How do you deal with vibration?


Greetings all,

Many of us work very hard to keep vibration out of our equipment. I was hoping we could share our experiences with each other. I was wondering what other DIY methods people are using?

I personally have had good luck with shipping open cell foam under plywood. I find that about 60-70 percent compression works best. I place the foam underneath some plywood (Using spruce 3/4 inch). Then I place the component on the plywood. However, I think this more isolates the component from outside vibration. I don't think it does much to drain internal vibrations, especially in a CD transport.

Also I can not find open cell foam in town any more. I am ashamed to say that I actually went to Wal-mart to buy some. Now they don't carry it any more. So I was wondering where else I can get some?

I am currently thinking about building a Sandbox for my CD player and amp. Then putting the sand box on top of some sort of isolation material (open cell foam or cork rubber etc.) My thoughts are the foam or cork or etc should help keep the vibrations from getting into the equipment and the box should drain the internal vibrations.

Also, what are peoples experience with different woods. I live in BC so I can get most wood fairly cheap. I imagine every wood has it's own sonic signature due to it's resonant frequency. What works best? Solid maple, birch ply, MDF, walnut, mahogany etc...?\

Anyways, feel free to through ideas and experience (both good and bad) out there. It would be good to know what works and what doesn't.

Happy tweaking,
Nick
nickway
Tbg...I completely agree that turntables and tube amplifiers need all the vibration control they can get. I was very skeptical about SS circuitry, and the simple test I performed showed that, at least for my phono preamp, vibration has no effect.

CD players are still an open issue in my mind. However, I have figured out a way to test mine. I have a CD test disc which includes two tracks, digital zero (which should be zero signal) and one LSB (which is electrically measurable but inaudible). I can put the player in the test box, play these tracks, and see if the player output is affected.
Mdp0430, in my string of stuff I have tried, I neglected to include granite. Yes, I have tried it under amps as well as under the Mana stands. Its greatest strength is its mass, which is hard to vibrate at low frequencies, but it does ring. Ultimately I had a Sound Anchor stand with a steel bottom sand box on top and then the 2 inch thick granite tomestone under the amp. This all preceeded my getting Mana stands and these proved not only easier to live with and more effective.

I did get bass with great punch and quieter overall sound with the granite on sand combo, but the Manas yielded almost as good bass but much better dynamics in the music. I should say that at about the same time I switched from solid state amps to single ended triode tube amps used with efficient horns.

I did try to get the best of both worlds by putting the granite under the Mana stands. This did liittle but going to multiple Mana stands in a pile, what they call levels two, three, etc., gave clearly better results.

I think the thickness of the granite is very important. Mine was only 2 inches thick. I once tried one on top the other and that was better. I was tempted to try it but never went to three layers. As you can see, I am inclined to excess.

All that I can really say is that mass is one important element in vibration control. I doubt if anything would be better than 8 inch granite under all your equipment, assuming that your floor would support it.
rsbeck, There is a difference between sharing experiences when the shared experiences are differing, and saying (or implying) that folks who don't agree with your position are deaf, dumb or blind. The implication of Pbb's last sentence was that anyone who worried about SS devices and vibrations were, in my words, a bit anal about something that didn't exist. I gave an prototypical sentence in my post to Pbb illustrating how he could have conveyed his experience with out the judgmental factor. He does not know, in fact, what other folks can hear, only what he can hear, or not hear.

Lest you think I'm picking on the naysayers, I find the insistence of the believers that just because they heard something it must exist and if you can't hear it, or imagine that it can be heard, then your mind, ears, or system must be faulty. That tactic is one of the mainstays of marketers of useless gimmicks based on the latest technologies in other endeavors which has no logical and or scientifically proven extension to something audible in a sound system. I call it sale by intimidation. Its not unknown in these forums.

A little civility can go a long way. And, in case you think I'm riding the fence on the issue of isolation, I'm not. In my home I have found little sonic benefit from isolating or coupling SS devices - it may exist, and I have thrown salt over my shoulder by employing some - but I can't say I have really heard the differences that others describe. On the other hand I'm a DIY type of audiophile and I'm just using my limited knowledge of physics to create my own devises - probably if I experimented with some of the professionally designed and promoted systems I would hear the difference, but with limited resources I'd rather spend my money on music. :-)
Regarding civility, I thought Ohlala brought up a very valid and very basic point.

-IMO
The high mass approach will only get you so far, since the high mass will move right along with the building structure under influence of sesimic type vibration. A much more effective approach is the mass-on-spring concept - i.e., decoupling the component from the environment. (Manufacturer of Nimbus Sub-Hertz Platform and Promethean Base - pneumatic and mechanical spring designs, respectively).