I think Robert's response is more than fair. Of course (it's obvious by the responses)his response can be tweaked whichever way the mind wants to perceive it. Listen and decide for yourself. No pressure. Don't like it? Send it back. Can't beat that with a stick...though some of you can...
warren |
Let's talk about the *mature* waitresses, instead. I suggested to TWL he should do like I did when I was a hi-fi bum: work part time at a food place in order to have food and *beverage* readily available. In his particular case, he could work at a diner, take his BMW motorcycle to work and start working on those *mature* waitresses. He's got the log cabin, the stereo and the atmosphere! Bet they'd love to listen to some Martina McBride on the system--oops, better get a CD player, Tom!
What a riot!
Happy St. Valentine's day (for those of ewe Catholiks) |
As another manufacturer of isolation products (Machina Dynamica), one thing not discussed very often is the importance of seismic activity in the overall scheme of things. The continuous motion of Earth's crust (along w/ other low freq. generators) produces quite a bit of energy in spectrum around 1-10 Hz and higher, w/ peak in vicinity of 1-5 Hz. Some seismic energy higher up freq. scale can be dissipated with damping and other techniques; however, dealing with the very low freq. stuff below 5 Hz is a horse of a different color. IMHO platforms and stands that directly address the sesimic issue are the only way to fly, especially in view of the fact that mass-on-a-spring devices are effective for higher vibration frequencies as well. In fact, IMHO airborne and component vibration is "relatively" innocuous compared to the sesimic type. In the end, whatever works is a step in right direction. My 2 centavos. |
Geoffkait, I have a Dennensen air suspension platform for my DD turntable and can see your point in lowering the resonant frequency w/ springs. That's what the platform works. I also used to live one block from railroad tracks and it was pretty bad how the entire house rattled when those cargo trains would pass. Those vibrations were coming up 'from the earth', so I don't see a rack like the Sistrum being able to 'drain them back'.
Are you implying that vibrations cannot be "drained to earth" as Sistrum claims? |
Psychicanimal - I did not mean to imply that. Anything not "properly isolated" from structural vibration (seismic, trains, traffic, etc.) will certainly move, such as the entire house, as you pointed out. I tend to focus on the frequencies of vibration in range 0-10 Hz, as I think this is where the real problem is (for audio). |
Dissmissing Sean's posts as "petty" (Budrew) and mere "ridicule" (Sistrum) is a shame since he built up a case that is at least worthy of some technical explanation. Unlike some others, I think knowing how device works gives an audiophile more control and power than simply trying the device and "seeing" how it does. A "gracious" return policy is not enough for me to trial-to-buy.
I can empathize why Sistrum may not want to get in to it, but that is taking the lower road, especially considering other manufacturers have responded to these types of debates with their design reasoning. Adding a little salt to their non-answer is that Sistrum has repeatedly advertised in these forums. I personally am left with a hole in Sistrum's logic (calling is pointless) and a lesson to become more self-sufficient in audio. Thanks Sean and Joe Ciulla. |
Ouch! Sistrum does it again. TWL, better go after the *mature* waitresses full time! I just had my breakfast (that's right--at 2:30 PM!) at the local diner. I mean, they might be *mature*, but all that walking back and forth keeps them in shape! Some dental work might be needed.
Ohlala, ask member Jahaira ( José García ) for a picture of his DIY rack. Well thought out, with shelves that can be tuned for each separate component. It's the real deal.
You see, Sean can't be fooled since on top of all his knowledge and experience he's got a Moca wood board I gave him. He knows what the real deal is...Moca is about as perfect as it gets. |
Wow! I don't know how I missed this thread. Sean, FWIW, I think your have covered the matter well. What I don't understand is, instead of a money back guarantee, why don't they send these devises out to the reviewers/labs for some independent (hopefully) reviews to see if professionals can identify the extra benefits they allegedly possess? If they are found to be worth while they will move their product - if not, oh well. Somehow I doubt that this will happen - probably too expensive and unreliable. But other serious manufacturers do that, wonder what the difference may be. Or have I just missed the reviews? |
More to ponder...
It seems logical to me that a group of interested parties (audiophiles) would benefit from the establishment of some baselines or minimum standards by which to judge or quantify the effectiveness and advantages of products in question. But, this is difficult if not impossible to achieve due to the subjectivity of the individual listener and the myriad variables which must be considered.
If one cannot personally listen to a specific product, one is relegated to the evaluation of reviews, testimonials, word of mouth, and finally, the manufacturers claims. Nevertheless, the educated buyer has the distinct advantage of insight, because he or she can understand the fundamentals of the product.
In addition, it would be hard to argue that a product has little or no merit if after significant time in the marketplace, it has apparently sold very well or better than others within its price range. On the other hand, there are a few excellent products which by virtue of the reclusive nature of their designers, and a total lack of advertising, remain virtually unknown.
The reasons why so many products sell is because many are actually good or effective. But what does good mean? I t only means the product out-performed or performed differently in a pleasing manner, than the product it replaced!
If it was the first product of its kind, it merely fulfilled the buyers expectations.
Therefore, a product may be deemed good, especially by only a few people, dispite its limited effectiveness and marginal performance.
Most significally, a product may be good for some even if the manufacturers claims make no sense or at worst, contradict established fundamental engineering and the laws of physics!
Audiophiles buy racks or furniture that dont satisfy their expectations. Next they buy a certain shelf or platform which still doesnt do it, so they buy couplers or footers to place between the component and the platform. If this isnt good enough, they replace the shelf and the couplers. Then it becomes apparent that the rack itself is to blame, so that gets replaced. When everthing finally seems perfect, a large or heavy component that you must have wont fit in the rack!
People use cut-up tennis balls, hockey pucks, plumbing washers, marbles in spoons, and all kinds of tweaks that somehow please them. One adds warmth the other is bright or dark .... it goes on forever.
Im not ridiculing anyone because I did my share of experimenting.
In my opinion, a rack system must do THREE THINGS to produce ultimate component performance;
1. Expeditiously drain and damp harmful component-generated, and air-to-component
vibration. (this requires direct coupling to the chassis if the stock feet are rubber)
2. Isolate the component from rack-borne vibration.
3. Provide the rack with isolation and damping of floor-borne and air-borne vibration.
As a bonus, I would look for extras to add to the prerequisites;
1. Capacity to accommodate large and heavy components.
2. Flexibility/versatility, which requires adjustable-height levels.
Any rack or support system which accomplishes only one of the three prerequisites may be good or effective. A rack that offers two out of three is even better, and the one that accomplishes all three is the best.
Finally, Ill answer Budrews question... to get the best performance from your transport and DAC, you should buy the best (true) bearings that you can afford. No other device offers the benefits of damping and lateral isolation while simultaneously coupling and decoupling the supported equipment.
We all want the best we can afford, and I hope everyone gets what he or she wants.
Yours Truly,
Joe Ciulla
Equa Corp. / EquaRack |
How is it that you select a frequency to be dampened that will not impune the quality of an adjacent frequency you want un-dampened.? Tom |
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
> |
Hey Newbee you need to try a Sistrum Sp101 under your Bat cd player the difference will be so large you will think you have a new and much better player..I use to sell Bat products and have used Sistrum under all their products..Much greater dynamics, more transparent and extends and opens the highs..much more live air. Had a ARC SP10 20 years ago,Sistrum was not around then for me to try on the Arc, but experience tells me the resolution would be much better..Tom |
These are the type of topical questions to be discussed!..I know not, how either is selective or how broad band or how rejective they are..I know by ear...by a wide margin which approach I prefer..I have measured an increase in gain..and smoother in room response, and what I saw on a RTA as proof, as to what I was hearing, when using and testing a Sistrum Sp1..Tom |
Theaudiotweak, In all candor, this claim about the use of your product resulting in an increase in gain (and especially gain at select frequencies)is what really causes me to question the validity of the product - this is to me the proverbial red flag flag. I don't think that resonance control or amplifying devices are black art - if they occur there is a science that can validate it and explain why. Lets hear from the engineers - they should be able to tell us what about this product can actually cause the amplication of gain that you say you measured. Or perhaps your measuring devise was just inaccurate? "til then I'll pass on your suggestion to try one of these devices. |
Its a component difference..Sorry your missing out..Oh well..Could it be a new application of many old discoveries..Is that so damn scary or hard to lend an ear to or to try, and to ignore and to burn? I use the stuff, its great stuff, the stuff has never let me down ,it has always made everything better. Tom |
Hi. I see that there have been more than a few additions to this thread since my last response. These include some genuine questions, and also some comments just aimed at tweaking certain personalities and attempting to inflame the discussion. I'll try to answer the questions again, although after re-reading my previous posts, I really have answered the questions, and some readers just refuse to accept the explanation.
To try to re-clarify again.
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.
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. In fact, we have determined through our testing(confirming our design concepts), that the configuration for the Sistrum Platform we have chosen DOES work better to do the job of Resonance Energy Transfer than just a simple set of Audiopoints alone. The opponents have no testing to back up their statements, but simply some kind of "technical insight" that "makes them certain" that their statements are correct, and our product testing results wrong. Pardon my attitude, but this position of "technical insight" without any real testing results to back up the statements is ludicrous and profoundly unscientific. To make definitive statements without first ensuring the scientific veracity of these statements, and then casting doubt on the actual results of a manufacturer's products is, at the very least, a slur at the manufacturer, and at most, an attempt at selling the same "snake oil" that they claim to be warning people against.
The reduction of Coulomb's Friction in our Audiopoints and Sistrum Platforms is what improves the speed of the energy transfer via certain proprietary materials(no, it's not just any brass) and geometry. The geometry acts as a focusing "lens", for lack of a better term. In the case of the Sistrum Platform which uses the stacked Audiopoints in opposing configuration, we desired the "lens" to be in the opposing configuration to conform with our overall design goals. With all due respect, if someone else has a better idea or wants to do it differently, then go design your own platforms. This is how we do it, how it works best(in our opinions), and we have quite a few happy customers who can verify the results of this design. This is the product. It stands on its own merits, and it sells based upon how well it works and whether it is worth the money, not whether some skeptics understand the design or not.
In case anyone needs further info in "layman's terms", our Audiopoints have specific design that allows them to be efficient at transferring resonant energy from the equipment above them to the floor below them. Once the energy is in the floor, it is moving through the floor toward ground and is only influencing the equipment or rack above it by the fact that the floor is causing anything on it to move along with it. The Audiopoint is not making the energy flow in one direction(as a "mechanical diode") but instead, the laws of physics are defining the direction of the energy flow. We designed our products to have excellent performance at their price points, and an audible improvement at each price point increase, so that good value is perceived by the purchaser who may wish to upgrade to our products higher up the line. We have a product design and performance philosophy, and this philosophy is maintained throughout our entire product line. We don't strive to please everyone or gain approval of every audiophile, but simply offer what we feel is a line of solid performing products for the money, and back it up with as good a customer support as can be found in the industry. If there is any purchaser dissatisfaction within the very reasonable trial period, we give the money back. Anyone can simply try for themselves. To answer the question about the reviews, there certainly are reviews - notably a very recent Positive Feedback article, and Brutus Award for Excellence for our Sistrum SP-101 platform.
So, we have a resonance control philosophy and products that are designed along with that philosophy at several affordable price points, and some higher price points. This is what our company does. It is up to the audiophiles and purchasers as to whether they agree or wish to use our products. I have explained this design philosophy as well as I can, and as well as we wish to(since we will elect to maintain some of our design as proprietary). From here on in, it is up to each person to decide what they want to do about resonance control in their system, and how they want to do it. If some still wish to not accept this explanation, then that is fine. Nobody is pushing this down your throat. However, I hope to put to rest this notion that we do not have valid, tested, and working concepts and products that are available for anyone to veryify at any time.
And notice that at no time did I cast any aspersions on any other companies, products, or people. We simply have our way of doing things, and offer them for sale. We don't need to knock anyone else down, since we are confident that our products will sustain our claims on their own merits.
I sincerly hope that this settles this issue. |
OK, A few of my comments were petty. I apologize. But FWIW, I'm still loving my Sistrum platforms. |
David(4yanx), I neglected to address your question about our Sistrum and Audiopoints products vs. other cones such as ceramic type cones.
While, of course, we feel that our approach is superior than others, the main differences begin in the design concepts, and emerge in the eventual product and performance behavior. Our Audiopoints are designed with the idea of moving the resonances out of the components. Most others(no mfr. targeted here) are designed to be a vibration blocker or absorber. The concepts are entirely opposite to each other. Starsound says that the best way to do it, is to let the vibrations naturally evacuate via a very well-designed rapid evacuation route to ground. Most of the other makers of feet and racks say block the vibrations under the feet and try to absorb them. While every method may have some proponents, it is our contention that blocking and attempting to absorb this energy is less effective, because it not only cannot achieve nearly what it strives to achieve, but also, in addition, traps any airborne vibrational energy in the components, since it blocks the only natural way out for the energy.
We recognize that our approach is not the traditional method for controlling vibration that has been considered "normal" for years. However, simple tradition is no competition for a truly improved way of doing things. A way that wasn't even considered(by most) before the last 15 years. And even though our products have been out for 15 years, there has been a fight every inch of the way from people who "liked the old" and had no desire to try anything new or better.
Now, naturally, there are applications for nearly any technology, and there may be some applications where this blocking and absorbing technique may be just the ticket. However, it is our contention that in most audio applications where there is not some glaring deficiency in floor construction, or some other opposing technology added to the mix with our product, the Starsound products should, and most often do, give a better sounding result(in our customers' opinions and ours).
Also, there have been other companies attempting to enter the "coupling" camp with products that seek to emulate the performance of Audiopoints and Sistrum products, but lack the basic understanding of the science employed by our engineers. This leads to the inevitable statement that I hear every day, "But I've tried brass cones, and other metal cones." Of course. But Audiopoints are not "just any brass cone". I know people want to say, "Sure, and I'm a Mongolian Rocket Scientist too(no disrespect to MRS's)". But the fact is that there is an underlying design concept in Audiopoints that is not used in any other cone, and this is what makes the Audiopoint the real deal. Just any cone, brass or otherwise, doesn't employ the reduction of Coulomb's Friction that the Starsound products do. I'd venture to say that most of the cone designers don't even know what Coulomb's Friction is, nor what it may have to do with making feet for audio components. It's sort of like saying that I've tried analog turntables because I had a "Close and Play" as a child. I can't help that this is a complex design that people have a hard time understanding, but it is alot more engineered than people realize.
So, those are some of the main differences that I can talk about, but the proof is in the listening. No matter what I say about our products, it really doesn't say what the difference in your system can sound like. The only way to know that is to try them. |
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
> |
Goldmund cones are much better than Audiopoints. True, the price difference is wide, but I must not forget my Marigo cones either. Different devices work best in different scenarios and there is no way I could use Goldmund nor Marigo cones under my Channel Islands components. Audiopoints do the job like nothing else would. I can honestly say they are pretty much the most cost effective cone out there--when used pointing down!
Tom, there's no way Sistrum Inc. is going to con Sean... |
Does anyone else think that post makes no sense at all? |
Sean says, "There is no need for snake oil of any type when rational thinking is involved." What nonsense! Rational thinking has as much to do with audio as it does with how people vote. Either the Sistrums sound better than the Neuances are they do not. I have already decided that in my system, the Neuances are quite superior. |
The Sistrum guys have a lot to learn from Ken Lyons. He's a class act. |
Sean I was not BSing when I stated earlier that I measured an increase in spl and a smoother in room frequency response when using a Sistrum Sp101 under a Krell 280cd..I used a Audio Control Rta and calibrated mic..There was a gain in output/efficiency.Tom |
If you don't mind, Tom, could you please describe in whatever detail you can the smoother frequency response (e.g. frequency range, degree, Q/width? of what was smoothed). I'm curious, thank you. |
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
> |
Sean, Can you explain to the village idiot (me) how reducing the strength of vibrations by allowing them to "drain" to ground can cause an increase of gain such as experience by Tom. A 50% increase in gain from the previous setting is not insubstantial - and, I worry, might in fact serve only to color an otherwise neutrally balanced system. I previously asked Tom but he blew me off, not unexpectedly I might say. Thanks...... |
Sean, I am a social scientist and agree with you in principle. If we had the possibility of operationalizing "sounding better" and the proper tools to do so, we could proceed as you want. But we cannot operationalize the concept and lack the measurements. We have to be unscientific about this, especially as I know what I like. |
Newbee if you are truly interested I do not mind sharing my experiences..and my thoughts as to what is happening when using Sistrum..Many disagree and many agree..Sistrum acts as a conduit for resonate energy to drain thru..These drain fields help set up patterns for energy to exit by.This energy is self generated by the device and thru external influences.{sound pressure]..If these influences are left untapped[aka dampening] then they will influence again and again and again the amplifying circuitry that we all feel to be the best..well.. you have never heard your expensive gear work at its highest effiencey until you drain away this muddy crap....If your equipment has to amplify grunge along with signal then its lost efficiency.. If the grunge has a path to vacate thru and not to travel within the music it will SOUND BETTER..Tom |
Ohlala what I saw on the RTA was more energy and yet a smoother in room response from about 200hz on up to about 3k..There was about a 1.5db gain in spl..using pink noise. Smoother means less rises and valleys, the read out on the screen of the rta was more linear in nature. The led's of the read out varied less up and down, they seemed to react in a slower and more contrite pace. There was more energy in the room yet the pressure was more uniform in structure.Tom |
|
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. |
Like I said, Ken Lyons is a class act. |
FWIW, I have Geoff's Promethean Base under my turntable, but use Ken's Neuance shelf as the top platform. I find them both to be exceptional products. The Neuance shelf was an improvement when placed under my Spacedeck on the existing rack. But moving the whole setup to the floor and adding the Promethean garnered a pretty significant improvement in performance. Hats off to both of these gentlemen.
Oz |
Interesting post by Roy of GMA on the effectiveness of cones in dealing with resonances in the thread "Green Mountain Europa hupe" - sez that cones don't damp or transmit many vibrations.........This from a well educated designer involved in making speakers.
Sean & Tom, while I would agree with you that reducing the level of resonances or vibrations could make a system "sound" better, and I would agree that causing the resonance of any particular component to increase due to a failure to control the resonance, might increase its apparent amplitude, it strikes me that if you were to successfully eliminate all resonances and vibrations, externally or internally, you would have optimized the equipment's ability to deliver its maximum undistorted signal but you would not/could not have increased its actual gain. With all due respect to you Sean, neither you not Tom have actually explained (to my understanding) the mechanics (electrically speaking) of the phenomena of increased gain due to elimination of distortions caused by vibrations or resonances.
But I have enjoyed reading this very interesting thread (as well as a few others) on the issues involved in these controversial matters. Sean, thanks for your good faith contributions. |
Newbee, I have spoken with the guys about this, and we are working on a "White Paper" to discuss all of these issues in depth, so that all can understand. It may take a little time, but we're working on it. We want people to understand this technology as much as possible. It is of no use to us for people to have misconceptions about our products.
Basically, it(the efficiency increase) amounts to less wasted energy in the component. We will address this in the White Paper. Please allow us the time for our engineers and staff to put this together. |
Thanks, Tom. Looking forward to seeing it.
It's always easier to work up the nerve & coin to try some of these things when we have a better understanding of how they attempt to attack the problem.
Ultimately we have to trust our ears, but it's nice to narrow things down to gear with rational thinking behind it.
Sorting through all the marketing BS is what I think turns off so many to our hobby. Getting on a rant tangent here, but the Bose crowd has really done all of us a disservice that's resulted in generations now growing up without giving due to good music reproduction in the home. Anything that brings us closer to the music!
Spencer |
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
> |
Good-day to all:
Robert here, from Star Sound Technologies, LLC. I was not available to answer the various questions tabled over the past week as we asked Tom Lyons to step in and address your inquiries on this thread.
After reading all the information listed above and trying not to create additional confusion, I would like to address a few members here and again ask them what specific questions they would like us to answer for them with regards to the function of the Sistrum Platforms design.
We really enjoy all of the telephone communications provided by you the listeners, however it remains a request, in so many words, that we answer here in print as well.
As you begin to process some of the information written below you will realize that there is much to be said and learned, so please direct your questions as accurately as possible.
In order to play some catch up, I would like to provide you a basis for understanding of our newfound discoveries of which definitely addresses a change from the age old thought philosophy with concerns to resonance and the controlling thereof.
Sistrum Platforms invention was initially based on the study of raw materials and how they vibrate, their associated frequency response, what additional properties are borne from said vibrations, what inefficiencies are borne related to the vibrations, analyzing multiple resonance properties and establishing various patterns, documenting various amplitudes thereof and how to apply the results from these studies in order to establish a greater efficient state of operation. Then, apply all of the above information and test results by inventing and manufacturing a product that both provides the hi-fi listener a more musical environment and establish a newfound technology that is expandable for additional industry.
Within the Specialty Audio Industry there is little written, little understood and even less quantitative research available to aid the end user in their search for a truer wide-ranging understanding as to what detriments are actually formed from vibration, how and why resonance prohibits functionality and what the benefits could be achieved by targeting a specific application to reduce the disadvantageous effects from Coulomb friction (a self induced problem).
A typical resonance pattern embodies Coulomb friction (the downside or negative) as well as micro and macro dynamics (the upside or positive). Add to that all the combined resonant frequencies from electrical and mechanical forces plus the many individual harmonic frequencies that are also formed as part of a typical resonance pattern. These combined frequencies also combine with other harmonics generating yet more types of resonance patterns of harmonic frequencies and without any specific structure over time. That said, hopefully you can now begin to understand, the further in we go into the topic of what is termed resonance the more difficult a general definition, understanding and/or description becomes. A slight change in materials alone and the resonance patterns again change as the analytical process begins anew. It has taken us eight years of research and prototyping just to bring five models of Sistrum to the market and we are still learning more about our discoveries each and every day.
Lest we forget combined with all the variables listed above when it comes time to set up for testing and evaluation the process of how to properly establish testing methodology also begins anew. Initially, we must establish a common ground for testing that also requires individual formulas for each test application, the various types of test equipment required along with re-calibrating each piece, environmental details also play a critical role and are calculated in, which materials to use and what determines the order of employment as the list of criterion continues to expand.
To completely understand and apply the term resonance or a more often used terminology energy in a simple context is not easily done.
The goal of Star Sound Technologies, LLC and Executive Lead Designer Brent Riehl is to remove the multiple amplitudes of Coulomb friction formed on all surfaces without disrupting or destroying the natural dynamics and harmonics that reside within each individual instrument (components, loudspeakers, cables, acoustical control devices, walls, flooring and ceilings, and even musical instruments) thus establishing a more efficient state.
The results of this efficiency is immediately noticed as the you will hear more information produced at the loudspeaker level such as a defined triplet on a snare drum head or a longer sense of cymbal decay without sudden drop-off or actually hearing the breath before the voice. It will also appear as if your system is working with a greater sense of effortlessness. Our opening statement to all audiophiles who inquire is that the equipment you already own possesses many of these qualities. All we provide you is the ability to hear and appreciate all of these musical traits. We accomplish this by providing a high-speed pathway for the exit of Coulomb friction effect.
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.
Proper Definition: The sistrum was an ancient musical instrument, kind of like a rattle in shape combined with the idea of a modern tambourine. It had two basic designs, the naos and the hoop. Most late period was of the hoop design. Most commonly it featured a representation of Het-Hert (Hathor) on the handle. It was used in sacred rituals, most particularly for Het-Hert but later associated with Imen (Amun) and Aset (Isis). It was most particularly used by the women musicians and chantresses who served in the temple, and the sound was believed to ward off the powers of chaos.
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.
I have noticed much confusion here over the directionality of the Audio Points when placed onto the Sistrum design. As previously stated by Tom Lyons, should you invert an Audio Point (tip facing skyward) on a standard shelf or plane, you reverse our geometry and the Audio Points will not function properly. Try to think of the Audio Points, by themselves, as a two dimensional design. The varying amplitudes of resonant energy enters the body of the Audio Point and are transferred through the tip into the greater mass or grounding plane below (shelf or racking eventually contacting the flooring).
Now think of the Sistrum Platform more in a three dimensional plane. The inverted Audio Points when Direct Coupled, meaning that there is another intersecting Audio Point below the steel shelf with the tip facing downward (model SP-004 and SP-1) or on our Multi-Shelf Designs (models SP-2, 3, 4, 5, 6) there is a one inch brass bolt with a specified diameter that sandwiches the steel shelf and intersects the Audio Point facing skyward, is a requirement for the design to function. This Direct Coupled technique enhances the now inverted Audio Point's performance, in essence creating a mechanical amplifier. The inverted Audio Point now works much like a megaphone; however we rely just as much on the shelving material and the main support rods to draw the friction away from the component or loudspeaker. Do not think of the resonance first going through the tips of the points then to the shelving as all the materials are engineered to function as a whole. These parts are all formulated to work as a unit or not at all.
If we were to add a greater mass to the shelf, use another steel material other than that of our own cold rolled steel formula, loosen or eliminate the brass bolts connecting the shelf to the Audio Points, use a different materials formula for our brass which is extremely critical to the Audio Points function, use a solid steel main support rod (more on the rods shortly as I am sure there will be questions asked on those topics) instead of our three part design the Sistrum Platform would become dysfunctional.
We do have a few simple requests in order that all parties involved with this questions and answers thread remain focused on the concept itself and they are:
1. Please do not state any rebuttals in the fact that we are marketing and advertising our products throughout this thread. We have had an Advertising Agreement with Audiogon for some time and will continue to advertise according to our Agreement. Certain members who have criticized us for this in the past are also the members wishing to call us to the table and now must realize by doing so they have actually opened up the door for such.
2. Please provide us a few days in order to properly answer your questions. We are in our busy season as the job is also demanding more of our time.
3. If you have a debated issue that will take away from the context of what will happen here, I will request a phone call in order to satisfy the questioner with a one to one understanding.
Thank you for your time and we look forward to the communications.
As always Good Listening!
Robert Maicks
Star Sound Technologies, LLC |
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
> |
hello Sean if someone volunteered to loan you some sistrum platforms or rack so you could demo/measure their effects and report your findings here be of any interest to you? |
Sean, IMHO you are not wrong. I've a good friend who is an astro physicist (he is a dept head at an major University and is a consultant for NASA). Even though he is not involved in designing devices used for controlling resonances in electronic components, just for the fun of it I ran this by him...he admits that he is baffled by the manufacturers claims. As you point out these claims can be proved by carefully controlled testing. If these products have merit the testing will support it, if not, all of these promotion materiels and testimonials are nothing but "gas light". We'll see. The ball is clearly in the manufacturer's court now. |
Big bang was in dispute..black holes were in dispute. If it ain't in the book it ain't so.Tesla is still being pondered. Some dilbert hundred years ago said there is nothing left to be discovered. Nose so close to the pages ya can't see the edges...myopic..Tom |
Audiotweak, wake up and smell the roses! |
I thought you could see me smelling the bud from afar..Tom |
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
> |
Sean if you had one at your door would you not have the time to try it?..Would you not trust your own ears? Are you afraid the aural results would conflict with your predisposition to science and to the Sistrum product? Tom |
Audiotweak: Sistrum won't beat Moca wood. Sean knows better--he's got a board... |
Good question to Sean. Well? At your doorstep. Moneyback guarentee. Wouldn't you give it a try? |
Warren, the Sistrum is not designed for people like Sean nor myself. Our systems are complex. The Sistrum was designed to be marketed (and rightfully so) to a particular type of individuals. I knew it when I saw it in Lak's system. Try placing my little Channel Islands/Monolithic Sound components on a Sistrum--and please don't even consider putting them down. Ask Lak what sounded *significantly* better--my little $249 CI passive pre or his $3500 Presence Audio tube beast... |
