|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
73.114.133.239
Hey Inmates,I was wondering what, if anything, those of you with tube preamps do for vibration control. In the past I had a CJ Premier 17LS, which I believe came with silicon ring dampers installed on the four signal tubes. I left them in place but didn't bother with any other vibration control approaches, and I loved the sound.
I now have the Rogue RP-5 which does not come with tube dampers. I have replaced the stock JJ 12au7s with NOS Mullards.
I am looking at Herbie's stuff. I have not called him yet, but I assume he would recommend his own tube dampers as well as either his Tender Feet or something similar between the preamp and the equipment rack, and likely also some kind of vibration puck for the top. I will say that the Rogue's removable cover is thin and very resonant, though I'm not sure that matters given the 30 pound weight of the piece.
I wonder, though, if regular silicon ring dampers would work as well as Herbie's tube dampers on 12au7s since the 12au7s are cool/warm running tubes (so his open design might not be necessary)? Also, I am interested in thoughts on footers, damping pucks or similar stuff, and whether there are alternatives to Herbie's products that work as well at lower cost (including DIY options). While I believe his prices are reasonable for what he provides, they do add up and I have other components in the system to think about.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Josh
___
"If you are the owner of a new stereophonic system, this record will play with even more brilliant true-to-life fidelity. In short, you can purchase this record with no fear of its becoming obsolete in the future."
Edits: 06/09/17Follow Ups:
NT
you should try cross posting this over at the tube forum. Those guys are level headed, non bias or overly subjective. Most times when I post there I get an answer based in EXPERIENCE that is backed up with an explanation in engineering terms. Those guys ARE the ones designing tube amps!!!!
I know from experience that vibration control is an issue in speaker design. But a properly built cabinet usually fixes that problem. However some people have taken a simple problem and made a mountainous issue (and $$$) out of it. So take that to heart when reading how "any audiophile CAN'T live without this or that".
My two cents is there is a level of vibration in SOME gear, not all!! Don't start going down so many rabbit holes and enjoy your system before buying more stuff.
you might like 'em. :)
Actually I do use tube rings. The simple tan brown ones. Honestly in "my" setup I can't tell any difference. But I still use them on preamp tubes.
The way my hearing is going anyway. Tube rings aren't going to be the deal breaker on my stereo.
That would be my first inclination of what to tell you ;-)
I hate audio tweaks, but vibration control DOES make a difference.
I try not to let anyone see me, though. Sometimes I sneak putting weights on top of equipment, loudspeakers, well, turntable, especially. Sometimes I have cork strips that I put under equipment.
I think that tube vibration control could be a good thing, especially if no one will see it if it is in an enclosed chassis or doesn't look dorky. I may even do that next time I buy a new set of tubes.
I find the difference of vibration control to be almost imperceptible, but it definitely improves the experience, whether imagined or real.
I know what you mean. I wanted to wear a mask when stirring the sand I had just baked in the oven for my speaker stands! It was damp, so logically. . .
I just hope the neighbors didn't see me FFS! ;-).
___
"If you are the owner of a new stereophonic system, this record will play with even more brilliant true-to-life fidelity. In short, you can purchase this record with no fear of its becoming obsolete in the future."
Just for future reference, if you get mason's sand at some place like Menard's it's already very dry, since the moisture content in concrete and mortar has to be carefully controlled. And you won't have to worry about someone asking what you're baking.
Of course its a national monument, so smuggling sand will have to be discrete, but I can get it for you if the price is right for the risk.
It isn't quartz, so the vibes won't make the stuff ring or cause any interfering piezoelectric effects.
Its gypsum; much finer grained than quartz sands. Smaller particles pack better; less open space, therefore provide much greater dampening effect. its from a desert, so drying won't be necessary.
For weighting applications, I prefer coastal tabular basalt from the Pacific Northwest instead of granites or diorites from interior regions. Much denser and heavier per given size, which is why the granitic continents float on it. I can also provide this for you at a price, but paying for the heavy airline bag isn't cheap.
Somebody made little neoprene rubber/plastic (Sorbothane, I think) rings to slide down around tubes to damp vibes. Better than chewing gum, but much more expensive.
The chewing gum idea, that is!
Loved the read, by the way! LOL.
___
"If you are the owner of a new stereophonic system, this record will play with even more brilliant true-to-life fidelity. In short, you can purchase this record with no fear of its becoming obsolete in the future."
I have a tube pre that uses S4S tubes. Microphonic as all get out. Tube rings didn't do anything. Wrap with aluminum backed tape and slide on a copper coupler. So far work's the best.
You ask "why bother?", and I can only say to find out if I can hear a difference in the sound or not, and, if so, whether the difference is an improvement in the sound or not.
Whether or not microphonics are what contributes to what makes tubes sound "good", I'd like to explore which, if any, anti-vibration devices improve the sound of my preamp and which don't and am asking those who've experimented with such devices (including footers, platforms and tube dampers) for their experiences because it's fun to discuss such things with fellow hobbyists and can be instructive.
It would seem possible to me that even if the slight microphonics that are inherent to any filament in a well made vacuum tube are euphonic, at some point microphonics become unpleasant and distracting, and that those might be caused by external airborne or mechanical feedback that might be minimized by a tube damper.
But that gets me to pigctureguy's response below, which has me questioning how tube dampers work in the first place (if, indeed, they do).
___
"If you are the owner of a new stereophonic system, this record will play with even more brilliant true-to-life fidelity. In short, you can purchase this record with no fear of its becoming obsolete in the future."
From a physics point of view, wouldn't straight up electromagnetic electrostriction/forces change the relative mechanical alignments and hence voltages and gains in a vacuum tube on its own?
And add to that acoustic feedback?
If a little reverb is euphonic (and it sure seems like it can be from a little experimentation with foobar 2000 dsp), then I would hardly discount the importance of vibration control.
But it also may not be that the maximum anti-vibration is optimal, it might be better to have proper frequency control and resonance.
BTW, this is why I think tube 'rolling' might make a significant difference, two tubes with similar (low amplitude) electrical responses could have distinct electromechanical behaviors.
The tube holder and pins make a difference.
Of course it is a matter of taste whether a particular tweek is, or is not, an improvement. But, his point should not be quickly dismissed. I sat in on a session where a designer/builder was going through the process of voicing a new linestage. He was trying various old 310 tubes. What all agreed on which particular tubes sounded the best, and as it turned out, these were the most microphonic of the lot.
I know that logically speaking, it makes sense to damp vibrations in a system and I put a number of items, such as Symposium Ultra shelves in my system. But, I have also heard trials where "more" turned out to be "less" in terms of musical quality. In a demonstration conducted by a representative from Symposium, I heard the sound deteriorate (become dry and unpleasant) when their top of the line shelf was substituted for a lower-priced model in their lineup under a CD player. Everyone, including the company representative agreed that, in this case, it was too much damping of vibration.
I agree with you that it is worthwhile experimenting with shelves, footers and tube rings, etc. It just isn't much help following anyone's particular advice on specific products because, as with any tuning device, the results are very specific to each system, circumstance and particular taste.
Seriously. Much of what you hear, and I assume like, with your tube gear is actually due to microphonics. Nothing wrong with that.
nt
did you get a clear answer to your question. :)
But feel free to conduct your own tests to educate yourself.
and find that experience-free speculation like yours provides zero value in the real world. Do enlighten us with which ones you've used.
But then, you know better than companies like Audio Research, right?
Do you mean yourself?
I own or have owned ARC, CJ, BAT, Hagerman, Music Reference, Melos, Sonic Frontiers, EAR, Musical Fidelity and other tube gear over the years.
You'd have to be ignorant to not understand (or be open to understanding) that tube microphonics have a large effect on sound quality, especially with phono and preamplifiers. Don't believe me? Do some objective testing yourself; just don't use an AC voltage probe to test for presence of RFI.
not every single tube in every single preamp/phono stage we use is so microphonic that it greatly influences sound. All the tubes in all the gear you listed as having owned were so microphonic that you were sure it was influencing the sound?
Gotta wonder.....since no tube preamp reproduces music *without* tubes, how the hell would you determine how much a microphonic tube was influencing the sound UNLESS you had tubes available that had very low microphonics to compare 'em with?
Some of us seek out tubes with very low microphonics.
Gotta wonder....
Take tube "X"; perform measurement; place tube damper on tube "X"; repeat measurement. Repeat to your heart's content using various tubes.
You'd have to be ignorant to not understand (or be open to understanding) that tube microphonics have a large effect on sound quality
We completely agree! That is the topic under consideration. And I've found that such can cause false brightness in the results.
Not that you've actually answered the question about which dampers you've used, but why are you acting your usual role as aho?
Until further notice (and this applies to all the AA wards):
- Cease responding to one anothers' posts
- If you disagree with each other's response to a post, whether a matter of fact or opinion, direct your alternative perspective to the original poster (so long as it was neither of you). When doing so, do not refer to, obliquely or otherwise, or in any way comment in a manner that impugns, the other; The Bored will be the sole judge of whether or not this has happened and will act accordingly
- Failure by any of the parties to adhere to this agreement will result in a ban of the offending party
- Don't use the Asylum Emailer services to communicate with each other.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Fax mentis incendium gloria cultum, et cetera, et cetera...
Memo bis punitor delicatum! It's all there, black and white,
clear as crystal! Blah, blah, and so on and so forth ...
And I've found that such can cause false brightness in the results.
How did you determine that tidbit of information and did you find that it applies to all tube gear you have owned?
How did you determine that tidbit of information and did you find that it applies to all tube gear you have owned?
A concept that is totally foreign to you - experimentation.
Would you kindly answer Rick's question and mine?
You seemingly understand the challenge but are somehow unable to connect part of the solution. :)
Hint: It involves the use of an oscilloscope. If you know what one of those is, it's not too difficult to determine my test regiment.
I stand by my assertion that tube gear "sounds good", in part, due to its microphonic properties. The fact that you can change tube a preamplifier sonic signature by using tube dampers sort of illustrates my point.
Hope this wasn't too difficult to understand and that it answers your collective questions.
Hint: It involves the use of an oscilloscope. .
So, tell use what is good and what is bad on a sillyscope? Give us examples citing different tube dampers.
I stand by my assertion that tube gear "sounds good", in part, due to its microphonic properties.
Sorry to hear that.
Once again, you provide zilch in the way of definitive reasoning and conclusive answers. So what dampers have you used? Is that a difficult concept to grasp?
But then, that's we fully expect of you. In lieu of conclusive answers - you've yet to answer either Ricks or mine - you paint vague responses and reference topics but never understand the questions.
We'll leave it there as usual. :)
Tell you what... PM me your shipping address and I'll send you my Hameg HM-605 oscilloscope and my testing procedure then you can replicate my tests and publish your results. You pay for one-way shipping costs and you may keep the scope when you're done. Win, win - you and everyone else will benefit from your learning experience!
Btw, I don't recall the OP mentioning he was trying to solve a "brightness problem" with his Rogue gear.
They are called Vacuum Tubes for a reason.
A vibrating filiment doesn't transmit any vibration 'thru the air' since there isn't any.
All coupling is thru the mechanical connection of the tube thru its supports and than to the base of the tube, firmly socketed. Mechanical properties of the 'wire' in question is what provides damping initially.
Some kind of hi-temp O-Ring around the envelope? (Viton? Silicon? Nitrile? EP?)
How hot does a power tube get on the outside?
But I would also suggest that somehow the tube socket gets isolated from the chassis to prevent coupling in EITHER direction.
Any traction with such an idea? new Product?
Too much is never enough
So, as I understand what you are saying, since the microphonics are caused by an undesired motion of the filament, then a tube damper couldn't help for two reasons: (1) airborne vibration would not reach the filament through a vacuum and (2) mechanical vibration would be jiggling the filament because of the tubes coupling to the preamp socket and it's coupling to the PCB, etc., and a tube damper surely couldn't impact that.
Makes sense to me! Hmmm.
___
"If you are the owner of a new stereophonic system, this record will play with even more brilliant true-to-life fidelity. In short, you can purchase this record with no fear of its becoming obsolete in the future."
> jiggling the filament because of the tubes coupling to the preamp socket and it's coupling to the PCB, etc., and a tube damper surely couldn't impact that.
Surely it could. Acoustic sounds couple to the glass and the board. Changing the properties of the glass (which is a good stiff resonator) would change the vibrations of the tube-holder-board-filament-electrode system.
I would take the empirical experience over decades of people damping microphonics and out of control feedback howl with tube dampers.
Tube dampers may YET work at Diminishing microphonic vibes.
This is pretty easy to test and also cheaper than dirt, unless you are going thru some pirate of a parts seller who marks up the essentially inexpensive O-Rings to the moon.
If I owned tube gear, I'd test this. Yes ME. I can get a grip on the science of this pretty easily.
Find out what Size you need and buy the lowest temp material which will work. O-Rings also have what is called 'durometer', which is a measure of 'bounciness'.
Rubber may melt too easily and May work only on the lowest temp tubes. Other compounds have better temp resistance. We used (red) Silicon in some applications while for other uses we used either Viton or Buna-N. (nitrile?) For EXTREME chemical resistance (plasmas / RF / agressive chemistry) we used Ethylene Propylene = EP for short. This stuff is Wacky Expensive.
I'm just thinking that Isolaton of the tube socket from the chassis MIGHT help. Or it could hurt, since vibration in the tube would not be directly coupled to a High Mass object....the Chassis.
I'd secure the tube socket with Nylon screws and nuts and something between. Maybe sheet Silicon Rubber? I'd have to look at a current tube socket / chassis to think about what else might be done.
Airborne vibration WOULD reach the filiment but would have to mechanically couple to something which was coupled to the tube and the internals which support the filiment. That's why I'm not too 'big' on o-ring tube dampers, but would certainly devise a measurable test.
Too much is never enough
I had always heard that the power supply added the most vibration to a tube system. Is this not true?
I'd GUESS that the most vibration comes thru the AIR and back to the amp from the speakers.
60hz transformer hum?
Tube owners guess would be better than mine!
Too much is never enough
This might be more pertinent if you still had your Premier 17LS, but, in addition to staying with the stock tube dampers in mine, I've tried Sorbothane footers (which softened the presentation too much), a 2"-thick maple block (effected some improvement in image focus and bass definition), and Aurios (improved focus at the cost of over-brightening the presentation), but found the best--and unfortunately costliest--solution in my setup to be four Stillpoints Ultra Mini footers. Detail, focus, soundstage, and bottom end definition all improved without adding the glariness I heard with the Aurios.Don't know if the same would apply to the RP-5, so treat this as a for-what-it's-worth.
Jim
http://jimtranr.com
Edits: 06/10/17
Thanks, and I love your 17LS/MF2500 combo by the way! Brings back memories. I'm very much enjoying the Rogue RP-5 with my MF2250, though the 17LS has a special magic to it. I traded it in a few years ago for reasons other than its sound.I wonder if you tried the Herbie's Tenderfeet? He insists they don't soften the sound like Sorbothane and similar materials and also avoid the potential harshness of metal footers. Lots of users report positively on them. I'm going to give them a try for the RP-5, and probably my power amps, given his 90 day return policy.
The Stillpoints are too rich for me, at least as of now without trying less expensive options, though I understand they are spectacular.
___
"If you are the owner of a new stereophonic system, this record will play with even more brilliant true-to-life fidelity. In short, you can purchase this record with no fear of its becoming obsolete in the future."
Edits: 06/10/17
Hi, Josh:
I don't know how much help I can be of here, but in my second system I use Herbie's Tenderfeet under my Coda integrated amp and Oppo 103D.
Sometimes I alternate Aurios Pros under the Oppo, but there it's more of a case of simply different flavors than the Aurios or Tenderfeet being significantly better overall than the other. (The Aurios bring out a little more HF detail, IMO, while the TenderFeet are a bit more even-handed across the spectrum.)
Given their very generous return policy and (IME) excellent sonics, I think the Herbie's are a no-brainer to try.
If you want me to go into a little more detail about SQ, I'll do my best.
Take care.
Andy
This is a public service announcement . . . WITH GUITARS!!!
I'll give the Tenderfeet a shot.
___
"If you are the owner of a new stereophonic system, this record will play with even more brilliant true-to-life fidelity. In short, you can purchase this record with no fear of its becoming obsolete in the future."
I use sorbothane half-spheres as feet, the bigger the better. Sorbothane is excellent at absorbing low-frequency vibrations. I have 2-inch diameter ones under the turntable and disc players, and 1.5-inch under the preamp. Get them on ebay - pretty inexpensive, and they have stickum in the flat side.
Note that the round part of these may leave a mark on varnished, laquered, or painted surfaces if left in place for a while, so if that's important, put a piece of cardboard or paper under them.
WW
"A man need merely light the filaments of his receiving set and the world's greatest artists will perform for him." Alfred N. Goldsmith, RCA, 1922
I'm a big fan of vibe control, but it can be hot or miss. Many/most footers and such have a tendency to change the tone and/or perspective. Weather or not you like it will depend. Herbie's tube dampers? They work well. That said, they can either bring you closer to the music or they can suck the life out of it. sometimes, a little microphonics can be a good thing. I've never had good luck with footers, personally preferring platforms of various types, but they aren't cheap. If you don't mind DIY, do a search here for "sandbox". Cheap and effective.
Jack
Thanks. For platforms, I'm using the Auralex Iso Tone turntable platform under my Scout, but I had to make an MDF self to put on top because the width of the Auralex was just barely wide enough and I feared I might bump the Scout off it without the extra space. I also use their SubDude II platforms under my REL T7s. I really like the results for the subwoofers and the turntable with those platforms. There were huge improvements for the subs, which are tighter and deeper and better integrated now; with the Scout, the change was a more subtle improvement in clarity.
Since I had extra MDF after cutting the shelf for the Auralex, I had two more sheets cut, glued them together and (after sanding and painting) put them under my Oppo with the hard blue foam HVAC vibration pads under them. I can't say I hear a difference from the Oppo using that, so I might try it under my CJ power amp.
As I understand it, the theoretical difference between platforms and footers is that platforms are great for isolating the component from external vibrations, while footers are supposed to also dampen the vibrations internal to the component itself. For footers, I'll probably experiment a bit with some Herbie's stuff and DIY stuff and report back. Have you tried his stuff?
___
"If you are the owner of a new stereophonic system, this record will play with even more brilliant true-to-life fidelity. In short, you can purchase this record with no fear of its becoming obsolete in the future."
I've tried their tender feet and the small dots. They didn't do much for me. OYOH, I really like the top weights, and find them effective on some gear. As for footers Vs. platforms, that really depends on specific types. Seismic sinks (originals) have an air bladder, that mostly isolates gear from external vibrations, but they still work for me despite having a concrete floor. Symposium platforms are better for absorbing and dissipating internal vibrations. I use a combination of the two under my digital source and my turntable. I've found the combo the be extremely effective under tubed gear as well.
Jack
Are you experiencing microphonics on the RP-5?
On ARC gear I just leave the factory rings on the tubes. For other brands I've used inexpensive tube ring dampers bought off Audiogon. I'm not sure what these were made of exactly but they held up well, didn't melt, and remained pliable over years of use.
I've used Sorbothane feet and relatively inexpensive Vibrapod isolators as well as those square wood/cork blocks with ribbed rubber pads on each side.
But truth be told, I never had any indication that I needed these accessories. I added them as a precaution and for peace of mind.
I believe the main thing is to keep the preamp away from the speakers if possible! That has been my experience but I suppose some preamps (and some tubes) are more sensitive to vibration and microphonics than others.
Nope. Not hearing anything. Just for peace of mind and because I've been playing with vibration control generally on this system the past few weeks. Like you, not sure I really need to, but having fun experimenting.
___
"If you are the owner of a new stereophonic system, this record will play with even more brilliant true-to-life fidelity. In short, you can purchase this record with no fear of its becoming obsolete in the future."
nt
I use Herbie's dampers on the signal tubes in the VTL amps. For the Audio Research SP20, I used the supplied damping rings. Unit is suspended on Ceraball isolators.
There are many DIY solutions for the latter. I use tennis balls cut in half for the office and garage components. :)
Tube rings are just silicon O-Rings. Any sort not plain rubber can work. Plain rubber may melt.
The top I would find something to put on the inside of the top. Again heat resistant. Even a six by three patch would do.
For feet.. I love butyl rubber chemical bottle stoppers. $1.25 each up to $1.50 each for size 10 variety.
Tube rings "is" tube rings.
And the best pad I ever used between audio piece was a regular paper book. Yeah, found that one out by accident!
Are you having microphonic problems with that preamp? Or just looking to buy some accessories for it? I know you're real set on those tubes but some tubes are VERY prone to microphonics.
Just curious about vibration control generally. Started with my subs, then turntable and then Oppo.
___
"If you are the owner of a new stereophonic system, this record will play with even more brilliant true-to-life fidelity. In short, you can purchase this record with no fear of its becoming obsolete in the future."
I had 3 Audible Illusions preamps previous to my Rogue RP-5 and when I tried tube dampers on the Audible Illusions, it seemed to suck some of the life out of the system. For that reason I never tried it on the RP-5. As for the aluminum cover which rings like a bell, I applied some Dynamat (left over from my car stereo days) on the inside cover in a few different spots (not near the tubes), and the ringing is gone. The cover on mine doesn't seem to fit perfectly, the tolerances of the cover are a bit too tight. That disappoints me as well as the really cheesy cheap plastic remote control. The remote works well but an all metal would have given the feel of more elegance. I would gladly pay an extra hundred for that type of remote.
"Big man, pig man, ha ha charade you are.
You well heeled big wheel, ha ha charade you are."
R. Waters
The RP-5 is burning in nicely, and I'm not hearing anything that would suggest microphonics or vibration problems. But I'm in my total system vibration control phase now. ;-)The Mullards opened up with great bass and midrange very quickly (after about 6 to 8 hours), but for awhile they had what I would describe as a hard treble and a twangy sound with some guitar and piano music. Those two issues are mostly gone by now (entirely with digital and mostly with vinyl, which might just mean I need to adjust the load setting for the cart). Paul at Goodwin's said to ensure 72 hours of playing time before any "critical listening" and I only have about half of that on it now.
As far as the remote, I agree with you. It's chintzy looking and feeling. BUT, I am so thrilled to have a full feature remote that works so well and a tube preamp that is so quiet (not just during operation but on turn on and turn off as well), that I can't complain. And I like the fact that it keeps the price lower. That said, if they offer an upgraded remote in the future, I might get it as a present to myself!
Oh, and sorry to hear about the ill fitting case top. Have you considered asking Rogue to send you a replacement?
___
"If you are the owner of a new stereophonic system, this record will play with even more brilliant true-to-life fidelity. In short, you can purchase this record with no fear of its becoming obsolete in the future."
Edits: 06/10/17
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: