[_scotty_]

To my "ignorant" knowledge, no one has ever produced measurements that emprically prove that these materials dissipate more than a miniscule amount of energy.  All they do is change the frequency of the vibrational energy, and slingshot 99.99999% or more back into the object they are "damping".

I read all the links that allegedly provide these measurements, but my "ignorance" must be causing me to read over that part, and not see it.  

     

 Hantra, I think you need to offer proof for your statement regarding the re-release of energy from the sorbothane material and where it goes.
Your Ipse dixit arguments are insufficient to prove your assertions are true. A simple experiment could demostrate sorbothanes effectiveness
in damping vibration. Take a 1ft square 1/8in thick piece of aluminum
and strike the improvised gong with a stick to make it ring. Apply a 6in square piece of sorbothane 1/8in thick to the "gong" strike the side without the sorbothane on it. And see what happens.

[mule.variant]

OK, I'm trying to put this discussion in a context that I can relate to so that I can better understand the various opinions and comments, and hopefully help me decide how to proceed in my own system.

My frame of reference is a drum.  Lets say, a drum with legs (a floor tom).  The legs are attached directly to the shell of the drum, and are made of metal.  First I place the drum on a solid piece of concrete and hit it.  The resulting sound is dead dead dead.  If I then place foam under the legs (say a weatherstriping type of material), it sounds very open and resonant and rings like it should.

Now, I'm trying to convert this experiment to audio gear.  With speakers, by my thinking placing them on a harder surface and/or binding them to it would prevent resonance within the structure of the cabinet (and my assumption here is that resonance is bad in a speaker).  So, the real goal is to come up with enough mass in the platform to bind the speaker to.  My thinking here is that speakers don't really care about sympathetic vibrations.

With components, my theory would be that you really want to isolate the component from any surrounding vibrations (isopods and such items) and also bind/deaden the device to a platform or through some sort of deadening on the chassis.  From all the reading I've done this would address both the resonanaces that are carried to the device from other sources and also deaden any created by the device itself.

Does any of this jive?  Do my assumptions make sense?  Does my drum analogy translate?  Thoughts, comments, character assassinations?

Be gentle...I'm new here

[Hantra]

Hantra, I think you need to offer proof for your statement regarding the re-release of energy from the sorbothane material and where it goes.

Nahh. . I don't.  Like I said.  I am not the one with a WHITE PAPER, and a product to sell.  The burden of proof is on that guy.  

A simple experiment could demostrate sorbothanes effectiveness
in damping vibration.

I have no quarrel with the fact that Sorbothane dampens vibration.  I have no doubts that it does.  My point is that it has no ability to drain vibration from a component.  So while it keeps lots of vibration from the ground OUT of the component, it keeps ALL of the acoustic vibration, and mechanical/electrical component-generated vibration IN the component.  Those vibrations are far more numerous, and at frequencies that are far more harmful than these earth-borne vibrations you all are trying to attack.  

I don't really care either whether you believe me or not.  I have no vested interest in seeing that your sound doesn't SUCK.  Gary, OTOH, does.  And Al I want is for him to provide the empirical evidence that he said he had.  If he can't prove what he says he can prove, then why buy his product?  Anyone can type up a lame white paper with lots of horrible spelling, and point to that as evidence why you should buy their gear.  Wait. . . I think I should do that. . .!!!!

[gary]

I have no quarrel with the fact that Sorbothane dampens vibration. I have no doubts that it does. My point is that it has no ability to drain vibration from a component. So while it keeps lots of vibration from the ground OUT of the component, it keeps ALL of the acoustic vibration, and mechanical/electrical component-generated vibration IN the component.

ah! all i can do is scream after reading that. you're utterly wrong and you seem to be confusing perfect isolation with damping. look, if the footers are damping the vibrations coming up from the support, then they're damping vibrations in the component too. it's newton's 3rd, and it's really as simple as that. i don't know where this "drain" concept you've got in your head is coming from, but you need to get past it. do you think sorbothane can't "drain" vibration because my footers don't look like funnels?

i'm trying to help you understand this, but your willful ignorance is making it difficult. anyway here's one more exampled that might help (i doubt it though). in mathematical terms the sorbothane footers are damped springs, and as such they're mathematically equivalent to the struts that support your car. struts damp the vibration of your car when you hit a bump; apparently even you would agree with that. well, guess what... they also damp the car from external perturbations as well. if you don't believe me, push down on your bumper and release. what happens? the car comes to rest in less than one full oscillation. ask yourself why. let me reiterate: the system is damped,  and it is MATHEMATICALLY EQUIVALENT to a component sitting on four sorbothane supports. qed.

I don't really care either whether you believe me or not. I have no vested interest in seeing that your sound doesn't SUCK. Gary, OTOH, does. And Al (sic) I want is for him to provide the empirical evidence that he said he had. If he can't prove what he says he can prove, then why buy his product? Anyone can type up a lame white paper with lots of horrible spelling, and point to that as evidence why you should buy their gear. Wait. . . I think I should do that. . .!!!!

first of all, this thread has centered around the overall approach i suggested, and i don't sell granite or inner tubes. what's more i said from the start that there are plenty of other products anyone could use in place of mine, such as those from herbie's audio lab. if the mods think it’s been inappropriate, then i’m sure they’d tell me so and i’d gladly stop participating in it. beyond that, the last thing i want is a customer who isn't satisfied and from the start I’ve offered to give anyone who's not happy a full refund. not only would i not make any money if this happened, but i'd be out the paypal fee and $4.35 worth of priority mail shipping.

if someone has a valid scientific criticism of my ideas, i'd love to hear it. really, that's what science is all about. Hantra you've criticized my approach, but what you've said so far has amounted to nothing more than an argument from personal incredulity. and, yes my spelling isn't perfect, so you've resorted to grasping at that straw. i'm really getting sick of this, please don't bother to respond with more of the same as you’re wasting my time and yours. oh, and by the way proofs are for mathematicians.

-gary

[Hantra]

Blahblahblah. . .

You still haven't given me what you said you had.  That's b/c you don't have it.  

This is a FACT: All energy seeks earth’s ground via the fastest method it derives.  You are giving the vibration a conduit, but at the slowest possible rate.  Simple physics states that the speed at which vibration wants to drain to ground is faster than all but the hardest materials can accomodate.  Going softer, and more elastic will only complicate the inevitable trip to ground.  This sends chaotic vibration back into the component at varying harmonics of the original, and will lead to signal smearing, time issues, and loss of dynamics as a result.  

Why?  Because you are merely amplifying the problems you intended to solve.  Instead of getting rid of the vibration (which we both agree is bad), you would prefer to change the frequency of the majority of it, and leave it inside the component, where it can do more damage than if it is grounded.  

I argue that it's better, and more beneficial to ground energy as quickly as possible, draining it AWAY from the component, as opposed to making the component suffer the maximum amount of ill effects from something that is inevitable.

The fastest way to drain is by using materials that conduct vibrational energy.  Brass, bone, bronze, nickel. . .Anything of that sort would work.  If our goal is to transfer energy fast, then we can look at a guitar, or cello.  Look at the saddle, which is usually made of hard bone.  Sometimes fossilized even, this bone transfers the maximum amount of vibration to the body of the instrument.  Strings are usually bronze, or nickel.  They too are critical to the entire process.  

What would be cool is if you could make some Sorbothane strings, and send them to me.  I'll put them on my Martin.  haha!!!!  We all know that would suck.  BECAUSE we know that it will NOT transfer vibration.  But I guess all that heat the you wish existed would catch my ebony neck on fire.      

Don't be lame.  Use common sense.  this is too simple NOT to get.  And finally, try it yourself.  If your goal is not to create the dynamics, and realism of a live event, then these viscoelastic materials just might be the ticket for you.

B

[_scotty_]

OK, I'm trying to put this discussion in a context that I can relate to so that I can better understand the various opinions and comments, and hopefully help me decide how to proceed in my own system.

My frame of reference is a drum.  Lets say, a drum with legs (a floor tom).  The legs are attached directly to the shell of the drum, and are made of metal.  First I place the drum on a solid piece of concrete and hit it.  The resulting sound is dead dead dead.  If I then place foam under the legs (say a we ...

You are correct sir,the drums vibration is damped by the intimacy of its contact with the concrete. If it had spikes on the bottom it would really be dead. It's a virtual mass thing related to the psi at the point of contact.
The higher the psi at the point of contact the the more effectively the mass of the object is coupled to the surface beneath it. The vibrating object is now trying to move something with much higher mass and it is usually less sucessful at this. If however you place a seismometer on top of the drum and an eathquake happens you will still faithfully record the magnitude of the vibrations associated with the quake because you have no eviromental isolation at all with this setup. In my experience the roller concept has proven most effective under my SACD 1000. It appears to have a bigger issue with external vibration than internal vibration. For the internally generated vibration I have placed 12.5lbs of sand on top of the unit. This more intimately connects it to the surface below in the vertical plane thus dampening player generated vibration. The horizontal resonant  frequency is about 1.5Hz and is well damped by the fact that
tungsten carbide ball has to roll up hill to accomodate lateral displacement. In fact the oscillation time is adjustable by the mass placed
on the bearing. The more mass there is the harder it is for the ball to roll up hill in it's cup. My power amp wants to have self generated vibration
damped and a constained layer footer which absorbs the vibration in the chassis seems to be the most effective approach in this case. Tiptoes and spikes just don't seem to be very effective and roller bearing isolation devices don't do any good at all. The constrained layer footer absorbs
vibration from both directions and seems to help the most. The thing to do is borrow different  technologies and try them out and determine what works for your specific gear and enviroment.

[Psychicanimal]

I argue that it's better, and more beneficial to ground energy as quickly as possible, draining it AWAY from the component, as opposed to making the component suffer the maximum amount of ill effects from something that is inevitable.

The fastest way to drain is by using materials that conduct vibrational energy. Brass, bone, bronze, nickel. . .Anything of that sort would work. If our goal is to transfer energy fast, then we can look at a guitar, or cello. Look at the saddle, which is usually made of hard bone. Sometimes fossilized even, this bone transfers the maximum amount of vibration to the body of the instrument. Strings are usually bronze, or nickel. They too are critical to the entire process.

I do have three sets of Goldmund cones and that's how they work--by draining energy away from the component.  The vibrations are drained to the Moca wood, which is self damping and relatively light for a hardwood.  Works extremely well...

Do you think the Sistrum rack works properly?  Just wondering.  It's time to get away from the pissing contest.

[Hantra]

Do you think the Sistrum rack works properly? Just wondering. It's time to get away from the pissing contest.

I have talked to Robert extensively about his technology, and I would like to try that rack.  But for now, I haven't been able to hear it.  

I might need to try those Goldmund cones.  Right now I'm using those myrtle blocks from Ayre, which are really effective.

I'll stop pissing now. .  I got my point across.  If you can't measure the heat, then it doesn't exist.  Where does that leave the energy?  It can't disappear. . . So it goes right back into the component. . .    

[_scotty_]

I do have three sets of Goldmund cones and that's how they work--by draining energy away from the component.  The vibrations are drained to the Moca wood, which is self damping and relatively light for a hardwood.  Works extremely well...

What component are your Goldmund cones under.

[gary]

This is a FACT: All energy seeks earth’s ground via the fastest method it derives.

please tell me you said that as a joke.
if not, then please, please tell me you were homeschooled.

-gary

[Hantra]

please tell me you said that as a joke.

Gravity is not only the most ubiquitous force in our little universe, but it is also the energy behind all motion.

please tell me you were homeschooled.

I was homeschooled by YOUR MOM.  It was during those years where you were locked in the closet.

[gary]

This is a FACT: All energy seeks earth’s ground via the fastest method it derives...

...Gravity is not only the most ubiquitous force in our little universe, but it is also the energy behind all motion.

noone with the slightest, faintest, most cursory knowledge of science would ever dream of making either of those two statements. i am truly in awe. jaw-drapping, horrified, stupified awe.

I was homeschooled by YOUR MOM. It was during those years where you were locked in the closet.

is that somehow necessary?

-gary

[Hantra]

i am truly in awe. jaw-drapping, horrified, stupified awe.

That's exactly how I felt the last time I heard some Sorbothane under my components. . .

[BradJudy]

I don't think there is much point to continuing this discussion, although I would love to see a source on this information that 'energy seeks the earth's ground' and that "Simple physics states that the speed at which vibration wants to drain to ground is faster than all but the hardest materials can accomodate."

BTW: I didn't say you can't measure the heat that is generated in dampening vibrations, just that it wasn't enough to feel by touch.  

If I could afford an accelerometer with a sampling rate of 40kHz (required to measure vibrations up to 20kHz - BTW some of the ones referenced earlier in this thread only have a sampling rate of 4kHz) I would happily start measuring the relative vibration dampening (or draining as Hantra prefers) benefits of various items.

[randytsuch]

Somebody make em stop, please    

It's obvious this argument will go on as long as they are both willing to type, and neither will convince the other.

Maybe you guys could move it to the fight club.

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

[Hantra]

Randy:

The DH are pretty good.  They sound a little soft, which can be a very good thing in certain systems.  If your system is already soft, and smooth, go with something metal.

L8r,

B

[_scotty_]

Somebody make em stop, please    

It's obvious this argument will go on as long as they are both willing to type, and neither will convince the other.

Maybe you guys could move it to the fight club.

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

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

[Sa-dono]

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. Also, please tell us where the energy goes with no gravity, since you stated "All energy seeks earth’s ground.."

[Sa-dono]

I'm rather interested in the idea of draining energy. So what happens to the energy once it hits these wood blocks? Are you telling me these magic blocks keep resonances from getting in, but also let them out?

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

[_scotty_]

I'm rather interested in the idea of draining energy. So what happens to the energy once it hits these wood blocks? Are you telling me these magic blocks keep resonances from getting in, but also let them out?

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

This is an adaptation of the industrial stuff that has to work or it costs someone money and down time. I wish I could afford it. Thanks for the link.