 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
210.49.128.46
Having used a variety of isolation footers and shelf materials, it is apparent the best one can do is to modify particular frequencies with various footers, shelf materials and the rack itself. In other words, we are effectively ' listening ' to distortion caused by inadequate vibration control, as the stand etc. becomes an integral part of the listening experience. I don't wish to 'listen' anymore to the sound of MDF, steel, granite, composites or even shelfless racks. Rather than fully isolating, most footers partially or fully couple to the shelf or whatever is used to support components in the absence of a shelf, ie. couple to the rack itself. Short of pneumatic air isolation or magnetic isolation systems ( both of which are quite expensive and neither of which deal with component borne vibration ) is there any footer which truly isolates from rack or stand, across the entire frequency band ? The Boston Audio Tune Blocks ( the big ones with lots of graphite ) appear to function as an effective isolater across the entire frequency band (from limited reviews ) imparting no signature of their own , whilst draining component vibration at the same time ( perhaps the Equa Rack footers, with weight specific visco-elastic damping, may also achieve same ).
Does anyone here have experience at truly 'taking the shelf/stand out of the equation ' with such footers, or are these not what they are cracked up to be. With several sets of the above ( expensive ) footers, is one then better of going the extra mile for a Grand Prix Audio Monaco, which at least has vibration control down to a fine art ?
Follow Ups:
Your comments are in quotes, with my comments following each quote.
"Having used a variety of isolation footers and shelf materials, it is apparent the best one can do is to modify particular frequencies with various footers, shelf materials and the rack itself. In other words, we are effectively ' listening ' to distortion caused by inadequate vibration control, as the stand etc. becomes an integral part of the listening experience."
I think any support whatsoever is going to add something. I don't think it's possible to find something which adds nothing, but there are things which add less than others and I think they are worth seeking out. Others prefer an approach which relies on more vibrationally lively materials to actually add specific characters to the sound.
"I don't wish to 'listen' anymore to the sound of MDF, steel, granite, composites or even shelfless racks."
That's an easy statement to make but are you certain of the sound of all of those things? I experimented with a wide variety of constrained layer damping shelf construction methods, footers, and different racks including a shelfless one of my own design before buying a Grand Prix Audio Monaco. I can tell you for certain that I don't think there is 'A sound' of constrained layer damping, for instance. Vary the composition of the layers and the sound changes but I wouldn't say that the change was 'the sound' of the different materials. I think the truth is a little more complex than that. As for, say, the sound of MDF, well that can vary a bit too depending on grade, thickness, support mechanism, and any footers used between it and the component. I'm not saying that you can't identify specific sonic characteristics for different materials but I do think that, in practical use, the situation is less clear cut than many believe.
" Rather than fully isolating, most footers partially or fully couple to the shelf or whatever is used to support components in the absence of a shelf, ie. couple to the rack itself."
Well, it's probably impossible to achieve perfect isolation or perfect coupling. Isolation will always be more efficient at some frequencies than others and coupling less efficient at some than others. We're talking a continuum with the term "isolation" applying to approaches that are more effective at passing less energy in both directions and "coupling" applying to those that are more effective at passing energy in both directions. You also need to factor in 'resonance' which refers to the magnification of energy passing through the medium.
" Short of pneumatic air isolation or magnetic isolation systems ( both of which are quite expensive and neither of which deal with component borne vibration ) is there any footer which truly isolates from rack or stand, across the entire frequency band ?"
"Truly isolates"—you're asking for perfection and it doesn't exist. There will also be no single answer. It's going to depend on the rack or stand because different racks/stands have different characteristics in terms of the vibrational energy they transmit and a footer that is effective with one rack/stand because it's isolation spectrum is a good match for that rack/stand may not be as good a match for another rack/stand. I think you really need to start viewing the whole support strategy, the combination of rack/shelf/supports/footers between the floor and each component as a system in which the performance of one or more stages can compromise the otherwise good (notes: not perfect) performance of others. Even the floor in your room, as opposed to the floor in mine or anyone else's room and the volume you listen to your music at are going to have an influence on how well a given approach functions for you.
" The Boston Audio Tune Blocks ( the big ones with lots of graphite ) appear to function as an effective isolater across the entire frequency band (from limited reviews ) imparting no signature of their own , whilst draining component vibration at the same time ( perhaps the Equa Rack footers, with weight specific visco-elastic damping, may also achieve same )."
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. "…appear to function as an effective isolater across the entire frequency band (from limited reviews)" What reviews? Listening tests where the results depend on whether the reviewer prefers the result to their previous setup or not, and also on the rest of the support system. I wouldn't make that sort of assumption from any review because I've watched my own opinions over time with a variety of approaches, and noticed how happy I've been to rush to make those sorts of claims when, really, all I was saying that I liked one more than another. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying don't make choices because of what you like or dislike. This is a hobby and playing with vibration control is really only useful if the result improves your enjoyment of the music you listen to, so making choices based on your enjoyment is actually a rational approach. You don't want to end up with a system that measures better on objective tests but doesn't give you as much enjoyment. I'm just saying don't make claims that the differences or 'improvements' are attributable to more or less effective isolation without some actual scientific data to actually show you that's what is going on. You might well find yourself surprised that the approach you like works for different reasons than you think if you could get hold of scientific data which, unfortunately, is rarely possible here.
"Does anyone here have experience at truly 'taking the shelf/stand out of the equation ' with such footers, or are these not what they are cracked up to be."
I think there's quite a few people here with experience with a reasonable variety of approaches but not everyone has tried quite the same things, they've tried them with different components and in combination with different other support products in the support chain, and they don't all come to the same conclusions. I don't think that's surprising given the system differences and the different vibrational environments of their respective rooms, and there's also the factor of personal taste to consider. Some people really do like supports which are resonant and which add a particular character to the sound while others strive to achieve something which sounds more neutral and accurate to them. There's room for both approaches. My main point is that I think it unlikely that you'll find someone who will come up with exactly the same opinion of everything in common that you have both tried, and there are good sound reasons for why that should be so.
"With several sets of the above ( expensive ) footers, is one then better of going the extra mile for a Grand Prix Audio Monaco, which at least has vibration control down to a fine art ? "
You're asking a cost benefit question and the answer is always going to depend in part on whether you think a product like the Monaco or a similar level competitor delivers enough 'improvement' to justify the additional outlay on in over some other product. Size of budget is always going to impact on the answer. I outlaid the cash for a Monaco base unit basically on faith, without hearing it, because my DIY approach at that stage was starting to approach a sizeable proportion of the Monaco's cost, I still wasn't happy, and I'd come to realise that trying to 'do it on my own' was probably never going to satisfy me. Grand Prix Audio's approach appealed to me so I took the chance and purchased one. I haven't regretted the decision and the scale of the increase in listening pleasure it gave me over my previous vibration control setup actually surpassed my hopes and expectations. Some audiophile visitors have simply shaken their heads in horror at the thought of spending that much on a rack. You're always going to have that range of response to whatever you do. In the end the only opinion that matters is yours: it's your system and your enjoyment.
None of the above should be read as implying that I think vibration control strategies don't make an objective differerence and that all people are talking about is subjective perception. I most certainly do think they make an objective difference but, without actual measurements, I think we're basically guessing at whether or not the difference is because of greater or lesser isolation or coupling. We really don't know without the data and few of us have the luxury of being able to make objective measurements in our system in order to confirm our guesses. I also think some, maybe all, of us might actually be surprised, had we the measurements, to find that our listening preferences do not always agree with our theoretical preferences for greater or lesser isolation or coupling.
I know I spent quite a few years 'playing' in this area before buying the Monaco. I bought a couple of basic racks, I tried a range of cones and soft footers, I did a fair bit of DIY, and I listened. That process was expensive, and I've got a fair bit of stuff I bought now just sitting around, or 'passed down' to my HT system, but at least the process gave me an education in listening to the changes that it is possible to achieve and a feel for what it is that I like and what I was chasing. In some ways the Monaco is a considerable about face on some of the views I espoused a year or two before I bought it, and I suspect some others here have also undergone similar 'sea changes' in their views of what works and what doesn't. My best advice is to don't rush a big purchase but try some low cost experiments with DIY approaches, listen to a few systems with different degrees of vibration control in them, and different strategies too, if you can, and start to get a feel for what kind of benefits you think are realistically achievable. Once you've done that, then you're going to be in a position to say whether or not you think it's better to go the 'extra mile' or not because the only opinon that counts in answer to that question is yours.
David Aiken
Hi Dave, thank you for your in-depth response. My expectations about the graphite Tune Blocks arose from reading Rick Beckers reviews, who had a bent for experimenting with many footers over the years. As you say, they may have simply worked particularly well with his stand. An interesting twist on this is that he was particularly smitten with the use of Sonophonon squares ( 3" square constrained layer damped stainless steel plates) used between the component and the footer itself (Sonophonon squares from Sound Dead Steel, a U.K. company who supply Linn amongst others, with dampening materials ). He subsequently used Boston Audio Tune Plates, modelled on the Sonophonons, to the same effect. He opined that the squares produced a greater magnitude of improvement than the footer itself ( or any footer he tried for that matter ), and that they improved considerably upon any footer. The SE Tune Blocks in concert with the squares he considers 'state of the art ' isolation control - depending on your frame of reference I suppose. The squares apparently work very well under speaker spikes and I assume stand spikes too.
I am going to chase up some squares from the U.K. which can be obtained manufacturer direct ( around $32 US for a set of four, verses $40 each for Tune Plates, though postage may narrow the gap ) and try them with my Cereballs and Darumas and under my stand. It turns out the Boston Tune Blocks are available in Brisbane, so in time I will try this combo and report back.
I note your other post and that you are a Queensland Audio Club member - will be in touch. Very surprised that additional footers on the Monaco shelves didn't improve on the component feet (?) Doesn't make sense unless the increased coupling to the shelf ( I presume ) came with a strong footer signature, which doesn't say a lot for footers.
"Very surprised that additional footers on the Monaco shelves didn't improve on the component feet (?) Doesn't make sense unless the increased coupling to the shelf ( I presume ) came with a strong footer signature, which doesn't say a lot for footers."
I think the reason is simply that the whole structure is designed to work together as a system with nothing between the shelf and component. I think a lot of time and engineering knowledge went into the design and they simply did a good job of optimising things so that the system works well as a whole the way it was intended to work and trying to second guess things at the user end just doesn't help.
I actually find it quite refreshing to know I simply no longer have to worry about fine tuning with things like feet. I simply take one component off, put another on, and change the sorbothane dampers between shelf and frame if there's a significant mass change and/or once every 12-18 mths as basic maintenance. So much simpler than my old DIY constructions and it looks one hell of a lot better.
David Aiken
In acknowledging that footers don't appear to improve upon the Monaco's benchmark (neutral) performance, one wonders how the designers of the Monaco stand factored in the variety of component feet available and their efficiency or otherwise in draining component vibration. This would appear to be an impossible task given the variables involved in the plethora of components available, both in physical make-up and different levels of vibration control utilised in component design. Perhaps the designers did not feel that component generated vibration, or accoustic (pressure) waves hitting the component, presented as important an issue as vibration generated by the floor/stand/shelf unit itself i.e. low frequency vibration causes the most damage to sonic integrity. It is interesting that outstanding results have been observed with pneumatic air isolation ( without using footers ) and magnetic isolation ( SAP Relaxa3+ or Clearaudio Magix ). If indeed most of the damage is done by floor/stand/shelf, this would explain how the DIY shelfless approach is a step in the right direction, in the absence of meticulous shelf design.
To throw another (confusing ) slant on this, Stereophiles Brian Damkroger reviewed Finite Elements Pagode Master Reference ( at over $6000 )and found that component footers ( Cereballs and Cerapucs ) were needed throughout to give the best sonic results, with $100,000 worth of components ! ( he deemed the addition of the footers gave a 'jaw dropping' degree of improvement compared to the stand itself ). In light of this, the Monaco stand ( at least in view of Dave's experience above )is either (1)of considerably superior vibration blocking /absorbing design, leaving the component largely untouched, where the speed or efficiency of resonance drain from the component doesn't seem to matter as much (2)the Pagode Master Reference has been designed to use with its own footers which are mainly coupling devices, inferring the quick and efficient drainage of component energy is as important as its sophisticated shelf design ( with inbuilt 'tuning-fork' like resonators which dissipate energy ). The upshot of this (a tentative conclusion)is that from a DIY perspective the focus should be on preventing the vibration travelling through floor/stand/shelf from reaching the component. This would pre-empt the need for a more difficult or sophisticated design which would by necessity take into account the sonic signature of footers (as contributors to this thread have pointed out, there appears to be no footer that completely isolates i.e. is completely neutral). It would appear that vertical and horizontal isolation/damping of stand and shelf if used, is the main priority. In an imperfect world, component footers may be used to fine tune the result.
The sad balls ( Norsorex ) appear interesting as vertical isolators. Anyone besides bartc have experience with these ? Thanks Al for the info on damping power cords.
Re the Monaco and footers: any footer is going to raise the height of the component somewhat—it has to if it's going to fit under the component and get the component up off its own feet— and that is going to raise the centre of gravity of the component. Perhaps keeping the centre of gravity as low as possible is important for the Monaco type of design, and stock feet is as low as most of us go.
Re shelfless racks: that was the way I went when I designed the rack I used prior to purchasing the Monaco. Eliminating shelves definitely reduces one area where things can go wrong with a DIY rack, but it also makes what goes between the frame members and the component more important. I started obsessing on that and tweaking it regularly, at considerable cost.
The Pagode Reference design: From what I've read, this design works in part by the user tuning resonanators as you mention. It seems to have a very different design approach to the Grand Prix Audio racks. You don't adjust resonanators with the GPA designs but you do have to match the sorbothane dampers used between shelf and frame to the mass of the component placed on the shelf.
There's always more than one way to skin a cat and there are obviously a number of viable strategies for vibration control so you do have a range of choices if you want to get such a rack.
David Aiken
I saw a very high end rack system that used cables.
the cables would allow it to swing very slightly - the vibrations would be turned into a slow frequency.
I have been wanting to try this but I am short of time, money, and smarts.
You should also do a AA search on gatorboard shelves. My amp likes these.
Do not use dynamat it can kill the sound. I just pulled all of mine off!
Look closely, there are wires and he is swinging very slowly!
Its easy for him - no power cables to impede his cosmic vibration
That's a Theravadin monk, not a Tibetan monk. Looks like Tibetans won't work and you're going to have to look elsewhere.
You wouldn't be able to hire either anyway.
David Aiken
Maybe they'd do it for charity..
nt
It never fails to impress, particularly its linearity.
energy can not be created or destroyed. The best you can do is to transform it into a more benign form or frequency. Rather than stressing about the perfect platform, learn to work with it instead. The results become much more satisfying, and often can be harnessed to your benefit. Everything, including the planet, has it's own resonant frequency.
Stu
My Wadia 861 sounds much better now that it rides on my DIY roller-ball suspensions. These do not isolate vertical motion, but are quite effective against horizontal motion. The natural frequency of the (heavy) 861 on the roller-balls is around 1 Hz, so audio frequencies are effectively decoupled.
A CD player with a horizontal laser motion should be more sensitive to horizontal vibration than to vertical vibration.
Shelves are trouble as they are resonant and reflective objects. Put the suspension devices directly on damped beams and avoid the shelves if possible.
Hi Al, I have looked at weight-specific footers which are designed to lower resonant frequency to a level that is less likely to interfere with the audio band ( such as Sonic Designs 'audiophile' damping feet which are claimed to lower resonant frquency to below 7Hz on a horizontal plane ) and springs which are tuned to a very low resonance frequency. The latter besides looking quite geeky lend themselves to a somewhat unstable and potentially hazardous structure with little written on their efficacy or otherwise ( I tried mower valve springs which obviously weren't tuned but very comfortably supported shelf/component without being too stiff, but sonically didn't cut it ) while the limited reviews available on the U.K. Sonic Designs feet don't motivate to try this approach. How do roller balls serve to lower the resonant frequency to 1Hz on a horizontal plane seeing the (heavy) Wadia fully couples on a vertical plane ( i.e. how did you, or someone else arrive at this measurement)? I am assuming this would only work with a heavily damped rack and that this would be necessary to achieve such a measurement as vertically moving vibration would still have vectors on the horizontal plane ( just going on my rudimentary knowledge of physics from long ago ).
If the argument held that we need to have the audio frequencies generated by state-of-the-art components contaminated with external frequencies to sound musical, then all the across-the-board improvements discovered by those who have explored ultimate vibration control must be imagined ( in response to post by Stu who proposes working with vibration, i.e. play around with skewing the frequency response ).
With the Wadia on the roller-balls, simply give it a nudge and watch it rock back and forth at its natural frequency, about once per second.
This frequency is determined by the curvature of the spoon bowls in which the steel roller bearing balls rest. Flatter bowls would give a lower resonant frequency.
The spoon bowls are mounted on acrylic pieces with polyurethane construction adhesive filling the gaps beneath the bowls. The centers of the bowls rest directly upon the acrylic, so the only vertical compliance is that of the acrylic. The polyurethane damps the spoon bowls' acoustic resonances.
I've made alternative versions with ebony bases and steel-bearing epoxy for a friend, who prefers them to the acrylic/polyurethane recipe.
Solving the vertical isolation problem would be much more difficult. I'm happy with the performance improvement I've gained by using this simple and cheap method.
Vibration nodes can be excited from internal sources too. This is particularly true with CD players, or other components with motors and spinning discs. In addition, figure that the 60 Hz line frequency (or 50 HZ, depending on where you live) will have an effect also. There are many sources of vibrational energy. Energy transference is partially determined by the material choices, and helps explain why some roller bearings have bearings made of different materials with corresponding different effects upon the sound. Over on the vinyl asylum there was discussion about the sonic changes caused by changing the thrust bearing of a TT platter.
Again, IMHO, there is no one truly neutral isolation system. There is only the one that works best for your tastes and application. I used roller bearings for a while but found a piece of cantilevered musical grade spruce made a far superior suspension: greater coherency and a much more natural tonality in my system and for my tastes. Is it truly neutral:probably not at all, but it works and produces great sonic attributes which I simply love.
In searching for perfection, I have come to realize there is no ultimate, only that which works for your tastes and set up. We can share ideas, but ultimately since music is subjective, you have to explore filling your own tastes. The effect is not imaginary, but simply a transmutation of that particular energy unique to your situation to something which should be complementary to your tastes.
Of course, every situation is slightly different: components, room, furnishings, power supply, and then there is personal taste. You are ultimately satisfying your wants, not any one else's.
Stu
Components may also be voiced to compensate for inadequate isolation or damping of circuit boards, casing etc. at the design level. The test bench or stand with inadequate vibration control may also have been part of the mix. So the Holy Grail of audio is subverted from the outset.
Using Dynamat on such a component may indeed kill it ( as Soundripples found ). Perhaps this is why there appears to be 'no truly neutral isolation system'. Regardless of the differences in taste ( valves or solid state etc. ) I am sure no one wants their sound polluted yet this I believe limits the musical experience regardless of taste. Not all frequencies are benign ( with regard to your initial post i.e. 'everything, including the planet, has its own resonant frequency ' - the human body also has its own natural resonant frequency and is constantly bombarded with EMF/RFI pollution, which disturbs its equilibrium and contributes to disease - the point I am making is that some frequencies simply don't belong ).
With the assumption that high-end components exist which have paid due attention to vibration issues (choice of materials,damping etc.)then the subsequent pursuit of neutral ancillaries would be the logical follow through. Paul Candy from 6 Moons was pretty happy with his rig, benefiting from many years of exposure to many and varied components,cables, footers etc. Then along came a Grand Prix Audio Monaco and he was completely bowled over, never anticipating the magnitude of all-round improvement this stand provided. If not neutral, this stand approaches neutrality, judging by unanimous praise regardless of component types ( usually high-end) used by different reviewers. So too must certain footers approach neutrality, which is why I initiated this post. Other vibrational ( frequency skewing ) sources such as AC power is another issue by itself (receptacles / wall plates / AC plug type, cables etc ), no less important than the stand issue.
If your'e reading this Al, could you please comment on your DIY vibration controls for AC cables as bartc mentioned in another post, or refer me to a link if you've already posted on this. Thanks everyone on your feedback thus far.
Sorry for not seeing your request for a few days.
My power cords are tweaked Volex 17604 (Mexican source). Among the tweaks that make them perform well is application of Power Wraps to damp the magnetic field components of RF standing waves.
Power Wraps are stiff spirals of proprietary wire that are designed to be applied to power cords without removing the plugs. They are larger in diameter than the treated cords to allow them to be applied. They ring acoustically, and this has to be damped to get the maximum benefit from them.
I wrap the cords with 100% cotton batting to build up the cord thickness to approach that of the inside diameter of the Power Wraps. This makes applying the Power Wraps a little more difficult, but it keeps them centered on the cords. I than wrap the installed Power Wraps with the same batting material, cut into manageable strips about two inches wide. The batting is then secured by some tight wraps of Teflon thread-seal tape.
This treatment results in acoustically quiet power cords. I install them and support them from the floor with stiff paper cylinder lifters. These lifters have the advantage of providing firm support over a carpeted floor (as well as being very cheap and easy to make). The installed power cords do not wobble or yield any tone when tapped.
can be emulated by wrapping strips of Mu metal around power cords, using a right hand twist. I then use copper tape, conductive adhesive to hold the mu metal to the cable body. I also ground the end of that copper strip for good effect, using a bit of heat shrink to keep everything very tight.
As you point out, the noise floor of the AC drops.
BTW, the Shun Mook cable jackets follow the same principles, for the most part.
Stu
It undergoes a special hydrogen annealing process to achieve the high permeability. Mechanical deformation may disrupt the grain alignment and reduce the permeability. See the Wikipedia article on mu-metal.
definitely true with mu metal plate, not so with mu metal foil. If the bend radius is kept within 4 to 8 times the material thickness, the effects are minimized.
I use mu metal foil 10 mil in thickness, with very little ill effect. The bonus is that it is also very flexible and can follow the outer jacket of a PC quite well. In placing the copper foil tape over it and using heat shrink over the ensemble, the PC remains flexible but is still dampened. I generally follow up with braided polyester sleeving to give a finished look and the cable looks and mechanically acts quite normally, just a wee bit stiffer.
Stu
:)
The roller balls work in the horizontal dimension and rotationally too. Horizontal movement is not unidirectional.
They are vertical couplers. The balls make for a tiny point of contact top and bottom. So the resonant frequencies of the balls do matter here, but I'll leave it to the sophisticated theorists to explain that. The slope of the cup also matters.
Al's are large metal spoons that are sort of oval as I recall and seated in something like urethane, which has absorption/isolation capacities of its own, then that is on top of the beams of his rack. So he eliminated the shelving entirely, as the roller assemblies fit neatly under his Wadia.
I use smaller roller ball assemblies for the rotational/horizontal dimension and mine are seated differently. For the vertical dimension I use Norsorex (dead/unhappy/sad) balls. Excellent isolators and I understand they are used in electron microscopy for such critical vibration control too. I do use a sandwich shelf as a seismic sink between the roller balls under the components and the dead balls between shelf and rack. This works well for me. I add some Dynamat in some places sparingly to damp the cabinets. But my units are all much lighter than Al's.
Al also has some DIY tweaks to keep his cabling from adding vibrations to the mix and/or microphonics. Ask him about that.
I'm trying to solve the same problem. I'm thinking air-powered or other, load-specific springs. I see them on the McMaster Carr website, but can't post the link. Only problem is that the air versions need to be inflated and re-adjusted from time to time.
You can do this by going to a photography-film supply house and buying 4 of their 25 pound shot bags and putting one at the feet of each leg, in some cases you can even wrap them around each leg... there a surprising amount of sonic junk in the flooring, unless you have a spec floor designed for noise attenuation, like the best studios and listening rooms will have (many have an intenal damping layer of dry sand poured into a subfloor)... carpet and carpet underlay is terrible coupling material...
small bicycle tubes cost just dollars and do a good job. it takes a little moving equipment around to get them level.
I've experimented with quite a few tweaks/setups, but not the commercial ones, as my pockets are largely empty. My tutors are the inmates here who went those ways before or simultaneously. The best advice is still that you cannot escape trying things yourself and that one setup doesn't do it all in any system.
There is no perfect isolation. Even with magnetic levitation, you still deal with component generated vibes (as you recognize) and airborne vibes. And from what I've seen, air bladder type isolation that touches the component cabinetry is as likely to deal with component vibes as a lot of other tweaks, so you may be off there too. Every one of these "isolation" devices has its weakness and everything that touches the cabinets has a sonic signature of its own. The idea that one magic device is totally "neutral" might be more the holy grail than the actuality, though some are clearly better in that regard than others.
And then there's the taste factor. One of my most trusted informants on AA actually recommends using hardwoods to "tune" the vibes, as opposed to constantly trying to totally eliminate them!
There's even some controversy over the concept that the isolation or coupling devices "drain" vibes from the component. So what you ask - which we've all asked at one time or another as well - is not going to get the type of answer that you may expect.
Having said all those negatives, I think you're trying to do the right thing. I've found vibe control to be a godsend to my sound, as have others. So by all means do go for it.
IMHO, you get more component damping by using tweaks that are designed for that, such as Dynamat or other damping products. You need isolation or coupling in 3 dimensions to control all the usual vibes, not just in any one direction, and what works in one isn't necessarily the same as for the other 2 dimensions.
Since you mention the Monaco, I trust David Aiken's views on this and many other vibrational controls. He loves his Monaco, but even with that he has played with different shelving and footer schemes from their stock. Look up his posts on the Monaco (and other vibe experiments) if you haven't already.
Hi bartc, thank you for your take on this issue. It doesn't surprise me that David Aiken found improvements with footers on the Monaco shelves ( I haven't read his posts ) as the component footers would be far from perfect at coupling to the dampened shelf. I have read a lot of posts on vibration control and believe that what most DIY tweaks do ( such as bicycle tubes which I've tried ) is skew the frequency response over part of the frequency band - heavily dependent on compatibility with rack/stand in use for acceptable results, as well as choice of cables, components etc. which may be designed with a frequency hump intentionally. If one pursues the holy grail of audio, then neutral component /cable selection is a pre-requisite and footers need to be neutral in turn across the frequency band. I believe that nearly all commercialy available footers skew the frequency response i.e. imprint their own signature on the sound ( the better footers doing this to a lesser degree than others ) due to an incapacity to truly isolate across all frequencies. I initiated this post hoping someone could comment on the promosing graphite( SE ) Tune Blocks or Equa Rack footers, which would appear to be approaching the ideal of sonic neutrality, at least as far as I can tell from my research. Srajan from Six Moons compared the Equa Rack to the Grand Prix Audio Monaco and found them to be nearly indistinguishable, despite very different design approaches. State of the art isolation footers, should by themselves sound sonically very close ( if approaching ideal functionality and neutrality) and in theory, make shelf/rack far less of an issue. I have been busy 'tuning' my system through exploration of stand/ materials/footers (in effect a skewing of freqencies - which I find leads to a type of 'audiophile nervosa' ) for many years now and am looking to move beyond this, if at all possible. I live in Oz and can't get to try the above footers as easily as someone in the U.S., hence my post.
You made the wrong guess. I did not find improvements with footers on the Monaco shelves.
I started out with the stock acrylic shelves and experimented a little but all the footers I tried sounded worse than simply sitting the component, with it's own stock feet, directly on the shelf.
I tried replacing the acrylic shelf under my CDP with one of GPA's Formula shelves, a composite of carbon fibre, acrylic, and something else. It is definitely superior to the acrylic and, once again, footers were worse than simply sitting the component on the shelf. I subsequently replaced my second shelf with a Formula shelf.
It's true that everything skews the frequency balance somewhat but that doesn't mean that everything is bad. Some things skew the balance a lot less than others and the Monaco is definitely in that catergory—very, very little sonic footprint so therefore very neutral. That's what I regard as good. You can't avoid some character but you can minimise that character, and you can minimise it extremely well with some approaches.
I just checked your details and you're in Brisbane. So am I. E-mail me and we can chat via phone if you like. May take me a few days get back to you since I just got home today from surgery to remove my prostate and I'm feeling buggered. Just answered a few e-mails, read a few posts here and picked up on this thread and now I'm totally buggered again.
We also have a local audio club, the Queensland Audio Club, and I maintain the mailing list. Next meeting is early October. Let me know if you're interested. They're a good crew and you get to hear some good systems plus some good socialisation into the bargain.
David Aiken
LOL
Ask David Aiken for his advice. He's in Oz too and faces the same limitations with product availability that you do, I'd imagine. And he's tried all sorts of commercial and DIY schemes for shelves, footers, racks, etc.
As to those reviews of the Equa Rack (in 6moons or otherwise), as I recall that tuning that ER (the one with all the balls, right?) was a monster of a job, compared to what they said of the Monaco. The approach is very different, though the final results sounded as though they might be similar.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
