Footers/Shelf Material

Hi Sol: I have always had the PC's hanging in the air from the power conditioner to the component. My gear is placed in (and now on top of as well) an old Tansu cabinet and all of the components are at least 5' off the floor. I never upgraded the PC to my integrated Musical Fidelity SS amp (which has a seperate power supply and either captive cords or ones with odd plugs) so I have do not have experience with upgrading PC's on preamps. Most of the feedback seems to say that more improvement will be had upgrading digital front ends though. I just received a new tube amp that accepts replacement cords and in this case I am not too worried about the weight of the PC (within reason) because of the sheer mass of the amp and its overall balance (weight distribution). I also do not plan on placing the amp on cones (way too precarious) due to earthquakes and the fragile nature and expense of the tubes (300b's). For this reason I do not place my mini moniters on cones either (though they really did sound better when placed on sets of Mapleshade cones). My main gripe is using heavy PC's on DAC's and player/transports that are placed on cones. Any of the methods that I have used to "support" the PC's on the digital components so far seem to change the sound (each method of support sounds different from the other) and this is why I suspect that they are mucking up the isolation components. I am also asuming that a free and hanging PC would be the way to go (this seems to be the case with speaker cable), but again this is only a guess. If I end up liking the overall sound of a lighter PC (such as the Mapleshade PC) on the DAC, it will still not prove much. The only thing that I am certain of is that the position and "drag" of a PC changes the sound of my digital front end. I also just cleared more vertical height to play with and will next try top weighting the DAC and transport to see if it will stabilize the sound a little more, regardless of PC placement. Too much top weighting can sound dead though, IMO.

Redkiwi, I've followed your progress on shelf material with great intrest. I know that finding maple was an issue for you and you are reviewing it now. I'm interested in following up your experiments with different thicknesses of maple, mahogany, pear and anything else anyone might suggest. In order for me to first relate my study to your previose findings I was going to start with a similiar board. Thus the question, what size all three measurements are you using now, and is it a built-up (butcherblock) or a single board. Thank-you for your research and following information. J.D.

Jadem6, I have two boards of 454mm * 354mm * 57mm (or approx 18.5" by 14.5" by 2.25" for the metrically challenged). To my knowledge they were cut from a large piece of Maple Butchers Block and are made up of glued pieces of Maple, not a solid block of Maple. I find it to be good, but not as good as the Neuance shelves. However the Neuance shelves cannot support the weight of my monoblock amps and so that is where I use the Maple. I really need more time to be more definitive, but I would recommend you look into the Neuance shelves as they seem to me to be a better idea, being faster, more transparent and less colored. The Beta version of the Neuance is able to support my Theta gear which are around 40lbs each, so it is really only large amps that cannot be accommodated. If you do try them then you should be aware that they need about a day to settle. When you first put the Neuance in place the sound will be warm and mushy, and then over the next two days all will clear up. You get the best of everything with the Neuance; neutral without peakiness, speed and extension, fine detail without smearing. Iswear I can almost identify the brand of guitar strings there is so much clean detail and natural color.

Mark> Greetings! Just discovered this thread, after posting at length on your older "Neuance" thread, so I refer you there. I read your comments on the EAR footers with interest, and am curious as to what Ken thinks about their use instead of the
metal spikes he likes...Ernie

Hi Ernie - I have just finished posting to the one you refer to - I must be following you around. My reference to the E-A-R footers was for between Neuance shelf and component, whereas Ken's was for between rack and shelf - I believe. In fact I have found that if you use the Neuance shelf correctly (ie. on a welded steel shelf, spiked up and down, no sand-filling etc) then the sound is just great with a component's standard feet. Where the E-A-R feet come in is this - once you have used the Neuance properly, then all fancy footers sound gross, the only thing that I have found that sounds OK is the E-A-R. The E-A-R adds warmth, bloom and a very liquid smoothness without upsetting PRAT and resolution noticeably. Probably ideal for taming the highs you have been trying to do for a while. But too many E-A-R in the system can take away immediacy and openness. For example, in one system we preferred to use a fair number of E-A-R feet under the components, but when we swapped out the Siltech cable for the Coincident cable or the Wireworld cable, we preferred to take all of the E-A-R feet out. So I found the E-A-R feet did not undo the effect of the Neuance and was a reasonably successful way of getting the right balance of openness and immediacy with warmth and liquidity.