In effect, this is nothing more than a "debate" about specific products and ideologies. Debating to prove that you are "right" means disproving / discrediting the opposing point of view. I have simply responded to the information provided via this thread, other threads like it and resources on the web. I'm sorry if you feel that i've gone out of my way to "harrass" you and / or Sistrum, but i'm not doing anything any different that i haven't done many times before. Having said that, i wouldn't expect you to do anything differently than what you have normally done in the past if you disagreed with something that i had to say. If that means confronting me with flaws in products that i've recommended or incorrect statements that i've made, all the better. My goal is to learn and share, not to spread mis-information. Sean
>
|
Does one have to ingest manure to know that it tastes like ....? Then again, maybe it doesn't taste all that bad. Anyone up to eating a few heaping bowlfuls and reporting back with their findings? Ten bucks says i can guess the results without lifting a spoon. Sean
>
PS... This was NOT meant to allude to Sistrum's being comparable to manure. It was meant to prove a point i.e. that God gave us the ability to think rationally and the capacity to deduce things logically so that we WOULDN'T have to think twice about some things. Obviously, the Sistrum has a lot of time, effort and thought put into it. Anybody that says otherwise is foolish. |
Twl stated: "Airborne resonance energy(in the form of the music you are playing) enters the equipment, racks, or whatever, and can influence the sound of the music reproduction. We wish to minimize the effects of this by causing the resonant energy to be tranferred to the ground via our products(which are designed to rapidly transfer this energy). Floorborne resonance energy(caused by energy entering the floor from the music being played) is causing the floor to move as the resonant energy moves through the floor toward the ground state. Note that in both cases, we maintain that the energy is moving toward ground.
The reason that the energy will move toward ground is the law of thermodynamics which states that energy will seek the ground state via the path of least resistance. This is not something we made up."
Sean: I won't argue this point. The only thing that i will say is that the approach taken does NOT take into account that ANYTHING that comes into contact with the "energy" will end up dissipating at least a portion of it. How much of it is dissipated will depend upon how lossy that pathway or device in that pathway is easily resonated. That is, energy may be seeking "ground", but some of it is absorbed as it makes its' way there. If such were not the case, we would be able to sustain perpetual motion. But, due to frictional and thermal losses i.e. energy "lost along the way", this is not possible at this point in time.
In this specific situation, the energy that is "lost along the way" in its' path to seek "ground" ends up being dissipated in the components themselves. This is because they are directly coupled to the energy conduit i.e. there is no damping to isolate or absorb the "residue" that is being dissipated along that pathway. Common logic would dictate that overlooking such simple facts and hoping for the best is a less than optimized and / or realistic approach. Then again, Sistrum is not alone in these thoughts and methods, as most other products on the market use this same or similar approach. That is, they put all their eggs in one approach and forget to take into account that any given approach by itself will have side effects and draw-backs of its' own. If it didn't, it would be "perfect".
Twl stated: "A major argument seems to have been made that because our Audiopoints have materials and geometry that is designed to cause this Resonant Energy Transfer to happen in the most efficient manner that we can do, that "physical science" maintains that using the Audiopoint in an upside-down configuration on a Sistrum Platform will result in a less-than-ideal result. This seems to be based on the empirical hypothesis that "because it is geometrically optimized in shape, that it can only work best in one direction". However, when we contend that when additional items are introduced(added) into the design(such as a Sistrum Platform), that this may make a difference in the OVERALL PERFORMANCE OF THE PACKAGE AS A WHOLE, opponents do not understand or do not accept this point."
Sean: If one optimizes power transfer / minimizes losses in one particular direction, common sense would dictate reduced efficiency / increased losses flowing in the opposite direction. If such were not the case, the device wouldn't be specialized or measurably more effective in the given situation that it was optimized for. Like i said before, you can't say that it conducts energy more efficiently using one type of installation and use it in the absolute opposite / reverse fashion and claim it works just as efficiently. This is true regardless of the support components involved as the device itself is being used as the active conduit for the energy being transferred.
If you doubt this, think of a cone as a funnel. Changing the directional characteristics of the funnel will have a far greater influence on how energy is transferred than if i were to change the type of device underneath the funnel capturing the energy. While this is obviously not a perfect analogy, it is one that anyone with common sense can follow along with. There is no need for snake oil of any type when rational thinking is involved. Sean
> |
Tbg: Something can sound "better" to you but maybe not to me. How something sounds is subjective and up to interpretation. If one were to go about doing some testing in a logical manner, it would be easy to verify which device actually produced more consistent results. That is, if one had the proper tools and knew how to interpret the data.
Tom aka Audiotweak: I never thought you were joking about a change in spl levels. I don't doubt it, but i would have loved to have learned of the specifics. I really wish i would have made some freq charts a year or two ago when switching from one rack to another. I have no doubt that the results were not only audible, but measurable. Sean
> |
Newbee: You can attribute variables in sonics due to a rack change in multiple manners. The most logical to me would be altering resonances in the room itself, especially over a narrow bandwidth. Some racks are going to contribute high frequency emphasis / ringing due to the excitation of metal. Some are going to contribute increased reflections / diffraction due to an increase in large, flat surface areas. Some are going to increase apparent low frequency content due to added mass / altered density in the room. Any of these given effects may become highly pronounced depending on if the room is phenomenally live, heavily damped, moved into different physical / acoustic locations from the last sample, placed upon a resonant, multi-node suspended floor, etc...
Everything in a room becomes part of the tuning of a system and what we hear, so taking all things into account, i don't doubt what Tom said or experienced. I just don't know if what he measured / heard is attributable to exactly what he thinks it is. Could be several factors coming into play. Sometimes what we think is obvious is actually a compendium of multiplying factors.
It is for that reason that critical analysis becomes necessary. That is, if you want to make headway in a consistent manner and apply what you've learned to various systems in different acoustic environments*. In that respect, that's why i disagree with Tbg. We do have the tools to take the proper measurements. Only problem is, you can take all the measurements that you want and go nowhere if you don't know how to interpret the recorded data or think that those specific results won't affect other aspects of operation. One link definitely affects the other links involved. Until all the links are of equal strength, your system is only as good as that weak link(s). Sean
>
* The research that Ken at Neuance performed when designing his shelves is quite amusing, technically interesting and "real world". Most of his tests were conducted under very diverse conditions and installations. It was through the compilation of data and observations from varied scenarios that he arrived at the "near universal" design results that currently make up the Neuance line of products. As far as i know, Ken is still refining these designs based on further testing and feedback from end users. Like all things though, Neuance shelves have their design limitations and supporting great amounts of mass in a small area is one of them. Other than that, if you follow Ken's directions for proper use, you'll probably get the results that he speaks of on his website. Whether or not you like those results is obviously a matter of personal preference and how well the rest of the system and listening environment has been optimized. |
Newbee: I don't know if what i was trying to explain was a matter of "increased gain" as much as a perceived altering of tonal balances and amplitude linearity.
As we all know, altering the tonal balance of a system can have us thinking that the the spl or "gain" of the system has been altered. In reality, the average spl could remain the same even though more signal is being reproduced in certain sensitive frequency ranges at the expense of energy in other less sensitive areas ( or vice-versa ). The "average" spl or "gain" of the system has remained consistent, but due to our ears' lack of linearity, our brain is fooled into thinking otherwise. Bare in mind that this is all a "guesstimate" as to what is going on, as i have nothing statistical to base this on.
Like a lot of other things, i would like to do quite a bit of testing and research in this area, but i just can't seem to find the time or motivation to get off the computer and get busy. I think that the use of calibrated test equipment like an accelerometer, spectrum analyzer and spl meter could really give us quite a bit of data to work with in this area. I have all the gear to do that with, but it's a lot easier to talk about it than to actually do it : ) Sean
> |
Mejames: I may have misinterpreted your original post as asking if i would be willing to measure / test one of these devices more-so than just demo it. I am not against trying any product. Then again, i will only invest my money into a product that i think is worthy of the expenditure to begin with, regardless of a money back offer.
Other than that, testing of such a product and obtaining meaningful results would require days on end of very rigorous and systematic analysis. I have neither the time, patience or "optimal" equipment to do such. While it is possible that i could perform some rudimentary tests and obtain results, i'm quite certain that if they didn't jive with what Sistrum and the Sistrum devotees expect, it would only further inflame the situation.
Jayboard: That was a very reasonable post that summed up much of what i've been "trying" to say. That is, the techno-mumbo-jumbo that Sistrum and their supporters keep foisting upon us does not add up and is actually quite a turn-off towards their products. Maybe the product does work as claimed, but i can see no reason as to why it could / should and they don't seem to be able to explain why it does, if it does. Sean
> |
Robert: "The Sistrum Platform is an active device. It vibrates continuously and simultaneously. The primary function of the Sistrum Platform is to be capable of reducing said friction while in motion, as everything in a musical environment is moving.
The Sistrum Platform is also the noisiest Platform in the world. Actually the term Sistrum comes to us from an age old musical instrument often described as a rattle triangle.
Our noisy rattle triangle vibrates creating a multitude of frequencies. One of the key elements within this design is that the materials employed produce a frequency range well above as well as well below that of our human hearing therefore we only hear the instrument or component in its uninterrupted and natural vibrating state free from the detrimental effects caused from Coulomb friction."
Sean: You state that the Sistrum platform is designed specifically to resonate and said resonances occur all over the audible spectrum, including above and below the audible bandwidth. If such is the case, isn't the Sistrum itself contributing stray energy to the components that it supports? If so, it would be feasible that the "increased output" that Tom aka Audiotweak measured was due to increased chassis excitation / ringing.
If such is the case, how does Sistrum take into account the various mass and density of the various components that will be used atop one of their platforms. Logic dictates that varying weights and densities will change the resonant frequency of the support structure as a whole, making anything less than a custom built / individually tuned "resonator" pretty much useless or at least unpredictable. Obviously, the use of test equipment under controlled conditions ( as previously mentioned ) would put a lot of this to rest.
As a side note, i would think that anyone in this line of work that had actually developed a product that was light years ahead of the competition would want to explain why the product was superior to help increase marketing potential. Are you telling us that it has taken you guys well over a half dozen years to even think about explaining how your product works to potential clientele? The fact that a publicly available explanation based on sound engineering practices would have negated all of the negative press that you've received tells me that you are now only attempting to do this is to institute "damage control". I could be wrong here, but that is what anyone with an ounce of logic in them would be led to believe. Sean
> |
Newbee: What does your friend know? Who does he think he is? Some kind of rocket scientist??? : )
Mejames: While it is true that i could conduct rudimentary tests here using the equipment that i own and draw some form of a conclusion, someone would find some way to say that my tests were not valid, i was biased in how i conducted the tests, etc... As such, i'll save any parties willing to lend their gear and myself a lot of hassle and say "NO". I have neither the time or dedication to perform this type of task. This is not something that you set up, take some measurements and pack it all away. You are talking about something that could take quite an extended period of time to do correctly i.e. multitudes of days and i'm not just talking about doing this in your spare time on those days. You would have to vary frequency, intensity, mass, support structure ( flooring ), etc... This type of R&D is FAR more involved that most think, hence the lack of actual "white papers" on the subject with anything meaningful to say. Sean
> |
Jayboard: Your post wreaks of logic. Logic has no place in this thread or in the purchase of audio / audio support componentry. That is, at least according to some. Please don't stir the pot any more and let this thread die a peaceful death. Sean
> |
|
