Twl: 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.
Sean: Much of my response was directed to your rebuttals, but quite honestly, it probably looks like i was badgering you personally rather than "attacking" the information ( or lack of ) that Sistrum has provided on their website and in these forums on previous occassions.
Twl: 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.
Sean: You basically stated that the cones are NOT mechanical diodes and at the same time, alluded that they conduct mechanical energy in a more linear fashion better in one direction than another. To me, non-linear transfer of energy in one direction as compared to the other is "diodic" in nature. As such, comments of this nature seem to both cloud the issue and be of a "double-speak" nature.
As to the comments about energy seeking ground, let's look at this with some common sense. Anything that mechanical energy comes into contact with will end up dissipating some of that energy in one way, shape or form. As such, you can "couple" all that you want, but some of that energy will be lost through motion, heat, etc... and passed on to anything else connected to what is acting as the "coupling device". As such, anything that is capable of moving or disippating energy as heat WILL do so. How much energy makes it to "ground" will depend on how "lossy" the path that it takes to get there is. This means that a component that is easier to resonate will absorb and dissipate more of the energy than some other material that is higher in mass and less resonant.
Twl: 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.
Sean: Poor analogy. You forgot about air-borne vibrations resonating the rack or platform. The floor would be harder to modulate / resonate due to having greater mass / being less resonant. On the other hand, the rack is nothing more than a resonating metal mass waiting to be excited. As such, the rack would act as a "net" to capture air-borne vibrations and pass on that excitation into the gear. Given that your previous description of how cones work, the upturned points would actually "focus" that energy into the component, regardless of how much was drained away using other methods within the support structure.
Twl: 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.
Sean: Proper damping does not use "rubbery storage devices". Smart folks use high loss, low mass devices. These devices are quite efficient by nature due to high internal losses, but at the same time, they are too lightweight to store and release energy. As such, the "rebound" reaction that "rubbery" devices bring with them i.e. stored and released energy is avoided.
To take that a step further, any energy that is fed into the component via airborne vibrations that the "high loss, self damping device" can't dissipate would be passed onto the support structure / rack that it is coupled to. The support structure / rack should be a "coupling" design by nature, letting us take advantage of its' own "energy draining" design. This is why i said that "damping" and "coupling" are complimentary IF properly executed.
Reversing the flow of energy from the floor would mean that the energy would have to travel all the way up the rack, being dissipated along the way, and then have to go through the "low mass damping device" before making it into the component. In effect, a well designed damping device acts as a "buffer zone" regardless of where the energy tries to enter the system.
Twl: 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.
Sean: You won't get any argument from me here on this specific subject.
Twl: 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.
Sean: As mentioned, i'm not attacking you. I'm trying to explain my point of view, which happens to conflict with yours. At the same time, i'm also providing rebuttal for those that are interested in comparing notes and ideas on what works best as a component supporting device and why it works as it does. Since we are coming from different vantage points, my job is to both clarify the flaws in the opposing team's platform AND provide credible information as to why my points of view are more valid. The fact that i have no vested interest in this field means that i have NOTHING personal to gain and everything to learn from reading / studying various points of view.
Twl: 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.
Sean: This thread and subject came about because someone posed a specific question. Like most of the other threads that i participate in, i'm simply sharing my point of view based on past experiences, education and the powers of deductive logic. The fact that we are on "opposite sides of the fence" on this one may seem like i'm "gung ho" to bring you and / or Sistrum down, but that is far from the truth. As many others will attest, i have shared MANY "negative" points of view concerning a wide variety of well respected products. If you doubt this, try taking a look in the archives concerning my comments pertaining to Analysis Plus, PS Audio, Bryston, Pass Labs, Philips, Michael Green Designs, etc... The fact that you are "feeling the heat" of my big mouth is probably something different than what you are used to. Like i said though, this isn't about me and you, it is about some specific products and ideologies that we don't agree on.
In effect, this is nothing more than a "debate" about specific products and ideologies. Debating to prove that you are "right" means disproving / discrediting the opposing point of view. I have simply responded to the information provided via this thread, other threads like it and resources on the web. I'm sorry if you feel that i've gone out of my way to "harrass" you and / or Sistrum, but i'm not doing anything any different that i haven't done many times before. Having said that, i wouldn't expect you to do anything differently than what you have normally done in the past if you disagreed with something that i had to say. If that means confronting me with flaws in products that i've recommended or incorrect statements that i've made, all the better. My goal is to learn and share, not to spread mis-information. Sean
>
