Robert: "The Sistrum Platform is an active device. It vibrates continuously and simultaneously. The primary function of the Sistrum Platform is to be capable of reducing said friction while in motion, as everything in a musical environment is moving.
The Sistrum Platform is also the noisiest Platform in the world. Actually the term Sistrum comes to us from an age old musical instrument often described as a rattle triangle.
Our noisy rattle triangle vibrates creating a multitude of frequencies. One of the key elements within this design is that the materials employed produce a frequency range well above as well as well below that of our human hearing therefore we only hear the instrument or component in its uninterrupted and natural vibrating state free from the detrimental effects caused from Coulomb friction."
Sean: You state that the Sistrum platform is designed specifically to resonate and said resonances occur all over the audible spectrum, including above and below the audible bandwidth. If such is the case, isn't the Sistrum itself contributing stray energy to the components that it supports? If so, it would be feasible that the "increased output" that Tom aka Audiotweak measured was due to increased chassis excitation / ringing.
If such is the case, how does Sistrum take into account the various mass and density of the various components that will be used atop one of their platforms. Logic dictates that varying weights and densities will change the resonant frequency of the support structure as a whole, making anything less than a custom built / individually tuned "resonator" pretty much useless or at least unpredictable. Obviously, the use of test equipment under controlled conditions ( as previously mentioned ) would put a lot of this to rest.
As a side note, i would think that anyone in this line of work that had actually developed a product that was light years ahead of the competition would want to explain why the product was superior to help increase marketing potential. Are you telling us that it has taken you guys well over a half dozen years to even think about explaining how your product works to potential clientele? The fact that a publicly available explanation based on sound engineering practices would have negated all of the negative press that you've received tells me that you are now only attempting to do this is to institute "damage control". I could be wrong here, but that is what anyone with an ounce of logic in them would be led to believe. Sean
>
The Sistrum Platform is also the noisiest Platform in the world. Actually the term Sistrum comes to us from an age old musical instrument often described as a rattle triangle.
Our noisy rattle triangle vibrates creating a multitude of frequencies. One of the key elements within this design is that the materials employed produce a frequency range well above as well as well below that of our human hearing therefore we only hear the instrument or component in its uninterrupted and natural vibrating state free from the detrimental effects caused from Coulomb friction."
Sean: You state that the Sistrum platform is designed specifically to resonate and said resonances occur all over the audible spectrum, including above and below the audible bandwidth. If such is the case, isn't the Sistrum itself contributing stray energy to the components that it supports? If so, it would be feasible that the "increased output" that Tom aka Audiotweak measured was due to increased chassis excitation / ringing.
If such is the case, how does Sistrum take into account the various mass and density of the various components that will be used atop one of their platforms. Logic dictates that varying weights and densities will change the resonant frequency of the support structure as a whole, making anything less than a custom built / individually tuned "resonator" pretty much useless or at least unpredictable. Obviously, the use of test equipment under controlled conditions ( as previously mentioned ) would put a lot of this to rest.
As a side note, i would think that anyone in this line of work that had actually developed a product that was light years ahead of the competition would want to explain why the product was superior to help increase marketing potential. Are you telling us that it has taken you guys well over a half dozen years to even think about explaining how your product works to potential clientele? The fact that a publicly available explanation based on sound engineering practices would have negated all of the negative press that you've received tells me that you are now only attempting to do this is to institute "damage control". I could be wrong here, but that is what anyone with an ounce of logic in them would be led to believe. Sean
>