Insofar as solid state electronic components, the whole vibration thing is bogus to start with. Tubes may be microphonic and a damping ring around them can't hurt, but solid state circuitry is for all practical applications relating to reproducing music in the home not helped by vibration reducing gizmos. You are right in assuming that the music itself will cause airborne vibration to act directly on the chassis. But, hey, that does not stop real believers in spending a bundle to reduce vibration and claiming they can hear positive effects. Geez, folks in these threads keep asserting all the time that they can hear HUGE differences for passive components. Once you start making claims that everything has an effect on the quality of the sound you hear from your system, the slope is so slippery that you can very easily believe that mass loading or isolating with some form of compliant suspension will act on the circuitry. The tweakers will possibly come down hard when hearing this: amp stands et al are a crock. Good listening and don't let the buzzards bother you. |
So who says? It all started with something that makes sense, that is isolating a mechanical contraption called a turntable from vibration coming through the air and through whatever the tt was placed on. Makes a lot of sense when you consider the problem of acoustic feedback and the microscopic nature of a record groove. It then got crazy when people started believing that solid state electronics sounded better when somehow isolated, hence all kinds of stands costing way more than they should. Strange thing though, speakers are spiked to couple them to the floor and the building's structure so that the energy is dissipated and tiny little vibrations obscuring the sound removed. In a perfect audio world there would only be vibration where you want it. In the real world, it's a little less perfect. So you got your spikes, your Sorbothane feet, your ball bearings, your sand boxes, your lead filled tubes, your sand filled tubes, your equipment suspended from cables and on and on. But the best part of all that is your imagination which can let you create all kinds of HUGE improvements, the better for you to enjoy the music. The scary part to me is that the earth, apparently from what some science-type people proclaim, is revolving on its axis, and going round and round. If you add to that continental drift, seismic activity and the like, is it any wonder that true high-end subjective audiophiles fret so much? |
Bob, (you don't mind if I call you Bob? Calling yourself buzzard is quite radical, I think). The users of the devices are no longer laughing because of the amounts they paid for them and the emotional attachment such an expenditure usually provokes. The manufacturers, on the other hand, are still in stitches. I know full well there is no point in getting into any kind of discussion or debate over improvements perceived on a totally individual or subjective basis. Worst yet is when a group of individuals reinforce one another's views and a cabal is born where the upshot verges on collective hysteria. I find it very different to adopt a "it can't hoit" attitude while tweaking to your heart's content; I find it another thing to assert, based solely on one's personal uncontrolled observations, that HUGE improvements occur for no logical reason. If we could actually hear electrons bobbing up and down inside cables, or the effect of vibration on solid state circuitry as believed by some, life would, indeed, be unbearable. I prefer to recognize the limits of my hearing and that of humans in general, and spend my time and limited monetary resources on software, read "music". Are present day devices used in the reproduction of music perfect? No. Is tweaking the answer? I don't think so, but, then again, if "it can't hoit", who am I to blow against the 'Agon wind. Coming back to the initial question asked: yes, indeed, airborne vibration acts on the chassis. Should we care? Nothing indicates we should, but if you fret over this the marketplace offers "solutions", how much you are willing to spend on these is entirely up to you. My bet is that one's belief in the significant improvements brought about will be in direct proportion to the amount of money spent, so strong is the belief in audiophile circles that great sound must be filtered through one's wallet. |
Bmpncyc, the only store bought isolation device I have are four rather ancient Audio-Technica feet under my Arcam FMJ CD 23. The speakers are spiked to the concrete floor of my listening room. In all honesty I can tell you that whether the AT feet are under the cd player or not, it sounds the same to my ears. The same goes for the spikes. Whether they are there or not, the speakers sound the same to my ears. No great and sudden revelation image-wise, up, down, depth, height no change in bloom, tunefulness, and all the other expressions I could use to describe the quality of the reproduced sound.
The preamp is on a makeshift stand, metal tubing on casters. The power amps are on ancient Radio Shack speaker stands, with crappy casters, the stands are not even welded but put together with carriage bolts. I have vinyl bumpers from Home Depot on the upper portion of the metal plate on which rests the preamp and on the upper portion of the square tubing where the power amps rest. That's it, that's all. I have never heard in normal listening of music any effect of having any or all of these things there or not.
Curiously enough, one of the improvements of the Arcam cd player over its predecessor is the use of isolating materials. Since I have never heard the former and since other changes have been made between the two models, I can't tell you if this better isolation has brought about better sound. One sure thing, I am not going out to borrow one in order to compare it to the CD23. If something is cheap and will provide me with an extra measure of peace of mind, I will try it. Like I said if it can't hoit. But, at the risk of repeating myself, I have not heard any significant (or insignificant for that matter) improvement with any of these devices. Again, if vibration was the cause of such problems on ss amps and preamps as believed by many here, the mere fact of displacing the equipment in the room would affect the sound. Again, whether the amps are in front of the room, to the side, to the back, I have never heard any change in the sound they produce. I have excluded turntables from any statement I made on the audible effects of vibration. I have done likewise for cd players, although it would be impossible to argue that they are anywhere near as prone to the ill effects from airborne or structure borne vibrations as the analogue tt. I have even excluded valve equipment, which has a reputation of being somewhat microphonic, although I did not notice this when I bought my AR preamp.
It is strange to realise time after time that hidebound people think that the hobby has got to match their conception. As far as I can tell the person making claims of the existence of a phenomena should have the burden of proving it in some fashion. Repeating that it is so because it is so or that any half-wit can hear, see, feel, taste or smell something is not proof, but merely arrogance. Assuming on the flimsiest of observation that something exists and then saying that it is up to the opposing side to prove it does not does not advance one's case very much.
In closing I have a sub-question to those familiar with the "industry": are powered or active speakers the antithesis of high-fidelity since the amps have no place to hide from the dreaded vibrations or are the amps used therein specially protected from vibration by esoteric and heroic means such as braced capacitors. Maybe someone with such speakers could share his/her concerns over living with such calamitous devices. |
Audiofile9, you are making this up as you go, no? Your techno babble sounds almost convincing. The problem is you have nothing quantified. Just because something is a theoretical possibility does not mean that it has any practical implications. As an analogy (for what it's worth) the world is chockfull of bacteria and viruses. Their mere presence does not signify that the carrier is diseased. My point is, and always has been, whatever turns you on. I draw the line when leaps of faith brings one to conclude that HUGE benefits can be heard from any kind of change anywhere down the line, only if one is gifted with golden ears. To my mind, assuming that there is such a gift as better quality ears allied with a superior brain capacity to resolve musical detail,it is not much of a gift since it seems to induce way more neurotic anxiety about physics and things than true musical enjoyment. I have never seen a hobby that provokes such needlesss discussion as audio. It's about enjoying music, not fretting over imagined problems and so-called solutions. I will trot out the usual question-to-end-it-all (and will probably get the usual stock answer): why would the manufacturers of ultra-high-end transistor amps sold for kilo bucks not build the best isolated chassis possible if this is such a concern? Again to get back to the original question, yes there are vibrations, yes they travel through the air and through whatever materials are in and around the room. No, I don't think we should worry ourselves sick over it. Like all issues concerning audio blowing things out of all proportion gives one a feeling of importance, of being in- the-know. There is no percentage in doing otherwise. The "if a little is good then a lot has to be better" attitude (read disproportioned power supplies, power cables, high current power amps etc.) has taken over some time ago and is seen as being the future of audio by high-enders. I just think that this escalation is making audio what it is now: a very marginal proposition at best, with very few new devotees. A sense of proportion is sorely lacking. When does attention to detail, to minutiae becomes more of a hindrance than a source of advancement? I truly wonder. |
Circling the wagons, closing ranks. Nothing that I wrote previously in this thread has been seriously challenged. The debate is fundamentally the same as in most if not all previous threads. The only added twist is the hobby aspect, which, as far as I can tell, is a rehash of the "you don't belong here, you are bothering the good people in this town and you should leave" diatribe. My position is quite reasonable and can be summed up by saying that the ends vs. means reversal that is high end audio à la Audiogon crowd, TAS, Stereophile etc is incurable. Worst yet, it is perceived as being the gist of the hobby. To me the hobby is about listening to reproduced music that brings enjoyment and sounds like a very good facsimile of the real thing. Maybe, just maybe, some advancement will come from the more leading edge, no holds barred fanatics. That it would come from uncontrolled, haphazard listening sessions is a stretch as far as I can tell, but great discoveries have come from chance. The subjective side in high end audio has won. That is obvious. The arguments are very repetitive by now (and I surely include mine in that comment). The only problem is the person new to the pursuit, asking questions that are honest, sometimes simple, sometimes not, having only one side responding. And then you have threads asking why people are not attracted to audio. High end audio is a faith based pursuit with a tip of the hat to pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo and bafflegab. No one is arguing your right to isolate your solid state equipment as you see fit. I am simply unconvinced of the benefits on solid state equipment that can be derived thereform and any resultant improvement in the quality of reproduced music in a home system. I will refrain from any argument on the burden of proof for any such benefit, the quality of evidence to be put forward and so on. That someone would argue the additive benefits of numerous tweaks and upgrades would be a change and a better argument, I think, but no, every tweak or just about, is said to produce HUGE improvements even when no plausible explanation exists. Albertporter, I admire, in a way, your single minded purpose. I simply do not have the time, the financial resources nor the unflinching belief in my ear/brain processor you have in yours. Ultra high end audio of the subjective, any fleeting perceived improvement is worth it at any cost, stripe is, as you people have so well realised, pearls to swine, in my case. |
Audiofile9, you will have to speak louder my hearing aid batteries have died. I postulate that even if one admits for sake of argument that vibration can affect solid state circuitry by the mechanism you indicated in your post, you leap to the conclusion that it has an effect on the reproduced sound which you can perceive even if such effect is so small that it is below the threshold of human hearing. I ask a simple question: what is the magnitude of this effect? Where is the straw man? Your argument simply means, unless I am thick, that it is so obvious to the trained ear, that nothing else should be required in the way of evidence. Even assuming your observation is right, for sake of argument, a causal link between what you deem to be an incontrovertible observation and the mechanism you describe would be appropriate. Is it enough to say I put my XYZ amp on an ABC stand, it sounded way better to my superior trained ear, I have this nice explanation about vibration acting on solid state equipment, so that one is the cause of the other and obviously the reason why it sounds better?
I, somehow, prefer the honesty of posters who say who cares why, I hear it and that's enough for me, I don't need any explanation. PBB is a deaf jerk anyway and a know-nothing raining on our parade.
The "irony" statement is rather strange but no stranger than the "experiment" you suggest. I never said that vibration did not affect the chassis of a component. I merely stated that even if it did, the ill effects would not be audible in the normal reproduction of music in the home. Your pronouncement that the vibrations are such that they affect the electronic components inside the box and cause audible ill effects is supported only by your claim that you hear it and that this should be proof enough, sounds way more ironic than anything written by me. Is there anything outside the lunatic audio press, published by someone who knows what the hell he is talking about (which seems to exclude you and me both) supporting your, for want of a better word, theory?
The analogy I drew was simply to point out that because something exists which we associate with undesirable effects, we need not worry about it unless it is over a certain threshold. Did you know that there apparently are government regulations concerning the presence of insects in raspberry jam? That's what Kraft Foods told me years ago when I complained I found a bug in my new jam jar. Gives one pause no? Jam is still jam even if a jar in a million contains recognizable bug parts. I for one no longer eat Kraft jam. Too risky. I may not "anologize" to your liking, but I have difficulty following your writing. What you are saying is that in audio no matter how infinitesimal a physical phenomena is, good ears can always pick it up. I say how unfortunate. Don't eat that jam.
Insofar as knowledge of the industry is concerned, I know enough. The mere fact that one or a number of manufacturers of whatever stripe includes this or that in their equipment does not mean too much, since the inclusion could be for marketing purposes more than anything else. Think about it, they have to sell this stuff to people like you. So there is no hard data on this or that going into the product, just say it sounds better and chances are if the planets and stars align just right and your special good friend at high-end magazine such and such endorses it, it will become truth. Moreover, how do you know that any specific piece of gear produced by a manufacturer sounds better because of the vibration suppressing chassis. Would this not require auditioning two identical amps, save for the chassis? I will rephrase my question: why are only a handful of solid state amplifier manufacturers offering vibration reducing chassis? And tell me honestly, if you got yourself a Rowland amplifier with the tweaked out chassis would you not try it out on an expensive base and rave about how much better the whole thing is and what marvellous synergy you have just encountered. When is one done reducing vibration? Borrowing from the Stones: love is just a kiss away... Oh and by the way, I love the Frick and Frack rapport between you and Albertporter. |
Neubilder, that has been my take on this for a while now. I even, tongue-in-cheek, once proposed that we go back to stereo consoles with everything hardwired. I would love to hear improvements brought about by tweaks. Unfortunately, I can't just fib to be part of the club. Do I hear improvements when I change things: yes I do. When my cd player was changed, I got a home trial and was happy to discover a great improvement over my previous one. I had no great qualms about the fact that the specs didn't show much of an improvement. The power amps I bought because the ARC preamp I purchased sounded with the power amps I then had a bit shy in reproducing the snap, splash and tinkle of percussion. Had I had the money' I would have dumped the preamp then and there in favour of a Sim Audio. I chose to buy Bryston 7b STs and the snap was back with the most controlled bass I had ever heard. The break in period was for my ear/brain processor and not the hardware. So I am happy. I would like to upgrade the speakers, but that is mostly because I heard Vandy fives and was impressed. An anachronism probably, but I think it better to leave well enough alone most of the time and to buy as many new recordings as I can. When I have to sit on the edge of my sofa and squint while getting a now I hear it now I don't feeling, I know that it's my imagination doing the work. A host of tweaks in any given system might produce by an additive effect a measure of improvement, but I fear it would still be marginal compared to changing a major component. I just don't have the time and resources, let alone the patience for a long trial and error process. At one point you have to stop fretting about the gear and enjoy the music. If that means that I am not a true audiophile, so be it; maybe I should start a club for music devotees of limited financial means. Cheers one and all. |
