Shocked removed spikes, used blue tack, what other non spike footer

Nobody ever said you can’t use cones or spikes in conjunction with springs. In fact, gentle readers, I have been campaigning for just such a comprehensive program of isolation and shedding energy (vibration) and damping for ages. Ideally, we wish to curtail as much as possible the transmission of low frequency vibration from the floor to the component and incorporate some sort of means to shed or dissipate “residual energy” from the component and or TOP PLATE of the iso device.

Recall that isolation is provided by Mass-on-Springs, not by springs alone, so in the case of speakers the mass is provided by the speakers. The mass + springs is what creates the low pass mechanical filter. In the old days a good solution for speakers would be springs under the speakers and Tekna Sonic Dampers on the cabinets, for example. Today a comprehensive approach for a CD player would be springs under the CD player and damping for the chassis and printed circuit boards, capacitors and transformer. That would get you in the ballpark.

One final word - the vibration of the CD itself is a big problem since whilst spinning the vibration and flutter of the CD interferes with the laser’s ability to read the nanoscale data on the disc - in spite of efforts of the laser tracking servo mechanism. Thus, sound quality of CDs is compromised in the first one millionth on a second. And there’s nothing that can be done about it upstream. 

Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica
we do artificial atoms right!

Thanks for that one select-hifi you made the GAIA look like a bargain. $2000.00 for a couple platforms , if I was so rich I couldn't spend all my money in a life time they would be on a UPS truck heading my way., just to see what they could do. Looks like I may be GAIA bound for $400 if I can get away with the cheapest ones with my weight. I was just looking for footers for second system, if they work, I'm going to have to try them on my Joseph's if that works I'll have to buy another set, will all this ever end. At least Music Direct has a 30 day return policy. I called them to ask if they had any returned GAIA's for a discount was told nobody returns them, that's a good sign. Do most people have good luck with spikes on other floor types because most all speakers are sold with spikes. Or am I just an odd ball that it doesn't work for. Or is it most people don't know to get rid of there spikes.

select-hi,

This demo says it all.

The video you refer to compares a $0.45 cent part to a $ Multi-hundred-or-thousand dollar product is bunk. Hard to understand why a company would open itself up to such an obvious dispute based on physics, unless it was produced as a marketing tool to increase sales.

If we were to compare a two bit spring even cryogenically treated, to a $2,000 Rhythm Platform™ you would never want to consider a spring again. Funny how that works - eh?

Here is a list of ten questions based on review of your video link.

1. Notice the meters without foot stomping? There should be a clear difference from seismic activity displayed prior to the foot hitting the floor. If seismic is that critical, shouldn’t there be a noticeable change between the meters at idle room noise? I do not see any changes do you?

2. Do you stomp around in your sound room when listening? Do you tap on equipment when you are listening – point being this is about sound reproduction and not self induced noise variables?

3. How do we know what they term is “ringing” displayed on their meters immediately following the stomp? Is the ringing audible? OR is the ringing the natural sustained decays and time dissipation which are extremely important musical characteristics when listening to music? We are "told" it is ringing - I guess…

4. What happens to each meter display with just music playing in the room?

5. The mini-earthquake theorem has been around and sermonized since vibration or anti-vibration appeared on the audio scene. It’s a great story crossing human imagination combining construction techniques and structural buildings that move with the earth’s rotation resisting the forces related to earthquakes and seismic phenomena.

Unfortunately those (+ or -) 4Hz “inaudible” seismic waves generated from the earth’s crust affecting audio equipment performance has a “tough prove”.

Why?

Music reproduction demands the "hearing range of humans" as the ‘controlling component’ used in testing speakers, electronics, cables, equipment racking, et’ all by the overwhelming majority of listeners.

Sorry to be in disagreement with the seismic quandary but are we to believe that seismic energy or floor vibration literally jumps off the heaviest grounding plane in the room and moves up the equipment rack avoid the “laws” of motion and gravity? The course of travel is quite lengthy. First up through the geometry of the cone footer, up the rods and across the shelving, up past the equipment or aftermarket footer system through the chassis walls and onto the circuits and then affects your components output capability - how? Keep in mind the majority of resonance is moving down to earth’s ground confirmed by physics and that’s why; in my opinion seismic has a tough believability factor.

6. What vibration comes first - seismic OR are the circuits, power supplies, transformers and component chassis already vibrating due to man-made AC or DC power?

7. How can anyone separate or begin to understand what frequencies are from the earth and which ones are from electric current flow?

8. Are the seismic waves more disruptive than that of the compression waves generated from man-made loudspeakers?

9. If their theorem could be proven and it cannot; in order to prove and validate product function can only be done via third party analysis, testing and “product validation”. Said proof of performance would have to be conducted in a respected laboratory such as ASTM International.

One must also take into consideration that audio reproduction tests (RTA, SPL,acoustic, etc) are viewed as “highly subjective” among the scientific community.

I personally would not approach anyone of science with two meters and a heavy foot.

10. The driver motion thing is unquantifiable. First; in anechoic rooms, the effects of Coulomb friction do not survive the room because the anechoic is designed to eat all energy. Secondly; there is no test for loudspeaker function in a live dynamic environment due to the laws of gravity, motion and Coulomb’s friction. Again they are estimating driver movement and direction and “telling” you unproven, unreliable or estimates at best measurements of driver motion. We call that storyboarding.

AND - THE BIG ONE!

Everything related to vibration and the management thereof in audio from methodologies to testing criterion, to human believability to sonic results is solely based on theorems. The key to understanding all this is everybody’s got one!

Once the music starts and volume of sound enters the environment, it becomes quite difficult to understand what we cannot hear. Does anyone have scientific evidence or proof beyond theorem that mini-earthquakes affect audio systems sonic audible performance?

There are far more elements involved in audio reproduction than the amplitudes of energy coming from the greatest energy absorber known to mankind - mother earth.

HOW ABOUT A TOTALLY NEW APPROACH TO VIBRATION?

Instead of attempting to stop, kill or eliminate vibration or attempt to prove where it comes from, we propose;

“We do not care where the vibration comes from. It doesn’t matter, because "resonance formed from vibration is on every surface that exists". 

Instead of theorizing what the sources of vibration are and how to stop them (anti-vibration); why not focus on what to do with resonance because there is no way to avoid resonance in a music or sound reproduction environment”?

That being stated and without argument:

Does one isolate resonance within the component allowing these amplitudes to build and propagate on all smooth surfaces per the laws of Coulomb?

Does one use added damping materials in unison with isolation products in order to dissipate, absorb or attempt to convert the resonance back into heat?

Then does the heat again become trapped in the chassis or is the heat drawn back to the metal chassis in search of earth’s ground and does that same old heat form resonance all over again?

Does one then have to take apart every component and speaker in there system to further dampen resonance? What materials should be used to dampen and then what happens when a signal or dynamics are overdamped?

OR

Does one transfer at high speed the amplitudes of resonance back to earth’s ground knowing that all energy seeks earth in accordance with known physics relying on the natural damping factors of the materials used in the geometrically designed product establishing a 'Basic is Better' approach to solving a problem?

The final decision is your choice of course but we would use the generous return with full refund guarantees provided by the finer companies as the real vibration test method. The bottom line for anyone is sonic performance.

In audio as well as other industries vibration management products appear to be strategically tested solely by the original manufacturer or designer with results always heavily favoring the product being promoted.

These testing methods are designed to increase sales through clever marketing, pushing theorem believability and storyboarding. 

Over the years there has been equipment racks placed on shaker tables, air hammers residing on shelving, various knock, banging, foot stomping and tap testing; all of which are self induced forces that do not exist in musical reproduction environments or when listening. These tests prove absolutely nothing with regards to science or listening in ‘real world’ applications. The tests always include a ton of graphs, charts and posters all claiming proof of concept and they too are manufactured by the company selling the product.

The company I represent is working to prove our theorem and become a useful technology. We use heat reduction as our method of testing for product validation as temperature, unlike sound quality is a well accepted topic among science experts.

ianderson asks:

What might prove useful to apply the seismic test to popular products like Herbies, Star, Gaia, Townsend etc and compare the results.

The seismic test is meaningless and proves nothing for reasons listed above, but if you include opinions and comparisons on the sonic performance of each product – “count us in”!

Please give us a call as that is one test we would love to participate in.  

Robert

Star Sound

If springs weren’t part of LIGO’s comprehensive and complex approach to seismic vibration isolation they would never have been able to detect and observe gravity waves, the amplitude of which are atomic scale. In fact, the observation of gravity waves, which occurred two years ago, was not possible for many years because the system was not sufficiently isolated from local vibration.

It is the same situation for audio reproduction. Sufficiently effective means of seismic isolation are necessary to avoid noise and distortion that low frequency vibration causes. Some obvious reasons for isolation are the relatively low natural frequency of the turntable tonearm and cartridge and the susceptibility of the CD laser assembly and the CD itself to external low frequency vibration, with the nanoscale laser and CD data in mind.

Almost all competent isolation devices and systems use springs in some form or another so the only reason I can think of why someone would disparage cryogenically treated springs is out of desperation and/or ignorance of physics and strength of materials.