Sistrum or Neuance or...?

I would like to see the data on the linearity of energy transfer in this device. The only way I'm aware of to attempt to selectively choose between the tendency of floorborne vibrational energy to flow into the rack vs. the tendency of component vibrational energy to flow out is to choose materials with selective resonant frequency response. As everyone knows, this produces the colorations commonly associated with cones.

Sean, in the case of the upside down Audiopoint on the Sistrum Platforms, it was decided by the engineers that this was the better orientation for performance. It has been explained to me that the better physical coupling of the upper Audiopoint to the platform was more critical to the performance of the product than having it the other way around.

If you would like to discuss this with the engineering staff, please call Brent Riehl at 1-402-464-4777. He is the inventer of the Audiopoint, graduated near the top of his engineering class a Lehigh University prior to embarking on his lengthy career in audio, and can satisfy any questions you may have regarding the engineering and performance of this product. He is the one that should be discussing this with you for the clearest result.

Flex: you are right on the money. Since one can't "channel" or "couple" ALL of the energy at every frequency universally equally, there will always be "residual energy" at various frequencies left behind. What does the Sistrum do with the "residue"?

This is not to mention that ANY hardened metal in itself is quite resonant and tends to ring once excited, contributing its' own "sonic signature" to the situation. While mass loading the metal by stacking components on top of it will alter the amplitude, center frequency and bandwidth of resonance for the rack / support structure itself, that resonance and mechanical energy is still there and has to be dealt with. This in itself contributes more "residue" to be dealt with.

Given that the component is rigidly coupled to the support structure along with all of the residual energy that it wasn't able to "channel" away to "ground", guess what gets to "absorb" or "deal with" that energy? If you guessed that it was your components, you would be right. In my book, this is where "selective damping" comes into play. If properly applied, coupling and isolation compliment each other, not work against each other. Neither solution ( coupling or isolation on their own ) is an absolute, so you have to combine the best features of each while minimizing their drawbacks if you want to achieve optimum or near optimum performance.

The Sistrum approach seems to forget about all of these factors while bad-mouthing any attempt that doesn't follow their line of "rigid coupling" double-speak. It is one thing to lack consistency in a point of view and not be able to fully explain why you have that specific point of view, but it is another to try to use your own inconsistencies and lack of understanding to your advantage as a weapon against your competitors. If some of you can't tell what is going on, that is just what is happening with this manufacturer.

Once again, please bare in mind that i'm NOT doing this in order to throw my "support" behind Neuance so much as i am trying to point out flaws / hypocrisy in the design and marketing approach taken by Sistrum. I have NO affiliation with Neuance, have never given Ken a penny of my money and never received any "complimentary" or "demo" products from him. To be completely up-front, i do own a Neaunce shelf, but it is still sitting in the same box that it arrived in when i purchased it used several months ago. Given that bit of info, i hope that you can see that this "debate" is more about ideologies and principles than it is actual recommendations or specific products. Sean
>

Twl: Robert of Sistrum has posted in these forums before. He has never responded in a coherent manner to any of the same questions brought up here in those earlier threads / responses. Given that he should consider this a golden opportunity to advertise his products and "explain away the myths" supposedly being promoted here, i can't understand why he or someone else in a suitable position to do so hasn't already been all over this thread. Given that a public education on the subject could only bring in more business for them, the only things that Sistrum could be avoiding by doing so would be the truth and public scrutiny of their products, ideologies and marketing techniques.

On top of that, and as i've mentioned many times before, i would far rather discuss things publicly for all to learn and share from, as this accomplishes so much more than individual enlightenment. As such, i won't be calling anybody privately that can't say the same things publicly for mass edification. They can feed us all the excuses that they want, but there is a bottom line and many of us know what it is. That is, it is impossible to logically defend "double-speak". Sean
>

Sean. Regarding "double-speak", my stating that the Audiopoints are not a mechanical diode does not preclude the items from having certain characteristics that may differ somewhat directionally, nor having characteristics that may behave differently when operating in conjunction with other devices(while being able to conduct in both directions). I feel that you have set up a "straw man" and then knocked it down, while claiming to have "defeated the argument". You placed words in my mouth to suit your own purposes.

I clearly stated that the Audiopoints operate as a rapid conduit for resonant energy, and never stated that they cannot conduct in both directions. I stated that the resonant energy would seek ground via the path of least resistance, as the 2nd law of thermodynamics states, and that is how the directionality of the movement would be defined.

Your concept that the vibrations are moving up the point is muddy, because the energy that affects the component on the Audiopoints is simply a side effect of the floor transferring its vibrations toward the greater mass or ground. Everything standing on the floor will be moved along with the floor's movement.

The problem with this idea that floorborne vibrations are more deleterious than airborne vibrations is that one should then sacrifice the ability to properly deal with airborne vibrations in order to try to tame floorborne vibrations with a rubbery storage device. In our experience, it is the airborne vibrations that are considerably more deleterious to performance, and that the proper handling of these airborne resonances is far more important than floorborne considerations. Now maybe you don't agree with this, but that doesn't make us wrong. I have often stated that it makes no sense to reduce the performance of components by blocking the airborne resonance evacuation path, in order to make up for a deficiency in the construction of the floor. If the floor has a structural problem, then fix the floor. Don't wreck the sound of your system trying to make up for a floor problem.

Again, maybe we disagree on this, but I feel you have tried to create a perception here that I am speaking in a contradictory manner, and I am not. I have stated my position, and the company's position on the basic workings of this product, and given the reasons. If you don't agree, fine.

And regarding other methods such as damping, how many rack company salesmen can recite the Zener Viscoelastic Model and explain how it relates to their O-rings or rubber feet, complete with amplitude and frequency ratings in every person's listening environment. Really, I think you are being pretty hard on us, given the fact that nobody else has to back up any of their statements on this subject. I'm trying very hard to give a good explanation of this, and I'm only the salesman.