How do you deal with vibration?

Pbb, don't assume that others have your ears or the resolution of your system or your biases.

Eldartford, my conclusion, as always were instruments are involved, is that they don't have the resolution of human ears. I do admire, however, your efforts to instrument tests.

Tbg...I just reported some facts, and everyone can draw their own conclusions. But I must point out that in dealing with 110 dB sound/vibration input, subtle resolution is a bit of a joke.

I have some experience supporting jadem6. I have two sets of aurios, and liked them under my cd player. At the suggestion of the Audionut folks I found a nice low profile 10 lb barbell weight stuck on some rubber feet and set that on top of my cd player with the aurios underneath. I perceived a little more 'air' in the sound.

Then I tried the aurios between my Silverline SR17s and my Osiris stands. The soundstage widened, and the players seemed more clearly to occupy specific locations. Roger Waters dog on "Amused to Death" started barking behind my right ear. The cd player will have to be happy with the DH ceramic cones for now.

>>there is no need to debase someone else's beliefs.<<

>>There are a lot of things out there that a lot of folks feel good about
believing that can't be explained or even proven to exist. Start with God. With
your mentality I could visualize you going to church<<

This is not a church dedicated to one set of beliefs where good manners
means non-believers must sit reverently for fear of insulting someone's
"religion."

This is a site where audiophiles of every stripe are free to join in, offer
opinions, reservations, beliefs, skeptcism, and recomendations based on
many different approaches.

This way, the people who come here get to listen to many different
approaches and everyone gets to make up their own mind.

>>I paused the player and placed it on brass cones (seating position was
lower than rack so he couldn't see under the player and I blocked his view).
Sat down and pushed "play". He immediately was puzzled and
asked me :WHAT DID YOU DO? THE SOUND IS RADICALLY IMPROVED!!!<<

There are several problems with this "conversion experience."

First, by pausing the music and doing something, then starting the music
again, you raised the expectation that you did something to improve the
sonics.

Second, if you are the audio expert here and your buddy is the "
untrained" listener, your buddy faced peer group pressure to hear an
improvement in order to measure up.

Third, your experiment was not done double-blind. In other words, YOU
knew you had made a change and whether you know it or not, your body
language may have been giving your buddy the tip that you wanted him to
notice, were testing him, had some expectation, or that YOU thought the
sonics had improved, which would make your buddy want to please you by
complimenting the change you -- the expert -- had made by pausing the
music, getting up to make a change -- you needed to place the cones -- and
then resuming the music.

This is WHY listening tests must be done double-blind to carry any weight.

If you did this test double-blind and your buddy with his untrained ears was
eable to reliably tell when the cones were in place and when they weren't --
that would be convincing.

Now, since you claimed the chage was so dramatic that your buddy had to
exclaim that the sound was RADICALLY IMPROVED, we should expect that it
would be easy for him to tell the difference in a double-blind test.