Vibration Theory - Isolate or Drain?

I haven't done the vibrapods under my Oppo BDP-83 but I did do mass loading on top of the player. 2 5 lb plate weights along with a sheet of Acoustimat under the weights. It definitely helped with the vibration when the BDP-83 is playing any kind of Blu Ray movie or CD/SACD.

i've found with my lowly oppo 970 that experimenting with brass placement on cabinet top of tray and vibrapods under really enhances sound out of that $150.player.

Some may find this discussion draining and isolating at the same time;-) This is not just an attempt at a little dark holiday humor, but actually a preview of my experience described below.

I have tried both approaches with my CDP and find: 1. there is a clear difference in sound, and 2. for me at least, draining clearly sounds better. But wait, I also use isolation...

I have my CDP resting on hardwood blocks on a very substantial maple platform, bypassing the stock rubber feet in an effort to "drain" vibrations away from the CDP and into the heavy platform below. Placement of the blocks makes a difference, and I have found placing one directly under the transformer is critical to improving performance. But I then "isolate" the platform from the supporting shelf and the rest of the room with sorbothane dots to "protect" the CDP-block-platform "system" from external vibrations resulting from, among other things, the occasional loud music passage.

I have tried pretty much every permutation of these components and some others, and like the sound of my current arrangement best. I would describe the CDP sound as relatively more clear, articulated, dynamic and fast. In contrast with the stock rubber feat or sorbothane directly under the player, the sound turns soft and a bit mushy. It is actually surprising how much difference these vibration control measures make - it is not in the least bit subtle. I use the same approach with my turntable that I do with my CDP, but find no noticable advantage with isolating or draining vibration from my SS amp and tuner.

My speakers are also on platforms, but these are on blocks, spikes or Bluetack directly on the floor in an attempt to get the vibration out of those boxes as quickly and thoroughly as possible.

As for the microscope analogy - I worked with microscopes for many years, and yes, vibration is the enemy. But purely optical microscopes do not generate any internal vibration of their own, so there is no need to "drain" it away from the lenses - it is all about keeping vibration out and isolation is the name of the game. Lights are often attached or driven by outboard transformers to keep any vibrations they might generate away from the scope body. Scanning electron microscopes are a different story, and one I am less familiar with. But I digress...

I use both approaches in my system. My belief is that coupling (i.e. draining) works best with speakers, while decoupling (i.e. isolating) works best with just about everything else. That is 50% science, 50% hunch.

Don't ask me for the science.

Bryon

Isolation only exists in the absence of matter. Come to think of it with no matter there is no existence. Drain the vein..the method is the magic. Quadruple entendre's may apply. Tom

I was just checking this tonight, my CD player is on a Star Sound rack equipped with large cones for coupling to units to the rack and draining vibrations quickly. But I got a better result putting the CD player on a marble tile resting on 3 tungsten carbide ball bearing resting on 3 FIM saucers. I sell both so not partial. This result applies ONLY to my system at the present time.

By the way, I am currenty using Herbie's Tenderfeet which isolate from the supporting surface (3" Maplewood shelves on a all Maplewood stand with sits on washing machine/ imdustrial isolation pads to minimize floor based vibration. I suppose if isolation is the technique used microscopes from vibration that is proabably worth noting given that vibration would be very obvious and is not based on theories used audio accessories vendors to convince audiophiles. I do realize though, how silly the search for consensus on this topic is - worse than asking SS or tubes.....

To couple or decouple , I'm sure this will be settled quickly .

You will not get a consensus here. FWIW IMHO things like sorbothane are far more efficient in absorbing energy and does so much closer to the source of the vibration than other things used. Conversely transmitting the vibrations thru metal cones, etc, to other hard surfaces only delays the dissipation thereby aggregating its effects. All of this of course depends on whether you believe the 'drain theory' is more than just a theory. Consider that some believe that the vibration when it occurs does the damage to the sound at that time and there is no real remedy. I suppose if your component can actually store (build up) the effect of the vibrations it might be important. But if it can actually store energy at what point would the stored energy reach a point of destruction? Another question, when we discuss the 'drain theory' does it make any difference at what frequency the resonance (vibration) occurs? If so, does that affect the nature of the materiel you use to help dissipate the resonance?

This is why you will get no consensus. Hell, I can't even agree with myself! :-)

Don't mean to be a smart ass, but good luck with that.