|
|
Post by MartinT on Aug 8, 2014 8:22:11 GMT
Support components seem to fall into two broad camps: isolation (preventing vibrations from reaching the component) and damping (creating a path to move resonance quickly to ground). There is a third type of active isolation table, such as the Vibraplane, that is too expensive to contemplate for most systems.
The reason equipment supports are so important is that all devices - not just mechanical devices like a turntable - are susceptible to microphonic feedback both airborne and mechanically through the feet. Not just valve electronics, either, since resistors, capacitors and inductors are microphonic to a lesser extent, too. They therefore require, to a greater or lesser degree depending on how they are constructed, both isolation and damping.
 
Let me give you a few examples of how critical the correct support can be for a component. Firstly, my Technics turntable already sits on four Isonoe feet, themselves resting on my fully sprung and floating Solid Tech system rack. You would think that nothing could get through that level of isolation, but you'd be mistaken. The introduction of Techniboots over the Isonoes gave me a further lift in sound quality. A second example would be my Ayre SACD player, previously resting on Aurios MIB bearings (and on the same system rack), well regarded by audiophiles and quite expensive. I substituted them for a set of three inexpensive Deflex SuperPods and the lift in sound quality, clarity and extra depth to the soundstage was quite noticeable and very pleasing. Thirdly, putting four tiny RDC 5 Cones under the metal feet of my Aurorasound VIDA phono preamp made a small but noticeable change in the presence area, in particular electric guitar, bringing it more forward in the soundstage. Finally, I was almost dumbfounded the other day to hear the effect of three original Stillpoints/Cups placed under MikeMusic's Pass Labs preamp, the same model as mine. Everything improved: clarity, bass power, dynamics. It was almost like an upgrade to the next model in the product range. I have since used RDC Cones under mine to similar effect.
I hasten to add that adding good supports won't be a panacea for poor or poorly matched equipment. Get the basics right, though, and this final level of tuning can be quite additive (as in, the effect increases the more equipment you support) across the entire system.
The lesson for me is that there is no single solution for supporting equipment - experimentation is the order of the day. However, it is almost certain that, with careful testing and a handful of different types to hand, you can find something which will improve the sound quality. It can often be fun and needn't be expensive. If you're on a low budget, start with halved squash balls or a bicycle inner tube between two shelves.
|
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Aug 8, 2014 8:33:33 GMT
Most of my kit is now sitting on some sort of additional support.
All of it is on Mana racks with themselves sitting on Mana Soundstages
The current level is
Wooden Cones
Pods (Mini, Focal or Super)
Stillpoints, then with bases
Black Ravioli with spacers has also been auditioned and is somewhere around Stillpoints territory
I'll be adding to this when I have found my feet - pun intended !
|
|
|
|
Post by brian2957 on Aug 9, 2014 8:05:49 GMT
I was using oak cones ( not RA ) on all my equipment . However gazjam brought some RDC cones over to mine the other day and , under my big Sony amp , the improvement was both immediate and very audible . I ordered a set immediately  |
|
|
|
Post by AlanS on Aug 9, 2014 8:31:38 GMT
I must be really lucky or just play at levels (phones too) which causes no microphonic feedback. It saves so much bother. I can tap any go my boxes, Cables - nothing audible.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Aug 9, 2014 8:48:03 GMT
You won't hear all of it as audible effects, Alan. Some of the vibrations are very low level (and even subsonic in frequency) but still affect playback. We're not talking about microphonic feedback, which is a gross problem requiring immediate attention.
Here is a very good talk by Max Townshend.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlanS on Aug 9, 2014 11:33:51 GMT
Well I sat through that talk. I'll live with the tiny difference rather than try this and that in case I hear any improvements. After all if you choose the wrong devices it will sound worse apparently.
My LP12 sits on a complex self built structure composed of slate, high density MDF, weighted and sits in an alcove. The DAC on top of the CD player, that on top of the amp which all sits on acrylic sheet stand. Headphone and Phono amps stand on their "edge" thinnest surfaces. If all looks a mess but sounds fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by shuggie on Aug 9, 2014 11:51:45 GMT
It is easy to assume that equipment supports are all about isolation and damping but actually there is far more to the subject than that. When considering isolation, there may be a need to prevent externally conducted energy (vibration) getting into a sensitive piece of equipment, eg a record player. That's feasible and in theory desirable; however also consider energy that originates in the equipment - it has to go somewhere and conventional isolation spring systems may prevent that energy from getting out too. Also consider that a sprung isolator, such as the Isonoe foot, represents part of a mass-spring system, whose natural frequency depends on stiffness and load. So, support a piece of equipment on sprung feet where each spring sees a different mass loading, and you end up with a number of competing systems in terms of natural frequency. That's why I have always been slightly puzzled by suspended turntable designs where the sub-chassis is (usually) supported by springs having (in effect) wildly different resonant characteristics. I would have designed a subchassis with identical mass loading at each corner, thereby avoiding the problem of individual spring systems fighting each other. Damping seems feasible too, because we often feel that something that 'rings like a bell' is naturally bad and to be avoided, eg record player platters. In the case of a mass-spring system, damping helps to flatten out the transmissibility peak, but also to lessen the degree of isolation either side of the resonant frequency (simple theory that you can read about online, or I can recommend some text books). So, the need to apply a bit of control to the mass-spring system can also have effects in terms of energy transmission. Presumably that's why Linn only used light foam inserts to damp the LP12's springs. The really intelligent way of looking at this is to analyse where potentially destructive energy originates, and how to direct it to places where it can be dealt with effectively, either inside the equipment or outside. So, the equipment support might be seen as a conductor of energy rather than an isolator. Really intelligent designs, like those from Leading Edge, do both of those things. So, in my book, it is better to (acoustically) couple a component to a massy and energy-dispersive element (eg a heavy, well- damped platform, that happens to be well isolated from external energy inputs. Coupling is another subject altogether, maybe for another day. |
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Aug 9, 2014 12:24:10 GMT
I wonder how many different issues we are battling with and how many different theories can work.
Not knowing the technology I find it strange that the different theories work together to further improve the sound
We could be at the beginning of something here
I still remember the arguments from many years ago that speaker cables can make a difference, then supports for kit and in the past few years mains.
None of it 'real hifi', IE kit, but so very important
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Aug 10, 2014 11:01:05 GMT
Only thing I've got is an Atacama soundstage isolation platform which was cheap from Richer one day. Just use it under my valve amp and it seems to work fine. Wouldn't have paid full price for it though - would have just used squash baws.
|
|
|
|
Post by jammy on Aug 10, 2014 11:15:17 GMT
OP.........SUPPORT.........HELP.
Now tricky but I have done my sums and ....
That fukin rip off sales mearchant RUSS ANDREWS.
As Slic.
As Kimber.
As Etc Etc Etc ......Rport.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Aug 10, 2014 11:18:44 GMT
...and your point is?
|
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on Aug 11, 2014 9:20:30 GMT
That the efficacy of any isolation or support needs to be split in two categories -
1] Explanation of its efficacy per se
2] Explanation of its efficacy vis a vis its price .
The example i quote is still points record weight . Its price is as far as i can establish a bloody great big rip off . Even if it has an efficacy in respect of category 1 , I absolutely fail to understand how is can have a efficacy in category 2 over and above a £20 piece of metal .
|
|
|
|
Post by Stratmangler on Aug 11, 2014 10:24:49 GMT
That the efficacy of any isolation or support needs to be split in two categories - 1] Explanation of its efficacy per se 2] Explanation of its efficacy vis a vis its price . The example i quote is still points record weight . Its price is as far as i can establish a bloody great big rip off . Even if it has an efficacy in respect of category 1 , I absolutely fail to understand how is can have a efficacy in category 2 over and above a £20 piece of metal . If the Stillpoints record weight has material costs of just £20 just what does that have to do with the argument? The weight itself is not a single moulded part, it is comprised of a number of engineered parts which have to be made and assembled. Try that cost trick with a car, and you end up with several billets of metal, a few containers of lubricant, hydraulic fluid and so on, and you don't have a means of transport sat on your drive. Is the additional cost of using the materials to manufacture a motor vehicle a ripoff? Probably not, considering all of the engineering and manufacturing skills that are required. Back to the Stillpoints record weight - it's expensive, that's definite. It is a low volume sales item, and as such will remain expensive - economies of scale are very much in force with this item. Would I have one? Probably not, it's an expensive item. So far I've not been too impressed with the effect of using a record weight - in my experience you gain exaggerated low end response and lose musical coherence. The Stillpoints weight might be different, but seeing that I haven't heard a record played with a Stillpoints weight in situ I cannot make comment other than it's an expensively engineered piece of kit. I can't make comments about the Stillpoints weight being a ripoff, and neither can you DQ, not without trying the thing first. Leave that windmill alone Don Quixote - it isn't a giant, and it's not trying to attack you  |
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Aug 11, 2014 10:40:25 GMT
That the efficacy of any isolation or support needs to be split in two categories - 1] Explanation of its efficacy per se 2] Explanation of its efficacy vis a vis its price . The example i quote is still points record weight . Its price is as far as i can establish a bloody great big rip off . Even if it has an efficacy in xrespect of category 1 , I absolutely fail to understand how is can have a efficacy in category 2 over and above a £20 piece of metal . When did the price of something make it more or less efficacious? Unless it's being sold as a means of saving you money (which it most assuredly is not), that argument is surely irrelevant. Either it works or it doesn't. It can't work better if it's cheaper, or for that matter, vice versa. Anyway, I don't think it's yet been tried as an equipment support (see title of thread). |
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on Aug 11, 2014 11:20:35 GMT
Price is fundamental to efficacy . You will of course have seen in the news a £90.000 a year cancer drug as been denied an NHS licence cause it aint worth the money vis-a-vis NICE's efficacy criteria .
by any definition of efficacy , is something does the same thing as a cheaper alternative it is less effective .
p.s - can you both try and make your point more succinctly as i am not quite sure what either of you are actually trying to say or the points you are trying to make .
additionally , irrelevant semantic precision is poor sarcasm . I said example !!!!!!!!!!!
I get the impression you are just disagreeing with me for the sake of it , rather than any particular point or purpose .
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 11, 2014 12:30:28 GMT
Surely it is up to the individual to determine the efficacy of an item? Presumably there is nothing to stop a cancer patient from stumping up their own cash if they think it is efficacious to do so. I'm not saying its right just that the option is there if they can afford to do so.
Frankly it is a matter of perceived value and everyone is different in this regard. You are entitled to your opinions of course DQ but you do so love to browbeat others with them, a legacy of your profession perhaps...
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Aug 11, 2014 12:51:30 GMT
I've just had a look for "isolation gel pads" to replace the blue tac underneath my speakers. £15 for Atacama ones!! I then searched rubber feet and as just one of many options came up with these; www.ebay.co.uk/itm/200827917940 Yet again,the price difference will kick in - the atacama ones will not make my speakers sound 4x better so it's a no brainer. I'm gonna wait till I get home though and measure the holes on the top plates and get screw in jobs. |
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Aug 11, 2014 13:02:34 GMT
I get the impression you are just disagreeing with me for the sake of it , rather than any particular point or purpose . Succinctly: I get the impression you are just raising these points for the sake of it.
I have a Stillpoints weight. It was expensive. It makes a relatively small but positive improvement to sound quality. I bought it and therefore accepted the value proposition.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Aug 11, 2014 13:10:07 GMT
You REALLY go in for all that stuff MartinT! I'm not knocking you - you must just love fettling away and faffing around with it all. Must have a sympathetic mrs. Mine wouldn't put up with it - all that stuff would take up ornament/picture/junk spaces!  Is yer car full of bead drivers cushions,sunscreens,thing you plug into the (double)cigarette lighter socket and electronic gizmos?  Just pullin yer leg.... |
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on Aug 11, 2014 13:10:31 GMT
Surely it is up to the individual to determine the efficacy an item? Presumably there is nothing to stop a cancer patient from stumping up their own cash if they think it is efficacious to do so. I'm not saying its right just that the option is there if they can afford to do so. Frankly it is a matter of perceived value and everyone is different in this regard. You are entitled to your opinions of course DQ but you do so love to browbeat others with them, a legacy of your profession perhaps... but that way lies extreme solipsism and if this is what you want then we should all give up trying to communicate and looking for shared meaning . sort of leaves the forum without a raison detre though . I do not object to anybody spending their money on expensive foo [ i object to an economic system which makes foo viable but that is a different argument ] However i do object to somebody telling me that the foo is better than the cheap equivalent without explanation or without being challenged . And is is not browbeating , the logical conclusion of your post is that we all accept what we say at face value , well sorry that way lies chaos and confusion . You need to be consistent dave , I can point you to your own posts in which you have adopted a cynical , questioning and incredulous attitude . Again I am not at all sure of the point you are trying to make . |
|
Just pullin yer leg....