[Hantra]

Okay...enough of this pissing contest. Further action will be taken if it continues.

Please do tell us where you obtained your "FACT" from Hantra.

Well this makes absolutely no sense at all.  You want to end the "pissing contest", and threaten action.  But then you want to continue by disputing evidence quoted during the pissing?  

Anyway, all energy on earth seeks earth's ground.  Look around you.  I got much of my information on energy drainage from REAL white papers written by actual credible sources like Brent Riehl, Todd Zimmer, David Roberts, and others who have more degrees, and have researched more about Columb Friction than Panda Boy could shake a stick at.

L8r,

B

[gary]

Something else of interest is the EquaRack. Go check out their overview. They claim that your guys' strategies to killing vibration is good, but highly flawed. Go look at their stuff and have at it

much more impressive engineering can be found at grandprixaudio

but, you're going to pay dearly for it.

-gary

[gary]

Anyway, all energy on earth seeks earth's ground.  Look around you.  I got much of my information on energy drainage from REAL white papers written by actual credible sources like Brent Riehl, Todd Zimmer, David Roberts, and others who have more degrees, and have researched more about Columb Friction than Panda Boy could shake a stick at.

would you grow up and just stop with the ad hominems?

energy does not "seek earth's ground". whoever told you this is either ignorant of science or simply does not understand the second law of thermodynamics. most likely both. once again, you are entitled to your opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts.

the earth is constantly radiating its energy off into space. if the earth and space were a closed system (i.e. no sun to provide more energy) all of its energy would eventually dissipate and the temperature would approach absolute zero. this is exactly the opposite of what you are calling "fact", which would be a clear violation of the 2LoT.

-gary

[Tonto Yoder]

Somebody make em stop, please    


Randy

Reminds me of Hantra's tirades on Audio Asylum defending the Michael Green products. Shows a similar level of class as well.

[Psychicanimal]

What component are your Goldmund cones under.

I have used them under transport, DVD, tube pre amp and my power amp with really good results.  Now I've changed my DAC and pre amp for the *smaller* Channel Islands counterparts, so it's impractical to use such cones.  I am setting up an audio/home office upstairs and I'll use the cones on my belt driven transport, Forté 4 amp and Marchand crossover.  The Forté responds really well to the Goldmund cones.  The overall musical presentation becomes relaxed and more detailed.  Like the Bro's would say--fresh.

Randy, have you tried the Mapleshade Isoblocks, instead of the inner tube under the maple block, this worked well for me.

Those cork/rubber footers work extremely well because they are resistive damping devices.  I use them under the Moca wood.  Those and entire mats can be purchased through commercial refrigeration suppliers.  They are used to dampen the vibrations of commercial refrigeration compressors.  Whether the vibrations "drain to the earth" or get "converted to heat" I have NFI.

[gary]

here is an excellent demonstration of the system dynamics involved with viscous (or resistive) damping:

http://www.efunda.com/formulae/vibrations/sdof_free_damped.cfm

it takes knowledge of differential equations, system dynamics and kinematics to understand the math involved, but if nothing else the pictures are really good.

anyway in this mathematical model, a displacement is applied to the mass and the support is rigid, meaning no vibration can pass through it (or "drain", if you will). in the undamped case, energy will constantly be converted from kinetic (motion of the mass) to potential (stored in the compressed spring). with no loss, this would go on forever. see the 'undamped free vib.' link for more on this. now when the spring is damped with the dashpot, oscillations will decrease rapidly as shown in the plots. this lost energy can only be dissipated as heat in the dashpot.

the differences between sorbothane, cork/rubber, vibrapods, and any other passive damper basically amount to different values of k and c_sub_v in this model.

and yes, of course, in the real world some energy would also be dissipated through the fixed constraint.

-gary

[Psychicanimal]

it takes knowledge of differential equations, system dynamics and kinematics to understand.......blah blah blah...

No it doesn't.  I am the Psychic and I can tune my system using several devices* and my Animal ears.  You and Hantra shut up!






*Vibrapods, cork/rubber footer, Mapleshade Triple Point cones, Goldmund cones, Bob Regal feet, Moca wood, marble, brass cones, Dynamat Extreme, Music Mat, IKEA Lack tables, Blue-tack, bubble wrap, spikes.

[Hantra]

you are entitled to your opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts.

That's been my only point all along.  Things you purport to be fact are really just your own opinion.  

I gotta get back to writing my white paper now. . .  

B

[gary]

No it doesn't.  I am the Psychic and I can tune my system using several devices* and my Animal ears.  You and Hantra shut up!

*Vibrapods, cork/rubber footer, Mapleshade Triple Point cones, Goldmund cones, Bob Regal feet, Moca wood, marble, brass cones, Dynamat Extreme, Music Mat, IKEA Lack tables, Blue-tack, bubble wrap, spikes.

you mentioned resistive damping, and that was a mathematical model of resistive/viscous damping. i posted it for your information, not in response to anything Hantra said. and in fact i couldn't agree more that different supports will have different effects on performance, and you should pick what sounds best to you.

-gary

[audiojerry]

I was glad when Byteme initiated this topic because it allowed for the discussion of ideas and methods that had potential merit, and hopefully would lead to some worthwhile testing by interested members.

Unfortunately, disagreements deteriorated to personal insults, and the value of any information that could come from those participating in this discussion has also degraded, along with good will and the incentive for others with ideas to participate.

I haven't read all the posts and counterposts, but it seems to me like Hantra persists in delivering punches below the belt, while Gary seems to be trying to keep his responses more civil. Based on the way each has been conducting himself, I personally have a hard time siding with Hantra's position, whether his arguments have any merit or not. I would recommend that Gary avoid any further clashes.
       
Randy wrote:

BTW, I use aurios on maple on an inner tube right now, under my CDP. I will probably play with cones, I have also heard good things about DH cones.

Randy, I have also found Aurios bearings to be the most effective under my cdp (now a transport). I originally had DH cones, and replaced them with Daruma bearings with noticeable improvement. The Aurios resulted in an even greater degree of improvement from the Daruma. I also use under my preamp. Though not as dramatic, they are still effective. Maybe it's voodo, but a Shakti Stone on top of my pre was also a worthwhile tweak.

[Hantra]

you should pick what sounds best to you.

Well finally we agree. . .   I support this statement from Gary 100%.  Go try it.  It's very inexpensive to try it, and see which you like better.  

Ohh, and Jerr, thanks for your analysis.  

[randytsuch]

Randy, I have also found Aurios bearings to be the most effective under my cdp (now a transport). I originally had DH cones, and replaced them with Daruma bearings with noticeable improvement. The Aurios resulted in an even greater degree of improvement from the Daruma. I also use under my preamp. Though not as dramatic, they are still effective. Maybe it's voodo, but a Shakti Stone on top of my pre was also a worthwhile tweak.

Jerry,
I heard the Daruma's sound better without the top, and if you use a 1/2 inch tungsten carbide ball instead of what comes with the Daruma.  At that point, is it supposed to be as good as the expensive Aurios, but I have not tried it myself.

BTW, which Aurio do you have, I am using the 1.1's, can't afford the big ones.

Scott,
Thanks for the advice, will look into it.  Unfortunately, I think I have spent my budget for the year, will probably have to stop buying tweaks until next year.

Hantra, I have to agree with Audiojerry, when you resort to personal attacks you lose credibility.
And thanks for the advice on DH cones.  My system is probably a little on the analytical side, so a little warmth might not be a bad thing, but that's a next year thing to try.

Randy

[Hantra]

Hantra, I have to agree with Audiojerry, when you resort to personal attacks you lose credibility.

Thanks for the advice.  My POV is that the threads never degenerated to anything personal until i was called "ignorant, and homeschooled".

Anyhow, The DH might be cool for you.  I liked them a lot, but they were a bit too smooth with my already smooth transport.

Let us know which you like better.  Maybe Gary will send out some viscoelastics for you to try out in tandem.  That'd be cool.  Then you could decide on your own.  Those big dumb Audioquest blue feet sucked when I tried them.  I used to have VR-4's, and I tried them under the top cabinet.  Yuck!  And the CD player wasn't as bad, but still worse than stock feet.

L8r,

B

[gary]

Hantra

I did not call you ignorant, what I said is that comments like "all energy on earth seeks earth's ground" betray a complete ignorance of scientific matters on your part. There is a significant difference.

anyhow, for randy or anyone else, there are evaluation sets of my footers going around right now and if you want to try them for free all you have to do is send me a PM. i was even planning on telling the two people who have just gotten them that if they like them and want to keep them, they'd only need to make a small donation to the fund that Bill from Response Audio has set up.

-gary

[DSK]

I’ve just read this entire thread and agree with some points and disagree with others. I also understand some of the arguments but do not understand others. Firstly, a disclaimer …. I claim nothing in what I am about to say as “fact” or as being provable or supported by science. I have simply read a great deal of information and misinformation by many well intentioned forum members (on several forums) and am trying to filter it all in order to come up with a resonance control strategy that seems to make sense and is worth going to the effort and expense to try. Currently I use Aurios and Symposium RollerBlocks (sitting on DIY constrained layer platforms) under my gear and found them to be an improvement over the Polycrystal cones I used before. I have no intent, or the required knowledge, to get into arguments with anyone on this subject. Like many here, I’m just trying to understand the concepts so that I can take a step toward a sensible solution. I totally accept that I may be totally wrong in all I am about to say. If so, then hopefully some replies and discussion by readers will help me to understand why and to get onto the right track. It is also possible (likely?) that I will use the wrong terms to try to describe the concepts I discuss, so please bear with me ….

It seems to me that we are trying to deal with three things:
1)   structure borne resonance
2)   air borne resonance
3)   self generated resonance

For the moment, I don’t really care which of these is highest in amplitude but am interested in attending to them all.

If I understand correctly (big assumption   ), Hantra is suggesting that the sorbethane feet do not provide a conduit to ground and the vibrational energy is reflected back into the component. Gary, suggests that they are a conduit to ground but some of the energy is dissipated as heat. It would seem to me that both are right, to a degree.

Surely, the more rigid the material linking two objects is, the more effective it will be as a conduit and the more effectively it couples the two objects. Think of the vibrations of a distant train that can be felt by touching the rails. Surely the vibrations could not be felt from anywhere near as far away if every second piece of rail was made of sorbethane.
So, spikes and cones will provide a more rapid and effective conduit than soft footers, but it is two way and leaves our components exposed to the structure borne resonances from traffic, trains, seismic activity, speakers and subwoofers, etc.

Using soft footers between a component and the shelf it sits on will be less effective at allowing rapid transmission of a component’s self-generated resonance to flow to ground, but will also be less effective at allowing structure borne resonance to pass upward to the component. Again, if I understand correctly, the less tightly coupled two objects are, the greater the isolation between them. The ultimate example (short of a vacuum) would be where the two objects are only connected by air. In this case there would be very little coupling and a high degree of isolation from structure borne resonance.

So, if we apply visco elastic damping products to the outside and/or inside of the component’s chassis (eg. Dynamat Extreme, Cromolin, 3M constrained layer dampers), then we are damping the component generated resonance and also the effect of air borne resonance on the component, and reducing the need for the component to “drain” to the rack and ground. At the same time, the soft feet underneath the component are reducing the amount of structure borne resonance entering the component.

If energy can only be lost in the forms of “heat” or “work”, and if the sorbethane visco elastic footers are compliant in all directions, then it seems to me that these footers will reduce the amplitude of resonances via a combination of heat and work. The compliance of the soft footers seems somewhat akin to the movement of the balls in the various rollerball devices (Aurios, Darumas, Symposiums, etc) where energy is dissipated mainly as “work”. In addition, some small amount of energy may be lost as “heat”, such as in the case of the visco elastic damping materials mentioned above. By the way, although there is sometimes dispute over how much of these chassis damping compounds to apply, everyone seems to agree that they do effectively damp chassis resonance. Of course, more resonant components (usually cheaper ones with thinner chassis and poorer design etc) will usually be more sensitive to such treatment.

Taking this a step further, there is probably no such thing as a perfect isolation device or a perfect damping device. And, the higher the resonance frequency, the easier it is to damp. This seems to be the theory behind the movement toward “light-and-rigid” rack designs and platforms (eg. Ikea Lack tables, Systrums, Neuances, etc). So, if we change from a massive rack to one that is light but rigid, the natural resonant frequency of the rack will be higher and any isolation devices used between the rack and the component will be more effective as they don’t need to isolate down to as low a frequency. If the rack is suitably light and rigid (eg. made of the Lack tables) then it has insufficient mass to support the resonance amplitude of a heavier rack and may need little or no damping. As the natural resonant frequency is also much higher, then soft feet can more easily damp the structure borne resonances and provide more effective isolation to the component. And, this is without having to worry about additional “floating” platforms between the rack and the component, or the additional footers they would need to rest on. Typically, the more massive the rack or platform, the greater the amount of damping material is required. With sheet metals, typically the thickness of the damping material (eg. Constrained layer damping tape) should be the same as the thickness of the material it is trying to damp. If you flick a crystal wine glass to make it ring, then put your finger on it, it will stop ringing immediately as your body is now damping it. However, if you strike a large gong, then put your finger on it, it won’t be nearly as effective.

It seems to me that many people try to make things too complex with multiple levels of isolation and platforms etc. Adding a heavy floating platform (eg. marble slab on inner tube) between the rack and the component is only going to lower the resonant frequency and make the isolation products above them less effective. Even though the inner tube will isolate the marble slab from the structure borne resonances to a degree, the airborne resonance will still cause the marble to resonate and it will do so at a lower frequency than the Lack table it sits on. As there is no damping compound usually applied to the marble, it will “ring”. If hard footers are used between the marble and component then the ringing will readily excite the component chassis. If soft footers are used, they will provide some isolation but will not be as effective as they otherwise would have been if used directly on the Lack table.  

OK, so lets have some constructive criticism. Where do my theories fall down, where can they be improved, where are they just plain wrong?

Thanks for reading and thanks in advance for any constructive feedback.

[Psychicanimal]

OK, so lets have some constructive criticism. Where do my theories fall down, where can they be improved, where are they just plain wrong? ...

Hell, I was about to send a cover letter and resume and I find the Topic notification at 2:00 AM!  What I can suggest is that the theories go hand in hand with actual products/devices and that there is a guy in Audiogon that has done a lot of experiments (Redkiwi).  Reading his posts will help anyone sort things out.

[djbnh]

Regarding damping, I use the following low- and no-cost tweaks:

1) Vibrapods. Quite inexpensive.

2) Granite and marble slabs (for under components, and one piece on top of my CDP as well) gotten for free from a local business' scrap heap. Cost = $0. Attractiveness factor - high. Fun in picking through the piles for right-sized, well cut pieces? Uh, ok.

3) Wine bottle corks (the cork ones, not the rubberized corks) to keep my PCs and speaker cables off the floor/carpet. I also use them to keep my various ICs from laying against my rack, or between ICs that may come into contact with one another. Cost = $0. Fun in drinking the wine to get to the corks? You bet. I haven't found one vintage's cork to be superior to another's in its ability to lift the cables off the floor/carpet/rack, and the corks for reds seem to work as well as those for whites. I have a preference for some German whites and Spanish reds, but the American versions perform just as well.

The above tweaks, to my ears and wallet, work very well. If someone wants to purchase something expressly sold to reduce/eliminate vibration, use it, and feels it works well, good for them. If it works better than what I'm using, good for them, too. If it doesn't work, they can always try what I'm using and see if they like it.

Happy listening!  

[DSK]

djbnh,
Thanks for sharing your experience (I too used Vibrapods and marble slabs - together and separately - about 4 years back with mixed success). I agree that, suitable solutions don't necessarily have to cost big $$$ and that, at the end of the day, the proof is in the listening.

Although everyone will use different materials and have their own tale to tell, I'm more interested in the discussion of the theories involved as this is more likely to help us generate a sensible short list of things to try so that we can gradually optimise the performance (reduce sonic effect) of what we sit our equipment on.

psychicanimal,
thanks for the pointer, I've just read many pages of RedKiwi's and others' comments and thoughts. His experiences are indeed interesting and seem largely to coincide with my current thinking. His experiences may help me to shortcut some of the tests I had in mind.

[hifitommy]

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/search.mpl?forum=vinyl&searchtext=toysRus

check this out.  it really works.

[Psychicanimal]

Redkiwi is into vibration control just as much as I'm into power delivery/noise control.  His findings do concur with mine.  I don't have Neuance but instead rely on non resonant, Caribbean Moca wood.  I've been also experimenting with another subtropical wetlands redwood (Palo Colorado).  Its improvement on bass punch and depth is uncanny, but rolls off the upper registers.  Could be great for use on ourboard transformers/power supplies, as Jose Garcia and I found out last May at his house...