|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.115.217.131
In Reply to: RE: Honestly, Stu... posted by rlw on March 30, 2015 at 14:25:53
RW said, "A well-recorded/mastered 24 bit, 96 KHz recording is all that is needed to recreate the original sonic event. Fiddling about with cork vs. rubber footers under your amp (or some such other Tom-foolery) is a waste of time and effort."
RW also said, "I realize that many will disagree with me, and may God bless them. But I stand by my pronouncements and have yet to have anyone prove me wrong on my major points..."
RW, I disagree with you, but only because you're wrong. And I can prove you're wrong on perhaps all of your major points.
Moreover, there is not one shred of evidence that a well-engineered high-res recording is night and day difference over a well-engineered Redbook format recording. Which is the type of difference required for your hi-rez statement to be true.
As for your statement of fiddling with cork vs rubber footers being tomfoolery, well, I can demonstrate you are equally wrong there as well. To be fair, cork and rubber both fall into the "vibration isolation" methodology camp and since it's against the laws of physics to isolate anything from all sources of vibration simultaneously, that is indeed tomfoolery.
However, somebody dabbling with vibration controlling methodologies and executions has to start somewhere and it only makes sense to start there since that is where the vast majority are and where product is readily available and where the masses have settled on for their solutions.
I will not speak favorably for cork, rubber, or kitty litter, nor will I ever use the term "vibration isolation" in a positive light. But I can say and prove that the lack of proper vibration control induces more distortion than perhaps all other forms of distortion combined (impossible to prove on paper) and has induced the greatest performance-limiting governor on every last playback system. Proper being the key word here.
Follow Ups:
Within the audiophile realm, the notion of vibration isolation is ubiquitous and often misleading. However, the most notorious ignorance concerns the term vibration control for audiophile purposes. Vibration control devices and methods should be implemented as tools to manipulate resonances rather than try to treat them like an enemy. Compliant materials such as polymers/silicone can be a very valuable tool for system tuning purposes, especially when implemented with non-compliant material devices such as cones, discs, balls. IME, shifting the resonant characteristics of an audio device is the paramount objective rather than vibration deadening, or dubious vibration isolation approaches.
I like your summation. I firmly believe as you do that resonance control is manipulating the frequencies which are offending and perhaps transmuting them to more audibly pleasant ones.
Why a=waste the energy being generated? I find that using them is more effective in the long run
Thanks for your kind response, unclestu.
I should clarify that I find vibration damping to be a vital aspect of vibration control, but it's not the only goal. An experiment years ago with a wooden cutting board implemented for a DIY vibration control platform helped shape my perspective when it comes to vibration deadening vs. resonance manipulation. The cutting board featured a deep groove routed around the surface edge on one side of the board intended as a juice channel. It occurred to me that the groove could be filled with Blue-Tack for vibration damping purposes. It was amazing how bad the board sounded after filling the groove, so out the Blue-Tack went. Simple compliant footers positioned under the board, sounded much more musical as a result, with further vibration control devices placed between the top of the board and the component placed upon it.
Cheers, Duster
Many years ago, when I first tried bamboo cutting boards under lightweight digital gear (pro dacs and work clocks), it was a "holy smokes!" moment. Even something so lightweight could make a world of discernible difference....
I find the essential sonic signature of laminated bamboo boards to be an interesting thing to work with. In and of itself, laminated bamboo does not produce an interesting sound, but it behaves well as a plinth to provide a neutral sounding, non-compliant/rigid layer for compliant pads/footers to work against without adding coloration of its own. An impression of resonance dissipation seems to be involved in the presentation, IME. It's similar to carbon fiber composites in that matter. I find carbon fiber composites to sound intrinsically transparent compared to other non-compliant materials such as resonant metals or woods for vibration control purposes.
YMMV
I should have stated that the lightweight gear, of course, simply rested on the bamboo cutting boards via their rubber feet....nothing aftermarket.
What occurred was an overall gain in clarity without any change in tonality....much in keeping with your sonic descriptions. Considering that the smallest boards cost around $5 or $6, it WAS the proverbial bargain. And they were purdy....
"Vibration control devices and methods should be implemented as tools to manipulate resonances rather than try to treat them like an enemy."
Care to share an example of your manipulations of resonant characteristics is undeniably the one and only solution to cure or absolutely minimize distortions induced by under-controlled vibrations?
If so, please don't quote your buddy Herbie again as we've already gone down that path and without success.
BTW, how is vibration deadening any different from isolation? On paper, doesn't a dead vibration only result from isolation or damping?
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: