Vibration Air & Roller Bearings - Thanks to Barry & Warren

[fas42]

7 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

How does it sound? Barry says that it's like releasing the gear from being "bound and gagged". Across the board improvements, everything opening up, bass tightens. For me, Barry's is an apt description. Things just soared free, that sensation that the system disappears and the sound-stage for me, becomes more focused. Notably, It did NOT change tonal balance as in warmer or harsher, just more open and snapping into place, like turning the lens of a camera. Colors were the same just better seen. So, no added coloration. Barry explains that isolation should not add to the sound but rather prevents the harmful effects of vibrations, thereby preventing coloration if you like, closer to neutrality. It takes you one step closer to transparency and paraphrasing Barry, your system getting out of the way of the music.

 

This is as good a description as any of how the replay improves when using the 'right' type of tweaking, whether it's vibration conrol or anything else. Sometimes external methods of attenuating vibration make sense, but I tend to dive inside and stabilise, in various ways, the actual parts of the component that may be causing issues - different strokes for different folk ...

[fas42]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

 

Many people use little pieces of polymer etc around or to hold various components, boards etc, but none of this works nearly as well as the type of vibration isolation being discussed here with rollerballs and inner tubes. The inner tubes could be improved upon but not by "winging it" rather youd need to use nonlinear springs e.g. Euler etc and youd need to properly measure vibration in order to do this -- in effect, unless you have scientific equipment the best way to isolate vibrations in audio equipment are the techniques presented in the referenced thread and attributed to @Barry Diament

 

My mindset is to fix the problem at the source - would you prefer strong bones; or soft ones, which meant external crutches and mechanical aids to support the body? Internal stabilising using the right techniques and materials is not trivial, but to my mind is a far more satisfactory approach - it also means one learns a great deal about what matters, and what doesn't ...

[fas42]

34 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I agree, bracing or lashing something down may  reduce the magnitude of the oscillation but is not true isolation as I understand it. In some instances it may also just serve to couple the vibration to the device.

 

 

 

Think of the suspension for a car wheel - elastic properties combined with damping properties give the best results here, and I find that also in audio parts.

[fas42]

6 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Ok you are just being totally random here. What you are talking about has nothing to do with this thread about vibration isolation. Whatever. 

 

I would beg to differ ... the problem is that audio parts that move because of some external movement, from any source, can then cause the circuit to work "less correctly". One then can isolate, shield the part from vibration externally, or internally to the nominal container of the parts - the best solution is to use parts which are totally robust while being shaken; failing that, prevent the part from moving, vibration isolation, by changing its environment.

[fas42]

6 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

If you lash down the housing containing the components, you simply create a pathway for the vibration to get in. You couple the external movement to the inside part in a one to one ratio. Move the outside housing: Move the part. This is also why things like spikes and cones are not as effective as people think.

 

 

 

Somewhat oddly I believe this reasoning is more sound but IMO it does not support your own premise (that's the odd part).

 

It is precisely the *elastic* springy qualities of an inner tube that is being employed with Barry's methods. It isolates, depending on resonant damping properties and so on, like the suspension on a car - in the vertical domain.

 

Similarly the roller balls provide damping but in the horizontal and rotational planes.

 

Think of it this way. As the ground moves beneath the equipment, the equipment maintains the exact same position in space, it doesn't move - the ground does. It is damped or isolated from such movements. Lash the equipment down and you will ensure both both together - coupled, non elastic, not damped.

 

 

 

 

The word is, "viscoelastic". That's the group of "magic" materials that both spring, and damp. I hunt down every variation of these for their usefulness - think, memory pillows.

 

So things are not "lashed" - they are decoupled from their immediate environment in just the right manner, so the problems go away.

 

Pure springiness, or lashing won't work, yes. It's the delicate balance of material properties that stop "wrong" movement that work for one - having aimed eons ago to stop vinyl cartridges bouncing when the "wrong moves" were made by people in the room, I know it don't come easy ...

 

[fas42]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

 

You used the word elastic (combined with damping). If you wish to correct yourself that is fine.

 

I am familiar with the term. Just because 3M or whoever markets its properties for damping in certain situations doesn't mean it works well in audio.

 

 

Fair enough. Looking at that thread where Barry Diament contributed his findings I see that he is strongly focused on preventing very low frequency vibrations reaching the equipment. And what I do will have zero effect in that area, there is no overlap - personally, I have never intentionally attempted to isolate with those techniques, because I have achieved the goals using other approaches.

 

My apologies for disturbing the flow of this thread ...

[fas42]

Thanks, David. What I meant by achieving the goals, was that the qualities in the sound that Barry was aiming for were likewise brought forth by my internal stabilising of the parts of the component. IOW, I invoke the "many roads to Rome" POV - I directly hunted down what internal weaknesses were likely reacting to vibration, and resolved them in various ways.

 

Philosophically I don't feel comfortable with allowing the fragility to remain, and adding coddling to the equation - it effectively says I don't understand what's going on, and that's not my way.

 

Regards,

[fas42]

11 hours ago, 4est said:

I'd be curious as to how you went about replacing all of the multi layer ceramic surface mount capacitors as per jabbr's video link.

 

For a start, the gear I've worked on doesn't use those parts. And the parts don't necessarily have to be the classic electronic R, L, C units. And how vibration of a particular part which is troublesome affects the sound negatively will vary.

 

There is an overriding principle at work with audio replay, which is confirmed again and again, for me. The normal standard is incredibly mediocre, compared to what's possible - and this is caused by subtle defects which are everywhere in a typical system. Vibration isolation as being discussed here helps to get a lot of them under control, but it's almost guaranteed there are plenty more, always. Resolve every last one of those weaknesses, and the quality will be staggeringly good, unbelievably so to many.

[fas42]

A quick comment on the balls and cup technique - apologies if already mentioned: audio friend down the road uses this in an area or two, and a constant 'irritation' is that the cups have to be kept pristinely clean - dust settles in the most important spot, and the benefits slowly degrade, unnoticeably. A maintenance regime is therefore essential.

[fas42]

1 minute ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Too early for me to say as I have only recently installed them. He has DUST in his music room ? Shame !

 

Living down under, it's a dusty country ...

 

Fine dust particles are always floating around, unless one has an IC fab room. And they will always settle into the lowest point on a smooth surface, especially if subtle movement keeps disturbing them - almost invisible, but a thorough clean up immediately reveals better performance.

[fas42]

29 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

C'mmon guys, what could be more cool and nerdy at the same time. Imagine a group of spectators as you launch yourself from your listening chair saying, "ahh I think that needs just another smidgen of air pressure...ah, that's better!". Divine madness, but we need some reintroduction of the whole 'hands-on' experience in audio since few of us now have tonearms to fiddle with or records to clean. Am I wrong?

 

 

Yeeess ... the more complicated you make the mechanism to get the best sound, the more parameters climb on board, and your head starts to spin!! ... Simplicity Rules ... !!!

 

The absolute minimum of properly functioning parts is a mighty good solution ...

[fas42]

Local audio friend also did the roller bearings under speaker thing - it didn't do it for me. Something was lost, a "tightness" to the sound went missing - good test material is Boney M, there's a gutwrenching wallop to the bass line which mega speakers get completely wrong - and his did too on these.

 

My approach is to effectively "concrete" the speakers to the ground, for best results.

[fas42]

Man, this is all too hard, - truly effective isolation is so, so much harder to get right than taming the impact of vibrational energy where it actually does the damage ... ultimately, there is some part or parts of the system which are too sensitive to vibration - the further away from the sensitive souls you are when trying to appease them, the harder it's gonna be ...

[fas42]

Just to clarify - has anyone investigated which frequencies or range of frequencies need to be dealt with; and what the level of isolation should be at those frequences - and also possibly whether it varies significantly for different components?

 

Thanks,

[fas42]

1 hour ago, cjf said:

Based on my own recent experiment it seems the signal is quite affected by vibration. I've recently placed my monoblocks on two 18x18x2.5" thick slabs of Pennsylvania Bluestone weighing about 75lbs each coupled to the floor with Herbies Spikes and the difference makes me do a double take everytime I hear it. The amps were previously just sitting on the floor which is a timber based suspended above basement design.

 

I've used Symposium Rollerballs and Stillpoints in the past but found them both to add quite a bit of grain, hardness, and hyperfocus to the sound. In contrast these cheap $25 per slab stones and Herbie feet are super stellar by comparison. I couldn't believe it at first but Wow.

 

I considered using bicycle tubes also and may still give them a try but they seem to have a bit of maintenance, inconsistency and stability issues tied to them.

 

Yep. Mass for stability - floppiness is not something that I've ever tuned into as being useful ...

[fas42]

11 hours ago, Summit said:

 

Yes like I said before it’s a difference between speakers where there the main purpose of the spikes and cons are to drain excess vibration out of the cabinet and spikes and cons in audio rack there you are trying to prevent room vibrations from reaching the equipment. The porous is not to drain vibrations from an audio rack it is to minimize them.

 

If make your audio rack heavier, everting else kept equal, the rack will move and vibrate less, because of more mass.

 

 

Yes, increasing effective mass, coupling to higher mass structures is very effective - it's a standard method I always use.