Vibration Air & Roller Bearings - Thanks to Barry & Warren

[AnotherSpin]

3 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

The fact that the ball beneath the tile is sitting in a cup/socket shaped convex down (concave up). It is the ground below that moves with respect to the tile and this displaces the ball up one of the sides of the cup. Provided the force of translation is not sufficient to roll the ball out of the cup, it is stable.

 

I had three sets of two cups, one 'facing' up and other 'facing' down with ball inside beneath each of very heavy and tall speakers, and it was very stable, no danger to fall. Speakers were floating freely within very short range.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

Cups, cups, cups. Roller balls shouldn't just move around, they should oscillate back and forth and this is provided by curvature. Barry was very detailed on this. Cups curvature proportioned well against the diameter of roller balls is critical. You may hear difference in sound just because the cup have more or less deep concave. And again, only best alu will not have dents which will interfere in free movement of the roller balls. Material of roller balls is important as well.

 

1+

 

3 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

I tried several materials - marble, ceramic, aluminum, glass. As I remember, alu plates worked better, but even they provided some coloration. Finally I set for combination of two cups with roller ball inside for heavy components, and cup+ball+alu plate for light ones.

 

I have a 108Kg amp on a ceramic tile. I placed a light weight timber backing (on the non-smooth side) just because I was frightened the amp would crack the tile. I believe Barry stresses that the support platform needs to be as stiff as possible, the lowest mass as possible, the smooth surface presented to the rollers, as smooth as possible, and as acoustically dead as possible.

 

Well implemented isolation, as per Barry's method should remove coloration, not add. If one accepts this as true, the the corollary is that less ideal methods may make the sound different but less neutral, *less removed of coloration*. You may prefer this result for whatever reason and no-one can disagree.

 

As previously guessed I don't think the 'trio' of roller block idea (cup,ball,cup) is a good idea.In fact I just found Barry's own opinion on this, which at the time I had no idea what he was saying as I was not aware of this 'trio' roller block thing at that time.

 

FYI Barry said "

<QUOTE>With roller bearings, the slower the ball rolls, the lower the roller bearing resonance.  This is important because isolation doesn’t *begin* to take effect until approximately 1.4x the resonance.  So a good isolator will have a resonance in the low single digits.
 
In addition, the longer the ball rollers, the deeper the isolation will be.  Any damping on ball motion will make the roll-off above resonance less steep, i.e. diminish the degree of isolation.
 
So I want the ball to roll as slowly as possible and for as long as possible.  This is achieved two ways.  First, a wider, shallower bowl (to a point before the ball rolls away and the component falls) will slow down ball motion and let the ball roll for a longer time.  Also, by *not* using another bowl atop the ball, we avoid the added damping the second bowl would apply.
 
Placing a Hip Joint and a Rollerblock side by side with a ball at the top of each roller’s bowl, then releasing the ball, was how I compared them (other than the sonic comparisons).  The ball in the Rollerblock oscillated much more quickly than the one in the Hip Joint.  The ball in the Rollerblock also came to rest long before the one in the Hip Joint, which seemed to just keep on rolling.  Several folks I know compared both in their systems and were unanimously in favor of the Hip Joints. ,</QUOTE>

 

I added the bold emphasis.

 

I note JohnS also doesn't use the roller blocks in this 'trio' arrangement (but I am not saying he therefore says it wrong, just sayin')

 

As Barry *always* says, you may be experiencing a different perception. Again, no-one can disagree.

 

My experience thus far is Barry is spot on. I am currently getting extraordinary SQ using a full complement of room treatments and vibration isolation. The music more freed from the system and room restraints.

 

[AnotherSpin]

32 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Also, by *not* using another bowl atop the ball, we avoid the added damping the second bowl would apply.
 

 

I am very much aware of Barry position on 'trios'. In fact, I was using this configuration only under heavy components, because I was not able to find satisfactory alternatives. All tried plates (marble, ceramic, aluminum) added some coloration to the sound. Also, the cups which I ordered were designed after discussions with Barry and were quite wide and shallow. With adding extra cup on the top I didn't notice significant decrease of the SQ in my system.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

I am very much aware of Barry position on 'trios'. In fact, I was using this configuration only under heavy components, because I was not able to find satisfactory alternatives. All tried plates (marble, ceramic, aluminum) added some coloration to the sound. Also, the cups which I ordered were designed after discussions with Barry and were quite wide and shallow. With adding extra cup on the top I didn't notice significant decrease of the SQ in my system.

 

Hi Spin,

Glad this works for you.

 

Just thought it was worth mentioning how Barry approaches heavy gear. Not with roller blocks but with "hip joints" and tile with reinforcement of the tile with plywood. This includes his large "Maggie" speakers. I haven't yet been that game to try under my Vivid G2's. I note that Laurence Dickie who designed them feels that they could be suspended in the air with no need to be 'anchored' to the ground. Haven't tried that either

[rando]

8 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

Cups, cups, cups.

Sunday morning I got up barely aware of the topic.  On this fine Thursday I've yet to overnight cups of inferior design or machine a set from rough stock.  Barring a short rest to engage @Ralf11 by forwarding the suggestion he resort to using the caps off a trio of lip balm containers (which to the detriment of this thread cannot be fitted with power cords or MQA readiness).  That time was spent trying to gain enough competence to understand why decisions were arrived at by viewing the entire landscape and how the design changed through time.   

 

On 7/9/2015 at 6:35 AM, bdiament said:

"With the caveats in mind that I noted at the end of Vibration control for better performance, I hope others get to enjoy what has had me smiling ever since I tried this. (I am grateful to those who discovered this before I did for sharing it: Max Townshend in his products and writings, Clark Johnsen in his writings, and "Bill" from the Audiophile Society, who brought that commercial product into a meeting and passed it around, arousing my skepticism, curiosity, subsequent testing, learning, and ultimately, joy.)"

  

Last night I read through the failed group buy thread and hopefully closed the precursor to this one for the last time in my browser.  My enthusiasm for this thread has waned as well.  Until I can manifest changes to a working set of BD's cups to determine how their effect on SQ differs there really isn't much to add.  Speculating on these changes as improvements or their superior technological basis is meaningless.  Anyone wishing to propose realistic changes will be happily received.  

 

I won't search to quote this but @jabbr also mentioned he feels a substantial improvement in how the air bearing is implemented as highly probable.  To the degree it could be used under medium tall speakers with a modicum of safety.  I also plan to look at this and will happily accept realistic suggestions for air bladders or Euler bearings.     

 

BTW, thanks for posting the schematics of your design @AnotherSpin  Engaging in this as a hobby it was refreshing to see a lack of concern for potential duplicity.  I hope we can all continue to openly discuss this in a friendly manner.

[jabbr]

2 hours ago, rando said:

I won't search to quote this but @jabbr also mentioned he feels a substantial improvement in how the air bearing is implemented as highly probable.

Based on mechanical design, springs couple resonances, and this can be improved -- the question is how much of an audible difference. 

 

Ive been very happy with the BD system and although got some carbon fiber tubes that I was going to play around with, haven't gotten around to that...

[Ralf11]

12 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

Materials + measurements + quality of processing. You may want to read counterfeit paragraph from their site. ..

 

 

I read it - there is NO support for their assertions.  No lab tests, no listening tests, etc.  You are being very gullible unless you have tested to see what materials are used, what precision was maintained & etc. - HAVE YOU?

 

Where I come from, we test every laboratory piece of gear purchased to see if it meets spec. BEFORE use in our experiments.  They often didn't.

 

As noted above by me and others, their website is written in a rather suspect way as well

[AnotherSpin]

22 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

I read it - there is NO support for their assertions.  No lab tests, no listening tests, etc.  You are being very gullible unless you have tested to see what materials are used, what precision was maintained & etc. - HAVE YOU?

 

Where I come from, we test every laboratory piece of gear purchased to see if it meets spec. BEFORE use in our experiments.  They often didn't.

 

As noted above by me and others, their website is written in a rather suspect way as well

 

Did you read through drawer pulls site? Do they provide satisfaction guarantee?

[Ralf11]

you are spinning out of control

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 hours ago, jabbr said:

Based on mechanical design, springs couple resonances, and this can be improved -- the question is how much of an audible difference. 

 

Ive been very happy with the BD system and although got some carbon fiber tubes that I was going to play around with, haven't gotten around to that...

 

Hi Jabbr,

We seem to be both on the same page and happy with the BD system.

 

Did you have specific ideas on how the air bearing could be improved? It will also be interesting to hear about JohnS' ideas when they come to fruition.

 

Also, where did you eventually get your roller bearings from, local machinist or a commercial seller? If you feel comfortable in answering, how much was the cost?

 

Cheers

David

[jabbr]

5 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Hi Jabbr,

We seem to be both on the same page and happy with the BD system.

 

Did you have specific ideas on how the air bearing could be improved? It will also be interesting to hear about JohnS' ideas when they come to fruition.

 

Also, where did you eventually get your roller bearings from, local machinist or a commercial seller? If you feel comfortable in answering, how much was the cost?

 

Cheers

David

 

Yes, Barry spent a considerable amount of time designing, listening etc. and although it could be improved, not easily, in my opinion, and not without real engineering/measurements etc.

 

The air bearing is mechanically a spring. I considered magnetic discs but these are also mechanically springs. I considered air levitation but same ... and lots more work... I considered surplus vibration isolation tables but very heavy and not very practical.

 

The roadblocks in setting up a group buy are documented. Not everyone could agree on what they wanted, nor willing to firmly commit for a certain volume, and prototypes did not pass muster with some people who were willing to purchase a sizeable number of bowls. Folks need to remember that wanting something that's gone through extensive testing goes against getting a cheap price, and that it takes a considerable amount of upfront investment to get a product to market. In any case we ultimately settled on a mirror polish and one of the CA members was able to get a small run made in a local machine shop, which turned out great. This was a couple of years ago and I believe the price was between $10 / bowl for a run of 100 at a mirror polish. A standard polish of 16 RMS would have been $7.50/bowl. The discs were 2" diameter with a bowl depth of 1/8".

 

The shop DID NOT want multiple customers asking for 3 at a time etc and asked us not to publicize their name. I have zero interest in being a retailer.

 

Regarding ball bearings ... I use 12mm (1/2 inch). There's a site "Craig Ball Sales" which has great prices. VXB bearings is also good. I've tried stainless, Silicon Nitride and Silicon Carbide. Balls also come in different grade "round". Silicon Nitride is not unreasonably priced -- generally much cheaper than Silicon Carbide, though has nearly the same hardness.
 

So, next steps in case that ever happens... I now have a spectrum analyzer that measures down to 60 usec frequencies and so could see what the loaded frequency of the vertical iso platform would actually be. Folks have looked at tetrahedra: http://vibrationacoustics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/article.aspx?articleid=2608874 and other structures. I have some other ideas using CF tubes (1mm thick) ... but don't want to get into details until I'm ready to also publish measurements.

 

Really in the meantime, Barry's ideas are the way to go.

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

8 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Yes, Barry spent a considerable amount of time designing, listening etc. and although it could be improved, not easily, in my opinion, and not without real engineering/measurements etc.

 

The air bearing is mechanically a spring. I considered magnetic discs but these are also mechanically springs. I considered air levitation but same ... and lots more work... I considered surplus vibration isolation tables but very heavy and not very practical.

 

The roadblocks in setting up a group buy are documented. Not everyone could agree on what they wanted, nor willing to firmly commit for a certain volume, and prototypes did not pass muster with some people who were willing to purchase a sizeable number of bowls. Folks need to remember that wanting something that's gone through extensive testing goes against getting a cheap price, and that it takes a considerable amount of upfront investment to get a product to market. In any case we ultimately settled on a mirror polish and one of the CA members was able to get a small run made in a local machine shop, which turned out great. This was a couple of years ago and I believe the price was between $10 / bowl for a run of 100 at a mirror polish. A standard polish of 16 RMS would have been $7.50/bowl. The discs were 2" diameter with a bowl depth of 1/8".

 

The shop DID NOT want multiple customers asking for 3 at a time etc and asked us not to publicize their name. I have zero interest in being a retailer.

 

Regarding ball bearings ... I use 12mm (1/2 inch). There's a site "Craig Ball Sales" which has great prices. VXB bearings is also good. I've tried stainless, Silicon Nitride and Silicon Carbide. Balls also come in different grade "round". Silicon Nitride is not unreasonably priced -- generally much cheaper than Silicon Carbide, though has nearly the same hardness.
 

So, next steps in case that ever happens... I now have a spectrum analyzer that measures down to 60 usec frequencies and so could see what the loaded frequency of the vertical iso platform would actually be. Folks have looked at tetrahedra: http://vibrationacoustics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/article.aspx?articleid=2608874 and other structures. I have some other ideas using CF tubes (1mm thick) ... but don't want to get into details until I'm ready to also publish measurements.

 

Really in the meantime, Barry's ideas are the way to go.

 

 

Thank you for sharing all of this!

 

So you got the 'bowls/cups/sockets' for a similar price as I did, and for a 100 run. IMO a very reasonable investment and risk to take under the circumstances.

 

If you don't mind and can remember to do so, would you PM me if you ever get around to further experiments?

 

Cheers

David

[rando]

8 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

Did you read through drawer pulls site? Do they provide satisfaction guarantee?

 

7 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

you are spinning out of control

 

Deeply impressed with philosophical level of commitment to isolation on display in here.  You guys take this really seriously.  Here I was starting to think this was getting a bit dull due to everyone having the same ideas.  

 

Doing some reading on 7085 tonight to see how feasible this idea is.  Forgo lengthy expensive mirror polishing.  Instead have reasonable time and cost effective finish applied at machine shop.  Then have approximately 50% greater than bearing contact patch in bottom of cup coated with very hard and low friction treatment that will bond to rougher surface.  I'd like to see a high level of molecular bonding occur that will assure longevity.  

[Ralf11]

anybody own a vibrometer?

 

I know they have been used to test ballhead designs for photography

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

27 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

anybody own a vibrometer?

 

Sure, but I think the ladies call it ...oh,

[jabbr]

18 hours ago, rando said:

Doing some reading on 7085 tonight to see how feasible this idea is.  Forgo lengthy expensive mirror polishing.  Instead have reasonable time and cost effective finish applied at machine shop.  Then have approximately 50% greater than bearing contact patch in bottom of cup coated with very hard and low friction treatment that will bond to rougher surface.  I'd like to see a high level of molecular bonding occur that will assure longevity.

 

As I said it was extra $2.50 per piece to get mirror polish ... can remember but anodization/polish was way more...

[Ralf11]

Rando - the same problem I mentioned my own impending test applies to forgoing mirror polishing - you may not detect a difference that would exist if it had been used.

 

 

[jabbr]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

Rando - the same problem I mentioned my own impending test applies to forgoing mirror polishing - you may not detect a difference that would exist if it had been used.

 

 

 

We await your systematic testing and results. There are so many different variables I look at that frankly my brain gets scrambled trying to do too many comparisons -- I chose to let BDs ears and work tell me what to do and then implement that. Rigorous SQ comparisons would be very helpful e.g. can you hear the difference between SS, SiN and SiC bearings?

[Ralf11]

it may be a while - I have a lot of balls in the air right now

 

speaking of balls, they are on their way, as are the plates

 

any thoughts on which components are likely to show the greatest change - DAC?

 

my tube pre- already has dampers on the tubes

 

then there is the issue of which types of test music to use...

 

 

[rando]

Jabbr, from start to finish it sounded like every step was more of a chore than it needed to be to get them made.  Ralf and I both seem determined to make this as simple and straightforward as possible.  Starting with calibrating our equipment we plan to use and building off a known good design.    

 

At my end I'm casting a pretty wide net looking at the entire system of air and roller bearings to allow focus on large easily detectable changes.  Ralf appears to be working from the opposite end.  Since both of us are using easily available items it should be relatively simple to incorporate each others findings.  This is bound to be a lengthy process with lots of listening time.  

 

Today's project was playing bloody knuckles again in a real tile store to pick up a few marble hexagons in exactingly identical sizes.  Breaking with common sense that says equipment should be spatially isolated from pointed edges or overhanging on the ends.  Bearings won't change their suggested optimal positions no matter how the tile is oriented.  Mostly they will be used for comparing dual placements on one shelf (or the space of a rack shelf) vs rectangles or squares.    

[Ralf11]

https://www.stereophile.com/content/seriously-good-isolation-your-system-no-expensive-high-end-racks-bits-bobs-needed-1

[rando]

Nice find.

 

@all What sounded the best of the various objects used as cups that weren't machined aluminum?

[AnotherSpin]

Drawer pulls 

[rando]

Quit, you.  (It was funny the first time)

[AnotherSpin]

Nothing funny here. I am looking for nicely done drawer pulls web-site from manufacturer who provides satisfaction guarantees and lab tests of materials, etc. Do you know such?