Isolation feet for Audio Gear

[fas42]

How you wish to consider my posts is up to you. My interest is in hearing what's on the recording, not how playing with various devices can decorate the sound to suit one's preferences - since this is posted in General, seemingly the main place to discuss methods for improving system capabilities, I felt it might be useful for people to consider why these various toys have an effect; rather than simply engage in Toy of Month activity.

[wdw]

Just now, fas42 said:

How you wish to consider my posts is up to you. My interest is in hearing what's on the recording, not how playing with various devices can decorate the sound to suit one's preferences - since this is posted in General, seemingly the main place to discuss methods for improving system capabilities, I felt it might be useful for people to consider why these various toys have an effect; rather than simply engage in Toy of Month activity.

 

from what I read from your posts and your page you have no stereo of any worth to mention...so I will not accept some room temperature IQ Aussie mocking my simple and helpful post....I do not have toys in my system...

[fas42]

No point in engaging beyond this point - what I currently have is quite irrelevant to where I've been in this audio game - I got lucky 30 years ago, and have been waiting for the audio community to catch up, ever since ... and am still waiting ...

 

Devices used without considering where the positive benefit is coming from, is a form of "playing with toys" - once you realise that a component is sensitive to vibration, then there are all sorts of approaches that can be used to eliminate that 'weakness' - that's when it's called engineering, say.

[wdw]

18 minutes ago, fas42 said:

No point in engaging beyond this point - what I currently have is quite irrelevant to where I've been in this audio game - I got lucky 30 years ago, and have been waiting for the audio community to catch up, ever since ... and am still waiting ...

 

Devices used without considering where the positive benefit is coming from, is a form of "playing with toys" - once you realise that a component is sensitive to vibration, then there are all sorts of approaches that can be used to eliminate that 'weakness' - that's when it's called engineering, say.

 

likely to get me banned but you are a serious asshole

[One and a half]

@wdw, stick to your guns and please ask C. Connaker to remove @fas42's worthless posts.

[Ralf11]

ditto - just ask for edit privileges on your thread

[AudioDoctor]

IsoAcoustics makes great stuff. I have some under all my equipment, as well as heavy bamboo cutting boards, and they make a significant improvement.

[AudioDoctor]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

Devices used without considering where the positive benefit is coming from, is a form of "playing with toys"

 

So what, who cares?  Are you the Audio Police?

 

You are as bad as evangelical christians and you do the same thing which is push people away. Let people have their fun and enjoy their journey.

 

You make me want to do everything the opposite of the way you do just out of spite.

[wdw]

3 hours ago, One and a half said:

@wdw, stick to your guns and please ask C. Connaker to remove @fas42's worthless posts.

 

Not my fight but Chris could look at stuff like this...I have the greatest respect for him and his administration of the site.  Not sure how he can judiciously deal with these time wasting mofos.   

Isn’t around 49C all day long in Aus?  So there may be an excuse for this particular loopy Aussie.  Perhaps he has a similar disagreement with AC and won’t just turn it on.  Perhaps it is so just too fxxking hot for our dear boy.

[Blackmorec]

Here’s the thing. From a great number of posts it has become clear that fast42 believes that there’s a certain standard that audio has to reach, which is essentially the ability to fool the brain into building a 3 dimensional soundscape from the 2 stereo signals received by your ears. 

 

In some respects, he’s right in that a number of design and set-up shortcomings will hide/blur/damage/destroy the essential signal differential elements such that all you hear is 2 discreet  signals, one from each speaker. A great number of stereo systems i’ve heard, especially at hi-if shows do just that....left and right sound sources that are missing sufficient information for the brain not to be able to integrate the 2 sources into a single soundscape. 

 

What his posts don’t consider is that the 3D soundstage is just another staging post along the journey and that once achieved, that becomes the new starting point in achieving a completely realistic and immersive performance of the recorded music. 

 

His position is that if you are using ‘toys’ to enhance your system you are somehow making up for shortcomings in the basis designs. But audio is like cars. No matter how good the basic design it can always be improved upon....in automobiles this is called tuning. Take some of the highest performing cars in the World, Porsche, Ferrari, BMW or Mercedes, spend money with a good tuning shop like Ruf, M-sport or AMG and the performance of every single car those manufacturers  build can be improved on. 

 

Hi-fi equipment is no different. Take the World’s top components, put them together in a well matched system and you’ll achieve fantastic results. But enhance the room, the mains supply, the vibration control, the network, the connecting cables etc. And that performance can be further enhanced and refined and this seems to be the bit that fast42 doesn’t quite get. His assumption is that people are using ‘toys’ to compensate for poor performing components but while this may be true in some cases, its a frustrating position for the many audiophiles who are using ‘toys’ to enhance an already excellent system.  

 

To Fast42, your message is important...”if you’re not getting an integrated soundstage your system needs work”. But please don’t assume that every single tweak discussed on this forum is born of ignorance and performed by an audiophile whose currently listening to a flawed system, because that really isn’t the case but it is why you’re getting so much push back. 

[sandyk]

3 hours ago, wdw said:

 

Not my fight but Chris could look at stuff like this...I have the greatest respect for him and his administration of the site.  Not sure how he can judiciously deal with these time wasting mofos.   

Isn’t around 49C all day long in Aus?  So there may be an excuse for this particular loopy Aussie.  Perhaps he has a similar disagreement with AC and won’t just turn it on.  Perhaps it is so just too fxxking hot for our dear boy.

 

 Some could suggest that several in the northern hemisphere have there brains slowed down to a crawl by sub zero temperatures,

 but that is no more acceptable than what you are suggesting, is it ?

[fas42]

57 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

To Fast42, your message is important...”if you’re not getting an integrated soundstage your system needs work”. But please don’t assume that every single tweak discussed on this forum is born of ignorance and performed by an audiophile whose currently listening to a flawed system, because that really isn’t the case but it is why you’re getting so much push back. 

 

People appear to have ignored what I said in my first post on this thread,

 

Quote

 

Best solution is to find equipment that doesn't change its sound, irrespective of how it's supported or stabilised - it's "robust".

 

Next approach is to 'fix' what you have, by adding those isolation feet, etc, that best match the needs of the particular components - this is very much trial and error; I can't see a way of ensuring that the first item used to tweak with will be the "best" - only by going inside the component and working out where it's sensitive will the best 'solution' be arrived at.

 

 

The terminology I use may upset some, and for that I apologise - but my thinking is that if one can hear flaws in the sound, then I consider the system flawed - this motivates me to start thinking about, and working on ways of resolving the shortfall. I have certainly explored the use of vibration damping and isolation, because that is a good tool to use on the journey - my real grievance is with the manufacturers, and those who are key figures in the audio associations, who choose to remain blind to, or ignore what is possible; the lack of interest on their part is what causes the need for each of us to take these extra steps.

 

[fas42]

1 hour ago, Blackmorec said:

What his posts don’t consider is that the 3D soundstage is just another staging post along the journey and that once achieved, that becomes the new starting point in achieving a completely realistic and immersive performance of the recorded music.

 

I'm not quite sure where you got that impression - 3D soundstage, completely realistic and immersive presentation, invisible speakers, are all part of the one package when enough optimising has been done; there are certain attributes to the full-blown illusion, that I've mentioned many times - these are all part of the checklist, to use to 'measure' how far one has progressed.

 

Quite satisfying SQ can be experienced when a rig isn't quite at that level - but one shouldn't mistake that standard as being an endpoint to what's possible.

[Blackmorec]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

I'm not quite sure where you got that impression - 3D soundstage, completely realistic and immersive presentation, invisible speakers, are all part of the one package when enough optimising has been done; there are certain attributes to the full-blown illusion, that I've mentioned many times - these are all part of the checklist, to use to 'measure' how far one has progressed.

 

Quite satisfying SQ can be experienced when a rig isn't quite at that level - but one shouldn't mistake that standard as being an endpoint to what's possible.

Get to the ‘full blown illusion’ point you mention and i’ll tell you what comes next....

• additional air and space around each instrument
• More shimmer, sparkle and energy to the treble
• More solidarity and extension to the bass
• Texture and presence for the air around each instrument
• the feeling that someone is playing the instruments you’re listening to, for example solo violin with breath sounds....guitar with fingers moving up and down the fretboard. 
• The height dimension within the sound stage
• the way musicians shape the notes they play
• the artistry of the sound production engineers as they take the music and create a 3 dimensional sonic ‘painting’
• A body for vocalists
• individual beats for ultra low frequencies 
• A ‘wetness’ to mouth sounds 
• Greater focus to the instruments within the soundstage
• More clearly delineated depth definition
• increased rhythmic interplay between musicians
• increased musical energy 
• Increased listener involvement and excitement

You don’t hear the absence of the above as deficiencies...in all likelihood the music already sounded perfect. Brilliant.  But then you get some new speakers and hey presto, better still

You think there’s an end point when perfection has been achieved; what you call the full blown illusion. But there isn’t.....wherever you are, it can get better when you take any one of dozens of set-up parameters to the next level. The ‘full blown illusion’ simply becomes more profound, more impactful, more believable, more joyous. You start experiencing the same emotions that musicians likely have when creating the music.   

Assuming that audiophiles want to improve their systems because they haven’t yet reached your definition of sonic nirvana is in many cases simply an incorrect assumption. Many want to improve their systems simply because they know they can be better still.  

[Allan F]

On 1/26/2019 at 3:09 PM, fas42 said:

Isolation feet, all sorts of fancy support mechanisms, are just means of post-engineering electronics components that are not built well enough to be insensitive to vibration effects, whether internally or externally originating.

 

Best solution is to find equipment that doesn't change its sound, irrespective of how it's supported or stabilised - it's "robust".

NONSENSE ALERT!

[NOMBEDES]

I like my isolators.  They increase air flow under my components!   That is a good thing.

Photo of isolators made from metal cigar rings and felt pads.

[Ralf11]

I think it is a useful engineering question as to whether an electronic audio device can - or should- be designed so that external isolation devices are not needed (i.e. will not improve SQ).

 

The real question for the consumer however is whether a given type of device (sand table, cones, spikes, rubber dampeners, roller balls) will improve SQ.  Next, how much must be spent, are $$ better allocated elsewhere, etc.

 

It can be very helpful if the consumer has a basic understanding of physics, electronics, and acoustics.

 

Interestingly, Audio Research changed from a metal top cover to a polycarbonate on their tube gear some years ago, and Cambridge Audio says their DacMagic DAC has specially designed feet ...

[fas42]

5 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

 

Assuming that audiophiles want to improve their systems because they haven’t yet reached your definition of sonic nirvana is in many cases simply an incorrect assumption. Many want to improve their systems simply because they know they can be better still.  

 

Everyone has always wanted to improve their system, from year dot, in the audio game. Those thoughts were exactly what propelled me to, accidentally, get the first round of convincing sound - and it was very eye-opening to realise that nearly everyone was unaware of this possibility.

 

Part of the value of my approach is that "unlistenable to" recordings can end up becoming favourites - because it removes the signature of the playback chain; a particular album "always sounds the same".

 

Yes, there are "no limits" to how good the sound can get - but I aim in the first instance to make every recording I have yield up its best.

 

Even the current NAD, which has never hit a peak so far, delivers the "human touch" - I'm thinking here of a old DG Schubert String Quartets, the breathing of the player, the intake of air as he readies for a major run is part of the picture; and doesn't intrude, or disrupt the musical sense.

[fas42]

44 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I think it is a useful engineering question as to whether an electronic audio device can - or should- be designed so that external isolation devices are not needed (i.e. will not improve SQ).

 

The real question for the consumer however is whether a given type of device (sand table, cones, spikes, rubber dampeners, roller balls) will improve SQ.  Next, how much must be spent, are $$ better allocated elsewhere, etc.

 

It can be very helpful if the consumer has a basic understanding of physics, electronics, and acoustics.

 

Interestingly, Audio Research changed from a metal top cover to a polycarbonate on their tube gear some years ago, and Cambridge Audio says their DacMagic DAC has specially designed feet ...

 

My take is that the audio device should be designed to not be sensitive to the external environment, whether it it is detrimental, or beneficial. Anything else guarantees that the snake oil market will flourish, thrive forever - you spend $5,000 for the component, and then another $5,000 to "make it work better" - this is ludicrous, and IMO ensures that audio will regarded by outsiders as a scene for "weirdos".

[Blackmorec]

Ivor Tiefenbrun of Linn was the first manufacturer that I am aware of to do what you propose. He developed, built and sold a TT called the Sondek that was as good as he and his engineers knew how to make. It certainly outperformed most of its competitors at the time and its price reflected its pre-eminence.  

So here's a challenge. Can anyone name any other product that has spawned so many tweaks, accessories, updates and upgrades?

[ralphfcooke]

It does seem a little strange that whenever someone make a change to their system, especially one with a significant cost involvement, that the result is almost always positive.

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume the manufacturer has gone to some lengths to ensure their product performs

at something approaching its optimum, in which case it would seem to me that there would be an even chance that changes would be negative?

[Blackmorec]

Hey Ralph,

I think there’s quite a rational explanation for that.  First, why would anyone buy something that made their system sound worse? Given that most dealers these days sell products with the right to return if not satisfied, I imagine the majority of products sold would make an improvement to SQ, while those that didn’t would be returned. 

Then there’s the reporting side. How many audiophiles are going to be motivated to write a post about products that made their system sound worse ...a) because it perhaps makes them look like a twit if they actually bought it and b) it makes for very boring reading and c) there’s not much motivation to write about negative experiences. 

There are however lots of articles written by Audiophiles who trial several products and pick one as the best,  whilst reporting the shortcomings of the others. 

On a personal level I’ve had several experiences trying products with stellar reviews that didn’t improve SQ for exactly the reason you gave...the product it was replacing or enhancing was damned good in its own right. But I didn’t bother reporting my experience for exactly the reasons I listed above.  

In statistics, dealer trials and writer motivation would be classed as confounding variables....something that influences the results without being considered in the statistical analysis. 

[Ralf11]

Given that most consumers these days are satisfied with confirmation bias, I imagine the majority of products sold would look groovy and technical whether or not they made an improvement to SQ...

[wdw]

On 1/28/2019 at 2:09 AM, Blackmorec said:

..... it has become clear that fast42 believes that......

In some respects, he’s right in that a......

His position is that if you are.....

His assumption is that...

 

......"but it is why you’re getting so much push back. 

 

So you are the fas42 whisperer?  

I see a pattern here where he will post a comment which is a best obtuse, if not divisive and insulting then you show up to attempt an explanation of his true intentions.  

Easy to simply assume you one and the same person.

Further to the “push back” you mention, just from you two so far.   

[wdw]

7 hours ago, ralphfcooke said:

It does seem a little strange that whenever someone make a change to their system, especially one with a significant cost involvement, that the result is almost always positive.

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume the manufacturer has gone to some lengths to ensure their product performs

at something approaching its optimum, in which case it would seem to me that there would be an even chance that changes would be negative?

 

The cost of the items I am recommending are in the range of $60 each with a minimum of three required.  Are you suggesting $180 is a significant cost when discussing audio gear?  Hell, it is a bargain.