No more snake oil than the alternative methods (theories) of 'draining' vibrations or isolating from incoming vibrations.
You have some kind of metal pointy things at one end of the spectrum and soft squishy things at the other end. Seems like wood blocks of some type would be a nice intermediary position. But why Myrtle wood would be better or worse than plywood, pine, birch, mahogany, oak etc, I couldn't begin to fathom, except that each has different densities and might work better for draining vibrations at certain critical frequencies.
BTW Cardas sells those little blocks also and makes the blocks that Ayre sells. Uses the same magic formula as he uses in his cables. I use his cables, maybe.......
If I might make make a suggetion - go to Home Depot, or some such, buy a board ft of soft pine and a board ft of hard oak, cut it into 4 pieces, put them under your component and see for your self if it will make a meaningfull difference to you. If you can hear anything at all get in line for some of those Myrtlewood specials, they are cheap enuf as tweeks go. |
Perkadin, Re: "I'm not even going to entertain an argument here...."
To paraphrase a famous line from Gone With the Wind, frankly my dear, I don't give a damm, what you entertain, or not! |
Sdatch, Why would you think that vibration control would effect the frequency balance of a components output? Perhaps it has a greater effect on vibration induced distortions which while audible to those sensitive to their presence do not alter the frequency response at all. Just a thought...........
Perhaps a better test would be to get something super sensitive and measure a components intrinsic vibrations both under static as well as live conditions (stuff in use in a system) with and without the vibration controlling devise in place. Probably you would have to spend some bucks to get the instrument (maybe a seismograph) and set up a place to do the tests.
That would be step 1. Now, assuming you measured a change in the vibrations, perhaps you will be able to figure out a way to determine the effect, if any, of these vibrations on the sound of components and system. I have no real suggestions to resolve that issue but others may.
Think of all of the rest you would give to the minds of the naysayers who insist on telling other that its not in their hearing, its in their minds. Perhaps you can take up a collection from these naysayers and move forward.
I'll look forward to hearing the results. :-) |
Dumb question time for all you resonance control affictionados....
Its my understanding that everything resonanates at some frequency. By using different materiels aren't you just changing the resonance frequency? Wouldn't you need to know the frequency at which your present system was resonanating in order to select a materiel to move the resonance frequency to a frequency where it becomes less of a problem (I would guess that frequency would be one which was not being excited by other stuff in your system or room)?
Help me to understand this.
Thanks........ |
Cdc, FWIW my question is probably not relevant as I was mixing apples and oranges so to speak, i.e. vibrations control vs resonance control, but FWIW yes ceramics do have a resonance point.
Best example I can think of which graphically show this is the old Memorex commencial showing the glass (similar to ceramics) being shattered by a singers voice (with out regard to whether or not it was actually Ella's voice that did it). It isn't so much as whether or not ceramics have a resonance point, it is what will the substance do when it's resonance point is reached. Depending on the amplitude of the sound at the resonance point of the glass it will ring, ring excessively, then shatter if the signal is strong enuf. If the resonance frequency is high enuf you won't hear the ringing - you will just see the shattering. (But your dog will be hiding in the bath tub!)
As a pratical matter in audio usually all that will happen is that at the resonance point there will be a peak in frequency at the point of the resonance, which you may or may not hear depending on its amplitude. Think of wood speaker cabinet resonances and how, or whether they are damped by the manufacturer and how their existence affects the sound. Also as excessive high frequencies can cause glass to ring I would imaging that would be one of the contributors to the level of microphonics we hear in tubes, thus the application of damping rings to damp the vibrations. Thus the purpose of damping rings applied to tubes. Just a guess of course.
What I was trying to figure out in my question was do we factor into our consideration of vibration control (products & application) the resonance points of the products themselves and how this might interact with the resonance points of the products we are trying to control, or are we simply dealing with either a broad based vibration damper (such as a soft rubber type product) or narrow based product used to facilitate the transmission of a narrow band of frequencies, such as metal or glass (ceramics).
I wonder if a lot of the differences that folks attach to the different vibration control products have any relationship to their ability to control (damp) the resonance points of the audio equipment that they are using.
I've asked this question before and have never gotten a response. Perhaps I'm just whacked out on this and there is no basis for a question, let alone an intelligent answer. |
Rotarius,
Fair warning! Nasty wars have already been fought in this forum about the efficacy of the devises which are purported to drain vibrations from audio equipment. Been there, done that. When it was all over there was no agreement about anything, just a lot of PO'd folks. :-) |
Hi Tom, I agree with your thought. As the world turns so to speak, so do we. And we go 'round in circles, a wheel within a wheel. Perhaps if we could design a platform supported by magnetic forces in opposition might might we then have the perfect isolation devise. Oh well we can dream on and fiddle around. Its fun if we keep it that. |
Cdc - ".....you're trying to get rid of vibrations in the CDP itself."
Couple of things to think about 1)even if you could couple the CDP AND provide a path for vibrations to pass from the CDP (drain, if you please) wouldn't the vibrations created by the CDP itself already have done its damage? Now, assuming that you would argue that the vibrations would build up at the resonance point involved in CDP, and that to provide a 'drain' you would reduce the damage caused by the resonance, wouldn't you then have to have a materiel which will allow the resonance to pass thru it or allow the resonance to disappate within it by changing the nergy of the vibrations to heat?.
Fow example think of the soft rubbery products. It is established that vibrations are reduced/eliminated by materiels that absorb them/i.e changing the energy to heat. If the materiel you use is not resonant at any frequency (and such materiel does not exist BTW, even pumice stone has a resonance point) then how would it ever absorb the energy by changing it to heat.
You say that sorbothane made the bass muddy and slow - perhaps, just perhaps, what you are hearing is the absence of the effect of undampened vibrations in the CDP, but you happen to enjoy (without knowing it) the minor ringing effect thay may be creating.
Just something to think about.........
Oh, for reference, in case you didn't figure it out, I'm in the absorbtion camp and think the 'drain' theories have more commercial benefit than sonic benefit. |
Cdc, FWIW, You are probably correct. I doubt that we will agree on anything when it comes to this subject.
But, FWIW, I would pose a question which no one has ever answered for me. Assuming, for the sake of discussion, that you are correct regarding the "drain" theory, and assuming that you have a component, or part with-in which is more likely because each component part will have its own individual resonance point, which resonates at, say 5000hz, exactly what amplitude must this resonance reach before it actually affects the SOUND of the component.
IMHO, it's only an esoteric theory unless one can establish that it not only actually exists in the minds of our scientists, but as pratical matter for audiophiles that advertised methods actually work to solve a real problem experienced in audio components and their use in the home.
It seems to me that if we have a problem based on something as well explored by the scientific community as resonances/vibrations that there must also exist a method of quantifying the amplitudes necessary to cause a deterioration in sound quality. IMHO this is not an area where 'subjective' observations have much meaning (to me at least).
IMHO, the 'drain theory' is on the same level as someone saying that we aught to provide for compensation in out TT set ups for the effect of the moon. I mean it (the moon) sure effects our invironment - no arguement can be made there - so it must effect our TT's operation which are infinitely suseptible to all sorts of things, and we should be able to make adjustments to compensate, shouldn't we?
FWIW, I get a real kick out of someone saying that a 'component' has a resonance point which can be moved by choice of isolation/coupling. As I suggested above, if a component has 100 parts, it has one hundred resonances within, one for each uncommon part. Do these somehow combine to make just one resonance for the whole component? Perhaps I'm just speaking from ignorance - I guess I'll have to take some physics course so I can understand this
As indicated before, I think the drain theory offers more commercial opportunities than it actually solves real world problems. IHMO of course. |
