You are here

Log in or register to post comments
mar4511
mar4511's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 9 months ago
Joined: Sep 18 2006 - 8:53am
Shakti Stabilizer "no longer recommended"

I just procured one of these objects for the first time,having been aware of their existence for many years(~10?). I recall that it spent many of those years on the Recommend Components list, even earning the "star" (longevity) designation. Now in the Oct 2006 issue it has made it to the Deletions section as "no longer recommended". Usually I see a product as "not tried in a while" or such but "no longer recommended" intrigues me. Does anyone know what gives here?

Jeff Wong
Jeff Wong's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
Joined: Sep 6 2005 - 3:28am
Re: Shakti Stabilizer "no longer recommended"

I can't speak for the magazine about its choice to drop them from the list, but, I find the Shakti stones indispensable in my main system. I recently moved one of them from the power supply of my DAC to the DAC itself, and the level of transparency I'm now getting is significant.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Shakti Stabilizer "no longer recommended"

I think it may have been surpassed by those magic maple blocks.

Shakti stones pop up in reviews all the time, so I'm surprised they have been dropped.

Colnmary
Colnmary's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 1 week ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 3:32am
Re: Shakti Stabilizer "no longer recommended"

Magic Pixie Dust is all the rage today I hear.

Jeff Wong
Jeff Wong's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
Joined: Sep 6 2005 - 3:28am
Re: Shakti Stabilizer "no longer recommended"

I'll have to give that a listen.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Shakti Stabilizer "no longer recommended"

I think you're supposed to snort it.

Jeff Wong
Jeff Wong's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
Joined: Sep 6 2005 - 3:28am
Re: Shakti Stabilizer "no longer recommended"

I thought I might try listening to it first (before dismissing it out of hand), but, if snorting it promises to open up new dimensions and make things deeper, that might be the way to go.

mjalazard
mjalazard's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 4:38pm
Re: Shakti Stabilizer "no longer recommended"

Take a chisel to the Shakti stone, break off a small chunk, grind that to a powder and snort it...oh baby!

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Shakti Stabilizer "no longer recommended"

Hey, just be remember to keep your Shakti Stone away from your LP demagnetizer - if the Shakti Stone gets too close, the demagnetizer may wreck the stone; and rumor has it that if they come into actual contact, there could be an explosion!

Colnmary
Colnmary's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 1 week ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 3:32am
Re: Shakti Stabilizer "no longer recommended"


Quote:
Take a chisel to the Shakti stone, break off a small chunk, grind that to a powder and snort it...oh baby!

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Shakti stone Dust....

gkc
gkc's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Feb 24 2006 - 11:51am
Re: Shakti Stabilizer "no longer recommended"

Jeff, I bought one of these back in the late '90's. It seemed to help the sense of space (especially depth) when used with my CD player (then, an Audio Alchemy). When I bought my Basis turntable, it came with a heavy weight that fit on top of the spindle. It looked and felt like solid iron. Later, I replaced it with a screw-down clamp, which helped make the sound less "separated," with the highs above an imaginary horizontal line and the lows below it...it integrated the sound better and cured some mid-range suckout. I heard this clearly at the dealer, and he said both positive effects were simply the result of less vibration in the sound chain. It made sense. Anyway, I substituted the now-outdated weight for my Shakti stone, and it worked just as well. When I bought the new Meridian 508-24 CD player a few months later, neither the Shakti nor the weight made any difference. So, as far as my limited experience with this tweak goes, it is simply its weight that functions as a vibration damper, and only with some equipment. Have you tried other heavy weights, to see if they have effects similar to those of the Shakti?

Jeff Wong
Jeff Wong's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
Joined: Sep 6 2005 - 3:28am
Re: Shakti Stabilizer "no longer recommended"

Clifton - You must keep in mind that I'm an inveterate tweaker -- I already had a weight (granite) on the DAC, and the Shakti made a far larger difference on the DAC. There's no doubt that killing vibration helps; I recently mounted sorbothane inside the DAC to keep the circuit board from vibrating along with the chassis, and it improved the sound. The inductors and crystals in the stone are definitely doing their job and gobbling up RF and EMI from the digital chips. I was speaking to a friend just yesterday, and he was under the mistaken impression that the Shakti had no parts in it. While the stone itself isn't much more than the equivalent of dental stone (ever see those yellow or pink teeth models of patients at your dentist?), it's got goodies in it. Supposedly, the stone is there to dissipate the heat from the parts that are feeding off of the EMI. The very talented mastering engineer, Steve Hoffman, uses Shaktis in his setup. I understand why, based on my experience with them. I use 4 stones in my main rig, and every cable in my main system has Shakti Onlines attached. The Shakti stone is not all that heavy, so, I believe its performance has very little to do with damping. In your case, with the Meridian, I suspect the case (sorry) is better shielded and damped, which is why you heard little or no improvement through implementation of the stone or weight.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Shakti Stabilizer "no longer recommended"

So, a stone full of metal bits, which could become magnetized, is a good thing if it's on top of a component.

However, an LP, sitting on top of a platter is a bad thing - magnetically speaking?

Maybe they can put those Shakti bits into our vinyl records?

Jeff Wong
Jeff Wong's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
Joined: Sep 6 2005 - 3:28am
Re: Shakti Stabilizer "no longer recommended"

Since the Shakti is designed to absorb electromagnetic interference and dissipate it as heat, I guess it does run the risk of becoming magnetised, but, if I follow the white paper correctly, it already is, intentionally. I wonder if the Shakti got Furuteched, if its effectiveness would be partially nullified. Maybe we need a Shakti record weight for when we spin John McLaughlin LPs, unless of course, they take care of themselves.

Scooter123
Scooter123's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Oct 5 2006 - 4:07pm
Re: Shakti Stabilizer "no longer recommended"

I looked at Shatki's website and saw that they are claiming that their "stones" can increase the output for a motor vehicle engine. To support this claim they show a dyno chart indicating a 3 horsepower improvement in a 300 hp engine. What they don't say is that a chassis dynonometer, such as the Dynojet used, has a margin of error exceeding 3% (generally it's regareded to range between 3 and 7% with a really good operator). So all they had to do was keep trying dyno runs until they got their 1% improvement. Frankly, I think that the ones sniffing "Shatki Dust" are the people making them because you'd have to be "stoned" to think that any auto nut would consider a 1% improvement worth spending a dime on (that's 0.01 USD for those not used to US coinage).

JasonVSerinus
JasonVSerinus's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 months ago
Joined: Apr 10 2006 - 11:22am
Re: Shakti Stabilizer "no longer recommended"

In my experience, Shakti stones (Shakti Electromagnetic Stabilizers), Shakti onlines, and Shakti Hallograph Soundfield Optimizers are three different animals. I use Shakti stones throughout my system, and have always heard an improvement. Two are under my Theta Gen. VIII, not above (which would block the air vents), and do not function as weights. Ben Piazza in fact recommends putting them under components whenever possible, with the writing always facing "toward the sky."

The effect of Shakti onlines on power cables and interconnects is quite audible, but not in my limited experience to my liking. Hence I do not use them.

As for the Hallographs, I have found them to have a profound effect on soundstage size and depth, image focus, and timbre. Sometimes positive, sometimes negative. When they're positioned at an optimal distance from speakers, slight adjustments are audible. I'm still getting a handle on everything they do, and learning how to use them to best advantage. In fact, just having moved my speakers, I'm in the process of warming up the system so that I can readjust the Hallographs.

jason victor serinus

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Shakti Stabilizer "no longer recommended"


Quote:
I looked at Shatki's website and saw that they are claiming that their "stones" can increase the output for a motor vehicle engine. To support this claim they show a dyno chart indicating a 3 horsepower improvement in a 300 hp engine. What they don't say is that a chassis dynonometer, such as the Dynojet used, has a margin of error exceeding 3% (generally it's regareded to range between 3 and 7% with a really good operator). So all they had to do was keep trying dyno runs until they got their 1% improvement. Frankly, I think that the ones sniffing "Shatki Dust" are the people making them because you'd have to be "stoned" to think that any auto nut would consider a 1% improvement worth spending a dime on (that's 0.01 USD for those not used to US coinage).

Scooter!

Imagine if you bought 600 Shakti Stones, you'd end up with 2100 horsepower!

I wonder if F-1 allows the use of Shakti Stones?

NASCAR?

I wonder where they put the stones?

Jeff Wong
Jeff Wong's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
Joined: Sep 6 2005 - 3:28am
Re: Shakti Stabilizer "no longer recommended"


Quote:
Ben Piazza in fact recommends putting them under components whenever possible, with the writing always facing "toward the sky."

Hmmm... I've got them on top of my amp and preamp. I might have enough clearance to try them underneath. Now, you've got me very curious as to how much more resolution I might be able to squeeze out of my system...

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Shakti Stabilizer "no longer recommended"


Quote:

Quote:
Ben Piazza in fact recommends putting them under components whenever possible, with the writing always facing "toward the sky."

Hmmm... I've got them on top of my amp and preamp. I might have enough clearance to try them underneath. Now, you've got me very curious as to how much more resolution I might be able to squeeze out of my system...

Question:

If they are "directional," then why would they have the writing facing up no matter which side of the device they are on?

Shouldn't the same face of the Stone face inward, whether on top or bottom?

See...

Underneath, the fields eminate toward the stone from the device, with the recommendation to face the writing upward.

But for "on top" placement, they also get placed with the writing facing upward, which would be facing away from the device, so to speak.

Maybe it's like a Thermos. It keeps hot things hot, and cold things cold. How does it know?

Jeff Wong
Jeff Wong's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
Joined: Sep 6 2005 - 3:28am
Re: Shakti Stabilizer "no longer recommended"

Well, I only had room to try it with my amplifier. With the Shakti under the amp, there was some treble glare that made my ears close up and feel fatigued. In my particular setup, it seems to work better on the top (how I normally have it.) This may be because the vents on top provide less shielding than the bottom, allowing for more EMI absorption. Glad I tried it.

Having the lettering facing toward the sky might only have something to do with there being padding on the bottom. The Shakti is prone to chipping.

Monty
Monty's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 16 2005 - 6:55pm
Re: Shakti Stabilizer "no longer recommended"

I'm very curious about these things. Do you place the stone directly over the transformer where possible or is it that critical?

JasonVSerinus
JasonVSerinus's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 months ago
Joined: Apr 10 2006 - 11:22am
Re: Shakti Stabilizer "no longer recommended"

Questions about Shakti products are best directed to Ben Piazza of Shakti Innovations. That includes questions about the studies cited on the website.

Having said that, in my experience, placing a stone in proximity to a transformer is ideal.

Jeff. If putting the Shakti stone under your amp's transformer, where according to Ben Piazza it will be most effective, produces a treble glare, the question must be asked: was the glare inherent in the product to begin with, and has a further reduction in noise allowed it to come through clearer?

Shakti has just come out with a more robust version of the stone that is less prone to chipping. Ben recommended that I put them on the outside of my two circuit breaker boxes, with lettering facing the box. (Ask him to explain that one, please). I did so on my main circuit breaker box. However, I'm not ready to make an assessment. My speakers were just moved around for an audiophile society demo of Zu Audio products. A week earlier, at another Bay Area Audiophile Society demo, Darrel Censullo introduced Acoustic Resonators into my system. It will take awhile to sort it all out. First come Rocky Mountain and a host of deadlines.

Gracias,
jason victor serinus

Jeff Wong
Jeff Wong's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
Joined: Sep 6 2005 - 3:28am
Re: Shakti Stabilizer "no longer recommended"


Quote:
Jeff. If putting the Shakti stone under your amp's transformer, where according to Ben Piazza it will be most effective, produces a treble glare, the question must be asked: was the glare inherent in the product to begin with, and has a further reduction in noise allowed it to come through clearer?

Jason - This is possible. It may also be that I just need to spend more time with the Shakti under the amp when I'm less tired. Generally, my system hasn't exhibited glare, so, I was a bit surprised to hear it. I suspect it may have had more to do with me being tired and sleepy. When I first moved it under the amp, I felt the bass tightened up, and I was getting some better layering, but, was hearing some sibilance that wasn't present with the Shakti on top. Another possibility is that I'm getting a better position with the Shakti centred over the 2 transformers (dual mono amp) when it's on top. I have some small MDF boards with urethane feet under the amp that help add clearance that my BDR cones cannot provide on their own -- I can't get the Shakti positioned exactly between the 2 transformers because of these boards. Once I get some BDR pucks, I should be able to centre the Shakti directly under the 2 transformers. I may play around with it again tomorrow, earlier in the day, and report back. Finding the right spot is key. Moving the Shakti from the power supply of the DAC to the DAC itself was ear opening in the best possible way.

I just realised I can try the one that's on top of the power supply of my transport underneath it, if I put the small footers on the Shakti.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Shakti Stabilizer "no longer recommended"

You know, as Mar4511 mentioned, the RCL merely stated "no longer recommended."

As he pointed out, it didn't say anything like "not auditioned in too long a time," or "newer version not yet reviewed," or "no longer produced..."

I wonder what the reasoning was?

We've never addressed Mar4511's main question!

  • X
    Enter your Stereophile.com username.
    Enter the password that accompanies your username.
    Loading