Equipment Rack

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

Rather than coming on like a bull in a china shop I suggest you head on over to your local library and do some due diligence.. You mightt even consider a refresher course in physics., this is not that difficult, are you what, an English major? Heck, you can even go to my page on vibration isolation. its been on my website fro gosh I don’t know how long.

but above all have a nice day.

Again, a maestro of irony. Avoiding the question is not a valid position. The information is not for me but rather for the sake of your audience right? That is why you post. You are not an intellectual good Samaritan.

No, I am not an english major. Making patronizing assumptions is not a defensible position either. I am merely a physician for whom english is my primary language. I have an undergraduate and graduate degree from the same intuition you apparently went to. I have enough math and physics in my belt to facilitate meaningless exchanges on this and other sites. But I digress. Machinaman, I find your scatty brand of audio sophistry highly entertaining so keep it up.

agear
1,102 posts
08-04-2016 2:29pm
Rather than coming on like a bull in a china shop I suggest you head on over to your local library and do some due diligence.. You mightt even consider a refresher course in physics., this is not that difficult, are you what, an English major? Heck, you can even go to my page on vibration isolation. its been on my website fro gosh I don’t know how long.

but above all have a nice day.
Again, a maestro of irony. Avoiding the question is not a valid position. The information is not for me but rather for the sake of your audience right? That is why you post. You are not an intellectual Good Samaritan.

whatever. I don't even know what you're going on about.

No, I am not an english major. Making patronizing assumptions is not a defensible position either. I am merely a physician for whom english is my primary language. I have an undergraduate and graduate degree from the same intuition you apparently went to. I have enough math and physics in my belt to facilitate meaningless exchanges on this and other sites. But I digress. Machinaman, I find your scatty brand of audio sophistry highly entertaining so keep it up.

I'm sure you've undoubtly forgotten all of your math and physics so no need to puff yourself up. Education is what's left after you forgot everything you learned in school. Measurements are overrated. Haven't you been paying attention? Besides, the only measurements that matter are the ones performed by third party testers. 

Have a nice day. 

Mr. Kait, as you wrote:

Furthermore the energy involved with the seismic vibration is much much greater than the energy coming down towards the floor since seismic energy can move the entire building, and does move it, the everyday microseismic activity moves the building up and down, to and for, and in 3 rotational directions.

So what does that have to do with musical reproduction and how does three rotational directions affect musical quality?

Without decoupling techniques such a mass on spring the whole Coulomb device is moving right along with the motion of the bundling and the spikes are moving up and down right along with the motion of the building.

Absolutely correct, but who ever said the device can not or should not move with the motion of the building and what does the motion of the building have to do with musical reproduction? In a concert or practice hall the instruments and musicians also move right along with the motion of the building too.

There is nothing coming down the pike resembling 0-20 Hz, but there is plenty of seismic vibratin going UP the pike in that region, which includes the resonant frequencies of tonearms, cartridges, turntable platters, CD laser assemblies circa 8-12 Hz.

I’ve always heard what goes up must come down…so do the rising seismic waves come back to earth, do they change into airborne resonance, does any portion of energy return to earth via gravity does any of that leftover energy then affect the component residing on springs? Does this also have an affect on component operational efficiency?

REAL and HEROIC sesmic vibration isolation techniques were required. Gravity waves were not detected overnight. LIGO project was begun 20 years ago and didn’t detect gravity waves until last year, most of the effort was actually applied to the development of the seismic vibration isolation systems.

My uncle flew in project Sageburner managed by Commander Jim Lovell. These guys were very real and heroic but other than experiencing true low end frequency, I am not sure if this project or the LIGO project has anything to do with sound reproduction.

Our model is “not” a seismic vibration isolation system and we do not know if gravity waves affect sound waves or at what frequencies or if these waves are even part of the “Audible Range of Human Hearing.” 

We are still learning...

HALCRO states:

As folk freak rightly says......peddle your snake oil without the pretence of the relevant sciences that apply.

Sciences I might add, that are obviously a mystery to you

All this crap about science and not one word about musical reproduction techniques. Not one word as to why or how avoiding earthquakes is good for sound. Not one word or 'question answered' as to why INAUDIBLE seismic waves prohibit the function of musical systems or musical instruments, not one word about these sub-harmonic waves affecting pitch or harmonics and someone please tell me how the freaking LIGO project relates to music reproduction?

Just slamming down the age old sciences... lacking any vision as to the future of sound or the possibility that a new technology is at hand - nothing but age old arguments and AGAIN, I am not a scientist or physicist nor would I ever want to be.

BUT,

Put me behind a concert reinforcement system (FOH or monitor mix) or sit me down in any recording studio and I will show you and teach you what good sound is and what all that mumbo jumbo is all about. Invite me to your house and I will help show you where your system might be lacking and physically demonstrate how to improve upon it. I will also point out your system’s strengths and am also fairly accomplished with the acoustic sciences and applications as well. That is my science - the science of sound. 

Our technology is quite functional, proven over time and is “scalable” from the mounting of a resistor to a component or loudspeaker chassis to equipment racking to structural room environments and yes it improves and adapts to musical instruments too. Isolation and spring theory never went in music where Star Sound has already gone (just my opinion of course). 

Say what you will, call us names as they did back in 1999, you do not have to believe in anything we do, products that we build, product performance we generate or the discovery of a new technology as we know fully the direction our company is headed. My guess is that all the reviewers who own our products are full of crap too? Funny… grown men arguing, some with textbook experience, some with practical experience and some without any.  

I sat behind this Star Sound desk for sixteen years working to improve audio system performance and solving problems with thousands of audiophiles, music lovers, musicians and listeners. You cannot buy an education like this from any science or research college. Sixteen years in the school of hard knocks and my teachers who are my peers are now our customers.

Snake oil peddlers? I take strong offense to… uncalled for and obviously shows that we have never met or conversed before.

So gents, are we up for a personal visit? Are we up for a product comparison or listening test? Are we up for an audition of our technology in the privacy of your home? Are we up to visiting an Energy Room and hear a presentation that will last in your memory for a good long time? Are we up to learning more about sound - I am, and my phone is always open. In addition, I promise to keep my ass out of science and will gladly pay our engineers overtime to participate here.

If provoked, this old snake bites!

Regards,

Robert

Star Sound 

Engineers innovate and build things then scientists figure out why they work.   

Having read this entire thread as well as a somewhat similar thread on What's Best Forum I suspect most of us music lovers just want to get some good practical results from our efforts at racking our equipment. 
Regardless of the method used. and I suspect different methods can result in improvement of sound, I do think an overall consistent approach for each system has more merit than a hodgepodge method. 
I use the Star Sound platforms under my speakers and tube mono blocks to good effect. Across the room the on side wall area my components reside on a DIY rack of 3 3/4 in thick cutting boards with brass threaded rod through to the floor, resting on Herbies isolation footers. Addition of the footers after having acorn nuts ending the brass rods onto the floor increased resolution. The Herbies footers also erased the tendency of the turntable to howl at increased volumes. I would love to try a Star Sound rack for my components but that's not in the budget presently.
Carry on with your research, guys. All in all it's pretty interesting stuff. The Gary Koh discussion from What's Best Forum on isolation/decoupling focuses primarily on speakers but is in depth and informative. It introduces the makeup of the floor as a factor and ends up somewhat inconclusive.