07-28-15: Maril555
I didn't want to participate in this thread, but anyhow...
I used to have numerous Sistrum platforms in my system.
Under the speakers, amps, preamp., etc.
After reading glowing accounts of Sistrum owners here, I'm somewhat surprised nobody noticed how much they affect tonality of the system.
I can report from my own experience, and with absolute certainty, that Sistrum platforms do change an overall tonality of the component, they are under. Make it sounds brighter, probably emphasizing upper midrange, lower treble.
They are NOT neutral by any stretch of imagination.
This is not to say, they don't make positive contribution, and the change of tonality may be complimentary in some systems context.
But come on!!! This is a huge qualifier, all potential owners should be aware of.
Going back and reading some past Sistrum reviews, I have found at least one, when the owner compared it to other support systems, and came out with the same conclusion.
It's so obvious, it's really hard not to notice.
Since then I have tried many others (Herbies, Mapleshade, Symposium, Stillpoints, HRS, SRA), and still have some in the various parts of my present system
In the end, my personal impression is as follows:
All rigid designs, metal in particular, introduce their own resonant frequency, as part of "their own" sonic character, for the most part, making a sound of the component leaner and brighter.
Rigid wood structures (maple stands, platforms, etc) have a tendency to "dull and color" the sound.
The best designs by far, are the ones implementing sofisticated vibration dissipation technologies. There are different approaches to that.
Some notable examples are Stillpoints Ultra 5 and Ultra SS,
SRA, HRS (that I tried personally).The others like Critical Mass, Nordost, etc., i have no experience with.
They tend to be very effective in dissipating harmful vibrations, "cleaning up" the sound in the process, and at the same time imposing very small, if any sonic footprint of their own.
In my limited experience, SRA is probably the least "intrusive" one. Makes all the positive changes, w/o any detrimental side-effects, that I can notice.
Stillpoints are exceptionally good, but somewhat component and system dependent. I have never had SS make stuff brighter. I have read similar comments about Stillpoints (which I have owned as well). Much of the effects of grounding via steel and bass is subsonic (according to Robert at SS). What it can do in some circumstances is unmask a component's personality. If tone control is the goal, wood or rubber can be good as are softer sounding cabling. I have heard your speakers sound great and bad depending on the setup (tubes are the way IMO). I know Robert worked on some SS mods for them in the past ironically....:) I believe SS still has a demo policy, so opinions are honestly irrelevant (as they should be). |
Maril555,
I don't doubt your listening impressions via Star Sound products, you heard what you heard in your system. I'm unaware of any product regardless of review/reputation that has achieved 100% consensus/agreement, never happens. Too many system and listener variables to contend with.
There was a thread on this site in the past where Still Points and Star Sound were compared. Although the majority who tried both preferred SS, some preferred SP, THIS MAKES SENSE TO ME. I haven't experienced the tonal problems you encountered, different ears,room,componrnts etc.The best one can do is try a product for themselves and listen to it in their system. Outcomes will vary as expected.
Charles, |
Well said Charles.
Maril, what stands did you use and did they sit in your rack or the ground? |
Getting back to the OP's question, I would answer, "by staying out of the way."
IMO, the purposes of a rack are to provide a firm platform protecting equipment from external vibrations (I believe pointy footers under the rack help with this), to allow organization of components that facilitates short and unobstructed cable runs, to be sonically neutral with no ringing, self-noise or effect on system tonality and, in the best examples, to allow good ventilation around, above and beneath the components.
The Sound Anchors solid steel, sand-filled, rack and stands I use do an excellent job at all of the above. I use a Sound Anchors rack, amplifier stand, and custom made cradle bases for my speakers. All of these are anchored to a concrete floor using edenSound Bear Paws, which are massive, brass points. Several features of the Sound Anchors racks and stands include their heavy mass, the damping effect of the sand filling, adjustable bar supports which can be positioned directly beneath the footers/contact points of all sizes of components, ability to use after-market footers under components (e.g., Herbies, Stillpoints, etc.), the open air flow above, around and beneath components and the ability to customize widths, heights, and component opening sizes. They are made in the USA and are great people to do business with.
From what I see of the Star Sound platforms, they also seem to accomplish the above stated goals. I cannot comment on their effect (or not) on tonality. Being modular, they seem to be infinitely adjustable. I can see why people like them. I suspect the sonic differences between systems supported on a suspended wood floor and those supported on a concrete slab-on-grade are much greater than the sonic differences between Star Sound or Sound Anchors racks.
My only issue, alluded to in my original post, is the prevalent and excessive use of "scientific" explanations in this industry that create an illusion that only a certain product can provide the conditions necessary for great sound. The cable industry is the worst at promoting this (e.g., your cables will not sound good without using OCC wire, or silver wire, or dielectric-biasing, or a network box, or, or, or...). Audiophiles are such a tweaky, detailed group we seem to eat that stuff up and sometimes lose the forest for the trees. Maybe that is why I find Wolf's posts hilarious, because he doesn't take this stuff too seriously and finds humor in being irreverent to the BS attached to the industry. |
Mitch2, if I find a product valuable for the realism of my system, I usually seek some explanation. With regards to vibrations one reads a number of explanations. One entails what is a variation of springs under the devise whether they are actual springs or like poll magnets. Then another focus is on grounding the component to something much heavier. Points are part of this as the foot pounds per square inch increases with a point. I don't think there is much scientifically to say that these are really different other than having different resonant frequencies. But every device under ones component affects its sound.
For years I found very modest benefits with different devices, but with the Stillpoints Ultras and the Star Sound Rhythms there are big differences. I have my preferencs, but clearly there are stark differences. Perhaps there is good science underlying these designs and perhaps they are beneficial to only one aspect of the sound. I don't think science can lead us to one technique that clearly satisfies everyone's tastes in what they hear. |
