What is vibration isolation for?

Circling the wagons, closing ranks. Nothing that I wrote previously in this thread has been seriously challenged. The debate is fundamentally the same as in most if not all previous threads. The only added twist is the hobby aspect, which, as far as I can tell, is a rehash of the "you don't belong here, you are bothering the good people in this town and you should leave" diatribe. My position is quite reasonable and can be summed up by saying that the ends vs. means reversal that is high end audio à la Audiogon crowd, TAS, Stereophile etc is incurable. Worst yet, it is perceived as being the gist of the hobby. To me the hobby is about listening to reproduced music that brings enjoyment and sounds like a very good facsimile of the real thing. Maybe, just maybe, some advancement will come from the more leading edge, no holds barred fanatics. That it would come from uncontrolled, haphazard listening sessions is a stretch as far as I can tell, but great discoveries have come from chance. The subjective side in high end audio has won. That is obvious. The arguments are very repetitive by now (and I surely include mine in that comment). The only problem is the person new to the pursuit, asking questions that are honest, sometimes simple, sometimes not, having only one side responding. And then you have threads asking why people are not attracted to audio. High end audio is a faith based pursuit with a tip of the hat to pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo and bafflegab. No one is arguing your right to isolate your solid state equipment as you see fit. I am simply unconvinced of the benefits on solid state equipment that can be derived thereform and any resultant improvement in the quality of reproduced music in a home system. I will refrain from any argument on the burden of proof for any such benefit, the quality of evidence to be put forward and so on. That someone would argue the additive benefits of numerous tweaks and upgrades would be a change and a better argument, I think, but no, every tweak or just about, is said to produce HUGE improvements even when no plausible explanation exists. Albertporter, I admire, in a way, your single minded purpose. I simply do not have the time, the financial resources nor the unflinching belief in my ear/brain processor you have in yours. Ultra high end audio of the subjective, any fleeting perceived improvement is worth it at any cost, stripe is, as you people have so well realised, pearls to swine, in my case.

Pbb, I hope your hearing ability is not as bad as your reading ability. EVERY assertion you have made in this thread has been addressed and proven to be either factually false, or logically corrupt. Yet, you say "Nothing that I wrote previously in this thread has been seriously challenged."

Are you reading the same thread that everyone else is?

Pbb -- have you tried any of the free/dirt-cheap means of isolation mentioned above? Or even any of the expensive ones? Yes, no, if yes then with what type of equipment (e.g., CD player)? Just curious.

While not caring at all about what the ignoramuses continually espouse above, I only tried to answer the originally posted question based upon my own experiences. Yes the stuff works, no we don't always understand why.
But what bothers me is that the poster is being so misinformed with absolute disinformation being posted by the absolutely clueless, who claim that they "know it all", "it can't possibly work because I don't understand why", " those who have experienced improvements are imagining it all because they spent the $ but I didn't".

Audiofile9, you will have to speak louder my hearing aid batteries have died. I postulate that even if one admits for sake of argument that vibration can affect solid state circuitry by the mechanism you indicated in your post, you leap to the conclusion that it has an effect on the reproduced sound which you can perceive even if such effect is so small that it is below the threshold of human hearing. I ask a simple question: what is the magnitude of this effect? Where is the straw man? Your argument simply means, unless I am thick, that it is so obvious to the trained ear, that nothing else should be required in the way of evidence. Even assuming your observation is right, for sake of argument, a causal link between what you deem to be an incontrovertible observation and the mechanism you describe would be appropriate. Is it enough to say I put my XYZ amp on an ABC stand, it sounded way better to my superior trained ear, I have this nice explanation about vibration acting on solid state equipment, so that one is the cause of the other and obviously the reason why it sounds better?

I, somehow, prefer the honesty of posters who say who cares why, I hear it and that's enough for me, I don't need any explanation. PBB is a deaf jerk anyway and a know-nothing raining on our parade.

The "irony" statement is rather strange but no stranger than the "experiment" you suggest. I never said that vibration did not affect the chassis of a component. I merely stated that even if it did, the ill effects would not be audible in the normal reproduction of music in the home. Your pronouncement that the vibrations are such that they affect the electronic components inside the box and cause audible ill effects is supported only by your claim that you hear it and that this should be proof enough, sounds way more ironic than anything written by me. Is there anything outside the lunatic audio press, published by someone who knows what the hell he is talking about (which seems to exclude you and me both) supporting your, for want of a better word, theory?

The analogy I drew was simply to point out that because something exists which we associate with undesirable effects, we need not worry about it unless it is over a certain threshold. Did you know that there apparently are government regulations concerning the presence of insects in raspberry jam? That's what Kraft Foods told me years ago when I complained I found a bug in my new jam jar. Gives one pause no? Jam is still jam even if a jar in a million contains recognizable bug parts. I for one no longer eat Kraft jam. Too risky. I may not "anologize" to your liking, but I have difficulty following your writing. What you are saying is that in audio no matter how infinitesimal a physical phenomena is, good ears can always pick it up. I say how unfortunate. Don't eat that jam.

Insofar as knowledge of the industry is concerned, I know enough. The mere fact that one or a number of manufacturers of whatever stripe includes this or that in their equipment does not mean too much, since the inclusion could be for marketing purposes more than anything else. Think about it, they have to sell this stuff to people like you. So there is no hard data on this or that going into the product, just say it sounds better and chances are if the planets and stars align just right and your special good friend at high-end magazine such and such endorses it, it will become truth. Moreover, how do you know that any specific piece of gear produced by a manufacturer sounds better because of the vibration suppressing chassis. Would this not require auditioning two identical amps, save for the chassis? I will rephrase my question: why are only a handful of solid state amplifier manufacturers offering vibration reducing chassis? And tell me honestly, if you got yourself a Rowland amplifier with the tweaked out chassis would you not try it out on an expensive base and rave about how much better the whole thing is and what marvellous synergy you have just encountered. When is one done reducing vibration? Borrowing from the Stones: love is just a kiss away... Oh and by the way, I love the Frick and Frack rapport between you and Albertporter.