Does anyone use wood for vibration control?

glubson
The issue that geoffkait, and maybe someone else, is clumsily bringing up is influence of some other environmental vibrations on those "pure" sound vibrations. They surely exist, try listening to music with or without jackhammering in the vicinity and notice the difference. Now, I will not go into how (un)noticeable tectonic movements would be during a movement of an amplified symphony.

>>>>It all depends on whether you buy into the proposition that electrical signals in wire are vibrations. Apparently you do. It also depends on whether you buy into the proposition that the electrical signals in wire cannot be affected by vibrations from the floor, the acoustic waves or motors and such. Apparently you do. I’m rather shocked that you guys aren’t familiar with mechanical feedback. That’s the squealing you hear when the speaker cabinet vibration distorts the front end electronics. Gee whiz, isn’t that one of the first things beginner audio scouts learn when they start getting audio merit badges? If I didn’t viddy it with my own eyes 👀 I wouldn’t have believed it! Come on, guys!

Let’s take the case that the audio signal IS a vibration, which it isn’t, but I’m going to humor you guys for a second. Even if the electrical signal IS vibrating don’t you think external vibration would affect the signal? Here’s an example. - consider the case of a car going down the highway with two (2) sets of shock absorbers for each wheel, one on top of the other. The external vibrations produced by the road surface would produce an extremely bumpy ride, not a smoother ride, as the two spring systems for each wheel would interfere with each other. It would be total chaos. 

Why would anyone think that the audio signal interacting with everything else is a good idea? Haven’t you heard of waves interacting, you know, constructive interference and destructive interference? Come, on guys. I know you can do it. Deprogrammimg is a specialty.

I, actually, did not think much about electrical signal but focused on sound as movement of air or some other medium. Something that eventually interacts with one’s ears (just before it gets translated into electrical signal). That is easily the most prominent part of sound transmission and, I would guess, the one that can be impacted most easily and dramatically.

Still, even if considering electricity sensitive to vibration and agreeing it could be influenced by outside vibrations, it is hard to understand why all of those influences must have negative impact on the final perception of the sound. On the purity of the source signal is understandable, sort of, but on an individual’s preferences not so much. With some luck/practice, there is a chance one would prefer the final sound and that is what, it seems to me, michaelgreen is promoting.

An anechoic chamber is not the most pleasant place to be.

"consider the case of a car going down the highway with two (2) sets of shock absorbers for each wheel, one on top of the other."

Not the best comparison, although understandable one. Shock absorbers are not exactly springs anymore and much more physics goes into their construction these days. Including electrical charge at times.

If they were just springs, two would make it an unpleasant, probably nauseating, ride. If there was only one, it may be better, but if you shorten and shorten that one, it may end up being bumpier again. It is about just the right amount.

So the comparison may be a good one, after all. Some vibrations may enhance final sound although too many may deteriorate it.

If I understand michaelgreen’s approach, it is about "controlled application" of vibrations or some similar description of it. It does not come across as "give me all the vibrations you can and it will be great". Maybe I am wrong.