Hi, I have read that putting some sort of woood blocks underneath components helps in the sound. In particular, I believe Ayre actually suggests doing this. Can anyone explain to me how this helps?
Another vote for Herbie's Tenderfeet, which are low cost, and can be tried at home with money back guarantee. Seem to work wonderfully on a variety of underlying surfaces, wood, marble, granite. After trying wood blocks, I have ended up using them on top of certain components to subtly tune sound, and as mini-bases for the famous Star Sound Audiopoints, with and without the additional subtle tuning effect of an intermediate Audiopoint Coupling Base between the point and the wood. If the basic "sound" of a component is enjoyed then the very simplest idea is to try Herbie's Tenderfeet, first. A lot of what many seek in their system's sound is unveiled, or allowed to happen, with these relative bargains in support. Herbie's also has many variations to interact with, or modify, their basic Tenderfoot product, and to interact with other manufacturers' products. Using the plain vanilla Herbie's Tenderfeet is probably the most cost effective way to get started with great "universal" component support. The home trial offer allows one to hear in his/her own listening room before making a final decision.
cdc: The ideal stand as I gather would be: 1) completely rigid and operate as a single unit. Bad vibes article "Minimize the relative motion between different elements that comprise a system" 2) resonant frequencies would be pushed as HIGH as possible so vibration's amplitudes are as LOW as possible. Bad Vibes article: "lowest natural frequency will be the most dominant". Minimum resonant frequency = maximum amplitude". "Reduction in frequency leads to an increase in dispalcement...resulting in a "noisier" less stable platform". "The lower the resonant frequency of a platform, the less desirable-the associated increase in amplitude will cause more serious ringing that damping can only partially reduce." So using sorbothane actually INCREASES ringing which damping can only partially reduce. "Enough damping should be applied" BUT ITS PURPOSE IS TO "further lower the displacement of resonances" not increase it.
As I understand it, sorbothane has 1)high amplitude as in actual dimensional dispalcement 2) soft material with numerous, complex. vibration modes.
cdc, I just wanted to add one more thing, those conclusions you arrive at from reading that article about resonant frequencies are not accurate. "Minimum resonant frequency = maximum amplitude". Does amplitude of vibration in a medium only depend on the frequency of vibration? Can you provide a reference showing that relationship or an equation or something? What about the magnitude of force that causes the vibration in the first place? I just want you to know that some of the best and most effective isolators I have seen have a natural frequency of less than 2 HZ and achieve 99.8% efficiency of vibration isolation above 10 hz.
exactly what amplitude must this resonance reach before it actually affects the SOUND of the component
I'm not going there. I will not put on the facade that I have all the answers to everything. Some people get sucked in though, including the Pope, with disastrous results. While I don't know everything, doesn't mean I know nothing either :-).
BTW, where the heck did warrenh and all the other coupling pundits go? Geeeshhh I'm just out here swaying in the wind.
Question for you, my friend. Did you read my inset from the bad vibes article and how it explains how sorbothane "can contribute to the subjective impression of a "mushy," "soft," or "boomy" bass response"? Could be in your system/preference it works well. There are so many variables it's hard to say what will or won't work on an absolute scale, IMHO. Good luck
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.
Rotarius I agree with the Vibes article that: "The goal of vibration control is to minimize the relative motion between different elements that comprise a system"
"Rubber is used to isolate a jet engine from an aircraft frame"
Sure but the engine will still be vibrating. It's a different objective - don't shake the plane apart vs. audio get the vibrations out of the CDP. Isolation won't do this.
" The only way to reduce magnitude of the vibrational force transferred from the shelf to the component is to have an isolator and damper in between"
No as in the Vibes article you can do this by raising the resonant frequency. Then you reduce these small amplitudes will good shelving or maybe some thin, relatively hard rubber like neoprene. As the Vibes article says, putting cones 22% in from the edges of a shelf will minimize amplitude as this is the first node of near zero displacement. Would you agree this would be a good thing? Again, these values have to be calculated, I'm just giving the theory as I understand it.
"Increasing the mass of the platform helps in theory but for practical reasons can't be the only way to dissipate vibration"
I agree, a better goal is to inprove the stiffness to mass ratio as even granite will ring.
"what makes you so sure that by rigid coupling everything you have raised the natural frequency of all the components beyond the audible range"
That what engineering is for and why we pay all those audiophile companies big bucks.
"Glass ringing/resonance occurs at higher frequencies, why are glass shelves frowned upon by audiophiles in that case"
Nope, the Sound Organisation racks use glass shelves and were praised by What HiFi? for fooling them into thinking it was a wood rack. Manna used 1/4" thick tempered glass with outstanding results. Glass alone will ring but glass is not used alone. It's all in the design. It's complex and requires soem serious engineering expertise. These things are not always intuitively logical.
"Lastly, anyone in the isolation business ought to have measuring devices (that are readily available) and back up their claims with numbers. How many of them do? "
And thats why audiophile industry has the reputation that it does. Of course you could always buy a Vibraplane for $5,000.
cdc, 1) Even if you rigidly couple all components in your rack, each component will still have a different resonant frequency due to differing mass, volume, materials which result in different natural frequencies. This based on scientific fact. A spring or an elastomer is typically used to reduce the amplitude of the wave that produces vibration in a medium btw. Rubber is used to isolate a jet engine from an aircraft frame. For the record, unless the component is bolted down to the shelf, it is not a "rigidly coupled" system to which you can apply the formulae from rigid body mechanics. A component on brass cones can very easily be disturbed compared to the rack it sits on. 2) Please read my earlier post on this subject. The only way to reduce magnitude of the vibrational force transferred from the shelf to the component is to have an isolator and damper in between. Increasing the mass of the platform helps in theory but for practical reasons can't be the only way to dissipate vibration. If the offending force can make it's way through concrete slabs of your floor, you will need a lot of mass to dissipate it if you do not want to use a real "isolator". BTW, what makes you so sure that by rigid coupling everything you have raised the natural frequency of all the components beyond the audible range? Glass ringing/resonance occurs at higher frequencies, why are glass shelves frowned upon by audiophiles in that case? Lastly, anyone in the isolation business ought to have measuring devices (that are readily available) and back up their claims with numbers. How many of them do?
Why not try to minimize the problem by first isolating the chassis from the rack and then dampen the chassis?
Because isolating will 1) increase the number of vibrational modes in the system since each component will be vibrating at its own frequency 2) Do nothing to reduce the amplitude of those vibrations - you need to raise the resonant frequency to do that. Then you dissipate the HF / low amplitude resonances by, perhaps and composite shelf of differing materials laminated together.
IMHO you need to DRAIN the component's vibrations and rack's vibrations into a suitable shelf material (there are other threads at A-gon on suitable shelves which do this). Sorbothane isn't going to do this, rigid material will.
Newbee, by rigidly coupling the CVDP to and appropriate damping shelf and stand the vibrations would never be there to begin with. Quoting the "Bad Vibes" article:
This, then, is the most practical solution for a good supporting platform: Employ specific materials and geometry that increase the platform's stiffness:weight ratio so that the improved rigidity raises the resonant frequency
Hence my "infinitely stiff / infinitely light" pumice material.
2) By rigid coupling you are reducing the number of vibration modes in the entire stero component system. This makes it easier to tune the system tahn if each component is singing at it's own frequency. Soft rubber dampers have the oposite effect.
Again quoting the article:
Elastomer Supports A rudimentary version of the traditional damped suspension is formed when elastomer materials such as Navcom or Sorbothane are used to support a heavy preamp or amplifier, either directly or with an intervening platform. These elastomer pucks can be quite effective at isolating moderate amplitudes of vibration ranging from the upper bass and above, and will generally have a fairly predictable performance throughout this range of frequencies when used with a wide range of gear. Also, a broad band of vibrations generated within the component is partially damped by these compliant materials. Unfortunately, their damping and isolation ability is not only ineffective at very low-level vibrations of any frequency, but is essentially transparent to all amplitudes of very low frequencies, acting basically like rigid coupling rather than an isolator in response to vibrations lower than the natural resonance of the suspension.
For many systems using rubberlike pucks, the resonant frequency ranges from approximately 10Hz to 20Hz or higher depending on the actual compliant material, how it is shaped, and the load it bears. So even though the peak displacement at resonance will be reduced, vibrations below resonance will either pass right on through or be amplified. In practice, many such suspensions have relatively high resonant points, so this amplification will often extend into the lower audio band. For example, a system formed by typical rubber pads or pucks supporting a moderately heavy steel plate will have a vertical resonance of around 15Hz or so. Its related resonant displacement is fairly well controlled, yet the zone of amplification actually extends from approximately 3Hz up to around 25Hz---above which isolation finally begins. This scenario can contribute to the subjective impression of a "mushy," "soft," or "boomy" bass response, even as the suspension reduces the amount of transmitted vibrations from the midbass on up, and partially damps the component-generated vibrations.
Unfortunately, this limitation of certain elastomer supports is often misconstrued as "over-damping," even when describing its effect with amps and preamps, and has led to the unfortunate condemnation by some of any sort of damping at all. Actually, this negative subjective effect, reported when elastomer supports are used in some systems, stems from the amplification of the suspension's relatively high resonant frequency intruding into the lower audio band (the opposite of damping).
Paradoxically, systems that emphasize the bass can sometimes sound rolled-off in the treble as well, although this is usually a psychoacoustic effect rather than a genuine rolloff. In any event, this example highlights the danger in drawing cause-and-effect conclusions about subjective experiences in audio without trying to tie them back to real physical principles. The positive sonic effects of elastomers are almost entirely due to their damping and isolating qualities; when properly applied, elastomers can result in a significant reduction of vibrations from the upper bass on up.
Incidentally, several equipment supports or footers now on the market combine a degree of rigidity with a measured amount of damping, without being overly compliant. These devices seem particularly well suited for connecting components to a platform already isolated by a suspension. (See my Townshend/Vibraplane review elsewhere in this issue for some examples.)
The ideal stand as I gather would be: 1) completely rigid and operate as a single unit. Bad vibes article "Minimize the relative motion between different elements that comprise a system" 2) resonant frequencies would be pushed as HIGH as possible so vibration's amplitudes are as LOW as possible. Bad Vibes article: "lowest natural frequency will be the most dominant". Minimum resonant frequency = maximum amplitude". "Reduction in frequency leads to an increase in dispalcement...resulting in a "noisier" less stable platform". "The lower the resonant frequency of a platform, the less desirable-the associated increase in amplitude will cause more serious ringing that damping can only partially reduce." So using sorbothane actually INCREASES ringing which damping can only partially reduce. "Enough damping should be applied" BUT ITS PURPOSE IS TO "further lower the displacement of resonances" not increase it.
As I understand it, sorbothane has 1)high amplitude as in actual dimensional dispalcement 2) soft material with numerous, complex. vibration modes.
Why wouldn't those magnetic levitaton devices be the ultimate isolater/damper? Or are they somehow attached to the sides to prevent side to side sway (and thus transmit vibes.)
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, yes the air borne vibrations is another component that has to be addressed. This is where there are plenty of products being marketed as "mechanical drains". I had never heard of such a thing until I visited audiogon. This concept (or rather misconception) only exists in the audiophile world. If you put brass or some ball bearing under the chassis, it will obviously transmit the vibration. So what? The chassis still vibrates doesn't it? Why not try to minimize the problem by first isolating the chassis from the rack and then dampen the chassis? I have also seen people trust the numerous "white" papers out there. They are marketing tools nothing more. Unlike a technical or scientific research paper, they are not verified by peers in the industry and are not backed up by experimental data. If you actually see vibration analysis data which shows the effectiveness of a product in controlling vibration, buy it!
Rotarius, your explanation makes sense. However in the case of a CDP, the CDP itself has vibrations so you're not just trying to isolate from floorborne vibrations, you're also trying to get rid of vibrations in the CDP itself. Will an isolator/damper like an air bladder be effective when both conponents (shelf and CDP) are vibrating? I don't know. For some reason something like porous ceramic which is "infinitely" light, "infinitely" rigid, and has "no" resonant mode has some intuitive logic that makes sense to me when used as an interface between two resonant components. Sorbothane made the bass muddy and slow. Music was less clear. Maybe it's the horizontal motion thing. Using the design calculations from Sorbothane's website, the sorbothane have to be nearly 3/4" thick for optimal isolation/dampening.
Remember Newton's first law? The thing is if anything is vibrating, it doesn't matter what it is also vibrating, either parts of itself or whatever it is in contact with. Even at zero G, the vibrating thing is going to vibrate the enclosure it is contained in and the interconnects connecting it to the rest of the system.
The answer is to select quiet, well-designed components that don't vibrate so much in the first place.
There are so called "magnetic isolation" tables but that is also bunk. Think of two boards, one above the other with opposing magnets on the corners. Without some type of mechanical connection to contain the sides of the top board, it will shoot off to the side. Also, it's not floating on air like a magic carpet, the magnet below is pushing up just like if the board on top was sitting on some type of foot holding it up. If the magnet below is vibrating that will be passed to the one above.
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.
I use an Oracle TT that would fit into the spring model, I generally place it on a black diamond source shelf and cones "found the sound more to my liking, than just on the stand". Could I trouble you for the names of some catalogs you refer to? Might be an interesting source for a little experimentation or DIY "bastardization" isolation platform.
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. :-)
Oh crap! We don't need more PO'd folks. Our hobby is all about perception anyway. Just thought some of you might be interested in how it's done in the *real* world :)
Hello Newbee..Nice to see you here all these years..The following statement is intended to mean no harm only to invoke thought not verbal pain..There is no such thing as isolation because everything is always in movement. Tom
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. :-)
Dan_ed, I never said you would end up liking an isolated component sound. Having balls made of exotic material under your tube amp may amplify certain frequencies which could provide addtional mid-bass warmth for example. My point is people who want to reduce the effects of vibration should know that stuff like cones and ball bearings are not isolation devices or "drains" even though they are marketed as such.
I just tried the Cardas Myrtle Wood Blocks under Amp (Pass Labs X350.5) and under my APL 3910.
On my Pass Amp with the wood blocks, the sound did change, the bass and the music sort of lossed its depth compared to the stock feet.
On my APL, Alex had made me some special wood/ball bearing footers that are much better than the stock feet. But he designed the APL and the Special footers so they should be better together). When I Replaced them with the Myrtle wood blocks,the soundstage closed in.
So, with my trials, with my equipment, with the Myrtle wood blocks, the Bass was not as defined and the soundstage was not as wide.
Sorry, Rotarius. I would agree with you except that many of us have heard a distinct improvement in the sound of some equipment using different coupling or isolation devices. I do agree that any one of these may not work in any given situation. I'm an EE and your arguement sounds much the same as what I hear from other EE's when I try to explain why I choose to spend money on cables. I choose to use some hi-end audio cables and some isolation or coupling devices based on what I hear from the use of such things. If they don't produce a change that I like, I don't use them. If I do like the change I then have to decide if the change is worth the price of the item. And that is a whole 'nother debate.
883dave, I am going to try and explain what an isolator really is and what it does refering to my textbook and some catalogs I use at work. Firstly, I did skim through the stereophile article mentioned above and it is somewhat confusing since it mentions the best you can do is 100% transmission and then the last few pages are about proper isolation/damping. Their conclusion then was getting a rigid, sturdy rack and then isolating the source components individually so even if I didn't know better, I wouldn't just put cones under everything. Can you imagine being rigidly coupled to the wheels of your car without springs and shocks? I cannot comment on the stuff about effect of vibration on passive components and phase shifts and such. To put it simply, every material has a natural frequency at which it will vibrate when subjected to a disturbing force. Natural frequency of a system depends on several variables including stiffness of the material used, mass, shape etc. In general, lesser the stiffness, lower is the natural frequency. Vibration is a force and establishing an opposing force can effectively reduce it's transmission. This is the function of an isolator. Simply put it is a spring. It can be a steel spring, air spring or an elastomeric spring. A damper is a device by which vibrational energy can be dissipated, typically by converting it to heat. A steel spring is only an isolator whereas an elastomer can be an isolator and a damper. An isolator must deflect under load to oppose vibration. NO PROTECTION WITHOUT DEFLECTION! The fundamental property of an isolator is it must be resilient, ie, it should be able to return t it's original state without load. An isolator is defined by 2 properties, it's own natural frequency and how much it can deflect (in our case compress) under the maximum allowable load which is dictated by the material and structure and is called static deflection. In general, the greater the difference between it's natural frequency and the disturbing frequency, the better the efficiency of isolation. The greater the static deflection, the more effective the isolation. Deflection however should be limited to the direction of travel of the force, usually vertical thru the isolator. An isolator must be constrained to limit horizontal movement although there are devices that isolate in shear also. Pneumatic springs have the lowest natural frequency, can be as low as 2Hz and are excellent for audio purposes. However by using only an inner tube or soft feet you get plenty of sway. If you look at typical isolators in Lord, Mcmaster etc, the elstomers are bonded to some steel to add rigidity to prevent this. They are inexpensive and can be mounted between a shelf and a platform for the source. I don't know what a vibraplane mentioned in the review is but I am sure it is a platform with constrained air springs. Bright star may has one also I think. Usually precision lab equipment is isolated using some type of spring. As the article says, "draining vibration" with fancy hard substances underneath your component is all bunk, sorry.
Tvad, I purchased a box of the pucks from a supplier in Minnesota. They were stored in an un-insulated warehouse inside a cardboard box. I can a assume with the extreme winters in Minnesota, that they were probably exposed to some temperatures below freezing. Given that, they were probably unintentionally partially cryo'd.
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.
Or suffer yourself and plow through the article, it's heavy reading: [/url=http://stereophile.com/reference/52/]bad vibes[/url]
Newbee, I don't think ceramic stone has a resonance, I could be wrong though :-).
Rotarious, question is do you prefer to isolate, transmit, or dampen vibration. Are you pushing the air bladder concept? Check out the bad vibes article, you can't eliminate the vibes. Here are some excerpts:
"The best vibration performance you can achieve is nearly 100% transmission of floor-borne vibrations through the platform without amplifying them or generating and new resonances in floor OR platform"
"Transmitting nearly all of the floor vibrations to a component. . . would be a significant accomplishment compared to most real-world coupling schemes"
Are you saying sorbothane, which most of my equipment came with and which it still sits on, is one of the better vibration damping materials? Is there something better in the polyurethane family, or are you refering to another material?
Please share with us, the benefit of your knowledge
The last time I replied to a similar post it never made it past the moderators for some reason. Placing different materials like wood or brass under a cd player or tube equipment will alter the sound slightly at times for better or worse but are not very effective in isolating the component from the mechanical vibrations via the rack. If you look up isolation or vibration damping devices you will find that materials like polyurethane are used often. Sorbothane is just ultra soft polyurethane. As a mechanical engineer with access to vibration analysers it is easy for me to see which materials dampen vibrations and which don't but I doubt I can convince any of the serious audiophiles to give up their high dollar cones and ball bearings for something that cost a few bucks.
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)?
Wood = okay but ceramic (pumice) foot sanding stone material is more neutral than wood if that's your preference. Ceramic replaced everything I tried, included roller feet, sorbothane, wood, vibrapods, etc., etc.
Stereophile has an excellent article titled "Bad Vibes" I don't have time to get the link.
Yes. Snake oil. Cheap snake oil (in this case, free), but snake oil nonetheless.
Personally, I put my components on the properly engineered feet they came with. Well, except for my satellite receiver. That, I must admit, I balance on top of my favorite house plant (only lightly watered), with a rubber band on the left rear corner, wrapped around a very special Brasilian rosewood #2 pencil. No varnish or paint on the pencil, naturally, but rather lightly oiled and hand-rubbed for the best resonance control. The olfactory presentation of the receiver is much improved when following this procedure.
Okay, all kidding aside, shouldn't the feet and chassis be engineered properly for resonance control to begin with? Makes sense to me....
David12, I wonder to what degree the golden section ratio really contributes to the effectiveness of wood footers. It certainly makes for good ad copy but it's application may be psuedo-science in this case? The golden ratio certainly crops up over and over again in nature's design and in the works of artists, but does this have any relevance in this case? Just because it's aesthetically pleasing doesn't mean it contributes to functionality. Look at a marimba, the ultimate example of tuned wooden blocks, no golden ratio at work there. When I cut the blocks I experimented with, I made one set very carefully to maintain the golden section proportions as exactly as my shop would allow. I deliberately made another with the longest length deviating from this ratio (shorter.) I can't hear any difference, but then maybe my ears aren't golden enough and my system isn't revealing enough.
I put this point, but nowone responded, so I will ask again. Maybe nobody has any opinion on this, but a cardinal point as I understand it, of Cardas products, is the use of the Golden Section as I learnt about it, or Golden Proportion as I believe it is also called. As I eluded to, the idea has been around for centuries and has strong advocates. So, is it relevant in considering the Ayre blocks, made by Cardas I believe
Well, this thread prompted me to try a bit of experimentation. I bought a bit of good quality mahogany and mpingo (african backwood) 1"x1" stock. My reasoning being that these woods are about as sonically dissimilar as any pairing. Mahogany is mellow & woody, Mpingo is so dense it sounds almost like a ceramic when you click two blocks together. I cut several sets of blocks in the small size, golden ratio size Cardas offers. When these are inserted under my cd transport & dac, they most obviously shift the tonal emphasis of the sound, more so than I expected. Mpingo, used exclusively, imparts a definite treble emphasis. I'd say that I like the transport sans blocks, on it's own feet but supported by a thick maple platform. A mixture of two mahogany blocks & one mpingo block under the dac does sound a little bit better that stock footers. Skeptics may scoff, but there is a definite tuning effect possible with wood footers.
Pops, I must warn you against using oak. The acorns act as mini diffusors, plus they are known to lose their leaves in the winter. Stick w/pine. You're on the right track though.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
