Best Isolation HRS? SRA? Zoethecus? Symposium?


I'm using a non audiophile rack for my system because it goes with the decor. Will an isolation device still make a difference. If so which one please?
jjwa
theaudiotweak: in the case of our Promethean & Nimbus, we use selective frequency damping of the top plate to remove residual vibration due to seismic type, component-induced or airborne type. We also prefer the extremely hard dh (diamond hardness) cones for lightning-fast energy transfer between component & plate/damper.

Geoff Kait, Machina Dynamica
Geoffkait

Nice to know that four course on vibration I took in university can be boiled down to one easy sentence Geoff. It is far more complex in study than what you have stated. It has everything to do with inertia.

"The heavy mass used in Vibraplane is employed to lower the resonant freq. of the "mass on spring" system and has nothing whatsoever to do with inertia, as you suggested. System resonant frequency is a (strict) function of the Sq. Root of spring rate over the mass."

What you talk of is a simple machine, a text book example not a real world application. What you talk of is a single degree of freedom spring and mass system. It does not particularly apply. Yes, additonal mass will lower the resonant frequency of the platform but is not the sole or most important reason for the mass. You could simply damp, clamp and change the resonant frequency with out the mass. You have completely ignored Newton and Kinetics all in one foul swoop. How about your transmission ratios, harmonic ground motion, forced periodic motion etc.?

"Thus, if vibraplane employed an even heavier mass, all things being equal, it would be an even better isolator. But not because of the reason you gave."

Beg to differ here sir. A larger mass requires larger surface areas and will not necessarily translate to better isolation. It introduces another set of issues. It is a large reason as to why it operates the way it does. Mass limits movement the isolators decouple from the source of the vibration. It is similar in operation to an inertia base under large rotating pieces of equipment, conversly though they are trying to limit the vibration transmitted into a building. Mass is key in keeping things in place and limiting both movement and transmission of vibration.
j-badov, the equivalent performance (resonant frequency) for the VP would be obtained by simultaneously *reducing* the mass and reducing the spring rate of the thin-skin bladders.

Therefore, by inspection, mass cannot be the *key* to the design of the mass-on-spring isolating system you seem to think it is.

Also, a larger mass doesn't necessarily require more surface area as higher density of mass will solve that particular problem.

Maybe dust off the old university textbooks, eh? :-)
Geoffkait, or you could partially fill the bladders with fluids as Kworks does. Filling the center with sand would also lower the resonant frequency.
I would use abs. minimum no. of bladders (of correct geometry) -- that is one sure way to lower resonant frequency and improve performance...fluids in bladders could overdamp things... haven't tried it, might be worth a shot, but generally don't like fluids or sand...