Shelf Material


I have tried so many different shelf materials, and some are better than others, but I feel like I am just spraying bullets that always miss the bulls-eye. So far, I cannot live with the brightness of glass, the ringing of marble or granite, the sluggishness of acrylic, the muddiness of mdf etc. Light and rigid seems better than heavy and dense - in that I can live with the downsides more easily. I use heavily constructed welded steel racks - spiked to the floor and upward spikes supporting the shelves - and I reckon this is right. I like the way bladder products get rid of the resonances that plague shelves, but find that the way they slow down the pace of the music is hard to accept. Does anyone have some answers on this?
redkiwi
Thanks for your kind words and advice Cornfedboy. The sad reality is that the only racks/shelves that reach these shores are of the basic variety, with the exceptions being Mana Acoustics and Townshend (and I own examples of each - most of which are in "the closet"). There are importers of cones from BDR and Polycrystal, but noone brings in the shelves. And noone brings in Zoethecus so far as I know. For example, I wanted two amp stands for my monoblocks and called around all of the better dealers in New Zealand - or at least that was what I intended, but truthfully I gave up after the first six because I was sick of explaining what an amp stand was... if you get the picture. In the end I did what every other audiofile does here - got them made. I would indeed prefer to just try and buy, but I am much less keen on importing one, only for it to end up in "the closet" - I am sure we all have one of those. Having come to this point with shelves (ie. needing to splash out and hope), I posted here hoping optimistically that there might be a concensus as to the best shelf material/product so that the chances of success could be improved. I think Albert Porter has done a lot of experimenting with vibration control, but his posts indicate he agrees pretty much with Dekay ie. that there is no universal answer. Perhaps I am being too optimistic. Anyway, I will investigate Zoethecus from here, and perhaps that is what I may end up trying. I hope you do get to New Zealand one day. I have known many Americans who have come here - some stay, some get homesick and go back. The ones that stay are adamant there is no place better. Personally I don't think it is a place to spend all one's life, but it is a wonderful place when you are a kid, when you have kids, and when you want to live a quieter life later on. In between, most of us Kiwis travel a lot and I have been forunate to visit your lucky country a number of times - picking up audio gear every time of course.
Hi Redkiwi. Found your opening remarks very interesting. I'm trying to struggle through with an old Rotel 855 while mulling new digital front end options, and am trying to reduce high frequency roughness now apparent in my new otherwise-highly-resolving system. I'm using an air bladder suspension under the CDP, and am not aware of any change in PRT, as you suggest is possible/probable. Before I try reusing my old cones, or sorbothane feet, etc., and struggle to hear changes, do any of you guys have suggestions for improving CDP isolation (esp HF grain) WITHOUT compromising rhythm?...and indeed is it true that non-rigid setups (like airbladders) risk timing anomolies? Thanks. Ernie
Only the Townshend are available in this part of the world, and they are not light compared with a light rigid shelf. I hear them as slowing things up. I am not familiar with the 855 so it is difficult to comment further on the problem you are experiencing. Currently, I use a very light and rigid chip-board shelf under my transport - the sort that is small chips of wood glued together and which includes a lot of air. It is much lighter and more rigid than particle board. It is clad with a very hard surface of compressed wood and so cones and spikes make no impression on it. I then use BDR #4 cones under the transport. In general I find that the right cone depends on the shelf being used, and that this combination works quite well. However, the reason for this post is that, although the result is fine, it is still a trade-off. It is definitely still more resonant than using a bladder product, but I prefer its more accurate pacing.
Hi Redkiwi. I just went through a similar situation in my own system. The sound that I found worked best for me was suggested by a turntable manufacturer. There is a food grade solid hard rock Maple butcher block shelf, that is factory fitted and glued. In the USA, McMaster Carr supplies this and is available in two and a half inch thick material. This comes in both 24" and 36" depth, and is available in a variety of lengths. I ordered mine in 6 foot, and had a local woodworker rip and sand this into the shelves for my system. I also had him laminate the front and top surfaces with gray Formica. The Formica seems to have no affect on the sound, it merely provided the finish I wanted. Please post your results, especially if you choose to try the suggestions provided by Caterham1700. I would like to know if it is worth considering starting over on my own project.
I have not heard it mentioned so far, and I have not tried yet, but maple butcher block is supposed to work great. I have tried the sandboxes, homemade and bought and the seismic sinks too, as well as a lot of diffrent footers. Hidiously expensive and heavy, though in terms of the improvment brought out a great deal is the Vibraplane. It is hands down the best isolation device I have ever used. It is sort of similar to the seismic sink exept that it has seperate chambers so that the air can move freely between the foot and the storage chanber, it also weighs 150lbs. The improvment it brings out is undeniably huge. You can order them factory direct from Sounds of Silence, Steve is a great guy to work with.