Audiopoint wrote,
"Taking a measurement from the floor and the shelf is a “measurement”. Comparing two comparable scenarios where the tester changes one dependent variable and analyzes the results is “a test”. 88% reduction means nothing if you do not compare it to some second configuration. For all we know one could get the same “measurement” by placing the same equipment on the rack specified without the isolation pads or with a peanut butter sandwich… 88% reduction might be the normal. With the information provided in this “test”, you can’t argue with us. We simply do not know. You need to take TWO measurements and then analyze the difference (delta)."
Funny. 88% reduction at 20 Hz is NOT normal. You guys apparently still don’t understand isolation or what a low pass filter actually is. What is not mentioned in the report - but is obviously the case - is that at frequencies higher than 20 Hz the isolation effectiveness is even higher than 88%, for purposes of discussion circa 97% at 30 Hz and 99.5% at 40 Hz. Those number are fairly typical of ANY reasonably good mass-on-spring isolation device. Furthermore, it’s as obvious as the nose on your face that the 88% reduction was compared to the case without the isolation. You guys just can’t seem to catch a break. ;-)
"Taking a measurement from the floor and the shelf is a “measurement”. Comparing two comparable scenarios where the tester changes one dependent variable and analyzes the results is “a test”. 88% reduction means nothing if you do not compare it to some second configuration. For all we know one could get the same “measurement” by placing the same equipment on the rack specified without the isolation pads or with a peanut butter sandwich… 88% reduction might be the normal. With the information provided in this “test”, you can’t argue with us. We simply do not know. You need to take TWO measurements and then analyze the difference (delta)."
Funny. 88% reduction at 20 Hz is NOT normal. You guys apparently still don’t understand isolation or what a low pass filter actually is. What is not mentioned in the report - but is obviously the case - is that at frequencies higher than 20 Hz the isolation effectiveness is even higher than 88%, for purposes of discussion circa 97% at 30 Hz and 99.5% at 40 Hz. Those number are fairly typical of ANY reasonably good mass-on-spring isolation device. Furthermore, it’s as obvious as the nose on your face that the 88% reduction was compared to the case without the isolation. You guys just can’t seem to catch a break. ;-)