Shelf Material - Neuance

I really like the new Patricia Barber - "Nightclub" is it? Have not heard the Burns Sisters but will check it out. I have driven my self to distraction auditioning different shelf materials, different racks, different interfaces between rack and shelf and different footers. You are right Subaruguru - the permutations are endless. But I really have felt that what I have used previously (most things under the sun it seems) have been letting my system down. This is because trying different things would shift the result quite noticeably. Anyway, my theory is - light, rigid, releasing its energy quickly and yet damped so that energy release is not peaky. The Neuance is very very close to that ideal, in a way that no other shelf I know of is - even the ones I have only read about, such as the BDR and Polycrystal shelves (too much mass to work I reckon). Right now I am getting really good results from the Neuance, significantly better than anything else I have ever tried. I am using a sand filled welded steel rack. The Neuance sits on small, thin hard rubber pads, that really don't compress more than a gnat's whisker, and then the component sits on the Neuance using only conventional small hard rubber feet. With any other shelf, this would sound blurred, and would be improved upon by either using up-pointed spikes between rack and shelf, of using a footer like Walker or BDR cones, or Vibrapods. But the Neuance sounds vibrant, balanced, very detailed, and I am just loving the music that I am hearing. Fancy footers make it sound worse, ie. destroys the balance and overaccentuates detail. I am getting two more Neuance shelves in the new year and am very confident I am on the right track.

Hi Mark! Finally am getting around to properly (?) assessing the Neuance shelf. Previous starting point was my lightly-modded Rotel 855CDP on a wheel-barrow innertube (which clearly cleaned up the top octaves a bit, without perceptible loss of PRAT). I first tried the Neuance under the CDP with
three down-turned cones, and although pace and clarity are extraordinary, I was still bothered by nastiness in the top octaves. Then I remembered that Ken (caterham) recommended (and provided for me) pointed setscrews to place up-pointed between the rack shelf and the Neuance. As I haven't gotten the electric drill out yet, I've attempted to simulate this
mounting by simply flipping my three cones to upward-facing.
(I had remembered all the negative feedback re upward-facing
cones, but reasoned that the Neuance would somehow act to "vet" energy from the rack into itself with this arrangement, and I think that was Ken's point.) Initial perceptions are that the sound is less lean; whether this is due to a real change in spectral tilt or simply a perceived one because the low treble seems cleaner is only conjecture. Is the bass fatter and looser?
...as claimed re up-facing points? I doubt it, but will continue assessing. Music used thus far included the new OPUS111 disc of Vivaldi's Gloria & Magnificat by an Italian troupe. Whereas the vocals were outstanding in both shelf orientations, repeated playings of the difficult string sections yielded a cleaner, less "digital", or distortion-laden sound with the cones upturned! I'm not sure if I perceive a slight loss of top octave air, however (could also be spectral tilt-related, and not "real").
.........Second disc was Respighi's Roman Festivals on Delos (DePriest).
Again, much more tolerable massed strings with up-facing cones; seemingly equal reproduction of the sustained organ pedal (seems about 32 Hz...low C on a 16' pipe...quite a good test/demo disc in that respect, as well).
I'm going to ask Ken to comment on the Neuance mounting options, and further explain his recommendation for the
rack-shelf-mounted steel spikes he likes for "floating" the Neuance, before I drill holes in my shelf.
For completion I know I should then compare the Neuance to the air bladder--and perhaps using BOTH together somehow, but my shelf height is limited, life is short, and my scientific background reminds me to alter only one variable at a time, and to compare only two iterations, especially if the discriminatory sensor is a placebo-sensitive human, eh?
......I'm also thinking about the CDP's total mass, damping, and consequent resonance spectra in light of these platform
tests, and wonder if you folks can short-circuit my evaluation of mass-loading its top-lid as a further variable? Currently I have simply stuck 50-60 in2 of asphalt damping sheets on the top, and have a dozen or so CDs usually stacked on top. Are bags of sand, or heavy books, a no-brainer I should immediately implement, or does mass-loading need to be done more carefully in an experimental manner? (Ken had cautioned me to NOT get INSIDE the CDP and dampen the hell out of everything, as I would probably dramatically revoice it!...hence the light damping on the top lid, and the initial Neuance experiments.)
I'm fascinated and gratified that these mechanical resonance/energy control actions seem to be able to favorably improve the treble performance of my admittedly
outdated CDP. I am about to receive an EVS Millenium II to evaluate, and hope to use the Rotel as a transport, so it'd be nice to have its "behavior" mechanically optimized. I was about to change the Red Dawn I use between the Rotel and the Aleph P, as it's SO revealing, so it would be gratifying if I could clean up the source enough to be able to retain use of such a quick, high-rez cable.
(Note that I was severely disappointed with the Bel Canto DAC when used in this setup, and even found the old Rotel, despite its rough treble, to have better PRAT than an ARCAM 9, and further have been told by several of Rotel's distributor's service techs that the transport used in the old, heavy 855 was FAR better than the current 951/971 series (and thus part of the reason they prefer the 855's sound!).
I'd be grateful if you could fill me in re your ongoing results and suggestions. Thanks, and sorry for rambling... Ernie
PS Heard Patty Larkin's latest? Too bad her vocal mike is so
bright...otherwise a wonderful groove!

Ernie: I have not liked the "dead" sound of top loading my CAL player except with a one thing that I tried recently, by accident. Before I tried books, bags of rice and sand and they all removed the kind of reverb (I think that this is what people ar referring to when they mention "air") quality that I actually like. What I have tried that tightened but did not deaden the sound were three brass (by Mapleshade) placed flat side down on the top of the player (they were just there by accident when I was moving my DAC). I then discovered that just one of them placed slightly off center on the top made a very subtle but nice change. My player is also in an 80% enclosed cabinet (just part of the back, up against the wall, is left open, and receives very few direct of reflected sound waves. I also feel that Ken's point on de-voicing the component is a valid one and although you can certainly tailor the sound a bit by trial and error we don't want to go overboard by damping everything in sight. Mapleshade also has a brass top weighting device that only touches the top of the component with three little cone points that are integral to the brass weight itself if I get it right and this seems like something to look into as well. This must all be system as well as taste dependent as I did not like the sound of weighting my speakers either though sand bags on the bases of my stands sounded good to me.

Brass "cones"

Hi Ernie,
I thought you had fallen off the edge(flat earth joke).
Neuance dissipates energy bi-directionally by internally converting those energies into heat within its core.In order to most effectively transfer the vibrations one needs to have a relatively high contact pressure at the point of entry(not so high as to deform the structure of pierce the shell tho).By placing the cone/spike points directly against the Neuance surface laminate,the transfer is more complete and driven deeper into the absorption elements rather than rebounding/reflecting off of the boundary layers of its laminated shell structure and back towards the vibration source.
Using the broad side of a cone device spreads the load over a broad surface area and is less effective except in the instance where one has very heavy components approaching the maximum load rating.
A side issue to consider is that every material in the isolation/support chain has its own particular sonic/resonant signature.Every time something is placed between the component and the floor ,the levels above will be doing their filtering off of the resonant signature of the material below and leaving its own mark upon the presentation as a result.Footer devices are generally redundant when using Neuance and are best used to fine tune for specific taste requirements or system/environmental circumstances.
Best,
Ken
GreaterRanges/Neuance