I posted quite a bit about energy transfer and cone points over in AA about two years ago. Jonathan Scull compiled some of these posts and assembled parts of them into what became the majority of his February 2001 "Fine Tunes" column. Bare in mind that much of what i wrote was based on "logic" and "common sense" / "hands on experience" as i am not a physicist. So as not to confuse anyone out there, i don't play a physicist on tv either : )
Having said that, those that do understand physics have informed me that mechanical energy that can be passed from one device in one direction can in turn be fed back in the reverse direction. While i do not doubt this as the two points are obviously in contact with each other, i have to question if the level of energy transfer occurs at the same rate in both directions ? My thoughts are that a cone does act as somewhat of a "mechanical diode" ( a "diode" is an electronic version of a "one way valve" ) and the effectiveness of the "diode action" will depend on the shape, materials used and the mass of the devices. That is why there are SO many variations on cone shape, size, material, etc... and why some seem to work better than others in specific situations. I've never seen any studies on this subject but would love to. If anyone knows of any, please turn us onto them.
I am also of the belief that one can't "survive" or "fine tune" an audio system optimally by using one specific method ( isolation, coupling, mass loading, absorption, etc...) by itself. In my experience, some components respond to a combination of the above, whereas others might work best using only one method. Obviously, this will vary with the specific type of support structure / rack / shelf being used. What i found to work best with one type of rack failed miserably with another type of rack. One would only know this though if they had actually tried several different racks and tried various tweaks on each of those racks. I did this very thing and could not believe some of the differences that i heard in the process.
Personally, if i could, i would build an open structured rack(s) out of wood using as little metal as possible in the actual construction of the rack. I think that this type of rack sounds best. Obviously, one could play around with various types of wood used, how the shelves were suspended or anchored, etc... Personally, i do NOT like having the shelves anchored and / or part of the support structure of the rack. What someone else prefers from a structural vantage point or sonic preference might be very different though.
Having said that, i don't have all wooden racks as i could not achieve the versatility that i was looking for in such a design. As such, i had to deal with the fact that what i wanted would compromise the sonics to some degree. Such is life. With that in mind, I took an existing design ( Premier ) and manipulated it to fit my needs / desires as best possible. I did this because i could not find any commercial design that met all of the criteria that i set forth when shopping for racks. With the help of a few knowledgeable folks, i arrived at something that is both versatile enough to keep me happy AND is suitable to my sonic preferences. I am still experimenting and learning, but that is the great part about "tweaking" i.e. you can do as much or as little as you desire or can afford.
With that in mind, i hope that i have not discouraged anyone from buying / trying ANY product that interests them. Obviously, this includes the Sistrum's or other similar products. Learning via first hand experience is a great thing and taking the desire away from someone to do so is disgraceful. As such, i apologize and would like to encourage all of you to experiment with as many variables as you can within your system(s)and come to your own conclusions about what works best. If you end up thinking i'm a quack regarding some of my suggestions / comments, so be it. You'll never know what you like best until you try things out for yourself though.
Once again, i do apologize to those that i've offended / stepped on their toes in this thread. Sean
>
Having said that, those that do understand physics have informed me that mechanical energy that can be passed from one device in one direction can in turn be fed back in the reverse direction. While i do not doubt this as the two points are obviously in contact with each other, i have to question if the level of energy transfer occurs at the same rate in both directions ? My thoughts are that a cone does act as somewhat of a "mechanical diode" ( a "diode" is an electronic version of a "one way valve" ) and the effectiveness of the "diode action" will depend on the shape, materials used and the mass of the devices. That is why there are SO many variations on cone shape, size, material, etc... and why some seem to work better than others in specific situations. I've never seen any studies on this subject but would love to. If anyone knows of any, please turn us onto them.
I am also of the belief that one can't "survive" or "fine tune" an audio system optimally by using one specific method ( isolation, coupling, mass loading, absorption, etc...) by itself. In my experience, some components respond to a combination of the above, whereas others might work best using only one method. Obviously, this will vary with the specific type of support structure / rack / shelf being used. What i found to work best with one type of rack failed miserably with another type of rack. One would only know this though if they had actually tried several different racks and tried various tweaks on each of those racks. I did this very thing and could not believe some of the differences that i heard in the process.
Personally, if i could, i would build an open structured rack(s) out of wood using as little metal as possible in the actual construction of the rack. I think that this type of rack sounds best. Obviously, one could play around with various types of wood used, how the shelves were suspended or anchored, etc... Personally, i do NOT like having the shelves anchored and / or part of the support structure of the rack. What someone else prefers from a structural vantage point or sonic preference might be very different though.
Having said that, i don't have all wooden racks as i could not achieve the versatility that i was looking for in such a design. As such, i had to deal with the fact that what i wanted would compromise the sonics to some degree. Such is life. With that in mind, I took an existing design ( Premier ) and manipulated it to fit my needs / desires as best possible. I did this because i could not find any commercial design that met all of the criteria that i set forth when shopping for racks. With the help of a few knowledgeable folks, i arrived at something that is both versatile enough to keep me happy AND is suitable to my sonic preferences. I am still experimenting and learning, but that is the great part about "tweaking" i.e. you can do as much or as little as you desire or can afford.
With that in mind, i hope that i have not discouraged anyone from buying / trying ANY product that interests them. Obviously, this includes the Sistrum's or other similar products. Learning via first hand experience is a great thing and taking the desire away from someone to do so is disgraceful. As such, i apologize and would like to encourage all of you to experiment with as many variables as you can within your system(s)and come to your own conclusions about what works best. If you end up thinking i'm a quack regarding some of my suggestions / comments, so be it. You'll never know what you like best until you try things out for yourself though.
Once again, i do apologize to those that i've offended / stepped on their toes in this thread. Sean
>