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.
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?
- ...
- 88 posts total
- 88 posts total