sdolezalek Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 Yash: The problem with where you are headed is that there is nothing to stop the sideways motion of the top vs the bottom surface. If you use a bowl with a flat bottom then the upper panel will slide sideways without resistance until it meets a curvature and then will start to ride up that curvature until gravity overcomes the sideways force being applied. If you stop applying a sideways force the platform will simply come to rest at the point where the flat bottom meets the beginning of the upward curvature. In a constant bowl, that is at the center of the bowl, but it is always the slope of the curved wall that determines how much resistance there is to any vibration in the horizontal plane. In theory there is a way you could create an isolation platform that has virtually no resistance side to side (think about the magnetic levitation used in Maglev trains -- where electromagnets are used to create a virtually friction-less interface between two surfaces). But once again you have to do something to keep the top part from just continuing its sideward slide until it falls off. With magnetic levitation that means more magnets on the side (which, as the surface approaches them increase their resistive force in almost the same way as the increasing slope on the bowl). So Barry has found what I believe is simply the best practical solution. The one interesting modification is the one suggested by Daudio, which is to figure out what the optimum ratio between bowl size and ball size is and how that affects the resonant frequency of the device. Although I believe a smaller ball will prove to be better from a resonant frequency perspective, too small a ball will create more movement friction between the ball and the surface of the tile sitting on it. In Barry's case, it is possible that a ball exactly half the size of what he is using might be better from a resonance standpoint, but it may also be more likely to get stuck in any imperfections of the tile, thereby giving up all of the benefit otherwise gained. Synology NAS>i7-6700/32GB/NVIDIA QUADRO P4000 Win10>Qobuz+Tidal>Roon>HQPlayer>DSD512> Fiber Switch>Ultrarendu (NAA)>Holo Audio May KTE DAC> Bryston SP3 pre>Levinson No. 432 amps>Magnepan (MG20.1x2, CCR and MMC2x6) Link to comment
esldude Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 The one interesting modification is the one suggested by Daudio, which is to figure out what the optimum ratio between bowl size and ball size is and how that affects the resonant frequency of the device. Although I believe a smaller ball will prove to be better from a resonant frequency perspective, too small a ball will create more movement friction between the ball and the surface of the tile sitting on it. In Barry's case, it is possible that a ball exactly half the size of what he is using might be better from a resonance standpoint, but it may also be more likely to get stuck in any imperfections of the tile, thereby giving up all of the benefit otherwise gained. The resonant frequency of such a system would be mainly set by the radius of the cup. Larger radius, lower frequency. A larger ball would have a bit less friction, and be less effected by the surface smoothness of the cup. Of course, cost, and size practicalities will enter into it. Now I am referring to the radius of the sphere the cup would make if the curvature was continued into a complete sphere. So there probably is no optimum size, just a size adequate for whatever frequency you wish to reject, and practical in other ways. You can't use 5 ft diameter balls for instance under equipment even though it would have less friction. The shallowness of the curvature will need to be gauged against not allowing normal use of the equipment to cause the ball to roll over the lip. And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
Foggie Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 I wish you happiness. And perhaps one day, if not knowledge, at least a modicum of maturity. My apologies to other readers of this thread. Barry Soundkeeper Recordings www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com Barry Diament Audio IMHO, No apologies needed whatsoever. Quite the contrary. Geez, you try and provid real life experience and results from your findings, you engage in a flurry of questions with him in the other thread, haven't pushed any agenda, etc..? A simple agree to disagree would have been sufficient from him. Good lord. Yes, the ignore feature will come in handy My rig Link to comment
AnotherSpin Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 The resonant frequency of such a system would be mainly set by the radius of the cup. Larger radius, lower frequency. Alu bowls which I use have bigger concave radius than those in Barry's (2.7" against 2"). Nevertheless, I would love to try a new set of bowls made on Barry's measurements. My premonition (and quite strong one) tells me Barry came to this most important dimension for a reason. I use the same size bearings he does. Link to comment
1markr Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 I requested one set to play with.... Username: 1markr # of sets: 1 Metrum Onyx DAC, Matrix X-SPDIF2 DDC, Snake River Boomslang Digital cable, Verastarr Nemesis USB cable; Backert Rhumba 1.2 Preamp; Coincident M300B Frankenstein mkII SET monoblocks Omega Super Alnico HO Monitors (Cherry finish) / Martin Logan Depth i Subwoofer Macbook Pro (mid-2012, 2.3GHz i7, 16Gb RAM, 512Gb SSD), HQPlayer, Tidal, Roon; Cabling by Cerious Tech (Graphene SC, Blue PCs), Verastarr (IC and PC) and Teo Audio (GC IC) Link to comment
jabbr Posted July 6, 2015 Author Share Posted July 6, 2015 The resonant frequency of such a system would be mainly set by the radius of the cup. Larger radius, lower frequency. A larger ball would have a bit less friction, and be less effected by the surface smoothness of the cup. Of course, cost, and size practicalities will enter into it. Now I am referring to the radius of the sphere the cup would make if the curvature was continued into a complete sphere. So there probably is no optimum size, just a size adequate for whatever frequency you wish to reject, and practical in other ways. You can't use 5 ft diameter balls for instance under equipment even though it would have less friction. The shallowness of the curvature will need to be gauged against not allowing normal use of the equipment to cause the ball to roll over the lip. Maybe for large scale deflections -- if I turn a slightly stiff potentiometer or flip a switch this causes a brief Oscillation as the equipment settles down but for vibrations that are sourced from the ground -- I just don't see visible large scale deflections where I live -- I mean maybe for folks in Ca where there are frequent earthquakes but I'm not seeing this -- in fact you can measure the amplitudes with a laser but realize that the amplitude is highly magnified. For small scale vibrations I suspect the frequency response to be determined largely by other factors -- the bowl acts as if flat. Custom room treatments for headphone users. Link to comment
esldude Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 Maybe for large scale deflections -- if I turn a slightly stiff potentiometer or flip a switch this causes a briefOscillation as the equipment settles down but for vibrations that are sourced from the ground -- I just don't see visible large scale deflections where I live -- I mean maybe for folks in Ca where there are frequent earthquakes but I'm not seeing this -- in fact you can measure the amplitudes with a laser but realize that the amplitude is highly magnified. For small scale vibrations I suspect the frequency response to be determined largely by other factors -- the bowl acts as if flat. If your bowl shape is bowl shaped with no appreciable flatness, it shouldn't matter too much the size of the perturbation. Think of it as a long pendulum, those can swing at small amplitudes not easily visible, yet the period of oscillation is unchanged. It occurs to me you could make use of a flat surface and weighted ball bearings. They would need to be larger. If the bearing is weighted heavily to one side that side will end up being down. Align all 3 or 4 such bearings and small disturbances will still re-center themselves. Of course this would be a higher frequency of resonance due to the effectively shorter pendulum. Another possibility is a hard hollow bearing with fluid in it. Fluid less than full would have some of the same effect if high viscosity. It would dampen as well as re-center for small movements. That might be tricky to optimize. And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
YashN Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 My, my, someone got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning, didn't they? If someone wrote this to you, you would qualify it as <fill in the blank>? 1. Curvature of the bowl doesn't make the isolation. Curvature of the bowl makes for *practical* (as opposed to theoretical) isolation. The first sentence is exactly what I said. Very different from the following, where in fact, you thought just the opposite: Wait 'til you actually do it. I say, on the contrary, there is no benefit to having a flat surface. The ball *must* be in a curved bowl if you want to set up the resonance that will result in the isolation. On a flat surface, the ball meanders, and nothing else happens. Try it and see. Good thing you changed your stance as if you go back the original thread, was trying to see if adding more damping would make the system better. Why? For two reasons: in some actual anti-shock arrangements there is damping added. Secondly, what do you think gravity and friction are doing to the pendulum-like motion of the ball? Damping. Initially, you wrote you didn't want any damping at all to maximise isolation. This was contradictory to using gravity (and the curved surface). Once you sort out the contradictions and get a better model for how things work and what should be optimised, you can design and build a better solution. There are pros and cons to each type of implementation, usually constrained by variable like cost and space. 2. I have no problem with disagreement. It is incivility that is the issue. Actually, it would seem *you* are the one with the problem regarding disagreement, evidenced by how quickly--and often--you've forgotten your manners. Again no matter. And given your previous posts, no surprise. The only one showing difficulties in accepting disagreement is you. I wish you happiness. And perhaps one day, if not knowledge, at least a modicum of maturity. Don't you think maturity and civility also implies acknowledging where you went wrong in modeling the phenomenon, as well as recognizing that when people disagree with you and point the facts to you, they aren't being 'unfriendly' in any way? Maybe practising what you preach about civility and maturity is in order. Dedicated Line DSD/DXD | Audirvana+ | iFi iDSD Nano | SET Tube Amp | Totem Mites Surround: VLC | M-Audio FastTrack Pro | Mac Opt | Panasonic SA-HE100 | Logitech Z623 DIY: SET Tube Amp | Low-Noise Linear Regulated Power Supply | USB, Power, Speaker Cables | Speaker Stands | Acoustic Panels Link to comment
YashN Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 Give it a rest. Is that you, prout? I'll add you to my ignore list with all the other trolls. Take isolation to whatever degree you want and we'll all do the same. Why, isn't pushing the boundaries of what this is exactly what we (proper contributors) are doing in the thread? I haven't seen you contribute anything. Dedicated Line DSD/DXD | Audirvana+ | iFi iDSD Nano | SET Tube Amp | Totem Mites Surround: VLC | M-Audio FastTrack Pro | Mac Opt | Panasonic SA-HE100 | Logitech Z623 DIY: SET Tube Amp | Low-Noise Linear Regulated Power Supply | USB, Power, Speaker Cables | Speaker Stands | Acoustic Panels Link to comment
YashN Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 Sub optimal is ok -- no bowls and we have nothing to group purchase:) I have no doubt that with a bunch of time and energy we can come up with something better In the spectrum of sub-optimal, you can move a little more towards optimal. For the horizontal plane, I already described how. Maybe you missed it, but some people already veered off into a group buy... That's ok because I just want *something* that is reasonably good that I can widely implement. I'd like to use this now and then test this baseline against improvements. I suspect that the improvements are more likely to involve vertical and these bowls will have a long and productive life! Same approach here. I also think there are improvements to vertical isolation to be made, and additionally to tilt control. I strongly suspect that at the magnitude of the horizontal vibrations we are isolating, that the vertical displacement caused by the bowl curvature falls within the magnitude of vertical vibrations that also need isolation -- that is that the bowl acts as if flat from a practical point of view. There could be something to it, but it requires more analysis and data, equipment + material and a willingness to experiment and learn along the way rather than being stuck in an inaccurate model because 'been there done that', 'this may be new to you', 'I've already tried everything', etc... I can devise part of the equipment and I have some equipment that can be useful, but getting materials is difficult for me. Dedicated Line DSD/DXD | Audirvana+ | iFi iDSD Nano | SET Tube Amp | Totem Mites Surround: VLC | M-Audio FastTrack Pro | Mac Opt | Panasonic SA-HE100 | Logitech Z623 DIY: SET Tube Amp | Low-Noise Linear Regulated Power Supply | USB, Power, Speaker Cables | Speaker Stands | Acoustic Panels Link to comment
YashN Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 The problem with where you are headed is that there is nothing to stop the sideways motion of the top vs the bottom surface. If you use a bowl with a flat bottom then the upper panel will slide sideways without resistance until it meets a curvature and then will start to ride up that curvature until gravity overcomes the sideways force being applied. If you stop applying a sideways force the platform will simply come to rest at the point where the flat bottom meets the beginning of the upward curvature. In a constant bowl, that is at the center of the bowl, but it is always the slope of the curved wall that determines how much resistance there is to any vibration in the horizontal plane. No, the safety device is the curvature even with the flat surface bowl but at the end of the race, but you do need the surface on which the cup rests to be horizontal or else things will immediately slip and moreover, you would want the flatter bowl to be rather large and also strongly set on the platform supporting it. There is more info on this thread. You would probably get more from the thread by starting from the original post and reading through. We already established the motions in daily use aren't visible (not including handling the component) and that isolation in the horizontal plane has to be as free as possible, therefore the gentler the curvature, the better the isolation. Hence the thought of using a flat surface, which has its own set of design and implementation constraints. In theory there is a way you could create an isolation platform that has virtually no resistance side to side (think about the magnetic levitation used in Maglev trains -- where electromagnets are used to create a virtually friction-less interface between two surfaces). But once again you have to do something to keep the top part from just continuing its sideward slide until it falls off. There are ways to do that too, but we haven't discussed this in great detail yet, presumably there are very few implementations. I may have come across one mentioning it but I can't recall the name. If I do, I'll add it to the other thread. So Barry has found what I believe is simply the best practical solution. That's not true to me: it clearly isn't the best practical solution, neither for DIY nor among commercial implementations. It clearly is very good compared to having nothing, and even for daily use, so it's a good start for exploration, and I would say it is an intermediate solution for DIY. Then again, it all depends on what you understand as 'the best practical solution'. Continue on the fallacy that the curve must be there to help with isolation, and soon enough you have people using and buying bowls with radically high curvatures, which actually end-up hampering the isolation. The one interesting modification is the one suggested by Daudio, which is to figure out what the optimum ratio between bowl size and ball size is and how that affects the resonant frequency of the device. Although I believe a smaller ball will prove to be better from a resonant frequency perspective, too small a ball will create more movement friction between the ball and the surface of the tile sitting on it. It's worthwhile to explore, but it is not the single interesting modification. Many more have been discussed, and more than just the horizontal - there are 6 degrees of freedom in which vibration can act and which we need to isolate against ideally. Dedicated Line DSD/DXD | Audirvana+ | iFi iDSD Nano | SET Tube Amp | Totem Mites Surround: VLC | M-Audio FastTrack Pro | Mac Opt | Panasonic SA-HE100 | Logitech Z623 DIY: SET Tube Amp | Low-Noise Linear Regulated Power Supply | USB, Power, Speaker Cables | Speaker Stands | Acoustic Panels Link to comment
YashN Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 Geez, you try and provid real life experience and results from your findings, you engage in a flurry of questions with him in the other thread, haven't pushed any agenda, etc..? A simple agree to disagree would have been sufficient from him. Good lord. Yes, the ignore feature will come in handy You and I have a VERY different perspective on the facts. Try harder not to distort them. Dedicated Line DSD/DXD | Audirvana+ | iFi iDSD Nano | SET Tube Amp | Totem Mites Surround: VLC | M-Audio FastTrack Pro | Mac Opt | Panasonic SA-HE100 | Logitech Z623 DIY: SET Tube Amp | Low-Noise Linear Regulated Power Supply | USB, Power, Speaker Cables | Speaker Stands | Acoustic Panels Link to comment
YashN Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 Maybe for large scale deflections -- if I turn a slightly stiff potentiometer or flip a switch this causes a briefOscillation as the equipment settles down but for vibrations that are sourced from the ground -- I just don't see visible large scale deflections where I live -- I mean maybe for folks in Ca where there are frequent earthquakes but I'm not seeing this -- in fact you can measure the amplitudes with a laser but realize that the amplitude is highly magnified It isn't a large seismic event these are meant to isolate from, but the smaller everyday motions: vehicles, bridges and buildings flexing, lower earth seismic activity, roadworks, etc... In practice, the ball would move very slightly at a time. For the larger shock events, the last thing you will think about is SQ, you'd rather be running fast or hide somewhere safer or do whatever people that is recommended in these cases. Check the Townshend PDF linked to in the original thread, I think it's called Earthquakes and your Hi-Fi or something like that. Dedicated Line DSD/DXD | Audirvana+ | iFi iDSD Nano | SET Tube Amp | Totem Mites Surround: VLC | M-Audio FastTrack Pro | Mac Opt | Panasonic SA-HE100 | Logitech Z623 DIY: SET Tube Amp | Low-Noise Linear Regulated Power Supply | USB, Power, Speaker Cables | Speaker Stands | Acoustic Panels Link to comment
YashN Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 Think of it as a long pendulum, those can swing at small amplitudes not easily visible, yet the period of oscillation is unchanged. Indeed, it is a model of a pendulum. It occurs to me you could make use of a flat surface and weighted ball bearings. They would need to be larger. If the bearing is weighted heavily to one side that side will end up being down. Align all 3 or 4 such bearings and small disturbances will still re-center themselves. Of course this would be a higher frequency of resonance due to the effectively shorter pendulum. Another possibility is a hard hollow bearing with fluid in it. Fluid less than full would have some of the same effect if high viscosity. It would dampen as well as re-center for small movements. That might be tricky to optimize. It could be interesting to try these two, probably not that easy to test different setups. Dedicated Line DSD/DXD | Audirvana+ | iFi iDSD Nano | SET Tube Amp | Totem Mites Surround: VLC | M-Audio FastTrack Pro | Mac Opt | Panasonic SA-HE100 | Logitech Z623 DIY: SET Tube Amp | Low-Noise Linear Regulated Power Supply | USB, Power, Speaker Cables | Speaker Stands | Acoustic Panels Link to comment
Daudio Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 Don't you think maturity and civility also implies acknowledging where you went wrong in modeling the phenomenon, as well as recognizing that when people disagree with you and point the facts to you, they aren't being 'unfriendly' in any way? Maybe practising what you preach about civility and maturity is in order. YashN, I see someone rapidly heading towards being placed on the Ignore Lists of probably more then a few other CA members. And I don't understand why ??? You have done a lot of reading in many disparate and far flung areas of vibration isolation and conrol. Which is great, but my very strong feeling is that you have not yet fully integrated all that data in your head. That, and the primitive state of your home experimentation, make me regard your statements with less impact then from someone who has been involved a lot longer, and done much more direct experimentation. I find your arrogance towards disagreements misplaced and counterproductive, and a poor approach towards unraveling the mysteries of this interesting area which confront us all. Please chill out, and return to the search Link to comment
Daudio Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 IIt occurs to me you could make use of a flat surface and weighted ball bearings. They would need to be larger. If the bearing is weighted heavily to one side that side will end up being down. Align all 3 or 4 such bearings and small disturbances will still re-center themselves. Of course this would be a higher frequency of resonance due to the effectively shorter pendulum. Another possibility is a hard hollow bearing with fluid in it. Fluid less than full would have some of the same effect if high viscosity. It would dampen as well as re-center for small movements. That might be tricky to optimize. Interesting idea of using a ball with unequal mass distribution and flat surfaces. Could well work as you surmise ! But where will these balls come from ? I've never heard of any such thing, which is not saying a lot, but... My bigger concern is that, if it were possible to obtain such strange little lop-massed creatures, I doubt that they would come in the high precision concentricites (G25, G10, G3) readily available now. And, I suspect, that that precision, and related smoothness, is a large factor in the performance of these isolation devices. Not hardness, or mass (IMNSHO). Link to comment
Jud Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 Would a flat surface with a lip to prevent ball(s) rolling off allow more of the motions of cone drivers to result in unproductive reactive motions of the speaker and balls, in contrast to a curved bowl restricting those unproductive reactive motions to a greater degree? One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
jabbr Posted July 6, 2015 Author Share Posted July 6, 2015 Would a flat surface with a lip to prevent ball(s) rolling off allow more of the motions of cone drivers to result in unproductive reactive motions of the speaker and balls, in contrast to a curved bowl restricting those unproductive reactive motions to a greater degree? A very practical benefit of spherical bowls is that they are not sensitive to leveling inaccuracies within the limits of the depth of the bowl -- the bearing always centers itself to the local minimum Custom room treatments for headphone users. Link to comment
sdolezalek Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 No, the safety device is the curvature even with the flat surface bowl but at the end of the race, but you do need the surface on which the cup rests to be horizontal or else things will immediately slip and moreover, you would want the flatter bowl to be rather large and also strongly set on the platform supporting it. ... We already established the motions in daily use aren't visible (not including handling the component) and that isolation in the horizontal plane has to be as free as possible, therefore the gentler the curvature, the better the isolation. Hence the thought of using a flat surface, which has its own set of design and implementation constraints. ... Continue on the fallacy that the curve must be there to help with isolation, and soon enough you have people using and buying bowls with radically high curvatures, which actually end-up hampering the isolation. Yash: I'm going to agree with Daudio's suggestion that you take a bit more time to digest your own reading. There are some "laws of physics" involved here that we are unlikely to rewrite. The first of these is that once an object is in motion on a truly flat and super smooth surface, it will not stop unless there is something to resist it. If that is the lip at the end of the smooth part, then the only thing that really matters is what is the curvature of the lip. Think of the overall curvature notion as nothing more than a centering force -- in the absence of anything else it will cause the ball to return to center (So I think we all agree its purpose is not to help with isolation, but to keep the overall system stable with as little negative effect on isolation as possible). There is no such centering in a flat surface, so the ball will keep moving in whatever direction it gets pushed. At some point, you do want to increase the curvature so that a radical movement doesn't cause the whole surface to slip; but only a shove, not regular room vibrations would cause the ball to move as far as the steeper part of the curve. At the center, the fact that there is a curve does make for some level of resistance (which you wouldn't have if you balls always remained safely on the flat part of your design), but that level of resistance should be extremely low compared to that of a true spring or even an inner tube. In fact, I think much more important than the slight centering resistance is that we have created a spring which is terrific for absolutely horizontal motions, but which becomes ever less effective as vibrations travel in ever more vertical directions. So the real question is whether your vertical spring system can keep up with the cup and ball as a horizontal spring. Synology NAS>i7-6700/32GB/NVIDIA QUADRO P4000 Win10>Qobuz+Tidal>Roon>HQPlayer>DSD512> Fiber Switch>Ultrarendu (NAA)>Holo Audio May KTE DAC> Bryston SP3 pre>Levinson No. 432 amps>Magnepan (MG20.1x2, CCR and MMC2x6) Link to comment
YashN Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 Would a flat surface with a lip to prevent ball(s) rolling off allow more of the motions of cone drivers to result in unproductive reactive motions of the speaker and balls, in contrast to a curved bowl restricting those unproductive reactive motions to a greater degree? The disadvantage here is that should the component/ball find themselves at the edges of the race, i.e. in contact with the edges, you would need to move them back near the centre (it doesn't have to be the exact centre). Dedicated Line DSD/DXD | Audirvana+ | iFi iDSD Nano | SET Tube Amp | Totem Mites Surround: VLC | M-Audio FastTrack Pro | Mac Opt | Panasonic SA-HE100 | Logitech Z623 DIY: SET Tube Amp | Low-Noise Linear Regulated Power Supply | USB, Power, Speaker Cables | Speaker Stands | Acoustic Panels Link to comment
bdiament Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 deleted Some just don't deserve a response. We folks just don't seem to be able to "follow the physics" like someone who has given this deep thought for at least a couple of days and might actually try some of this out for real some time. Oy! Link to comment
Daudio Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 Would a flat surface with a lip to prevent ball(s) rolling off allow more of the motions of cone drivers to result in unproductive reactive motions of the speaker and balls, in contrast to a curved bowl restricting those unproductive reactive motions to a greater degree? I would suspect that the ball would spend all of it's time resting against the lip, wherever slight mis-leveling leads it. Thus we still have a curvature, just not a stable one.* I don't recall hearing about any evidence of anything more then invisible micro-motions in the roller systems (other then the usual conjecture). That is, once the device is setup and stabilizes. * I just had to 'level' my Mini/DAC support, as it continually wanted to slide off to the left-front, and had to be restrained by a chunk of foam. By adding a 3"x3"x1" steel block I managed to level the components over the air bladder, and then the residual friction of the rollers (bottom bowl, flat top), and cabling allowed me to get the top support plate centered. Link to comment
YashN Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 You have done a lot of reading in many disparate and far flung areas of vibration isolation and conrol. Which is great, but my very strong feeling is that you have not yet fully integrated all that data in your head. The evidence points to quite the contrary: I think you bailed out quite early of the original thread because you had 'difficulty following me' or maybe the rest of the thread, including the more sound theoretical and modeling aspects. This is the reason why you hadn't yet understood that the ball being centered or the ball being brought back to the center by gravity isn't necessary for proper isolation... Had you stuck around in the thread and made the effort of reading properly not just the papers linked to but also the various posts by people who are actually interested of delving deeper in this subject, you probably would also have seen a post by John Swenson saying there could be merit in a mostly flat surface. I'll take the feedback of a single John Swenson over a million of you nay-sayers and easy accusers any day. That, and the primitive state of your home experimentation, make me regard your statements with less impact then from someone who has been involved a lot longer, and done much more direct experimentation. The only thing primitive here are your understanding and accusations. I probably already made a lot more experiments and measures than you did. I find your arrogance towards disagreements misplaced and counterproductive, and a poor approach towards unraveling the mysteries of this interesting area which confront us all. Please chill out, and return to the search Maybe you should spend more time and effort trying to understand what those of use providing alternate designs and better optimised ways of doing things are writing about and come to your own conclusions. By your own admission, you have difficulty 'following me', but that doesn't mean what I write or do is without value, just that it's difficult for you to understand... This requires effort, study, research, and not blindly following someone who has an inaccurate model of how the phenomenon works. Dedicated Line DSD/DXD | Audirvana+ | iFi iDSD Nano | SET Tube Amp | Totem Mites Surround: VLC | M-Audio FastTrack Pro | Mac Opt | Panasonic SA-HE100 | Logitech Z623 DIY: SET Tube Amp | Low-Noise Linear Regulated Power Supply | USB, Power, Speaker Cables | Speaker Stands | Acoustic Panels Link to comment
YashN Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 Yash: I'm going to agree with Daudio's suggestion that you take a bit more time to digest your own reading. There are some "laws of physics" involved here that we are unlikely to rewrite. The first of these is that once an object is in motion on a truly flat and super smooth surface, it will not stop unless there is something to resist it. If that is the lip at the end of the smooth part, then the only thing that really matters is what is the curvature of the lip. Daudio had some difficulty in following the physics. It seems you do too. In a flat surface, there is still friction/sticktion. Re-read what John Swenson and I said above, find the gedankenexperiment he proposed in the other thread, think it through and you will see why (maybe, maybe you will also need to test it as I also did). Dedicated Line DSD/DXD | Audirvana+ | iFi iDSD Nano | SET Tube Amp | Totem Mites Surround: VLC | M-Audio FastTrack Pro | Mac Opt | Panasonic SA-HE100 | Logitech Z623 DIY: SET Tube Amp | Low-Noise Linear Regulated Power Supply | USB, Power, Speaker Cables | Speaker Stands | Acoustic Panels Link to comment
jabbr Posted July 6, 2015 Author Share Posted July 6, 2015 The evidence points to quite the contrary: I think you bailed out quite early of the original thread because you had 'difficulty following me' or maybe the rest of the thread, including the more sound theoretical and modeling aspects. Yash, I didn't mean to fork the discussion off your original thread where there's alot of great information and debate going on. I think I didn't name this thread properly, and regret that, as it was intended to be a group buy type thread for people interested in obtaining aluminum bowls at reasonable prices. I never intended that this be the only isolation technique, nor even that it is the "very best obtainable" rather something simple and practical for a group of people who wish to get some at a reasonable price. I would prefer that the excellent discussion of new isolation techniques, and research into improved isolation techniques, continue to take place on your original thread. That's where I'm trying to post more theoretical responses. This has been a great and productive discussion. Custom room treatments for headphone users. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now