2. amps-preamps
  3. 1433885808

How an audio rack can enhance your amp/pre



Just thought I would share my recent experience with upgrading my sound star technologies rack to the new rhythm rack.

Every now and then, I have a visiting audiophile who really appreciates my system…and traditionally asks – “wow, what makes it sound so good?” My typical answer is it all makes a difference, even down the equipment rack, which can and certainly should be considered a component…but in many cases is overlooked…

Star Sound introduction

About 10 years ago, I was introduced to Star Sound Technologies Sistrum platforms and Audio Points. Audiopoints has always been known for its manufacture of well-designed and beautifully manufactured brass cones used under equipment and as an integral part of an audio stand. This ultimately led to the design of stands designed to transfer vibrations out of components and down to ground. What I didn’t know at the time was how good the Sistrum platforms ‘sounded’. So, I bit the bullet and tried several Sistrum Platforms - what intrigued me about the stands was the design of the Sistrum Platform which allowed a pre-determined pattern of energy, known as Coulomb Friction to develop and dissipate via a high-speed calculated conductive pathway to earth's ground. Which made sense…how do you deal with airborne energy dissipation? I know you could put cones to reduce vibrations from the ‘ground up’ so to speak, but how could you eliminate airborne vibration? We’ve all held our hand on our equipment when music is playing only to feel the equipment vibrate, so how do you deal with it? Draining it quickly to ground made sense, but at the end of the day, all I really wanted to know was…does it improve the sound?

To say I was shocked is an understatement - the Original Sistrum Platforms offered – smoother sound, better transients, dynamics and a lower noise floor. And, the cool part is that you could turn up the sound and the music would flow with greater ease…well worth the investment. Robert at Star Sound was extremely helpful in guiding me through which racks made the most sense for my system.

Rhythm Platforms

Which brings me to 2015…it had been a while since I last spoke with Robert curious as to what his engineering team was up to…which led me to check out the ‘new’ model of Sistrum Stands – the Sistrum Rhythm Platforms.

These new platforms / shelves were substantially heavier, with a nicer overall finish than the original stands, with more grooves allowing for substantially more options to place points in various places under your equipment to refine the sound even further. In addition, the shelves were engineered to deal with resonances in a more efficient manner…The brass cones at the bottom of the rack were substantially bigger in size - 3 inches and quite heavy. The brass cones under the equipment were attached with nicely crafted screws that could be hand tightened and no longer required a screw driver… a nice feature making it both easier to put together but also the amount of tightening could influence the sound. The brass and platform rods are modular, making it easier to put together and painted in a beautiful black finish – in combination with the brass I would say the improvement in the WAF factor is significant – the stands are really impressive to look at. As for structure, these things were a solid as could be – and heavy! Not going anywhere, even in an earthquake!

My system includes VAC equipment, preamp, amps, DAC and a transport. As well as power supplies. Most of which now rested on the new Rhythm Platform.

Listening Impressions:

My first impressions were clearly a lower noise floor with enhanced dynamics, while also being able to hear deeper into the soundstage, which now extended well outside of the speakers. Tempo was faster, due to better-defined, leading edges. The high end was ‘cleaner’, with more sheen and decay on symbols and hi hats. Brass had that right bite to it, without over doing it…Bass lines were tighter which led to better ‘rhythm’ … and best of all, I could crank up the volume and the dynamic range seemed to extend effortlessly, which was a nice surprise.

One thing I noticed, that was true of my initial experience with Sistrum Platforms, is that the newer Rhythm Platforms sounded progressively better after 3 days of ‘settling’ and reached full potential after about 1 week. So some form of break in is required.
Over the years, I’ve tried different racks and various cones under equipment, whether if be soft, hard, ceramic, rubber (or some variation of ‘absorbing material’ etc.) you name it. All of which ‘altered’ the sound, but nothing came close to the Sistrum Stands holistically; while the new Rhythm stands, just take it all to a higher level…
While I cannot expound eloquently on science of Coulomb’s Friction, I can tell you that whatever they are doing at Star Sound visa vie their racks, it works…and it’s not subtle. This is a very audible improvement in your listening experience. If you want your system to perform at its highest level, I would suggest that you maximize your investment in your equipment by letting it do what it does best and put it on a Sistrum rack that will allow it to perform at its best. And if you want the best, I would strongly recommend the Rhythm Platforms.
wisper
charles1dad's avatar
charles1dad
10,250 posts
 
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,
agear
1,362 posts
 
Well said Charles.

Maril, what stands did you use and did they sit in your rack or the ground?
mitch2
4,115 posts
 
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.
tbg
5,263 posts
 
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.
maril555
619 posts
 
Agear, Charles,
My rack is DIY with maple shelves, something like a Mapleshade.
I do use SRA Ohio stands under the Lamm amps and Tron Syren, that sits on the rack.
I'm getting SRA rack though.
As I mentioned previously, I've had my whole system on various SS stands at some point, so I have pretty good idea about the product.
So, let me ask you guys- do you really feel, that Sistrum stands are completely neutral and don't emphasize leading edge and don't accentuate some parts of the upper midrange/lower treble spectrum?
It clearly did so in my system.
It's not completely objectionable, and is noticable more on some recordings, and less on the others.
But it is there! And since I'm very sensitive to the issue, I've moved on to more 'benign" solutions.
Again, I can see somebody not to be affected that much, or to be willing to accept the compromise for whatever reason. And that is the whole different story.
What I'm having a problem with, is the fact, that people imply SS is devoid of any sonic signature.
More to discover