2. analog
  3. 1359750279

HRS M3X isolation base or Minus-K?

Hi All,

I'm looking for some input about these two platforms under a non-suspended turntable. Anyone have experience with both?

I have a Brinkmann Oasis on the way, for which HRS makes a custom platform. I could buy a Minus-K MB100-8 at roughly the same cost.

Minus-Ks are a known quantity to me because I've used them under two non-suspended decks with great results. I have no experience with the M3X. Either platform will sit on an Adona rack, spiked to a concrete floor.

Minus-K does a great job of isolating from external resonance, especially in the vertical plane, but does nothing for self-noise from the turntable. I found that an additional shelf is needed between the turntable and top-plate of the Minus-K, both to damp this source of resonance and to add enough weight to reach the upper range-limit of the suspension for best performance. An Adona multi-element shelf (granite bonded to MDF) resting upon Vibrapods works very well. (Vibrapods, believe it or not, were better than anything else I tried, including myriad combinations of sorbothane disks, Herbie's Big Fat Dots, etc.)

My sense is that the multiple damping layers of the HRS would address this self-noise better than the Minus-K in combination with an Adona shelf and Vibrapods, but I'm not sure. On the other hand, the HRS almost certainly will not be as effective against external resonance as the Minus-K.

I'm kind of tempted to go with the HRS because Brinkmann recommends it, and because HRS told me in an email, "We know the Oasis table very well. Our custom designs...are based on direct experience with this turntable. Our chief engineer is currently using this table as one of his test turntables."

It's a conundrum.

I welcome any suggestions but I'm especially interested in direct experience comparing these two platforms.

Thanks,
Bill
wrm57
syntax's avatar
syntax
2,193 posts
 
Forget the Vibraplane or the HRS platform; go with the Mapleshade Vibration Control System (brass footers, maple block, and Isoblocks). I quote from the Mapleshade catalog: "In independent head-to-head listening tests, the Mapleshade [VCS] invariably sounds better than $5000 Vibraplane air suspension platforms-much warmer, more detailed, and more naturally dynamic at less than 1/20 the cost. Ditto for expensive composite platforms, sandboxes, and air tube/bladder suspensions from Symposium, Ginko, HRS, Seismic Sink, Bright Star, Nuance, Sistrum, and Silent Running.

That sounds great :-)
I bet, this Mapleshade "solution" is a result of endless research, sleepless nights and a deep understanding in technical knowledge. Real Engineering. Just the best after sliced bread.

The Mother Of High End
wrm57 OP
1,052 posts
 
Yeah, I'm especially convinced by "invariably" and "ditto."

Anyone have experience with the HRS M3X platforms? They're the unknown quantity to me.
myles_b_astor's avatar
myles_b_astor
134 posts
 
Think Pierre might just know a thing or two about engineering,Syntax?

------------------------------------

Mapleshade was founded in 1989 by Pierre Sprey, who had been recording since 1986.[1] Prior to his career in jazz recording, Sprey had worked as an aeronautical engineer in The Pentagon, designing A-10 and F-16 fighter jets.[1] The label is based in Upper Marlboro, Maryland. A sister label, Wildchild Records, was founded in 1995. In later years the label branched into R&B and blues.
myles_b_astor's avatar
myles_b_astor
134 posts
 
Or this might be of interest.
___________________________________________

Boyd, defense analysts Tom Christie and Pierre Sprey, and test pilot Col. Everest Riccioni and aeronautical engineer Harry Hillaker formed the core of the self-dubbed "Fighter Mafia" which worked behind the scenes in the late 1960s to pursue a lightweight fighter as an alternative to the F-15. Riccioni coined the nickname, a joke on his Italian heritage that harkened back to the "Bomber Mafia" (whose acolytes still occupied the upper command positions of the Air Force), and dubbed himself the "godfather". In 1969, under the guise that the Navy was developing a small, high-performance Navy aircraft, Riccioni won $149,000 to fund the "Study to Validate the Integration of Advanced Energy-Maneuverability Theory with Trade-Off Analysis". This money was split between Northrop and General Dynamics to build the embodiment of Boyd's E-M theory - a small, low-drag, low-weight, pure fighter with no bomb racks. Northrop demanded and received $100,000 to design the YF-17; General Dynamics, eager to redeem its debacle with the F-111, received the remainder to develop the YF-16.[2]
______________________________

So I'd say Pierre has a pretty solid engineering background, wouldn't you. In fact, far more than many, many other high-end designers. And no, I don't own any his products.
myles_b_astor's avatar
myles_b_astor
134 posts
 
One last reference:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/11/pierre-spreys-ideal-us-airpowe.html
More to discover