Do isolation components work ? (Vibrapods, Cones, bearings, feets) (1 Viewer)

[Stephen Dodds]

There is an easy to tell if your equipment or your ears are susceptible to vibrations.
Stick your DVD or CD player on your sub or speakers and play it.
If you cannot hear the effect of any vibrations there, it is highly unlikely you will hear any from sticking sorbothane under it on your rack.
If you can hear effects, then you may want to investigate further.
Steve

 

[Saurav]

i even had one guy tell me that, by opening it up and "loosening" the screws that secure the circuit board to the chassis, that it will improve the sound.

IMO it could, and it could just as easily make it worse.

 

[Chu Gai]

they work primarily in separating you from your silver and paper. occasionally i've heard they even work on attracting plastic. another audio myth although miss cleo may have some thoughts on that. i wonder if she posts at audioasylum?

 

[Saurav]

another audio myth

Of course, you've tried it for yourself, right? You definitely wouldn't accept or dismiss something based on other people's opinions.

 

[John-D]

Of course, you've tried it for yourself, right?

Well I haven't tried jumping from a cliff without appropriate gear. Common sense and People say I'd get hurt but hey.. I shouldn't accept or dismiss something based on THEIR opinion. I HAVE TO TRY IT MYSELF.
back to..

------------------
The things we own end up owning us

 

[RicP]

quote: Well I haven't tried jumping from a cliff without appropriate gear. Common sense and People say I'd get hurt but hey.. I shouldn't accept or dismiss something based on THEIR opinion. I HAVE TO TRY IT MYSELF.[/quote]Why is the standard fallback of the cynic to equate {insert tweak here} with DEATH?
Don't you think that comparison is a little ridiculous? But I guess when you have no other legs to stand on, you try to play the card that has the most visceral impact.
I use vibration Isolation in my system. It works. I paid virtually NOTHING for it as I created mine out of cheap everyday items. Am I still deluded? Or would I somehow be MORE deluded if I happened to spend lots of $$ on them?
At least those of us who have TRIED IT can speak from experience, whether with positive or negative results. All the cynics can do is wave their hands and yell "Preposterous!". That's certainly much more convincing than actually trying something and reporting your results.
------------------
http://www.ricperrott.com
Ric Perrott
[Edited last by RicP on August 17, 2001 at 10:03 AM]

 

[Saurav]

Thanks Ric. I was wondering how long it would be before someone chimed in with the "jumping off a building" / "touching a hot metal plate" / "something equally silly" example.
And before anyone comes back with "Why is it silly", I'll try and answer that question. It's silly because:
* You're comparing losing your life to losing a few dollars. I value my life at a little more than that.
* I see no possible gains in jumping off a cliff. There are possible gains with these tweaks, at least in theory, because some people have claimed improvements.
I deleted a lot of what I'd typed. I don't think there's much point in dragging this thread down into a tweakers/geekers argument. Maybe we should bring this back to the original poster's question, isolation, or close it altogether. Just my suggestion.
Saurav

 

[RobertR]

Why is the standard fallback of the cynic to equate {insert tweak here} with DEATH?

The implication that skeptics (not "cynics") typically equate tweaks with "death" is misleading, irrelevant, and attempts to obfuscate the point that John was making by making an emotional statement about death. The POINT that John was making is that we often see an argument made from "tweakers" along the lines of "knowledge of anything is IMPOSSIBLE unless I PERSONALLY experience something which lets me aquire that knowledge DIRECTLY".
This is, of course, a silly contention. No, I "personally" have not used the parallax method to calculate the distance in parsecs to various stars (to use a NONDEATH analogy). Does this mean I have "no idea" whether other stars are actually only a few billion miles away? I would say no.
In like manner, I CAN use KNOWN facts about physics to make a REASONABLE conclusion about the efficacy of "isolation" components.
Then again, double blind tests DO involve "direct" experience, but "tweakers" detest participating in them as well.

 

[John-D]

I agree. it can be closed. I'm sure Samson got to hear both viewpoints. Nothing gained in dragging this thread to more pages... a sheer waste of bandwidth...
.... i'm gonna go post to the My-Wife's-The-Best-Thing-Since-Sliced-Bread-Cuz-She-Didn't-Beat-Me-Up-Today threads.. care to join me??

 

[Saurav]

quote: The POINT that John was making is that we often see an argument made from "tweakers" along the lines of "knowledge of anything is IMPOSSIBLE unless I PERSONALLY experience something which lets me aquire that knowledge DIRECTLY".[/quote]
In all fairness, that's a bit of an exaggeration too.
quote: In like manner, I CAN use KNOWN facts about physics to make a REASONABLE conclusion about the efficacy of "isolation" components.[/quote]
The known facts of physics state that mechanical isolation does make a difference. Industries which require much greater precision than audio use such devices as a matter of course, there is no doubting their usefulness in these realms. Try this link (near the bottom of the page) for isolation devices used with high-powered microscopes. There are test results posted too, showing the effects of this platform on transmitting vibrations of specific frequencies.
http://www.vaytek.com/microsco.htm
Once you come to audio, even there you would be able to measure minute differences in electrical output based on physical excitation of components. The question here is, are these changes audible? And that's something which leaves the realm of physics, and enters biology/psychology/psychoacoustics. And as far as I understand, these are all much less precise sciences than physics is.
Anyway, here's my objection - someone comes and asks, do isolation techniques make a difference. Someone replies, "Yes, I've tried it, and they did make a difference". Someone else replies, "No, I've tried it, they did not make a difference". Both responses add value to the thread, and are useful for the person asking the question. But when someone responds with "Anyone who spends money on this is an idiot", I fail to see how that post contributes anything worthwhile to the thread. That's all I'm saying.
Edit: There is another side to this - vibration isolation isn't rocket science, it's based on well understood mechanical principles. Take springs and shock absorbers on cars, for instance. There are design issues involved, where the isolation system (i.e., springs/shocks) need to be tailored for the particular application (i.e., the weight of the car).
Most isolation devices available in the audio world are pretty much quack-science products, built on partially-understood mechanical principles. Isolation products for scanning microscopes are typically much more sophisticated than your average audio product. However, that doesn't mean isolation doesn't work. If someone takes the time to understand mechanical filters and damping and all the associated concepts, he or she would be able to build very effective isolation platforms, which would work only for the components they were supporting.
[Edited last by Saurav on August 17, 2001 at 11:55 AM]
[Edited last by Saurav on August 17, 2001 at 11:55 AM]

 

[Ted Lee]

well said saurav...
------------------
You step in the stream,
But the water has moved on.
This page is not here.

 

[RobertR]

that's a bit of an exaggeration too.

Your use of the word "too" tells me you agree that what I was responding to is an exaggeration. Glad you think so.
Exaggeration is quite common with respect to the subject of tweaks.

 

[RicP]

quote: The implication that skeptics (not "cynics") typically equate tweaks with "death" is misleading, [/quote]Incorrect. If you do not attempt to validate findings for yourself then you are a Cynic, NOT a skeptic. A skeptic finds evidence, usually more than anecdotal, that solidifies his stance as undecided. Skeptics seek truth, a Cynic on the other hand summarily dismisses any claims with a wave of the hand and merely the "fact" that he/she "just knows" that it's impossible.
skeptic Skep"tic, n. [Written also sceptic.] 1. One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
That certainly doesn't sound like most of the "dismissers" to me.
This does however:
cyn·ic (snk) n.
1. A person who believes all people are motivated by selfishness.
2. A person whose outlook is scornfully and often habitually negative.
3. Someone who is critical of the motives of others
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
And if you look at most of these tweak threads, the most vocal cynics almost ALWAYS choose some form of Physical injury to make their weak point with.
Anyway, I won't drag this thread down any further.
------------------
http://www.ricperrott.com
Ric Perrott
[Edited last by RicP on August 17, 2001 at 12:25 PM]

 

[RobertR]

Someone who is critical of the motives of others

You're sounding very critical of the motives of "dismissers", Ric. Sounds rather cynical.

 

[Michael Yung]

YES. I did a blind test with a Cambridge Audio C500 cd player and the sound was noticably different. To me it sounded better as I heard more depth to the music and increase clarity in the upper mid range.

 

[RicP]

Dont you love HTF server problems!
[Edited last by RicP on August 17, 2001 at 03:53 PM]

 

[RicP]

Dont you love HTF server problems!
[Edited last by RicP on August 17, 2001 at 03:54 PM]

 

[RicP]

Dont you love HTF server problems!
[Edited last by RicP on August 17, 2001 at 03:54 PM]

 

[RicP]

which is what skeptics do--they say "show me"

Again, incorrect. I guess your definition of "Skeptic" is different than mine. A Skeptic doesn't just sit back and say "Show me", they actively participate and investigate claims to either prove or disprove them. They take an active role in the search for truth.
Cynics and dismissers on the other hand can't be bothered with that because it actually requires them to do something. They are more comfortable waving their omniscient hand and dismissing claims outright without having to "bother" doing any actual research or investigation of their own. And that description fits the vast majority of posters in the "dismisser" category.
This is a ludicrous exchange and is serving no purpose. You may have the last word as I am finished with this silliness.
------------------
http://www.ricperrott.com
Ric Perrott

 

[Saurav]

My, what "cynical" people we have at the U.S. Patent Office (I prefer to think of them as rational), who refuse to accept applications for perpetual motion machines.

Robert, there are laws of physics that make the existence of perpetual motion machines impossible. One such law is the law of conservation of energy, which coupled with the inescapable phenomenon called friction, makes such a machine impossible. Please describe a similar physical law which says that isolating a component from external vibrations cannot have an effect on its electronic characteristics.
I can see what you're trying to say, but Ric has a very valid point here - you are the only one who even said anything about using known facts about physics to make a reasonable conclusion about something. All that the rest have done is wave their hands and say "Impossible", they haven't offered anything more useful than that. So, if we ignore the others for a moment, here's my question to you - what are the known facts of physics that you have used to arrive at the reasonable conclusion that isolating a CD player from external vibrations cannot make a difference to the sound?
This is a very direct, simple question, addressed to one person. I would really appreciate it if no one else took it and trivialized it or twisted it in any way. Thank you.