Do equipment stands have an impact on electronics?

More from Audiopoint:

Kait asks - “I realize I’ve probably asked you this question before but now that you’ve taken case of the vibrations produced by motors, transformers, etc. In the component and vibrations that might wind up there due to acoustic forces how did you address the seismic vibrations? It appears you’re ignoring them. Am I missing something?”

To which Audiopoint replied,

"We have always ignored them."

That’s the answer I expected. Do you also ignore RFI/EMI? Just curious.

The Great Kait cannot come up with any evidence whatsoever that inaudible seismic activity affects sound reproduction “in real time”. It takes equipment costing millions of dollars to “SHOW” seismic frequencies that are well below that of human hearing.

Huh? I have demonstrated how isolation improves the sound in real time as you say many times including with Mapleshade Recording Studios, Rockport/Tenor and John Curl at CES. It’s actually not that difficult to demonstrate the efficacy of vibration isolation. There are many examples of inexpensive isolation solutions for audio applications. You just have to understand the concept. The REQUIREMENTS for LIGO, as I’ve stated many times before, are far beyond high end audio requirements. I use LIGO as an example of me why Isolation is important, not as an example of what audiophiles need. Hel-loo! Audiophiles do not require MIL SPEC electronics, either.

Audiopoint wrote,

"Analogy: Speakers fire frequencies through air much the same as weapons fire projectiles through air. I would rather fire a weapon from a solid fixed foundation compared to firing it from a moving spring foundation - greater accuracy - the same with speakers (IMO)."

Actually, most heavy artillery employs "recoil," which is essentially a spring. Otherwise the force of the initial blast would rip the artillery weapon from it’s base or in the case of small arms without recoil it would break a man’s arm. Nor is the path of acoustic waves ballistic. So, a weapon is not like speakers. They're not similar at all, actually.

Audiopoint wrote,

"When a speaker is placed on springs, everything moves about and in situations depending on volume and room pressure level, speakers can also move counter to Earth’s rotation. Everything moves - the chassis, drivers, diaphragms and voice coils move freely - left to right and front to back.

Since everything is moving around how does one relate to or measure for driver time alignment?

If a speaker fires from different angles and/or locations while moving, does that affect driver dispersion patterns?

How do the internal moving parts of a loudspeaker function when subjected to constant flexing?

Speaker testing is usually done from a fixed foundation and position - not a moving plane, so how would spring movement affect the testing in anechoic or other studio environments?

if the iso system is properly designed any potential drawback will be outweighed by it’s advantages. Springs under (heavy) speakers - very stiff springs - would be extremely resistant to all motion except vertical motion due to their stiffness and that vertical motion would be very small in practice, again due to their stiffness. So you can ignore the motion using springs with speakers.

Audiopoint wrote,

"We never considered Earth’s crust motion or seismic forces to be part of our technology, research or approach to product development as we are focused on improving the ’audible’ musical instrument and recording/playback sciences."


That’s not my fault. You should consider everything. I considered everything. I think everybody should.

audiopoint also wrote,

"It would appear in order to provide you any concept of understanding related to our technical approach or why our products perform direct coupled to Earth without the negative effects from inaudible seismic interference would have to result in a product audition."

Im not criticizing your product or your approach. Other than to say that as far as vibration is concerned your approach is not complete.

then Audiopoint wrote,

"Keep to your seismic storyboarding as it delivers a simplistic concept, provides a level of believability and will attract an audience so you can retail your lengthy list of all the different little things you sell."

OK, snarky comments aside, getting back to reality for just a moment, I have also addressed the induced vibration and the acoustic produced vibration just as you claim to have. In fact, my techniques, just judging from your own word, are probably superior in that regard.

Then an audiopoint wrote,

" I have no doubt you will continue to stay on the seismic issues telling companies like ours that we are missing the boat and should go back to school only because Ligo and Kait says so."

Hey, I’m game if you are. I like this little game. I don’t tell anyone what to do. Now that you mention it school is a terrible idea. Remember, education is what’s left after you subtract out what you forgot from school.

Finally Audiopoint wrote,

"We do not listen to Ligo. We do not hear electron microscopes. We do not listen in anechoic environments and we certainly do not hear our houses shaking from seismic whatevers, so what exactly are we missing?

I never said we did. We don’t listen to Audio Points either. Follow? What are you missing? Give me a few days to think about it and I’ll get back to you.

have a nice day

dl - I have a couple of comments on that measurements pdf:

1. The methodology is incompletely described, and there is no assessment of the accuracy, repeatability etc. of the Geophone sensor among other things.

2. Worst is likely the complete absence of sample sizes and any statistical analysis

There are several other problems with it, but there is no point in going on.

It could not be published in an engineering or scientific journal.