Equipment Rack

"Our platforms are made of conductive materials and vibrates, attracting energy from every known source. The key to function is "resonance transfer" to ground via high speed conductive pathways depending heavily on the forces of gravity. The seismic energy actually arriving upwards at the component level is so minute after battling motion, gravity and space, well in truth we never heard it so these mini earthquakes were never on our radar."

vibrational forces, unlike mass, are not subject to gravity, which is actually an acceleration, not a force.. That rule applies to both vibrational forces coming down the pike and forces going up the pike. F=ma. Nor could your conductive materials attract energy as you say since energy, like force, is not "attract-able" as it were. I.e., they have no charge or magnetic pole.

I have yet to read anything thus far in this thread that would qualify as "science" which implies reproducible data.  It is merely speculative physics (hello....it is the audiophilia after all).  I am sure it could be had with the right labs, R&D budget, etc.  Townsend data is non-existent.  Machina has none.  I know SS was working with a third party lab on various projects but I am unsure what happened.  The data has yet to materialize.  This is the state of audio.  Posturing from one company against another is simply unadulterated hypocrisy.    

Mr. Kait, instead of attempting physics lessons, show us the measurements backing up any of your products.  One relevant to this thread would be helpful.  Put that dusty undergraduate engineering degree to use.

Folk, is your system more or less efficient with the Townsend products in place?  In other words, do you still have to turn your pre-amp to 11 or is it now lower?

agear -- good question but the answer is not as simple as that

Firstly I have come to recognize that the limit on what is the "right" volume for a track is not loudness per se but in fact the impact of distortion and noise -- to whit resonances and all the niggling interferences in a poorly set up system. Prior to optimization I typically set the volume on my ARC 40th at 30-34 for CD playback. With optimization of the noise floor through fine tuning of my footers and the electrical system I now use a range of 34-40. In other words as you remove interference you benefit from increased dynamic range

Adding the Townshend Podiums had somewhat of a similar effect in the bass range. The immediate effect seems to be that the speakers are LESS efficient. i.e. it "sounds" less loud at the same volume setting. But quickly you realize that this is the removal of the floor borne boom that I described in a prior post. I find then that some tracks that had been limited by a bass distortion (e.g. a resonance or boom) could now be turned up a couple of notches without any issues.

So overall I cannot make any conclusion as to whether the Townshend kit has made my speaker more efficient in absolute terms, all I can say is that it helps get the speaker/room interface out of the way and lets you hear what is on the track irrespective of volume level

Two cases in point -- Nancy Harms "Bye Bye Blackbird", opens with close miked acoustic bass that can get out of control, now much better controlled and also makes it easier to seperate the room rattle (that is actually in the recording) from the bass that is causing it. Second example Melody Gardot "It Gonna Come" -- a plethora of bass sounds and soundstaging effects that I can now reach into while at the same time cranking the volume wheras before it overloaded the room

ps regarding your comments on lack of science I for one have no problem with references to known and published science (e.g. use of springs to manage seismic interference, even Mr Kait's citing of Sheldrake to support some of his tweaks), it's the stuff I've never heard of before that I expect people to be able to provide some back up for. WIthout a source it's hard to attach any credibility for or against