Geoffkait, I’ve always considered your comments to be balanced, informative and fair, so I would ask that you TRY the Townshends before commenting on what they "seem like." It is POSSIBLE that your springs come close to or, Max Townshend forbid (!), equal them. But you know as well as I do that people commenting on what they have not heard fits Ivor Tiefenbrun’s dictum: "If you haven’t heard it, you don’t have an opinion." It’s dismaying how many ignorant comments there are about things people have never even seen, much less heard (and I’m not including you in that statement, since I’ve rarely disagreed with what you’ve written. And I can’t dispute what you say here, since I haven’t heard your springs, and you haven’t heard the Townshends). Just keep an open mind, please.
- ...
- 237 posts total
Incidentally, the 4 Townshend Isolation pods arrived. I put them under the NAD integrated and...hmmm, couldn’t hear the improvement. Needless to say, I disagree with Mr. Levi of Positive Feedback: http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue75/townshend_pods.htm. "Use 3 or 4 Pods anywhere under your gear... it is not critical at all." Well, I put them "anywhere"...and got nowhere. But then, I’ve bought things other writers (mostly HP) praised to the skies - and learned - AFTER I spent the money ("a fool and his money....") that it was never mentioned in the review that the component was "lean-sounding" or, as in the case of the Seismic sinks (which I had 3 of the originals, but thought they did nothing for my system!) that due to the uneven weight of components, that the sinks would not make your system sound better if you didn’t fill one bladder just a little less than other bladders, and that you didn’t want to pump it up fully, or you would get a "grey" sound. (I still have one of these sitting in the living room, as we speak, trying to figure out how to pump it up: lost the original pump. And now that I have the 20-years-later-and-technologically-superior Seismic platform, I’m itching to compare.) Now, I could’ve let this slide and not posted yet. But it reminds me of those I mentioned in other posts, who buy something, shove it somewhere and then write, "it did nothing." I could say the same thing here, based on my immediate reaction. Hey, I'm not immune to carelessness in audio: it's just that I don't go by my initial impression. But what I will do is position them more carefully (didn’t have time to do it today, and anyway, I thought, (carelessly, it now appears), "Hell, this should elevate the system to sainthood!") It barely elevated the NAD, other than that it’s 4" higher off the platform it was sitting on. And the NAD was previously supported by Stillpoints Ultra Mini Risers. Seeing that the witching hour is approaching (it’s actually 3 a.m. for you non-witches, NOT midnight), the experiment will have to wait until later this morning. I have a few spells to cast: getting dicey out there in the world. But shoving the pods under the NAD and not being elated? It’s a lesson in how even expectations based on previous experience with the same manufacturer can sometimes lead us down the wrong path. And how sometimes, it takes work - even with inanimate objects - to get things right. Feng Shui, anyone? |
bdp24, Lots of talk about seismic activity affecting the performance of equipment when placed on generic spikes in comparison to damped springs - referring to the videos mentioned and referred to multiple times by you and others throughout this forum. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOPXJDdwtk4&feature=youtu.be&t=39 Our take on this marketing/sales video is very opposite those of trending opinions. It is easy to poke holes in a heavily favored one sided home team demonstration. The fact that this manufacturer has elected to present a lopsided exhibition and state spikes present a problem with musical reproduction without comparing realities has opened the door for this brief response and questionnaire. Poking Around: Would it be fair to ask why both meters appear to be “reading the same data” throughout this video prior to the self generated physical stomping or tapping hence establishing a shock wave with additional noise? Would it also be fair to inquire if this type of energy, focus and release (stomping) is NOT commonplace or generated in any sound rooms or recording studio environments unless self inflicted? The visual of both meters displaying the near same data while standing idle is a topic of interest that has obviously gone unnoticed by a lot of people. We assume this video production was filmed at a trade show located in a large city where there are possibly underground trains, street traffic, additional outside noise, internal HVAC systems are running, hall traffic, seismic activities and many more noise generating sources. Is it fair to say that there must be a tremendous amount of audible and inaudible noise being generated within the testing environment so why the requirement for over exaggerated stomping? Since ambient noise and seismic interference are a featured part of their technical storyboard, why not focus on those issues and use them as a testing methodology? According to the manufacturer they play a large role in music reproduction and equipment performance. Possibly the devices used in the presentation could not or were not calibrated to display the problems associated with what our research, studies and in house testing have determined to be as “extremely minimalist”, possibly non-existent and/or inaudible effects when music is present in the listening environment especially when all sound reproduction equipment and engineered structural room environments have been mechanically grounded. We humans see and believe meters in plain view, no matter how camouflaged within or outside the audible range of human hearing or how they are applied to topic, yet we use our ears to listen for audible results… irony? Reality: “There is no known scientific test for loudspeaker function when placed in a live dynamic environment, only highly subjective versions currently exist.” R Maicks, Star Sound We are not questioning the isolation theorem or if spring based products performance delivers audible function as they are fully attested to by the listenership but… Does anyone actually believe this video presents a ‘fair comparison’ in using generic $1.00 speaker spikes that totals a whopping $4.00 financial investment in comparison to a product costing thousands of dollars? At some point in time the $ Price $ you pay for a product has to become part of your thought process in order to shape your opinions and grow your understanding of audio. Does a $4.00 investment stand any chance of besting a few thousand dollars worth of design? There are engineered spiked products available that retail close to the same price point of the spring loaded isolation device used in the aforementioned video that would indeed render their speaker demonstration and comparison as extremely deficient. We fully guarantee there is no ‘smearing or ringing’ in a well designed and engineered mechanically grounded Platform, just the sound dynamics of live. In closing: Believe what you want or whatever theory related to vibration management sounds good to you but always compare the price you are paying for a product to whatever product is being used as the comparison when seeking the higher performance. After all, audio is about what we hear and not what we see, right? Thank you for your time. Robert - Star Sound |
- 237 posts total