| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
August 29, 2008 - 9:58am
#1
Your take on what equipment supports do.
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
I find that cones, spikes, pucks etc. do little if the equipment is already on a good stand.
OTOH, I adore Aurios. These things are magical.
The Aurious clearly help isolate vibration through known, well accepted technology. I first learned of similar products when I was doing electron microscopy.
Cones and spikes either couple or decouple, depending on which advertising literature you read.
You already know my answer so I won't bother to post to this thread.
Seriously, if the claim is "improved bass performance," that's easily verified. So I'd simply measure the response with and without the cones in place, to see if there even is a change.
--Ethan
They work the same way that snake oil and voodoo work.
If one is really all that concerned about the coupling of mechanical motion influencing electrical signals then just put your gear in another room. Not the speakers of course.
By he way, a crystal pyramid will work much better than a cone.
Just so we're clear I don't believe in spending BIG money on aftermarket feet. As with most audio accessories the biggest gains are to be had by the first level or two of quality.
I've never liked spikes under anything except CD players, placed point side down. My theory is that it drains the vibrations OUT of the player. At some point I'll try them under my turntable. Under other components I feel they remove bass and make the sound bright.
When placed under a component Sorbothane feet deaden the sound too much and make the bass too ill-defined and the highs MIA. However, I use one Audioquest Big Foot on TOP of each component's top plate. It expanded the soundstage and removed a level of grain.
On the whole in my experience the Ayre wood blocks (the Cardas blocks are the same thing) give the best results under the widest range of equipment. I've never heard any component have an adverse reaction to them. They also happen to be one of the cheapest solutions. For best results use three. One in the front and two in the back (one under the power supply) with the logo at a right angle with the shelf of the equipment rack.
While I believe in whatever sounds good to you, to me your logic of using dampers on a digital source and not on your much more "coupled" analog source is backwards. How do you get quiter bits?
If by analog source you mean my turntable it sits on a 1" thick maple butcher's block which sits on three raquette ball halves, curved side down. I'd like to try some some black diamond racing cones under it but I'll have to wait until I find some cheap used.
Now that's what I like to hear. Some inovative practical solutions. Your balls probably work better than any others.
Really and you know how snake oil and voodo work?
Check this out to understand how BDR Cones work.
Well I stand corrected. After reading that completely unbiased, factually based article I am convinced.
I mean they used percentage numbers multiple times, it must be true.
Buddha,
I have not tried cones on electronics gear. I have tried it with speakers, and it does seem to change the bass. I would describe it as smoother and deeper, so I would say it's an improvement over before.
I have not scientifically tested how it works. My guess is that it allows the speaker cabinet to couple better with the wooden floor, bypassing the carpet and rubber pad on which the speaker formerly was placed. This coupling may have improved the bass in that the speaker-floor now is acting more as a unit than before, increasing the inertial mass of the "cabinet". This allows the cones now to move the air more rather than move the air and the cabinet.
The cabinet was sitting on carpet/pad, basically a spring; now it's coupled to the floor, a larger mass but also a different spring. Either way, this is analyzable using elementary vibration theory.
That kind of thinking is as really pointless, as is calling anything you have not tried snake oil because in your mind it could not possibly work.
Well those who have tried them know better. Try it and if it is crap tell the world. At least you have proof that it is snake oil as far as you are concerned.
I have noticed some bloody expensive tweeks (Bybee) but I really can't form an opinion because I have not heard or tried them myself.
I wish people would not worry about how others spend their money. We don't need to be saved.
I agree. There is much wisdom in Ivor Tiefenbrun's statement, "If you haven't heard it you don't have an opinion." Which more accurately should have been If you haven't heard it you SHOULDN'T have an opinion.
As opposed to the valid opinions of those that have heard it for 30 minutes in an unfamiliar system and room?
RG
Ivor kan be an ikonoklast, for sure, but I think he is wrong here.
If Ivor had his way, no one would be allowed an "official" opinion unless he or she had heard every system.
Opinions based on past experience can be useful when discussing Hi Fi in general, or when discussing a new idea.
Even Ivor does it. It's part of what makes being human so great: we can often extrapolate and formulate regarding a novel situation based on past experience, and get in the ballpark, so to speak.
Anyway, the main reason I asked the first question was based on having read a review about a piece of electronic gaear that manifested one of those day/night/veil lifting/order of magnitude sonic changes that support cones can have, but the review, as is too often the case, ended with a proclamtion about coney goodness without any further attention paid to the experience.
If the cones help with acoustic isolation, would not the degree of affect change with different volume settings?
Was the effect seen with different racks? If so, what were the differences between racks?
Was the benefit still appreciated while wearing headphones?
Etc...
A missed opportunity for investigation, I suppose.
For myself, I have heard spikes/cones/'cups' make a difference, and the effect did vary from rack to rack.
The greatest spike/cone difference I have appreciated was with speakers...which leads me to a tale:
I had a friend with a laundry room directly beneath his bedroom. When the washing machine was going, the bedroom was noisy to the point that his wife would not be able to sleep/read/make whoopee without being distracted.
On his own, he came up with the notion of putting the machine on spikes, and it made such a vast difference that even an audiophile could have heard the difference in a blind test.
The kicker, though, was that his washing machine was on a wood floor over another space below.
When they moved to a place with a concrete pad beneath the washer, the difference was no longer noticeable and he quit with the spikes.
Anyway, I have noticed significant differences with spiking speakers to a wood floor, but much less so with a concrete floor (but I persist in using them, anyway.)
Lately, I've been hunting for things in reviews that might open the discussion of supports beyond the level or "works...does not" debate that we usually end up with.
Any examples from your own listening life?
The ability to try every possible combination while ideal is not realistic. Forget just the huge number possible combinations, the limited finantial resourses of most listeners forces us to make our choices based on our knowledge (real or otherwise) and input from other sources.
My opinion is just that, an opinion. Just as is a claim from someone that has actually tried a product still an opinion.
My point was NOT that someone has to hear EVERY product in a category to have an opinion. More that to have an opinion about a given product you should have actually LISTENED to it. A perfectly reasonable stance in my opinion.
And my point is the reality that we all do and are entitled to having and expressing an opinion.
With TTs and tube gear they can make a difference, sometimes significant. Most other gear, minor to none, but can look cool anyway.
Yes, I just installed a HRS M3 isolation base under my Pro-ject RM10 TT yesterday. It made a clear and significant improvement, cleaning up the bass and detail at high volumes. This improvement came despite already using Pro-ject's "Ground It" isolation base, which stayed in the system, mounted in a 200+ lb armoire.
BTW, in order to overcome Ethan's claim that anything I heard was due to comb effect, I tested with the speakers on at average levels of 86dB, but used my Ultimate Ears Triple.fi 10 Pro in-ear monitors for listening. With 26dB of attenuation, I'm certain that I wasn't hearing differences just because I moved my head.
Today I'll install another HRS under the Playback Designs CD/SACD player mounted in the same armoire. As Doug warns, I'm afraid that'll just be a $1700 thing of beauty with noo change in sound. Still, even if that's so in this application, the HRS could come in handy when I set up in a new room, without the armoire, in the future.
BTW, a big, heavy armoire can be a highly effective isolation device.
Dave
Isolation can indeed make a difference with mechanical devices like turntables and loudspeakers.
BTW, it's not difficult to determine exactly what has changed and by how much. You'll need a recording with broadband pink noise, and a way to record that into software that can analyze the frequency content. If the LF response really did change, that will be immediately apparent. Just be sure not to move the microphone between tests.
--Ethan
Ethan, why 'can't' the same be said for electronics?
Acoustic feedback and vibration should be able to have an effect on any piece of gear, no?
Because electronic circuits - especially solid state gear - simply do not respond to vibration. If they did, the computer in your car would go ballistic every time you hit a bump, aircraft landing circuits would not be reliable, and audio power amplifiers in arenas where subwoofers play at high levels would also be affected. The simple fact is that solid state electronics are not influenced by mechanical vibration. Even tube electronics are minimally affected, unless the tubes are aging or going defective.
--Ethan
Just to complete my comments about the HRS M3 Isolation Bases, I installed a 17x19" base under my Playback Designs MPS-5 CD/SACD player. As with my TT, I played a recording through the speakers at high volume, but listened at high volume through my Ultimate Ears Triple.fi 10 Pro IEMs, avoiding any comb effects. Today I used the Finale of Mahler's 1st, featuring the San Francisco Symphony directed by Michael Tilson Thomas on SACD. I focused on the first few minutes of the finale, which has lots of percussion and brass all going at the same time.
The MPS-5 is in a heavy armoire with the doors closed, so I wasn't really expecting to hear much, but, actually, it was very hear more solidity in the bass and less congestion in the densely scored brass and orchestra passages.
If I put my fingers on the shelves of the armoire when music is playing loud I CAN feel vibration. I expected a big improvement with the TT, which I got, but the degree of improvement with the CDP was pretty surprising. It was very close to the improvement with the TT (which was already isolated with a Pro-ject isolation base, and now it's double isolated with both the HRS and the Pro-ject bases).
These things are $1900 a piece (I was wrong when I said $1700 yesterday) so they represent no small investment, but I'm very happy with them.
Dave
Vibration in electrical systems is the very definition, in electrical systems - of a motor/generator, itself.
So yes, vibration in cables and equipment MUST be tamed.
As minuscule as the vibration may be, remember what I've said about how the ear hears.
That hearing function has nearly ZERO to do with the linear weighted measurement systems in use in the realm of audio equipment measurement and design.
I hate to admit it but I am a sucker for cheap tweaks and there are about the least expensive. That said, unlike cables and other tweaks, I have yet to hear any change in my systems as a result of cones or other such tweaks. While I own a few of these gizmo's, the only one currently installed in my system are 4 vibrapod rubber thingies under the turntable.
In the analogue thread tell us your impression of the Project RM 10. I am most curious, and what cart(s) are you running?
I no longer have a turntable.
--Ethan
Again, as I continuously state, while many posts are correct about the concept of load impeadance variations, source impeadance, power mains noise, etc, the real effect is based on the bigger system level picture. The ratio of any factor relative to the magnitude of its corresponding factor. My point being that any component in a solid state audio system under the influence of mechanical vibration will be insignificant as a motor/generator relative to its circuit because of the insignificant amount of electromechanical energy produced. No windings, no core.
It's a nice airplane. Yes.
But it falls out of the sky, when we attach the fact of people being able to hear these considerations.
I won't argue it. No use.
That you cannot, is not my issue. It is yours.
Was my post really that randomly and incoherently stated?
Rhetorical of course.
It was nicely put together, with a very nicely and correctly reasoned out basis in point and in fact.
Until one understands that the 'model' of how we hear, vs what audiophiles do hear (as viewed by the scientifically literate) changes..we are not going to get anywhere.
As for scientifically literate, see my rant in the $1000 cable thread.
Then one finally comes to the understanding that 'facts' are things in people's minds and that facts don't really exist. They are commonly agreed upon considerations, and we 'decide' among us that they fit our 'model' the majority of the given times.
For those of us who hear differences with changes in loading of physical structures which have only electrical considerations as their scope of operation-this, as a question, was answered---long ago.
Science* can play catch-up....audiophiles are well past this.
We audiophiles have observed a phenomenon.
We have managed to find correlation in our activities, re mechanical isolation bringing about a change in sonic perceptions of that gear that is 'in situ'.
It's a fact. deal with it.
*or if not calling it science, once can call it 'correlation of points into theory that explains observed phenomenon', (as the current model of 'science', or scientific exploration as known and used by pundits)..is actually NOT scientific exploration, it is the exact opposite. Such things are more of a 'declaration of attempt to control reality', as they are statements that say that 'these are the rules-do not violate them'. Such insanity has zero to do with correct scientific forecasting or exploration.