How important is the rack you use for your components

Prof there have been many companies who had done accelerometer testing of the components on and off of their racks over the years which have demonstrated that these devices do work.

In the case of the resonators, there was a Germany company I think FAST was the distributor who paid for an indepth study of the resonators and their testing showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that the resonators affected a change in the energy spectra of the room.

Science is a wonderful thing, please explain the differences to a gas chromatograph of a bottle of 1954 Chateau Lefeat Roscheld. at $10,000.00 a bottle and a bottle of your favorites whinos $1.99 bottle of ripple.

You and I can easily taste the difference the machines would report water, organic materials, but the difference in the two traces would be probably 99.9 percent identical.

How do you measure a difference in tightness and dynamics, when the apparent differences might not show up in a frequency response curve or an spl meter.

It is the feeling you get when a the product hits you in the right way.

Sceptisim is a good thing, but there are times that you need to let your ears by your guide.

By the scientific explanation a 3 foot power cord that is connected to a house full of Romex shouldn't make a difference but it does.

Dave and Troy\
Audio Doctor NJ

@prof 

Thank you. There are so few of us ...

By way of returning the favour, consider shelving made of Panzerholz ('tankwood' in German; a composite of beech veneer and elastomer), or some acetal copolymers, which are notably lossy transmitters of energy. Although I haven't tried it yet, I plan to test plates made of these two materials, bonded to induce constrained layer damping. They are said to have a very different speed of sound (although I keep meaning to test Panzerholz, I haven't done so yet).

I suggest that you DIY the thing and spend the bucks on something with a mechanism known to physics. A mechanism, as a few here will notice.

Speaking of mechanisms, it all depends on the stability of your listening room floor. Mine is on concrete, over rock, many miles from the nearest railway or freeway or heavy industry. So the issue becomes one of stability, which depends on the moment arm; and walls have really big moment arms.

For the makers of shelves, this is a freebee.

The recent question appears to be; why scientific proof of function is rare or non-existent in the vibration management and equipment racking divisions of the Audio Industry?

The opinions below are based on the studies of vibration management and manufacturing products for the past twenty-plus years involving the High End Audio marketplace. We apologize for the lengthy read as there are many variables involved with no simple answer to this question.

1 High End Audio is a smaller niche industry where the majority of successes and results are based on sonic subjectivity as duly noted on this thread by previous posters.

2 Developing scientific third party testing protocols require substantial amounts of time and financial investments.

3 Strategic business strategies for the majority of parts manufacturers, equipment racking or vibration management companies involved in audio are more focused on marketing and sales in comparison to providing scientific proof of product and/or technology function. Profits generated from sales are generally invested into marketing, advertising expansions or developing additional supportive products.

4 Without unbiased “Third Party Testing”, anyone or any company can create “in house” methods of testing that achieve positive results in favor of their products. This approach is in full representation and used by a host of companies throughout industry.

Example: Devices, testing, storyboarding and results are always controlled by the company who owns or represents the product. Anyone can design a fancy chart, position it on the web, write about it and set up visual experiments that (again) always provide extremely beneficial results for their own innovations and why not?... People appear to substantially believe them. However the reality is these support measures are only elaborate opinions created to sell merchandise, reinforce a methodology and/or increase believability in product function.

5 In audio there are a multitude of companies competing for your business. There are furniture builders, loudspeaker and electronic manufacturers and now even a few cable companies are making footers, imitation parts and/or racks in hopes of attaining a percentage of the pie along with a handful of companies dedicated solely to vibration management.

There are literally hundreds upon hundreds of products to choose from all claiming to be the absolute best in vibration control. Add to that, there are just as many vibration management methodologies as there are parts and products, all of which appear to provide little if any scientific proof of performance and function.

6 Any material of mass or shape placed on top, beneath or inside audio components and loudspeakers will alter the sound of the product so it is very easy to manufacturer a few basic parts and get into the vibration business. This could be one of the many reasons there are so many subjective claims supporting products.  

The majority of equipment rack designs attempt to match the frequency, sound and/or function of the shelf in combination with the component to produce a desired sonic via isolation, absorption, constrained layer damping or a resonance transfer mechanism. Some attempt to use two or three different methodologies in combination where one technical theorem begins to counteract the other and so on. When applications work against each other, a host of even greater variables will result. In essence function becomes more difficult to prove where believability begins to depend more on marketing strengths.  

Another problem arises when components make shelf contact. All components have different footers made of various materials and shapes including aftermarket designs that perform in many different ways (noting differences in sonic characteristics such as attack, sustain and decay). Mixing and matching footers throughout the system can also disrupt the function (mechanism) of the rack design. In our opinion shelf and component matching relative to varying footers is like trying to “hit an impossible moving target”.  

It appears the overall consensus has produced an audio cliché. Combining all those technical approaches, variations of footers, different methodologies including various types of structural flooring has created a term heavily used in today’s market titled “system-dependent” performance. With no scientific proof of product function available, it is our guess that this concept is the best and easiest way for companies to bypass the expense of defining and proving function via science.

Example: If we stated there is a known Platform available that is Not system, room nor floor born dependent for function and vibrates by design, what would be the majority of responses? My guess is - “impossible” or “prove it”!

Without a physical audition in your home, what other proof is available? Add to that, this type of statement on a forum will lead to further disputes and arguments that will eventually end up at “subjectivity” hence wasting everyone's precious listening time.

7 The public is provided information based on manufacturer’s opinions, theorems and marketing as to how vibration affects sonic performance. Everyone takes their best shot at explaining how their products relate to function. Sooner than later subjectivity steps in and plays the largest role in order to generate interest and sales.

Some listeners rely on researching other sciences that do not relate to audio applications or seek more knowledge from audio forums (Pandora's Box) where most end up forming their own understandings, opinions, analogies and beliefs. Misinformation spreads across forums, picks up momentum and so goes the chain of self education.

Multiple Examples: Reviewers are not interested in the topic or do not wish to take the time to learn more about how resonance relates to audio limiting their abilities for what they do best and that is help educate the public.

We see boundless and detailed information on things like digital jitter, total harmonic distortion, AC fluctuations, styli alignment, signal strength along with the obvious components and loudspeakers yet everything involved in the signal pathway is affected by resonance caused from vibration.

How many people attempt to kill every vibration? That feat is impossible due to the fact that electrical current forms vibration. Vibration forms resonance and migrates across all electronic parts, surfaces and conduits (cables) affecting signal path throughout the system entirety.

How many people attempt to stop their component chassis from vibrating thinking that will make for better sound quality?

How many people use the knock or stomp test (wrapping a knuckle on equipment surfaces or stomping on the floor)? Those types of self induced noise and vibrations never occur during normal listening and audio reproduction so why use this method of testing?

Seismic vibrations from the earth coming up through the flooring then up through the rack moving across the shelf and up into the components limiting your electronics and loudspeakers from good sound appears to be an overwhelming concern for many on this forum yet seismic activity and motion generated from the earth is around us every minute of every day and is inaudible. Unless you have the local train passing by or rush hour traffic during your listening schedule we believe there are more important issues that one might consider investing time, experimentation and money on.

There is little written, understood and what appears to be a lack of concern for airborne resonance generated from loudspeakers that affects everything from the sound and function of the room down to the circuit board itself. Turn up the volume and increase resonance along with interfering energy.

8 Vibration management in audio is extremely young in age. We represent the oldest vibration related product of twenty-seven years that still remains very popular in the marketplace today. Amplifiers and speakers have a fifty years+ jump on vibration control. Evolution is moving forward but everyone could definitely use greater input based on science from all manufacturers.

The greatest unknown and detriment to achieving a higher level of sound reproduction goes unchecked by science and that is resonance formed from vibration.

In our case we developed a single vibration management technology that is scalable. It is proven successful inside electronic and loudspeaker chassis, builds into structural listening environments and recording studios, uses Industry award winning equipment footers and multiple racking designs and successfully adapts to musical instruments.

From the smallest of electronic parts (transistors - resistors, etc.) to structural walls floors and ceilings, this technology can be adapted to other industries outside of audio. Because of these capabilities, we elected to invest in third party testing and chose a respected UL Best Test Center® laboratory. The methods and tests are also corroborated by highly experienced people holding doctoral degrees and various Patents in engineering. The data and results from said tests are based on science (eliminating all subjectivity).

Example: One series of tests will display a significant reduction in operating temperature when our technology is applied to electric motors, transformers and audio amplifiers (both valve and solid state designs) demonstrating how Live-Vibe Technology™ reduces heat via high-speed Resonance Energy Transfer processes. Heat is energy (resonance caused from vibration) that builds up on “all surfaces” establishing inefficiencies in performance and function (per the laws of Coulomb). Applying Live-Vibe Technology results in increasing component operational efficiency extending life expectancy for parts and more importantly, positions our goals which are focused on proving via science this technology conserves energy.

The cool thing about heat reduction is you can personally test ours and other products in your own listening environment using a digital thermometer (not so subjective).

There are a lot more requirements involving third party testing such as; first define all the test scenarios in writing, establish the definition of Control, establish and define the Mechanism, define all the Variables such as room temperature and humidity levels, list all the equipment used in test, document the last date test equipment was calibrated, environmental structure (type of flooring, type of shelving, etc) and the list goes on.

The results from tests such as these are nearly bullet proof and difficult to argue or prove otherwise. On the lighter side, third party testing limits the needs to dispute successes when participating in audio forums  ⌣  hopefully earning greater public acceptance and avoiding the dreaded x-factor known as subjectivity.

In closing: Our goals from investing in third party testing are for the purpose of technology development and expansion...

But we are compelled to ask listeners...

If we provide third party scientific documentation that Live-Vibe Technology is a newfound science in vibration management, would that fact motivate you to pursue an audition of our products (knowing full well we have financial return guarantees on everything we sell in place since 1999)?

or

Would you rely more on published reviews and consumer testaments?

or

Would slick advertisements become more the trigger?

or

Are you less focused on sonic performance and lean more towards cosmetic appearances matching your home environment?

or

Are you going to take your best shot at guessing what to purchase because public comparisons between equipment racks are extremely rare. They take a lot of time and labor unless you are comparing single shelf amplifier or speaker Platforms? Add to that do any carry financial return guarantees?

It is far easier to compare an IC or Power Cable but the chain of command regarding audio system performance demonstrates that equipment support foundations are the second source in line “totally governing” your overall system’s performance and musical sound quality with the structural room environment being the primary. Like it or not, agree or disagree, vibration management via equipment racking is as critical as choosing a new amplifier or speaker system.

or

Possibly your rack despite manufacturer claims is not capable of providing an over the top sonic improvement despite your emotional feelings, listening experience or dedication to your purchase. If you have ever experienced what a superior platform performance delivers... would you know what an over the top sonic produced from a platform sounds like? (Wow, subjective statements are definitely hard to avoid:)

As you can see, despite the costly expense of Third Party Testing there are a few more reasons to consider why vibration management in audio lacks science and proof of function.  

We thank you for your time and hopefully this information assists your understanding.

Robert

Star Sound

Manage vibration by allowing vibration… a new approach to science and the art of sound reproduction. After all music and sound is vibration!

For one thing, no manufacturer I know claims his vibration isolation device is the absolute best, to use your words. That is a Strawman argument. It’s not nice to make stuff up. To suggest that any significant reduction in seismic vibration by ANY means available is not up to date or even accurate. Nobody ever said, myself included, that vibration isolation is a 100% deal. In fact, anyone who knows anything knows it’s not. Earth to Tom! Hel-loo!

Even LIGO - the project to detect Gravity Waves, with its extremely powerful isolation systems - showed in calculations that even their heroic isolation systems were not 100%. Hel-loo! This is all nothing more than a rehash of the ridiculous argument started by Michael Green and propagated by some others in some sort of ill conceived argument to try and bolster coupling as the only game in town, that there’s no such thing as isolation. Give me a break!

For one thing, no manufacturer I know claims his vibration isolation device is the absolute best, to use your words.

Geoffrey C Kait, when was the last time you shopped or purchased from a dealer or heard a salesman pitching you on “the best”? Are you really that naive?

It’s not nice to make stuff up.

Everyone has their own opinion.

Obviously you have NOT been involved in the equipment racking industry for what… eighteen years or so? A lot has changed in the marketplace since you built and sold one or maybe a handful of racks back in the day.

To suggest that any significant reduction in seismic vibration by ANY means available is not up to date or even accurate.

I never suggested anything - period. You have a poor habit of putting words into the mouths of others in order to help make your point; which is what again?

Just stated there is no scientific proof via third party testing where seismic vibration from the earth affects audio equipment performance.

And in our opinion, when loudspeakers and volume are present - airborne resonance becomes the 'Control' factor and primary source of resonance caused from vibration in the sound room. At least we can HEAR, feel and easily locate where the majority of resonant energy is originating from helping us to understand more about room acoustics.

Nobody ever said, myself included, that vibration isolation is a 100% deal.

The fact there is limited or no proof of performance via science backed out through third party testing (including our own designs) is the point being made by members ‘prof’, ‘terry9’ and a few others. 

They stated that racking and footer technologies are all subjective and have no proof of function from science and has no type of standard test scenario. At this point in time they are absolutely correct. Do you agree?

This is all nothing more than a rehash of the ridiculous argument started by Michael Green and propagated by some others in some sort of ill conceived argument to try and bolster coupling as the only game in town, that there’s no such thing as isolation. Give me a break! .

 Again Geoffrey, you are posting absolutely "false statements and accusations". 

From the very first day we participated on this forum, Geoffrey C. Kait has disparaged our company, products, technical approach, technology and successes but more importantly insulted our people time after time including childish name calling. This has been an ongoing problem not only with us as history and the internet shows him being tossed off other audio related forums for this type of behavior.

Geoffrey never once took us up on our multiple offers to send him a product for audition (free of charge) or visit one of our sound rooms (all expenses paid) to learn something new about sound. To date, every time we participate on a topic, he is the very next reply on posting up more whimsical nonsense in attempts to shut down any conversation that does not match his understanding, hinders the sale of his own products or takes away from his argumentative agenda.

We are going to take Geoffrey's own words - “ill conceived argument” and provide proof via science that a new technology exists. Whether he believes the Lab data and test results is no concern to us.

In closing: Our efforts will offer something more for audiophiles other than subjectivity in hopes it will kick start other companies to do the same.

I apologize to everyone for having to reply to this individual again. It is apparent now more than ever he believes a lot in himself and unfortunately realizes all his posts on isolation and product performance are just personal opinions lacking scientific proof. Geoffrey is clearly upset knowing he has suddenly become one of us...

As always, Good Listening!

Robert

Star Sound