Structure-Bourne and Air-Bourne sound transmissions into materials are vastly different to those transmissions excited by Impact
WTF cares if they are different mechanizms of sound transmission. The net effect on the gear, rack, TT is the same - resonances in the gear, rack, TT are excited.
Why can't YOU understand that I'm NOT concerned with how the resonances are excited. I'm merely concerned with exciting resonances & dealing with dissipating them.
When I want to differentiate amongst the different mechanizms of sound propagation I'll ask you. Right now I'm concerned with exciting resonances & dealing with them appropriately. Understand???
[quote]There is no scientific correlation between the three[/quote]
you have said this a few times now. Where have you read this? Do you have any evidence of this? Or, is this your conjecture??
and you would do well to stick to subjective comments and leave science to those who have something to contribute
You would do equally well by NOT counting yourself amongst those who have any scientific knowledge to contribute. I read the posts thru the link you provided earlier. The manner in which you have dealt with the subject is total a joke! It's totally risible - it's half-assed, hand-waving & you hide behind
but there are many more issues involved and it is infinitely more complex than my basic description
!
Halcroman, the great science contributor using language the following language in his treatise of structure-borne, air-borne sound transmission:
Also the frequencies that are happily carried by one material may be UNHAPPY in another material
happy frequencies & unhappy frequencies.... soooo scientific, Halcroman!
This is why turntable manufacturers laminate dissimilar materials to form their platters so that various frequencies are prevented from ‘jumping over’.
yes, more scientific verbage - frequencies are jumping over.......just like the cow jumped over the moon!
With this knowledge, it is easy to see that the long-wavelength frequencies in the wall are not HAPPY to travel in the thin metal brackets which are attached to it
more talk about unhappy frequencies....
Boy, by this time in your treatise on the subject, I'm feeling like I'm being taught by an authority on the subject.
the shelf being DENSER than the bracket, will scoff at the minute high-frequencies it sees
Oh boy, the shelf is now getting an attitude! It's scoffing at some unhappy frequency that wants to come into the shelf. Very scientific, Halcroman!
Of course if you really want ULTIMATE decoupling, placing some rubber or neoprene between the bracket and wall is even better
Alright! Now we have come to *the* ULTIMATE solution. This is it, guys, look no further - if you want to decouple to the best ability that mankind knows none other than *the* Halcroman has written it (pretty much like the statement we read sometime back that Al Gore invented the Internet).
However the physics and acoustics are undeniably on the side of mounting the turntable off the wall and NOT on a floor mounted stand
The final line in the treatise on the subject - according to Halcro it is UNDENIABLE at this point that a TT should be mounted on the wall. The crap that you have written in the lines before the final statement is a whole bunch of hand-waving, obvious statements that anyone can find in a textbook covering acoustics such as F. Alton Everest & many others. There is no logical progression thru the obvious statements you have written & you conclude UNDENIABLY that TTs should be wall-mounted. You MUST have terribly flunked logic in the GRE (if you even went to grad school).
Halcro, you are a joke when try to toot your trumpet & try to call yourself a man of science. Just hide your face & crawl back in your shell.
