 
|
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 |
71.222.188.198
In Reply to: Monoblock amp platforms.. posted by Borough33 on January 16, 2007 at 16:17:31:
........placing an amp directly on the carpet is one of the worst mounting/placement mistakes in audio.In the VERY least, a spiked MDF platform would be very beneficial both sonically and asthetically.
"not that they really need improving."
You would be VERY surprised in this arena of what a good solid mounting platform can provide.
I would go with a 2" thick Granite or Marble platform spiked to the underlying floor with an air isolation interface....but thats just me :-)
Cheers,
~kenster
Follow Ups:
The Channel Island units are solid-state units (no microphonic
vac tubes, etc) and probably very non-microphonic.If one wants to spend a pile on fancy stands for visual wow factor
or whatever, great. But It is a very bold assumption to assume
there will necesarily be ANY sonic improvement whatever with such units over a bag of sand, a pile of phone books, a stack of dirty
towells --what have you.-T.M.
Isolation from vibration is the topic; not whether such isolation is valid.There is considerable conjecture and first-hand testimony that most electronic devices, even SS ones, especially small active devices such as the UcD modules in Class D amps, suffer audible detrimental effects from excessive vibration. I don't have an accelerometer to measure it, but low frequencies transmitted through floor boards and air are probably sufficient to induce these effects. I don't know why, but all my equipment tends to sound better when it's tied down. These amps are so light that they are especially vulnerable.
Peace,
Tom E
solid state devices not microphonic? OK just paint a thick layer of nail polish onto the analog output chips on your dac (or CD player) and listen even when it is still wet. Then tell me that SS devices are free from microphonics. If you don't like what you hear you can remove the polish with a rag and some acetone so not to worry about wreckin anything. This is so simple to do. Please try this before you tell others that they are fools to believe what they hear. Regards moray James.
moray james
Read my post again carefully. I did not make a categorical statement
that all solid-state gear/devices are 100 free of microphonics, I
simply expressed grave reservations as to whether units such as
the mentioned Channel Island units were microphonic enough to believe
that esoteric mounting appliances could offer any hope of sonic
improvement beyond placebo and wish fantasy. I think there is reason-
able ground to suspect that such "problems/solutions" may be totally
non-existant in this instance outside of the wishes of the human
mind.As for nail polish on parts..... I'm sorry, I don't buy it for a
minute unless the temperature drop from the evaporation of the
solvent temporarily cools the device enough to shift it's operating
points slightly for a few moments and thereby the sonics. Frankly,
I think even this is a stretch.I think most people are much more open to various forms of suggestion
and perceptual modification than is generally assumed outside of
academic psychology circles. It is a "sticky" subject, I know.-T.M.
no magic here Thomas just dealing with microphonics at the source. Clearly you don't believe these devices work or are worth the time. To discover if they do is very simple and only costs you some time. If you fear to wrestle with your own phyco emotions over real Vs imagined that is another issue for you to deal with. You can experience it for yourself and see or not. That said since you have no personal experience which proves or disproves the issue at hand and since you have clearly experssed you personal views what purpose is there to argue with others further? Best regards Moray James.
moray james
individual arcane voodoo ritual to reasonably adjudge them
one-by-one as superstition --this is where experience and
reason comes to into play. One has to draw the line somewhere,
otherwise you could spend lifetimes testing every implausible
assertion which comes down the pike.-T.M.
this is where experience and reason comes to into play.Reason would have it that you would try things, and actually create your own experiences prior to dismissing something with which you have NO EXPERIENCE. But then, you "know" more than the rest of us, don't 'ya.
One has to draw the line somewhere, otherwise you could spend lifetimes testing every implausible assertion which comes down the pike.
Uhhh....that procedure is called The Scientific Method....something you are obviously devoid of implementing.
I find it fascinating that every few weeks or months, someone arrives on these forums to debunk our profound experiences, telling us in no uncertain terms that we're full of it, and/or that we're imagining things. And it's the same tired arguendo. This time it's you, Doubting Thomas.
have his say as to how an aerospace engineer at Lockheed can
"improve" a jet tubine? How far are you willing to take the
"everyone should be willing to try/consider ALL things at
all times" perspective? see my point?Reason and experience has to impose some economy on the consideration of kooky ideas. Not enough hours in the day to give every idea
or assertion EQUAL weigth --just a reality of (sane) life. No?-T.M.
....you are predetermining (without any scientific basis OR reason), and prejudging that an idea is "kooky", without even trying out the idea. Therefore, you have absolutely nothing to offer on this forum. Ergo, discussing *any* ideas regarding high-performance audio with you is a complete waste of time. You've not put in any work, nor time, nor thought....you're merely disparaging those who have. Go play with your engineer friend in another sandbox.
Well, for your info: I do design and build (from scratch) my own
vacuum tube audio gear, and have for years. In fact, I CAN/DO
hear the sonic differences between: various topologies of
amplifiers; different operating points of various tubes; output
transformer variations; often coupling capacitor variations;
very small levels of hum, noise, IMD etc; often different manufac-
turer variations of a given tube type; poorly designed power supplies;
and many other things. I have yet, however to "hear": AC line fuses;
AC line switches; line cords (on properly designed gear); "tip toes";
$1000 interconnects; and many other such objects of tweaker fascination.Nail polish on IC's??? $30 gold fuzes??? Bottom line: this is
getting really creepy guys. It's starting to feel like being
in a room of desperate crack users or something.Maybe if one lacks the knowledge to fundamentally understand
audio/electronics and has no ability to really work-on or
effectively modify their gear --then maybe one is simply left
with nail-polishing chips, buying $30 fuses, and sticking
tippy-toes on everything in site.Why don't some just accept that they are not any kind of audio/
accoustic engineers, and stop trying to use Rube Golberg methods
in vain attempts to reinvent the wheel?I'm outta here... Good luck.
-T.M.
nt
rw
nt
the plaintive mewling of trolls. :-)
HowdyYou said "It is a very bold assumption to assume
there will necesarily[sic] be ANY sonic improvement."But actually it is a very bold assumption to assume that there will won't be ANY sonic improvement. My amps are solid state and there's an improvement. I've also heard it at other people's houses and at our local audio club. You are the one making assumptions and further they are directly in opposition to my direct experience.
-Ted
... which is to experiment and observe.
But they are strong on pontification, continually running behind "I never said 100% of amps" or similar phrases.Beats me why they waste their time on a tweak forum if they have no interest in it.
It seems people usually hear what they want to hear. Tell me:
if you tried a 2" stack of dirty cotton bath towells under your
amp, and if it actually DID sound better than your favorite
multi-hundred dollar mount/rack, would you be prepared to admit
it to yourself or others? I'm serious --would you even be psycho-
logically prepared to let it register in your mind?I'm just asking. I think many would be unable to allow such an
experience to undermine their egos.There are reasons I avoid audiophile clubs and similar.
-T.M.
To damp the top case of my cheap CD player/Transport I use sand in ziploc bags (way cheaper than towels) . I tried commercially made brass weights at many times the price of towels and many many times the price of sand in ziploc . The sand bags sound better in MY system than brass (and wat better than no damping)I sent the brass weights back . That won't necesarily be true in a system that needs a little upper mid range punch , the brass may sound better . In your system Thomas , maybe no damping sounds best . If you never experiment , you never know :-)I try never to let my ego intrude , but let my ears and heart make the decisions . Gee , that sounds corny , doesn't it?Joe
I can certainly believe that many (nost?)CD transports could
benefit from some type of sonic dampening. You seem to have an
inclination towards: experimentation, and DIRECT comparison, and
are not too proud to choose an effective inexpensive solution
over a less effective expensive solution --hats off to you.I suspect many others could save piles of cash if their egos
allowed them to use sandbags, phone books, and other non-
"audiophile-sexy" solutions. Vanity and neuroses can empty
walets.-T.M.
My wallet is too thin for neurosis ,but still Thick enough for experimentation . I do think that if your spending money you can afford and it makes a difference for the better (better - a subjective term ;~)) than thats what the hobby is all about .As in the case of the brass weights , I was trying to add detail and warm the system up a tad . I did add detail but also a slight hump in the upper mids . Not my goal . I have , on the other hand , heard systems that would benefit from the brass weights . They are not a bad thing , just not synergistic to my perception of what my system needs .
Synergy is everything .
Joe
No, people do not usually hear what they want to hear, or I would be able to hear a symphony orchestra or jazz quartet in my living room, but I don't. There goes your first dismissive platitude. What I want to hear is a sound as close to the sound of a real orchestra as I can get, and if a 2" stack of dirty towels or phone books or dog shit made my stereo sound more like real violins or saxophones, then I would sure try to find out why and duplicate that property with something a little more attractive, although I can't imagine I could make it cheaper. Actually, phone books stacked on top of a D-200 is not a bad notion.Tell me, Thomas: if a stack of dirty towels or gold or dog shit sounded better under your amplifiers, would you be willing to admit it? It seems that you have already dismissed the notion of vibration control by any means, and that any amount of evidence or testimony to the contrary will not sway you.
While it's true that electrons have so little mass that it's doubtful whether vibrations, even of such huge magnitude (relative to the size of an electron, anyway), would have any effect on the direction or orderliness of their flow, it can be reasoned that the violent (again, relative to their size) vibration of every element inside a complex device such as a typical stereo component would at least produce microscopic movement of the fields that these devices produce. This, in turn, would probably be powerful enough to disrupt the orderly flow of current through even a straight wire. Can it be measured? Probably, if only we had devices sensitive enough to detect such disruptions and took the time and proper methods to measure them. Such as our ears and careful listening.
Peace,
Tom E
madison: ""
While it's true that electrons have so little mass that it's doubtful whether vibrations, even of such huge magnitude (relative to the size of an electron, anyway), would have any effect on the direction or orderliness of their flow, it can be reasoned that the violent (again, relative to their size) vibration of every element inside a complex device such as a typical stereo component would at least produce microscopic movement of the fields that these devices produce.""
No, it cannot be reasoned that way. You cannot, in the same sentence, say that it is "doubtful that a stimulus would have any effect", and then say, " it would at least produce microscopic movement"...that is an effect, and you discounted it in the first part of your sentence ..madison: ""
This, in turn, would probably be powerful enough""....... Bzzzzzt!! stop right there.
You said, and I quote, "" it's doubtful whether vibrations, even of such huge magnitude (relative to the size of an electron, anyway), would have any effect on the direction or orderliness of their flow, ""To have any effect on the fields, the only thing left is charge. And THAT is not changing as a result of any physical force.
So this is where your hypothesis stops. You start with incorrect conjecture, and you cannot build upon that.
What you REALLY must consider, is the movement of conductors within a magnetic field, and the movement of current carrying conductors. ALL electronic devices either work within a magnetic field, or make such as a result of operation. (recall, earth's field is half gauss).
Madison: ""
Can it be measured? Probably, if only we had devices sensitive enough to detect such disruptions and took the time and proper methods to measure them""
What you incorrectly hypothesized cannot be measured in reality. Only through contrived experiments of nobel calibre have measured the electron mass via acceleration of a metallic material, and the acceleration required far exceeds voice coil accelerations, and the effect is orders of magnitude below what can be seen in an audio circuit.Your line of reasoning is completely flawed. Instead, you should consider the applicability of Faraday's law of induction to the problem.
Cheers, John
Thanks for your colorful response. You need to read more carefully before firing torpedoes, or else I need to write more clearly. I'm an English major, and you're a cartoon character, so I'll let the public decide.In the first part of my postulation, I was discussing the effect of physical vibration on the mass of an electron. That is certainly negligible. At least we agree on that, I think.
In the second part of the same sentence (begun with the word "while", which identifies a dependent clause and implies a subsequent clause not necessarily in agreement with the first), I was discussing vibration of all the devices (and their accompanying fields) inside a vibrating component, which will, in turn, cause their magnetic fields to move, which will most certainly affect the orderly movement of electrons. This is all perfectly logical and introduces no contradictions whatsoever.
Your last paragraph about "experiments of nobel calibre" is barely coherent, and I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Perhaps these effects are not measureable, even with a nobel calibre (whatever that is!), but that doesn't mean they don't exist. I submit that possibly they can be detected only through careful listening.
Perhaps you should consider the applicability of the first law of civility, which is: if you don't have anything nice (or useful) to say, just keep quiet.
Peace,
Tom E
madison: ""
Thanks for your colorful response. You need to read more carefully before firing torpedoes, or else I need to write more clearly. I'm an English major, and you're a cartoon character, so I'll let the public decide.""
I find that very few english majors really understand this scientific goop at all. That you attempt to discuss this garbage at all, I like..it is refreshing. I note that your subsequent writing makes the assumption that you wrote clearly..we disagree.madison: ""
In the first part of my postulation, I was discussing the effect of physical vibration on the mass of an electron. That is certainly negligible. At least we agree on that, I think.""Yes, we agree.
madison: ""
In the second part of the same sentence (begun with the word "while", which identifies a dependent clause and implies a subsequent clause not necessarily in agreement with the first), I was discussing vibration of all the devices (and their accompanying fields) inside a vibrating component, which will, in turn, cause their magnetic fields to move, which will most certainly affect the orderly movement of electrons. This is all perfectly logical and introduces no contradictions whatsoever.""As you may not have noted, my added post raises the possibility that you did switch from a single electron to a system view. But it took several reads of your tech talk to realize that you may be switching focus. At that point, in another forum, I would have simply edited to clarify, this forum doesn't allow that.
madison: ""
Your last paragraph about "experiments of nobel calibre" is barely coherent, and I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Perhaps these effects are not measureable, even with a nobel calibre (whatever that is!), but that doesn't mean they don't exist. I submit that possibly they can be detected only through careful listening.""There are some experiments performed in the past, where people have attempted to measure the inertia of the electron in a metal as a result of accelerating the metal. The term "nobel" refers to the prize, as in, the caliber of the experimental apparatus needed to measure this vibration effect on the electron requires extreme accuracy and attention to detail, as the effect is so very low.
As for your "submission", since the engineering world in general does not buy into this vibration stuff, nor most of the tweaks the audiophiles discuss, the only thing left so far is indeed listening..I certainly do not share the viewpoint of the "engineering world in general", as there is so much work to be done w/r to what we hear..
"Barely coherent", I guess is how "english majors" respond when they do not wish to be civil? That's ok, I don't mind..tit for tat as it were..:-)
madison: ""
Perhaps you should consider the applicability of the first law of civility, which is: if you don't have anything nice (or useful) to say, just keep quiet.""Useful is an interesting word.. that doesn't seem to keep people from discussing that which they know little of. Course, in a forum of this nature, it is expected.
Your not so clear segway from electrons to system was the classic bait and switch tactic used by many to give the "it all adds up to audibility" view, exactly like the "grain boundary argument" in it's uselessness. Only after reviewing your post multiple times, did I get the feeling that you may be trying to go "system" on us, as opposed to a bait and switch..Your followup post, regardless of your demeanor, shows that my initial take was in error, to which I apologise . As an english major, perhaps you may want to more clearly delineate sections, as it certainly had that "classic" feel to it..
And, btw, what have you got against cartoon characters??Cheers, John
Actually, I really like your user name, and thanks for the apology. I was trying to keep my reply as light as I could, and I'm glad you took it that way. Spirited discussion is what invigortates this forum. I really dislike the meanness that some posters exhibit. This thread is a classic example of someone with a limited understanding or outright bias seeking only to agitate instead of inform others. I'm referring to Mr. Martens here, whose only contribution was ridicule of others, and not very creatively done, at that. At least your criticism of my post was humorous. If it hadn't been directed at me, I would have found it much funnier, I'm sure. I'm glad you and I can find at least some common ground: vibration is bad, for whatever reason. I originally posted a response to the thread's initial topic, but Mr. Martens sort of hijacked our little craft (spaceship, Jimmy?) and took it into darker areas. Of course, as soon as he became critical of someone's expensively obsessive (yet, here at least, somewhat justifiable) solution to the vibration problem, he was mercilessly attacked. The poor fool: instead of just surrendering meekly and skulking away quietly, he stood his ground against an asylum full of maple/cherry/bubinga/balsa/corian/concrete/styrofoam/rubber/granite/ sand-filled-whatever platform-wielding lunatics. I'm sure he's off somewhere, measuring something and plugging the results into a sophisticated and complex equation that proves he's right. Oh well, if it weren't for engineers, we wouldn't have ANY of this crap to argue with and insult each other over.Peace,
Tom E
....and I have no doubt that JNeutron can calculate the energy required for this effort right before our very eyes.In Neutron We Trust. :--)
nt
madison: ""
I'm sure he's off somewhere, measuring something and plugging the results into a sophisticated and complex equation that proves he's right.""Geeze, that kinda sounds like what I do..:-(
Well, ok, cept for the "sophisticated and complex" part..
A pleasure.
Cheers, John
if you neglect discussing electrons per se, what you speak of can be forced to make sense. But again, it's all relative to the magnitude of the magnetic field, the currents in the wires, the e/m coupling, and the vibe level.
Cheers, John
I remember stacking 2 or 3 on top of a Pioneer DVD player, perhaps 12 years ago or more....it made a very nice difference. Then I got a bit more scientific, and actually *weighed* the books, further determining how much weight was the most beneficial. Then, I decided that cut-to-fit wood blocks looked far better, and proceded to make a few that effectively weighed the same as the corresponding group of Yellow Pages. Ahh, memories.If dear Thomas still wishes to utilize phone books, towels, kleenex, or toilet paper, let's leave him to it. I'd much rather enjoy the aesthetics of a beautifully-fashioned product that costs real folding money, than continue to look at a p.o.s. system.
A very good post you wrote, Mr. E. Your last paragraph was especially spot on. Only those devices would take some serious money to develop, let alone the unforgiving hours necessary to even devise the proper tests. Unfortunately, and par for the course, dear Thomas won't be contributing either.
HowdyI do lots of blind and double blind tests. If you spent any time here you'd know that.
You said "There are reasons I avoid audiophile clubs and similar." Then perhaps you should avoid this one. I'm just as serious as you are.
-Ted
I guess skeptics are disallowed from tweakerville? I'm sorry to
drop a nose hair into the punchbowl.-T.M.
HowdyIt's when you rudely discount the experience of others that we draw the line. You are ignoring basics of science: among them, experimentation. Science needs both the Empirical as well as the Aristotelian and a little common courtesy doesn't hurt.
-Ted
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 © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
