 
|
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 |
After reading the explanation in Mapleshade's catalog of how vibration isolation traps the internally generated vibrations in a component, I cast a more critical eye at my CD player and amp sitting directly on vibrapods on my salamander rack. The suggested solution in the mapleshade catalog was to use brass cones to drain the internal vibrations to a separate wood block platform that could then be isolated from the shelf below. But, unwilling (or unable) to spend the money for even their least expensive cones and 2" thick maple platforms, I decided to try a cheaper alternative from the local Home Depot. I bought a couple of 1x12x18" boards of Poplar (they did not have maple in this dimension) and some brass plumbing fittings: namely 3/4" female threaded to 3/8" flare male couplings (1/2" female to 3/8" male flare also work fine). These are roughly cone shaped fittings and the male flare end creates a minimal contact area with the poplar platform. I stacked them up top to bottom as follows: audio component, 3 couplings as "cones", poplar board, vibrapods and salamander rack shelf.
It works! It cleaned up the sound across the board. Instruments stand out much more clearly from each other. I have no idea how much more improvement is possible with fancier cones and platforms, but for a total cost of about $10 for each audio component, I am thrilled with the results.
Follow Ups:
I have used the same idea for quite some time now. The parts where free and they sure looked like cones to me. Try maple butcher block, a lot cheaper than Mapleshade, not as good but almost.
I have used Superballs, cut in half. Works great,because they absorb energy.
My two cents worth.
Dale
that is why I have repeatedly suggested balls made from energy absorbing materials. search for dead balls for more on the topic. warm regards, tony
Jean-Francois Lessard 2A3 PP amp
Marantz 7T Preamp
Klipschorns w/ALK xovers
Sony CX350&CX-230 cd changers
MSB link DACIII w24/96k
MSB digital director
Luxman PD-272 TT
Technics M85 Cassette
I make mock cones out of a combination of brass washers epoxied to brass acorn nuts. Conelike profile, similar materials (though not as solid by any means), cheap, rounded bottom is gentler on whatever is underneath. They seem to work fine for me.
Hi Bartc: thought I would suggest an addition to your excellent moc cones. Two things actually, first place a layer of electrical PVC tape on the washer side if your cone and second get a small washer with a centre hole big enough for the round tip of the acorn nut to fit into but not so large as to allow the tip to protrude through. Cover both sides of the washer with PVC tape amd place under each cone. Make sure that the "sharp" edge of the washer is upward to the acorn nut (this insures that the nut is sitting on the sharp edge and further mass loads the nut on the washer). You will find that this little trick will enhance the performance of the foot. The PVC tape provides a superb interface and actually cold flows under pressure and makes like a suction cup which results a very secure fit between the parts. Hope you try this and enjoy. Regards Moray James.
Moray's post above raises an intriguing question for me, which I hope someone can answer: Is it better for coupling to a floor using any form or cone or spike to a)have point touch floor without intervening layer, b) add an intervening layer such as a coin or washer or flat metal piece, c)glue or otherwise fix the cone/spike to the floor or base???Moray's idea sounds as though he likes fixing the cone to an interface piece. I was wondering what would happen if I epoxied my cone point to a floor tile base. Would I get better, worse, or no difference in the vibration coupling effect? This is not a theoretical issue for me, as I'm seeking to stabilize a DIY speaker stand design in this manner.
I use small cones supplied by Dynaudio between my Contour 1.3 SEs and the stands. The cones came with small dots of double sided adhesive which I didn't use when I first tried them. When I finally got around to trying the adhesive dots which fixed the cones to the speakers, the sound improved slightly.I've also used spike cups in a couple of locations in order to prevent the spike tip from scratching another surface. I haven't noticed a deterioration in sound with a spike cup.
I don't think that sticking either a cone or a cup to a component or surface would have a deleterious effect unless the adhesive was thick and soft, say like double sided poster tape. Glues should be fine, as should thin double sided adhesive. I think as long as there's no give in the join, things should be fine and I also think that fixing things firmly can actually help the sound in some cases.
David Aiken
I think that if one uses an interface disk between the cone or point and the base surface then that disk needs to be small and stiff. Should the disk be too large then the disk will have its own resonance problems. I have found that the harder and stiffer the better. The thin layer of PVC tape cold flows out into a very thin film and acts like a suction cup as it were and not only disipates some energy into heat but also stops the two surfaces from making a sound which I can only discribe as a rattle. I agree that fixing the piont to the disk can be of a benifit but keeping the pieces separate makes it possible for everything to self ajust and level and that alone is most useful. Regards Moray James.
Hi Nirmanalow,"After reading the explanation in Mapleshade's catalog of how vibration isolation traps the internally generated vibrations in a component..."
In my experience, the vibrations we're trying to isolate our components from originate outside of our components, indeed outside of our listening rooms.
I have yet to experience (or see the logic in) "draining" vibrations from a piece of gear. The term itself implies something is being removed. If it is being removed, it would seem to me it should no longer be present. But it is. Yes you'd be providing a "path" along which vibrations could travel. But they'd shake up the inside of your component anyway, on their way out.
I'm not disputing your findings in any way, just the ideas behind the Why of what you are hearing. Of course a significant change in sound is to be expected when you go from Vibrapods in direct contact with the gear to metal fittings in direct contact with the gear. The increased response in the midrange and treble (relative to the slow roll off of Vibrapods) would explain why you'd hear "Instruments stand out much more clearly from each other".
Changing the sound of a system is relatively easy. Making real, consistent and repeatable improvements is a bit more difficult. Explaining why these improvements happen appears to be the most difficult. I'm still having trouble with the idea that the ocean tide or a truck changing gears 1/4 mile from my listening room is messing up the performance of my system. Yet these are some of the best "explanations" I've heard for why the application of seismic isolation (such as roller bearings and/or air bearings) results in such marvelous leaps in performance quality. Yes it's the sound that counts but I sure find the questions interesting. I guess we have to be patient for the answers.
Happy Listening!
Barry
SF
Barry,
Could it be that your roller bearings are in part acting similar to the cones by tranferring vibrations from the component to the platform upon which bearings are placed? And, might that not be part of the improvment you hear in using them?
Hi Larry,"Could it be that your roller bearings are in part acting similar to the cones by tranferring vibrations from the component to the platform upon which bearings are placed? And, might that not be part of the improvment you hear in using them?
I believe the roller bearings are indeed acting in part in a fashion similar to the cones but not in the way you mention. The similarity is in the coupling action; the rollers act as couplers in the vertical plane. The vibration transfer, in my view, is from the platform to the component and not the other way around, though of course any vibration path is a two-way street.
Any time you couple a component to something (anything), you alter its resonant signature to some degree and this will impact its performance. What I'm describing here is a change as opposed to a consistent and repeatable improvement . I wouldn't argue with those who like such changes which are based in the concept of "tone painting". I don't believe however, this is what is responsible for what I hear with properly implemented roller (and/or air) bearings, the effects of which are radically different from simple coupling devices.
That said, I believe the rollers would yield even greater improvements if the coupling component could be eliminated. It is precisely for this reason that I use air bearings in conjunction with roller bearings. The vertical isolation they provide, combined with the horizontal and rotation isolation of the roller bearings, results in the multiple-axis isolation I've been putting up enthusiastic posts about ever since I heard the across the board, consistent and repeatable performance benefits resulting from placing all my components on my Enjoyyourshelf © racks.
I'm not saying my thinking on this is cast in stone (may it never be) but my experience so far says that despite the coupling component of roller bearings, the isolation components (horizontal and rotational) take precedence. If you haven't tried them, I suggest some experimentation will result in your being delighted with the sound of your own system. (They seem to work best when placed in the largest equilateral triangle that will fit under the component being supported. Also, don't use the kind with a "top". The tops only add their own signature --the "brightening" some have mentioned--, complicating things and diminishing consistency and repeatability. Use them with the ball in direct contact with the component being supported.)
Happy Listening!
Barry
Barry,
I am using diy rollerbearings on all my components except my preamp which is on brass cones. I built equipment racks based generally on the design shown on the Teres Audio website, which I believe may be similar to your rack. It consists of hard maple uprights supporting "sandboxes" made of russian birch plywood. I use a platform of 3/4 solid maple(from planks air dried for 50 years). I have the maple platforms sitting on a sandwich of minicel and closed cell polyethane foam. Using a stethoscope I have found that the roller bearing are about as effective in transmitting vibration from the component to the maple platform as the brass cones. The foam then does a good job of dissipating the vibrations. Vibrations from one component do not appear to reach another through the rack using this design(although they can tranfer via interconnects). I presume that vibrations entering the rack from the floor and air are dissipated by the foam to an extent before the bearings have to do their job. Roller bearings are particularly useful under my turntable isolating the platter and tonearm from vibrations from my springy suspended wood floor. I find this type of rack design to be very flexible because one can use sand, air bearing, foam or whatever with it switching material as the spirit moves you. By the way all of this was inspired by the discussions on this forum. Many thanks to all who participate.
Hi Larry,I looked at the Teres site but couldn't find anything about racks. Do you have a URL for the page?
It is cool to have a rack that allows one to experiment with different means of equipment support. Right now, I'm using an air bearing on each shelf to support 20" x 20" x 1" maple ply platforms. Roller bearings atop each platform support the components. The rack design allows me to change inflation of the air bearings without first having to remove the gear so the effects of each pump of air can be heard while music is playing. Having a fully independent suspension for each shelf helps prevent individual components from effecting others on the rack.
I too have benefited from this open forum we call the "Asylum". The exchange of ideas and presentation of differing perspectives is invaluable.
Happy Listening!
Barry
Barry,
Here's the link http://www.teresaudio.com/haven/index.html
It is under "About Us" in the section on Chris Brady's own system. Your idea of making access to adjust the air pressure was a stroke of genius. Well, if not genius, certainly a fortuitous stroke of laziness!Larry
Hi Larry,Thanks for the link... interesting site.
Happy Listening!
Barry
I think that what a cone is supposed to do (pointed side down), is to not only allow vibration to drain out of the component (I am skeptical about that, but whatever), but also to make it more difficult for mechanical vibration from the surface which the component is sitting on to be induced. The theory as I heard it was that the small contact area of a point was analogous to trying to move a large object by a small area. I can't remember the exact analogy, but it was something along the lines of trying to swing a bowling ball using a pin connected to it. I just know I really like the Soler points under my speakers much better than the spikes they came with, and the Mod Squad tiptoes I used under a really old set of Infinity's brought them to life in an unsubtle manner. I would have loved to have done a DBT on that! 100% pass rate.Regards,
Chris
Hi Pars,"...a cone is supposed to... make it more difficult for mechanical vibration from the surface which the component is sitting on to be induced."
If you place a component atop a set of cones (pointing in any direction), motion in the cone is transmitted directly to the component. You can prove this yourself by placing the cones on a small shelf or platform. When you lift the platform slightly, does the component atop the cones also rise up? Or when you move the platform to the left just a little bit, does the component atop the cones also move to the left a little bit?
Doug Blackburn explored all of this in his excellent piece "Myth of the Cone Footer" which can be found on the Soundstage site.
Many folks like the difference cones make to the sound of their components. As with other devices, few (including myself) understand the Why behind the changes. We should be careful however, of the "explanations" offered by marketeers, as these, while perhaps befitting some corporate bottom line, do little to increase our real knowledge and often act to steer us away from the truth instead of toward it.
Happy Listening!
Barry
Nice. To increase the effect of this isolation device, try building a sand box where the poplar serves as the top then the fittings then your gear. Coupled with sandbags on top of your CDP, the results will be more than doubled of what you are hearing now. Happy listening.
Doesn't HD carry the oak in that size? Oak is much harder than the poplar. Thanks for the post.
Yeah they have Oak. I did not know how to choose. The maplesahde catalog suggests air dried maple is far superior, but again I am very happy with the results I got with poplar.
The reason I asked is that oak is just slightly softer than maple where poplar can be carved with a fingernail.
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 ]
