Right Geoff, and I also noticed Dickson's references to the lowest frequencies(like you mention) are not at all effectively dealt with by the rubbery stuff which passes whatever is below its resonant frequency( and also reaches overload very quickly in the freq's that it does work at).
It seems as though this issue quickly becomes one of what vibrations we would like to deal with. If we "isolate"(using traditional methods) we interfere with the normal vibration pathways that would allow an escape route which could be faster than normal decay patterns. If we use rigid frames, we are subject to the movement of the earth's crust.
Our approach is to deal with the most prevalent vibrational effects which occur during audio playback(which is really the only time we are concerned about it). These effects are primarily airborne effects of large amplitude which, in turn, excite everything in the room. We have chosen a method which very effectively deals with this issue, while maybe not being ideal for controlling the movement of the earth's crust. It was our premise that providing a good solution for the airborne resonances to be evacuated was more important to system performance overall than de-coupling from the earth's crust motions. As an engineer, I'm sure you are very familiar with the process of deciding which aspects are the most important to deal with, and leaving other aspects as secondary.
While some may not agree with our premise that airborne vibrations are the most important ones to deal with, it is the basis of our designs, and we executed a design which was primarily focused on this significant part of the problem. Note that we do not state that our products will ever be 100% effective at dealing with all vibrational issues, rather only that it is quite effective at dealing with the ones which we see as the most detrimental ones to the audio system reproduction.
We are well aware of the excellent designs which are meant to "isolate" machine equipment or electron microscopes from floorborne vibrations in industrial applications. They do that job quite well, and are good at it. Our audio applications are quite different, and we differentiate which vibrations that we will deal with, in order to maximize our designs in certain parameters, primarily airborne vibration management affecting the audio band. We have found that these designs do in fact provide very good audible results, because of how we designed and executed them. Are they perfect? No. Are they good enough to be consistently considered as contenders for the best performing stands available? Yes.
So, while people may differ with our premises, and the solutions that we implement, the end result of our efforts is as valid or applicable in real-world use, as anything used for audio purposes today. The systems that deal with floorborne vibrations typically fall somewhat short in dealing as effectively with airborne-induced vibrations. Our design which is maximized for dealing with internal electromechanical,and airborne resonances may be somewhat less productive against earth's crust movements. It was an issue of what made more impact on the audio system performance, and we made our choice.
Storage and re-circulation of the vibrations which is typical in "isolation systems" today, made no sense to us. The Zener Viscoelastic Model shows us that this is what happens in practice.
So basically, we "paid our money" and took our best shot, using different ideas than were normally accepted in this industry, but which have a basis in science. And they work. Whether this is exactly what any particular consumer wishes to purchase, is up to them individually.
We have a concept, scientific foundation, and products which are based on these. We offer them to the public for sale. The eventual success, or failure, will be determined by how well it performs in the eyes(ears) of the consumers.
As far as anything else is concerned, there's always tomorrow, and there's no telling what we might learn that can help us to provide even more satisfaction for audio listeners. We are always listening to the input from our customers, and the industry.
Sincerely,
Tom Lyons
Starsound Technologies
It seems as though this issue quickly becomes one of what vibrations we would like to deal with. If we "isolate"(using traditional methods) we interfere with the normal vibration pathways that would allow an escape route which could be faster than normal decay patterns. If we use rigid frames, we are subject to the movement of the earth's crust.
Our approach is to deal with the most prevalent vibrational effects which occur during audio playback(which is really the only time we are concerned about it). These effects are primarily airborne effects of large amplitude which, in turn, excite everything in the room. We have chosen a method which very effectively deals with this issue, while maybe not being ideal for controlling the movement of the earth's crust. It was our premise that providing a good solution for the airborne resonances to be evacuated was more important to system performance overall than de-coupling from the earth's crust motions. As an engineer, I'm sure you are very familiar with the process of deciding which aspects are the most important to deal with, and leaving other aspects as secondary.
While some may not agree with our premise that airborne vibrations are the most important ones to deal with, it is the basis of our designs, and we executed a design which was primarily focused on this significant part of the problem. Note that we do not state that our products will ever be 100% effective at dealing with all vibrational issues, rather only that it is quite effective at dealing with the ones which we see as the most detrimental ones to the audio system reproduction.
We are well aware of the excellent designs which are meant to "isolate" machine equipment or electron microscopes from floorborne vibrations in industrial applications. They do that job quite well, and are good at it. Our audio applications are quite different, and we differentiate which vibrations that we will deal with, in order to maximize our designs in certain parameters, primarily airborne vibration management affecting the audio band. We have found that these designs do in fact provide very good audible results, because of how we designed and executed them. Are they perfect? No. Are they good enough to be consistently considered as contenders for the best performing stands available? Yes.
So, while people may differ with our premises, and the solutions that we implement, the end result of our efforts is as valid or applicable in real-world use, as anything used for audio purposes today. The systems that deal with floorborne vibrations typically fall somewhat short in dealing as effectively with airborne-induced vibrations. Our design which is maximized for dealing with internal electromechanical,and airborne resonances may be somewhat less productive against earth's crust movements. It was an issue of what made more impact on the audio system performance, and we made our choice.
Storage and re-circulation of the vibrations which is typical in "isolation systems" today, made no sense to us. The Zener Viscoelastic Model shows us that this is what happens in practice.
So basically, we "paid our money" and took our best shot, using different ideas than were normally accepted in this industry, but which have a basis in science. And they work. Whether this is exactly what any particular consumer wishes to purchase, is up to them individually.
We have a concept, scientific foundation, and products which are based on these. We offer them to the public for sale. The eventual success, or failure, will be determined by how well it performs in the eyes(ears) of the consumers.
As far as anything else is concerned, there's always tomorrow, and there's no telling what we might learn that can help us to provide even more satisfaction for audio listeners. We are always listening to the input from our customers, and the industry.
Sincerely,
Tom Lyons
Starsound Technologies