|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
99.238.134.20
In Reply to: RE: One last thought posted by stehno on May 07, 2015 at 17:36:57
I always felt that the theory of an air bladder under an audio device....Was "to roll with the punch"...The airborne vibrations produced in the music room would ultimately disturb the components chassis as well as it's electronic innards.
Rather than the airborne forces striking a fully resistant mass that will become inevitably excited....The fluidity of an air filled rubber tube
under the component would theoretically allow micro movement (vibration) to occur and dissipate.The benefit being that of a less harmful(distortional) effect on the music chain.
"What a great ride"!!
Follow Ups:
Forget for the moment what the component is placed on.Just focus on the vibration-sensitive instrument (component) itself. Is it or is it not being bombarded and becoming saturated with vibrations within? Is the mechanical energy stationary within the component or is it traveling throughout?
If an air-filled bladder is as excitable by vibrations as the air in the room, how is that bladder able to offer any relief? Might the bladder absorb a few vibrations along the way? Perhaps but doubtful. Might you even hear an audible difference or improvement. Doubtful. Even so why bother?
Might the easily excitable bladder act more like a mirror creating a resistance to keep the mechanical vibrations inside the sensitive instrument? Highly likely.
You really should give consideration to a high-performance lamp where everything from the wall plug to the lightbulb and every connection in between has an effect on the lightbulb's performance.
The more superior the electrical conduit the better performing the lightbulb. Try loosening the wires at the switch or the wall plug and the see what kind of performance the lightbulb provides. Besides the potential flickering, dimming, completely on and off, or an otherwise unstable light source, the lightbulb's lifespan is also greatly shortened.
Or think of the earth's ground which I and a few others would attest both electrical and mechanical energy are seeking. If you install a lighting rod kit, you don't just lay the grounding spike on top of the dirt. In fact, instructions make it very clear to pound that mother of a spike at least 6ft into the ground to make a superior connection with the earth.
When you build a architectural dwelling, you don't lay the foundation on top of the ground. You secure that foundation deep into the earth.
I would go so far as to attest that regardless of the industry, the foundation determines the ultimate performance of whatever is placed on top of it.
You could build a $5M home on an inferior foundation and you'd be lucky if the house lasted 3 years. Or you could build a $100,000 house on a superior foundation and that dwelling may last 300 to 500 hundred years.
"High-end" audio is no different. An improper or inferior foundation will induce the biggest performance limiting governor you'll ever encounter. A superior foundation will allow your components and system to soar far higher than even the designers thought possible.
You wanna' keep believing that vibration isolation is the only or superior vibration methodology? Fine. But why not challenge yourself to perform this little experiment. Place a live bookshelf speaker so some type of serious oscillator or vibrator on top of your components or rack.
Dollars-to-donuts says you will not hear any audible degradation in your playback system's sonics. Why? Because your components are already so saturated with trapped with air-borne and internally-generated vibrations, that it cannot sound any worse.
Moreover, if you really understood the sonic harm induced by under controlled vibrations that severely cripples the component's precision and accuracy , at the very least you'd roll your eyes every time you saw an ad with a speaker sitting on top of a component or rack. At the most, you'd be posting on blogs like this stating the advertiser must be a real nut job.
On another note. If you want to still think vibration isolation is a viable methodology, why choose an air-bladder where its contents are "light as air" and just as excitable.
Isn't a feather more easily excited by vibrations than a block of solid of metal or concrete?
Isn't air lighter than a feather?
Edits: 05/08/15
Hi Stehno,
I read your carefully thought through comments regarding the negative effect of resonance within the music chain..In fact I am in complete agreement with every point you made...I commented on the air bladder query within the limitations of that particular type of device..The fact that it will allow devices to 'roll with the punch" of airborne shock waves offers somewhat of an improvement over using nothing...In my own system and from very early on I have been a firm believer in mass damping and driving micro vibrations to ground...I think the only area that we may differ on is the use of sand...
In those instances where you cannot connect the drain points to a true base such as a poured concrete floor...(for example where a raised sub-floor)has been used...I have found that a good sized low profile box filled with 20 or 30 lbs of dry sand can be an effective method. It will allow a pathway for excess resonance in which to dissipate as heat within The millions of vibration reactive particulates. I have found that this method also provides for good isolation as well..In my set up every device is topped with heavy copper and sand filled boxes..and every thing is mounted on points...It is only after I spent much time experimenting and dealing with the issues of unwanted resonance being entrapped within components that I was able to hear how well my system could perform.
"What a great ride"!!
It's nice to know that we are in agreement. Well, sort of in agreement.I never use the term isolation and audio in a positive sense. Based on what I think I know about isolation and from what I stated earlier, it simply is impossible to isolate all sources of vibrations simultaneously and when isolate one source you instantly trap one or more other sources of vibrations captured at the object.
As stated earlier and in the paragraph above we also disagree about the sand and the transfer of heat in this application. But sand inside a hollowed metal stand is better than nothing as it does make for a good mass loading weight helping to ensure the stand better connects with the sub-flooring underneath. But make no mistake, the mechanical energy is transferring via the metal stand, not the sand within.
Extreme forms of connecting disparate objects is paramount when attempting to create a superior mechanical conduit. Mechanical energy does not travel as fast as electrical energy and hence it takes just a little compromise to create a large bottleneck preventing mechanical energy from traveling. If it cannot easily transfer from the first disparate object to the second disparate object, it will remain traveling within this first and start dissipating there.
You cannot create a superior mechanical conduit to sand. Concrete yes, sand no.
I always focus on the most extreme forms of tight coupling and using the hardest materials reasonably available. To the best of my knowledge that is the only hope of creating a superior mechanical conduit.
Edits: 05/10/15
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: