 
|
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 |
http://www.tivolihifi.com.au/merchant.ihtml?pid=120&lastcatid=42&step=4Has anyone tried this platform ?
The info suggests that you place it on your existing furniture. I don't want to use a rack and am thinking of sitting CDP on Aurios on the Relaxa-1 platform. This would provide both vertical and horizontal isolation without periodically pumping up a bicycle inner tube. As perspex doesn't "ring", I am thinking that such a setup should be fine. Not sure whether to sit the platform directly onto the tile floor, or on top of a slab of maple on cones resting on coins or cone blocks.
What do you guys think ??? Any potential negative impact on sound from the magnets in the Relaxa-1 base ?
Thanks,
Darren.
Follow Ups:
If you look closely at the Relaxa you'll see 4 vertical posts (2 each at opposing corners) which are used to keep the "platform" from falling off the base.These 4 posts are what will conduct any and all vertical vibrations directly to the "platform". The Relaxa is a coupling device, like cones and spikes, not an isolator.
The proof goes back to Earnshaw's Theorem of 1839. Magnetic levitation using permanent magnets is not possible. Try this yourself and you'll see; the magnets keep "sliding" off each other sideways. That's why the Relaxa has those posts.
Happy Listening!
bdiament,
Thanks again for your feedback, but I'm not sure I fully understand.I thought that the vertical posts will allow any side to side movement of the platform to flow into the perspex shelf (via the rollers) and up into anything that sits on it (such sideways/horizontal vibration would then be addressed by the Aurios sitting on the perspex shelf), but that any vertical movement of the platform will be somewhat lessened by the shelf rolling up and down the vertical posts. Doesn't this mean that the platform provides some vertical relief but no horizontal relief as it is coupled in the horizontal mode ???
If I've got it all wrong, are you saying that the Relaxa platform provides much the same benefit as Aurios ?
...And are you also suggesting that I would therefore be better off with CDP sitting on Aurios sitting on 2" maple slab sitting on half inflated 16" bicycle tube sitting on the tile floor ? Should I put another maple slab under the tube and spikes/cones under that ?
Thanks again for your help,
Darren.
1. Let's assume you can succesfully float a platform supporting a component. I think that bdiament misconstrues the coupling caused by the vertical rods. Since the rods touch the runner on the floating platform tangentially, any vibration transmitted to the floating shelf will largely be in the horizontal plane, regardless of whether it started off as a horizontal, vertical, or other vector plane vibration in the supporting platform. The biggest problem that I can see is that I think it will couple imperfectly because it is not a rigid connection, and couple more in the horizontal than the vertical as I said. Coupling isn't bad, but the best coupling is as close to complete coupling as possible because that is the most stable coupling. The coupling here is likely to vary from moment to moment as the floating shelf shifts in the horizontal plane, and that will cause variations in the level of vibration transmitted from moment to moment. Not a good thing, especially since Earnshaw's theorem, with which I am unfamiliar so I rely on bdiament here, indicates that something floating via magnetic repulsion will tend to move horizontally anyway. This leads to:2. DO NOT place Aurios on the top shelf. My understanding is that the Aurios require a STABLE horizontal base on which to sit. I doubt that a "floating" platform will meet the stability requirements. If there is any tilt at all, the centre of gravity of the component will move with the tilt, and that will affect the centre of gravity of the combined component/Aurios/floating shelf system, causing it to list in some direction. If that starts and enough horizontal motion is induced, the list will continue as the whole floating system becomes more and more unbalanced, with the possibility of the gear sliding off in the end.
I'm not saying that the Relaxa platform is essentially unstable on it's own - I really don't know because I've never seen one. To get it to work, however, one would have to ensure that the floating shelf and component, together with any interface such as a set of Aurios, were balanced with the centre of gravity of the whole floating mass acting centrally through the platform. Now, any horizontal motion of the whole floating mass will induce movement as the Aurios try to account for the horizontal motion. As a result, the component will move on top of the Aurios as intended, thereby shifting the combined centre of gravity of the floating shelf and component. Given enough of a shift in the centre of gravity of the whole floating assembly, that will cause the shelf to start to tilt. The Aurios won't be able to counter this properly because they will also have been moved off the horizontal plane in the process, and they rely on the fact that they remain stable in that plane in order for the movement of the bearings in their race to return the component to stability. In fact, destabilised in this way, the Aurios would not act to return the component to it's starting position but to keep moving in the direction that it is moving in. So, once destabilisation starts, the whole floating mass is likely to keep tilting more and more in the direction in which the original tilt started. The Aurios aren't useless in that situation, they would actually be worse than useless because they would be aggravating it. The end result will be the movement stopping as the shelf bottoms in one corner restrained by the vertical rails, always provided the Aurios and the component don't slide of the tilting shelf first. If you don't get enough horizontal motion to destabliise and tilt the platform, you will still have more horizontal motion than you would get with the Aurios sitting on a stable, non-floating, shelf and the Aurios won't work as well as they normally would as a result of that.
If you were going to try the Aurios with the Relaxa, the only place to do so would be under the Relaxa. In that case, if the shelf the Aurios are sitting on vibrates, this movement will cause horizontal movement in the Relaxa base and that will cause the vertical runners to move, transmitting vibration to the floating shelf. On the other hand, the slight movements in the floating platform that the runners are intended to restrain will transmit horizontal motion to the Relaxa base, thereby causing it to move horizontally on the Aurios and that movement will in turn result in the transmission of more horizontal motion back to the floating shelf. Sounds a bit like a feedback loop setting up, doesn't it?
My conclusion here is that the Relaxa and the Aurios would not combine well regardless of where one placed the Aurios. Use one or the other but not both!
Frankly, I'd be concerned about the Relaxa's ability to float gear. The photo shows an unloaded shelf floating which is fine, but a loaded shelf is heavier and will float much lower due to the increased mass being levitated. There will be some movement in both the horizontal and vertical planes and, because of the nature of the force producing the floating, I suspect that the frequency of vibration in both planes will reduce as the platform is loaded with more and more mass. The lower the frequency of vibration, the greater the range of vibratory movement for the same energy input, and the more trouble. In other words, if the Relaxa is going to work, it will work better for lighter gear, and work best with nothing on it at all. I don't think it's going to take much in the way of mass on the floating shelf to cause it to bottom on the supporting shelf, and that destroys the purpose of the platform itself.
There are any number of good approaches to isolation available at around the $1000 price of the Relaxa or even less. I'd suggest exploring them. I think the Relaxa idea is great in theory but I wonder about practice at this stage.
By the way, I haven't heard Aurios either but the reports I've seen by people who use them say similar things to the claims made at the web site with the Relaxa ad. Even the top model Aurios comes in considerably cheaper than the Relaxa. If I had the money and the inclination, I'd buy the Aurios and use the money I was considering spending on the Relaxa to purchase the most stable rack I could find on which to mount the Aurios and whatever component you were considering floating, plus the rest of my gear as well. That sounds like a much better outcome than trying to squeeze a bit extra performance out of one component by combining the Aurios with another isolation system.
David Aiken
David,
Wow !! Thanks for such a comprehensive reply. I think I "get it" a little better now. Very good point about the Relaxa shelf tilting. I had thought about the component weight causing the shelf to hover lower over the magnets but hadn't even thought about off balance tilting. It seems so obvious when pointed out ... of course this would remove the level surface required by the Aurios. I guess a half inflated inner tube is going to have the same problem.It sounds like there is no cheap and easy way to provide both horizontal and vertical isolation. The reason I was especially trying to isolate my CDP, is that everyone seems to agree that the source is most prone to vibration induced distortion (along with some tube pre-amps). I will have space between my speakers to have each component on its own separate platform rather than a taller rack which may degrade imaging and enable cross-vibration between components. I guess Aurios underneath and mass loading atop each component will largely prevent the latter but will not prevent the imaging degradation. Also, I can't mass load my amp (Plinius SA100/3) which runs super hot or pre-amp (BAT VK-30) which has ventilation slots over the whole surface area of the top of the chassis.
Maybe I should put the amp on Aurios on a maple slab on spikes (or cones) on small maple blocks (or coins) to protect the tile floor. This would allow free space above the amp for heat dissipation.
Then build a rigid half-height rack for the CDP and pre-amp, with maple frame and shelves, spiked feet on small maple blocks or coins, and Aurios under each component. Possibly, sitting sandbags or lead shot bags on the bottom shelf would damp some of the vibrations on their way up to the components on the higher shelves.
Does this sound like the best value-for-money scenario ?
Thanks again,
Darren.
Hi DSK, looks like you've got a tiger by the tail and he likes to run in circles . . .Another perspective -
If you're going to use any vertical isolation platform having equal-strength levitators, be they pneumatic, spring-loaded or magnetic, you will always want to place the payload on top of the platform so that the platform top is level. This often requires pushing the payload (in your case CD player, preamp, etc.) to and fro on top of the isolation platform until you finally achieve a level condition. Doing this will allow each of the vertical isolation levitation devices to be equally loaded, thus helping optimize response time and settling time when the platform is shaken by vibrations.Assuming that you will follow the above convention there is no reason why Aurios, cones or other footers would not work optimally when placed on the isolation platform between the platform top and the component bottom. The lateral shift allowed by the Aurios is close to .1 inch, hardly a distance that will promote any see-sawing or precarious tilting, particlarly since you would have leveled the platform to begin with anyway.
Additionally, the Aurios will help prevent horizontal vibrations from passing between the component and the magnetic platform, minimizing the energizing the large mass of the platform top (and vice versa).
Of course, you're always free to experiment with the configuration on your own; after all your ears are the ones that need to be satisfied. I think this will give you a good start though!
Happy listening.
Craig Goff
Product Manager - AURIOS INC.
Div. of TGE
Craig,Thanks for the info on how much the Aurios move. I've never seen them here in Australia and the reports I've had of people who've made their own version of the roller ball product talk about significantly greater movement than .1 of an inch.
I realise your comments are a bit of a "suck it and see" in terms of the 2 platforms working together, and that was on the basis that the Relaxa provided vertical isolation. My point was that I thought the Relaxa was inherently slightly unstable in the horizontal plane and that this instability would induce movement with the Aurios which would then induce more instability with the Relaxa. We're talking about a platform floated by magnetic levitation and the best thing I can think of to compare it with is something floating in free fall - it moves in some direction till restrained or blocked when it rebounds to a degree. I visualise a fair bit of minor oscillation occurring, hence the vertical restraining rails, so there would always be a bit more movement in the platform under the Aurios than there would be if they were on a conventional solid base and I can't see that as an ideal support for your product.
Re DSK's questions - I'd suggest trying a good, stable low height rack for the CDP and pre, and an amp stand for the amp, then start with an isolation product for the CDP. The Aurios do sound like a good candidate, even if I've gone in a totally different direction myself due to lack of choice here in Australia. If what you try works, then try a second set under the pre, and then on to the amp. What you may find, seeing the casing of the CDP and pre are attached to the chassis where the isolation product contacts the component, is that getting a decent isolation solution under the component will clear up some of the problems stemming from case vibration anyway by dealing with the induced chassis vibration. I'm personnally against mass loading and would prefer to use some other approach such as application of one of the light weight, constrained layer damping strips such as Cromolin (?right name? - can't remember) or the 3M damping strips.
David Aiken
David and Craig,
Thanks for your input. As much as I would love to proceed directly to the ideal solution, I can see that there is an inevitable trial & error process to go through. I guess I am just trying to eliminate as many of the possibilities as I can first by hearing from others who have tried certain combinations or proven certain theories or approaches.My proposed design is currently changing by the minute as I receive and analyse advice from people like you guys. Just gut feel, but I do like the idea of solid coupling rather than compliant materials (like Vibrapods or Sorbethane etc) between the floor and component. However, at the same time I would like to damp some of the vibrations coming up from the floor.
So..... as at this minute I am thinking .... component atop Aurios atop 2" maple slab atop spikes or cones each atop a 1" maple circle (to protect tile floor). This should give pretty solid coupling from component to floor. If I make the maple slab wide enough, I can also damp some vibrations and "fine tune" the sound by sitting sandbags on the maple slab each side of the component (but not close enough to touch the component or interfere with the Aurios). Does that sound feasible ?
David, I'm an Aussie as well and live in Melbourne. Peter McIntyre of High End Audio in NSW sells the Aurios and can be reached at petermci@highendaudio.com.au or 02 9674 7158 if you are ever inclined to give them a try.
Craig, I bought a set of Aurios from Peter a while back but haven't heard them as my system has been in storage since Christmas while we have been househunting. We have now bought a house (nice big 19' x 23' x 9' listening room) and move in 4 weeks from now. I have not yet read an unfavourable report on the Aurios and look forward to "hearing" them in my system soon. This is why I am currently "theorising" rather than "listening".
Cheers,
Darren.
Darren,Forget the marble! If you can't do that, then come to Brisbane and buy the piece I gave up using from me. That way, only one of us has made the mistake of keeping a chunk of the stuff around :-)
Seriously, there are a lot of products and a lot of the theory that gets sprouted is wishful thinking. Mass, as in marble, sand and lead, gets a lot of raves and I've tried them all and been initially very impressed, but discovered in the long run that they are really less than ideal. They really can give a punch and weight to your bass, but they also produce an emphasis in the upper bass-lower mid range that tends to mask the true lower bass range. Actually removing them from my system gave me bass that sounded a little lighter but actually went deeper, and gave better tonal definition in that range so that you can really hear and appreciate the wood and string components of the double bass, for example, or skin tones on different drums.
I've gone to very lightweight structures that are rigid and well damped in the last year or so and the sound was never better. It improved when I removed the marble and it improved when I removed lead shot and sand. I now tend to use rolled and compressed polyester batting inside hollow structures to damp them while adding as little weight as possible and the results are much better. You should, before you do anything else, visit the Stereophile web site archives and find and read Shannon Dickson's article "Bad Vibes" several times. It's a very good presentation of the theory of vibration and resonance control and there's a lot to absorb in it. It will repay studious reading and application of the principles contained in it with much better sound all round.
If you want a shelf to put under the Aurios, work out the size and get 4 pieces of 12 mm thick 5 ply that size. Glue them together in 2 pairs so you have 2 layers each 24 mm thick. Then get a piece of polystyrene the same size and around 25 mm thick and glue it between the ply pieces using ordinary PVA woodworking glue. Do not use contact cements as they will dissolve the polystyrene slowly over a period of days. The finished product is a very respectable shelf using constrained layer techniques that will outperform the marble hands down. Sit it on some cones with the Aurios on top and see what you think. It's also cheaper than the marble and doesn't take long to make. You can finish the timber to your choice but I found using a black timber stain and Danish Oil was the easiest way to go for me.
The only problem will be levelling the platform if your floor isn't level. There are some cones around with a thread that enables you to extend the tip from the bass slightly and you could try those. Otherwise, make the bottom ply layer larger so it sticks out around the styrofoam and the top layer (keep them the same size) and mount levelling feet in the surround area so that they do not contact the polystyrene and top ply layers.
My preference for a general approach is to couple the support the component rests on to the floor as strongly as I can, and then to insert an isolation layer immediately between the support and the component. I also don't use more than one isolation layer between a component and the floor because true isolation layers tend to act as spring systems and the combination of two or more spring systems becomes unpredictable. That doesn't mean you can't have a rack with isolation between each shelf and the component on that shelf - that still amounts to only one isolation layer between THAT component and the floor - just don't isolate the rack from the floor and then isolate components from the rack.
Also, watch out for being suckered by great sound in one area such as the bass or the mids, or "crystalline highs". Succesful isolation reaps benefits everywhere and the overall impact should include greater clarity throughout the whole audible range. The impact of that when you first hear it is really staggering and you wonder how you can ever really buy gear based on store demos when you realise how much different your own gear sounds when it's well set up than it ever did in the shop when you heard it for the first time.
David Aiken
David,
"Cheaper" and "easy to make" both work for me :)I also like your idea of the levelling feet (mounted in the bottom layer of ply) better than the extendable ones, as I believe threaded spikes/cones need to be fully tightened to be most effective. I also like the idea of getting rid of any potentially "ringing" marble. I guess I was considering marble mainly because I thought lighter structures would resonate more readily than heavier ones.
I also felt that the platform layer directly under the component should have minimal contact with the layer below it (eg rest on cones rather than a full layer of polystyrene) to eliminate the possibility of changing its natural damping characteristic and "muddying" the sound. However, my thoughts were just that ...they were not based on any testing and listening ...yet.
However, you have actually done some listening and found this combination to work well. As soon as we move into the new house (mid Sept.) I will do the same. Meanwhile, your advice is saving me time building and testing unsuccessful or less successful platforms.
A few other questions on your setup ...
1) have you tried maple instead of ply (I understand that ply has some inherent multi layer damping benefits, but maple is used to make musical instruments) ? Perhaps a ply bottom layer and maple top layer may work well ?
2) have you experimented with the thickness of the layers of ply and polystyrene (is thicker ply and/or polystyrene any better ...more damping ???) ?
3) have you tried bubble wrap (small bubbles) instead of polystyrene ? Might it provide less surface contact and therefore a more neutral layer ...a semi air bearing effect ?
Thanks again David.
Cheers,
Darren.
A few other questions on your setup ...1) have you tried maple instead of ply (I understand that ply has some inherent multi layer damping benefits, but maple is used to make musical instruments) ? Perhaps a ply bottom layer and maple top layer may work well ?
Reply: No, I haven't. Maple is reported to work well, but don't base anything on the musical instrument useage. You actually want to achieve the opposite. Instruments are intended to vibrate - that's how they produce sound - and the natural resonant frequency of the material they're built out of contributes to the tone. We should be trying to avoid adding anything to the signal we're reproducing so we try to minimise or avoid vibration. I have briefly tried introducing Jarrah hardwood in a totally different approach and removed it quickly - it added a bit of hardness to the upper voice range that I didn't like, but that was undamped and not in a platform like I'm suggesting here.
2) have you experimented with the thickness of the layers of ply and polystyrene (is thicker ply and/or polystyrene any better ...more damping ???) ?Reply: there are some different grades of polystyrene. Go for the densest you can get and, yes, thickness seems to make a difference. I think my best result was with a 25 mm thick, dense sheet I bought from a supplier of polystyrene. Another inmate, Dave C, has had good experience with very dense, non-resilient closed cell foam so that's another alternative for you. He's played around with multiple layers of different densities. He posts regularly and you can get his email address from one of his posts to contact him for more info on what he's tried in that range. The results I've heard were quite reasonable.
3) have you tried bubble wrap (small bubbles) instead of polystyrene ? Might it provide less surface contact and therefore a more neutral layer ...a semi air bearing effect ?
Reply: Yes, tried that. That was actually the first approach I tried having read about it in one of Michael Fremer's columns in Stereophile. You need to get the wrap with the really big bubbles for best results and they are quite good but I found I preferred the polystyrene slightly. Either works quite well.
My current setup is quite different and I did a post on it called "A pointed approach to isolation", if I remember correctly, back in early April. You should be able to find it in the archives. It's nowhere near as cheap as the ply and polystyrene or bubble wrap but I'm happier with the results of it than with anything else I've tried. I'm also currently getting a new rack built by a local aluminium fabricator to use with my current platforms. I'm hoping this idea works out because it won't be all that cheap either, so I'm reluctant to give real details until I've got the finished product up and working which should be sometime next week. I've approximated the approach as much as I can by making temporary mods to my current rack frame at present, and the results of that were good enough to convince me to risk the cash on a full-scale approach.
David Aiken
Hello Darren, David, Craig et. al.There seems to be some confusion (perhaps on my part as well) regarding how the Relaxa will transmit vibrations to its load.
The last few posts in this thread seem to suppose the Relaxa's platform will continually move in the horizontal plane. Based on my own experiments and what I've read from Earnshaw, I don't think this is the case. I believe the platform will simply "lean" on the posts in one of the corners and tend to stay there. This would be equivalent to having a rigid vertical connector between the bottom plate of the Relaxa and the "floating" (not) platform. In other words, its the same as an ordinary two shelf rack where you just use the top shelf. All vibrations from the floor will travel vertically into the top shelf.
Darren, you asked if I was saying the Relaxa provides much the same benefit as Aurios. I don't think they're at all similar; Aurios isolate, the Relaxa couples. Yes, I believe you'd be much better off with the CD atop Aurios atop maple atop an inner tube. What's under the inner tube doesn't matter.
Regarding having to "balance" a component, this would be true on the Relaxa as it is with air bearings. I don't see a problem here. Simply find the balance point by shifting your component around on its platform. Once you've found it, insert the Aurios (or other roller).
My power amp currently sits on Hip Joints (my own roller bearing design) which sit atop a stone slab which sits atop a partially inflated inner tube. Yes, it took a few minutes to find the balance point for the amp. (Larger diameter inner tubes are the answer here. I am going to be switching from 14" to 18".) Once the balance is found, remember where that is, lift the amp, place rollers, replace amp. It takes some "trial and error" but is not more complicated than that.
When you're done, the component will react to being touched by wobbling and shimmying about. This may be disconcerting at first but it's supposed to; that's what "floating" a component at a very low resonance frequency does.
Combining vertical isolation with horizontal isolation provides audible benefits over either one by itself.
Happy Listening!
SAP states that the maximum load bearing capability to be 50 pounds and I think that a reasonable weight for magnetic replusion floatation.Any so-called coupling that occurs would be with the rail bearing mechanism against the upright locating assemblies.There are no other points of contact.It appears a high quality precision piece of engineering and most likely effective within its design goals.Ken Lyon
GreaterRanges/Neuance
"Any so-called coupling that occurs would be with the rail bearing mechanism against the upright locating assemblies.There are no other points of contact."Only a single contact point is required for coupling. Coupling is the opposite of isolating.
Also, I know of no theorem that has superceded Earnshaw's, which dates to 1839. This isn't anything new.
I find the Relaxa quite stunning visually; I just don't believe there is anything here in the way of isolation.
Happy Listening!
> > > Only a single contact point is required for coupling. Coupling is the opposite of isolating. < < <gee,thanks.lol
> > > This isn't anything new. < < <Does it have to be?I wasn't aware that the originality of the magnetic repulsion concept for isolation was a major thrust of this discussion.
I simply attempted to state that the Relaxa application looks to be a fairly clean and elegant solution to lateral location.This thread has taken upon itself to poorly second-guess the operating principals,effectiveness and validity of a device with which you have no intimate knowledge nor experience and then attempts to undermine its efficacy by strawman arguement.poor form, at best.Ken
"I simply attempted to state that the Relaxa application looks to be a fairly clean and elegant solution to lateral location."I respect your right to your perspective. Can't I have mine?
By the way, is your statement based on "intimate knowledge" or "experience"?"This thread has taken upon itself to poorly second-guess the operating principals,effectiveness and validity of a device with which you have no intimate knowledge nor experience and then attempts to undermine its efficacy by strawman arguement.poor form, at best."
I will address the principle here, not the hostility. (In my decades in audio, I've found such hostility to be a dead end as far as audio evolution goes. It is here you'll find your "poor form" Ken.)
If you check the available scientific literature, you'll find that in 1839, Earnshaw proved magnetic levitation using permanent magnets is not possible. (It IS possible using DIA-magnets but you'll find that levitating something the size and weight of a phono cartridge would cost upwards of $100,000.) If you try the experiment yourself, you'll discover the same thing. "Strawman argument"?
Happy Listening!
Earnshaw's theorem assumes fixed magnets. The brochure mentions a laser locational sensor,a feedback system and oscillating baseplate(italian text).Those are not apparent to me from the photos.Whether the device is actually able to operate as a true magnetic repulsion device or just wishful thinking and opportunistic marketing is uncertain, however without further knowledge of the application I would defer from passing judgement.
"Any so-called coupling that occurs would be with the rail bearing mechanism against the upright locating assemblies.There are no other points of contact."Only a single contact point is required for coupling. Coupling is the opposite of isolating.
Also, I know of no theorem that has superceded Earnshaw's, which dates to 1839. This isn't anything new.
I find the Relaxa quite stunning visually; I just don't believe there is anything here in the way of isolation.
Happy Listening!
The component sits properly positioned and balanced on a 3" thick slab of maple (Aurios could go between but probably not required).Under each corner of the maple slab is a magnet, an opposite polarity magnet sits under each corner of the slab on the floor (to cause the slab to hover 'x' centimeters above the floor for a given weight component).
On each edge of the slab (front, rear, sides) are two magnets ...one at each end. Perhaps one in the middle as well. On separate structures, resting on the floor to the front, rear and sides of the hovering slab, are magnets of opposite polarity and suitable strength. The height of the separate structures is adjustable to ensure that the magnets mounted on them are at the same height as their opposing ones on the slab (when loaded with the given component weight). These magnets will act as non-contact bumpers/dampers to prevent the magnets underneath the slab from throwing it off to the side. Gravity prevents the need for magnets above the component.
Voila....the ultimate platform !!
....unless ...a slight horizontal rotation of the platform may be accelerated by the maple edge magnets as they "kick" their opposing magnets off to the side of least resistance, thus setting up a never ending flat spin ...or, because the magnets underneath are now no longer aligned...causing the component to fall ungraciously back to earth ....hhhmmmmm ???
Of course, the interconnects and power cable would prevent the spin but I had a great visual going and couldn't resist. You see, over 7 months with my system in storage (while in temporary abode and house hunting) has sent me completely mad !!
Thanks everyone for your advice in this thread.
I have thought about this platform several times and have just one thought about its theory.
If the platform is suspended a certain distance above the magnets, when the magnets vibrate, why doesn't the platform move with it?
And does this actually represent free movement in the vertical?
I can see the horizontal, but not the vertical.
Looking at the PIC, the magnets are to small and seperated to far from each other to be effective, IMHO.Emmett
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 ]
