Marble or Granite shelfs in a hifi rack?

Albert, I did not like the Neuance on an aluminium rack either. I have played with aluminium racks with only a little success, finding that if you have a concrete slab floor, either an aluminium rack, or a steel rack filled with fine sand were possibly better, whereas on a wooden floor a welded steel rack, unfilled, seemed always better.

You are quite right to say there are no universal truths. In particular, turntables, CDs and valve preamps differ in the ways that they are constructed to deal internally with vibrations and so can respond differently to different supports. But with solid state preamps, and amps of any persuasion, I have found the steel rack and Neuance, plus EAR footers has been superior for PRAT and neutrality in several systems. What I believe is much less universal is the degree to which we audiophiles seek PRAT, or agree on what it is. I have had no experience of any heavy shelf approaching the PRAT of a lighter shelf.

I have to agree with Red on this. I find it interesting that the Spectral user finds the Neuance shelves to accentuate the high frequencies. I suspect that what's happening is that the absence of smear and lower-frequency resonances results in a "tighter" (better PRaT, more coherent) presentation that shows the leanness many of us believe the Spectral stuff is voiced to have. I would suggest that room placement and choice of speakers be used to balance a Spectral system, rather than using "muddying" supports.
It IS true that introduction of Neuance shelves under my CDP (EMC-1 MkII) and pre (Aleph P) helped to heighten PRaT, and that quickness and light-footedness can sound leaner as other components' grainniness or edginess is brought into focus. The Neuance allowed me to hear the difference between cables, ICs, and PCs more clearly, and is now allowing me to use a neutral and very fast cable (SPM), for example, as ALL these links become clearer, faster, and less phasey. Neuance really did allow me to "neutralize" any effect of an underlying base material, when set on upturned spikes. I find this aspect more appealing both scientifically and musically than trying to "marry" one of a myriad of base materials to my system's perceived flaws, imbalances, or "character". The Neuance has allowed a predictable and satisfying evolution of my system without a misstep. If I want to change spectral tilt I'll play with speaker/room issues, NOT support hardware. I know I sound like a devotee here, but I love elegant, successful, cost-effective technical solutions to complex problems! Cheers.

Subaruguru, I suspect that what you are saying and what I am saying are in agreement. I am familiar with the prat, lightness, and also leaning out effect of Neuance. I believe, without supporting measurements to say so, that Spectral/MIT is ALREADY more time and phase coherent than most other designs. Neuance helps to move other equipment toward the same coherency and resolution by eliminating smear of the signal. The leaness of the signal that you speak of with Neuance, and that you also attribute to Spectral, may be an inherent result of tightened time/phase coherency.
This is not our understanding of live music. Fullness, bloom, continuity are normal in live music but we are discussing recorded cd's, wherein an entire chain of recording and playback electronics have acted on the signal. It is possible that tight coherency in all aspects of playback equipment can be carried too far, to the point that low level distortions, filter artifacts, a/c line noise, transformer artifacts, and digititis in cd's may be resolved and amplified.
Also, I mention Spectral/MIT as an entity. Neuance has the greatest effect on power supplies, preamp, and a/c filters, The first group of components may be more subject to transformer artifacts than the latter.
Changing speaker placement, speaker choice, or room treatment won't eliminate a need in the end to deal with vibration and a/c. I'm speaking about small refinements to a system whose character I already enjoy and prefer.

Just to get back to the original question for a moment - and not discounting my belief in the Neuance approach - my experience with Marble versus Granite depended a lot on the Marble being used. Fortunately, for once, the cheapest Marble sounded the best. The cheapest Marble has the most impurities in it and the glass-like ringing of the Marble is much reduced.

Compared with the ringing of Marble, I found the ringing of Granite to be more of a 'boing' than a 'ting', if you know what I mean, a heavier slower sound than the Marble, but this varies by thickness. The use of soft footers between the shelf and the Marble/Granite, as suggested by Albert is the best configuration I could find with these materials. The EAR feet are good, but a friend tells me he has swapped the EAR for another compound that he says damps the ringing more effectively. I am taking a couple of Neuance shelves around to his place shortly and so if the compound is readily available I will report back.

In the end I preferred the Marble over the Granite.

I have read Ernie's post more thoroughly now and believe he is saying something quite important.

Introducing any new component to an existing system is a big ask since if it replaces something that is say bright, then it will sound relatively dull. Does that mean the new component is dull? Not necessarily.

In my philosophy of how to put a system together, I believe that you want as many components (I include cables, supports etc into this) to be "honest brokers" of sound. This is for two reasons. The first is simply that I believe the sound will be better when most components are "honest brokers" than when we mix flavoured components together to try and get a system to be an "honest broker". The second is that you are in a better position to improve the system component by component if each component is an "honest broker" of sound.

I use the term "honest broker" to mean a wider range of issues than just tonal neutrality, such as phase issues, PRAT and dynamics.

I reckon Ernie is saying something that very much accords with my view that in the Neuance, I have found a shelf that appears to be an "honest broker". Hence it is a uniquely valuable thing to build a system around. I may very well be wrong here. The establishment of whether a single component is an "honest broker" of sound is fraught with problems since an individual component can never be heard on its own.

But if I am right it should come as no surprise that introducing an "honest broker" into an established system may cause it to tell the truth about the rest of the system.

But there is no way that I can prove to you the Neuance is an "honest broker" of sound. Only say that it appears to be one, to me, and I have tried the Neuance in several systems.

I can certainly agree that the shelf itself cannot be considered in isolation. Presumably the best shelf for a plastic cased component will differ from a steel cased component will differ from an aluminium cased component, etc, and a component that rigidly couples the circuit board to the case will differ from a component that rubber mounts the circuit board etc, and a component that has moving parts will differ from one that just has electronic parts, etc.

In my experience the Neuance works well with an appropriate rack in most circumstances, and the main variations occur with turntables, CD Players and valve preamps. I would add however, that your own personal values come into it. I have tried the Neuance in two systems where though I preferred the Neuance, the owner did not. In both cases the owner preferred the bass presentation of using a heavier shelf. In my opinion the Neuance is more correct and musical in the bass - being faster, more rhythmical and with more slam at the front of the note. The downside for the owners of the systems was the apparent loss of weight.