Do equipment stands have an impact on electronics?

cleeds

geoffkait: Manufacturers actually shouldn’t be the ones making measurements for vibration control/vibration isolation, it should be some third party independent agency.

to which cleeds replied,

"Why? Aren’t you making measurements as part of your design and manufacturing efforts? If so, why not share the results? If not, are you simply relying on trial and error?"

The Government employs independent contractors to test manufacturers’ products, e.g., weapons, software, radios, etc. it wouldn’t make any sense for the manufacturer to be the one providing test results. It’s competitive so the manufacturer cannot be trusted to be honest, one assumes. I use mathematics and testing in development, usually but not always, some things are not amenable to measurements, if you know what I mean, you know, what with Mr. Clock and the Teleportation thingie.

Geoffkait:Furthermore, even under ideal conditions, and with competent testers, because of the obvious variations and vagaries in vibration environments from town to town and city to city and system to system, the results of such tests would not necessarily be that helpful.

cleeds paused for a moment then pulled the trigger,

"Yes, perhaps. But without initial measurements to use as a benchmark, we’ll never know if there’s any truth to your speculation."

Sorry but there's no such thing as a benchmark for these devices as I just explained. Truth? Speculation? You’re kidding, right? What are you, god’s gift to skeptics?

Excerpt from Peter Bizlewicz of Symposium Acoustics interview in Positive Feedback Online:

PF: How do you sway remaining skeptics of the efficacy of resonance control, or what ever name we give it, in high performance domestic audio set ups?

PB: I don’t worry about potential members of the Flat Earth Society who may have a problem with the more advanced aspects of high end audio, and this includes vibration control. Ultimately and unfortunately, it’s their loss. The world has a generous supply of skeptics who seem compelled to mask ignorance with sophistry. The irony is that the usual modus operandi of these types is to accuse the audiophile community of sophistry, but the reverse is usually true: the casual skeptic has not done any research, and we have.

The first year I did CES, I had a small table set up with a CD player and I was doing demonstrations of the improvements in sound quality, through headphones, by placing the CD player up on Rollerblocks and a platform. When you physically demonstrate something, that is science, and we made a lot of believers with that simple setup. One very technical-looking fellow (who seemed a bit lost in the high performance audio area) was hurrying through the aisle of high end accessories, doing his very best not to make eye contact with any of the audio lunatics (such as myself) occupying the tables on either side. As he rushed past, I called to him "How about a demonstration?" Without changing his gait, he almost shouted, "I’ll believe it when I can see it on an oscilloscope!" I thought, what does looking at an oscilloscope trace have to do with listening?

I understand his perspective; such "tech heads" (I have also been called one of these) have been formally trained that nothing exists that cannot be quantified or defined (I am not speaking of mathematical theory here such as Gödelian Incompleteness Theory or Randomness, I’m referring to so called "real" phenomena). However, the greater reality is that this position assumes that everything is known. Unfortunately (or fortunately), everything is NOT known, and therefore, if something is perceived, but is not or cannot (yet) be quantified, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is not real. If more than one person perceives the same phenomena under repeatable and controlled conditions, it is either a case of mass hallucination or it is a real natural phenomenon. Ruling out the former, such phenomena may be quantified or defined tomorrow or in a hundred years, but to state that until that time it does not exist because we don’t know how to measure it yet is neither logical, scientific, nor intelligent.

You are obviously not trying very hard to unearth this evidence? Here are several examples using your preferred method (accelerometers) supporting two of the items I use in my system

au contraire.  I have read exhaustively on this stuff (and regret doing so).  I have a "science" background, have done bench research, and published in peer reviewed journals as have many of my family members.  I know all about the discipline and energy it takes to generate "data" that leads to something new.  Its much easier to make things up or take flights of fancy or do radioshack grade measurements after the fact to provide some proof of concept (aka a "white paper").  Do you realize that John Atkinson was using an accelerometer for speaker testing back in the early 90s?  Not exactly cutting edge....and it certainly tells you nothing about speaker "output" or frequency changes or electrical epiphenomena (which is again the point of this thread).  Sigh....  

It is quite possible we are approaching the real problem the wrong way. What if the real issues are not that electronic signals are being contaminated by vibrations, but that we are hearing our equipment stands resonate? Same for cables. I could see them vibrating on the floor. Maybe we need quilts instead? :)

Touche Erik.  Thus my suggestion of frequency analysis after plopping our speakers on some magic stand.  On a related note, some speakers are voiced a certain way (including using cabinet vibration as part of that voice like Harbeths or AudioNote) and stands can most certainly change that voice.  I know this to be the case....with SS, Stillpoints, etc.