I have posted my systems components on an earlier thread. the purpose of this thread is to share my isolation philosophy.
Over the past several years many of you have come to know me as a tweak freak. I receive many emails a month asking about reviews I wrote or questions on isolation, power supplies and cabling. These emails are highlights of my day and I thoroughly enjoy responding to them. As I was writing a response to a detailed question on my isolation techniques I thought it might be good to also post the response in that it was the first time I verbally described the philosophy behind my tweaking. I have described the components before, but never explained the thinking behind it, so here it is. [lessthansign]br[greaterthansign][lessthansign]br[greaterthansign]One comment before I start; I have been praised and ridiculed for my tweaks, and I expect that will continue as long as I offer my opinions. Those who to those who choose to ridicule, Im sorry you feel that need. For those who wish to learn and share this wonderful and enjoyable hobby, I would love to hear your comments and personal observations.[lessthansign]br[greaterthansign][lessthansign]br[greaterthansign]My system starts with a Sony SCD-1 (heavily modified by Richard Kern and Audiocom-UK) fed into an Aesthetix Calypso line stage. I then have a Plinius SA-102 amplifier. The speakers are Dunlavy IV-A. (No longer manufactured) [lessthansign]br[greaterthansign][lessthansign]br[greaterthansign]My racks sit on 4 sandstone slabs that rest on Aurios Pro isolators. Both my Mana (SCD-1) and Apollo racks are spiked to the slabs. Each component sits on a shelf sandwich comprised of 3/8 Aluminum shelves resting on upturned spikes from the rack. I then use a sheet of anti-static Bubble Wrap with a Neuance shelf sitting on the Bubble Wrap. The Dunlavy IV-A speakers sit on #3 Black Diamond Racing pucks and #4 BDR cones that then sit on Aurios Pros[lessthansign]br[greaterthansign][lessthansign]br[greaterthansign]I have included some pictures of different isolation components. I think it would be helpful if I tried to explain the philosophy behind my systems. First off, as you know there are two very strongly argued opinions on how to deal with vibration. One school of thought is in the heavy weighted absorbing techniques; this includes sand and lead weighted racks, thick or mass storing shelves like butcher-block and heavy weighting of components. The second school of thought is in ridged, light weight and quick dispersement of vibration. The first is the older thinking, and some people still firmly believe this is the only way to go. [lessthansign]br[greaterthansign][lessthansign]br[greaterthansign]More recently the light rigid backers have argued that mass stores vibration energy and will release this energy back into the component, thus smearing and slowing the sound. Now this all may sound ridicules, especially if your components are solid state, but my experience has taught me that the better the solid state the component is (as an example my Plinius amp) the more susceptible the component is to vibration.[lessthansign]br[greaterthansign][lessthansign]br[greaterthansign]My set-up is actually a combination of both thoughts. My system arrived at this point not through listening to people and trying to scientifically explain any of it, but rather through personal experience. Ive now gotten to a point that I can listen to a friends system and make suggestions as to how to refine the sound. I have no idea how I can predict the result of certain footers, but surprisingly I can. Anyway, my system starts at the floor. All floors vibrate; wood has a larger vibration wave or lower frequency, but even concrete vibrates, although at much higher in frequency, or smaller wave length. Because of this fact, I start by isolating my systems base from the floor using Aurios Pros. This could be done with other products like cones or bearings, but the Pro is the best Ive found. I then use a sandstone slab resting on three Pros. This in effect is a substitute earth and is large enough to properly store and vibration the rack delivers to it, so in this instance the heavy, mass storage concept is being employed, and works because the floor vibrations have been eliminated from the storage potential. [lessthansign]br[greaterthansign][lessthansign]br[greaterthansign]The next part of the system is the rack. Here I use the light rigid concept. The idea here is to move vibration quickly through a rigid lightweight metal rack. The vibration is carried through the frame and drained out the frames spiked feet into the stone earth foundation. Because there is no weight filling the rack (lead or sand) there is very little storage potential in the frame, thus no stored energy is flowing back into the system. Each shelf is supported by metal upturned spikes that decouple the shelf from the rack. The weakness in this design is the upturned spike would drain vibration into the shelf in the same way the vibration is drained into the slab foundation. In my racks design (both Apollo and Mana) they use spiked feet and shelf supports. In that the rack has no mass and little storage potential vibration we are discussing is in the rack itself. Meaning the rack is picking up airborne vibration from the music and quickly dispersing it, not storing it. [lessthansign]br[greaterthansign][lessthansign]br[greaterthansign]In my system, I stopped using MDF shelves that have a limited storage potential and instead had aluminum shelves made. The aluminum of course is light and rigid, and has little storage potential, so any vibration received from the rack or airborne is again not stored. This would be a problem if the components sat on the aluminum shelf however. If they did the component would become the vibration storage, so this is where the Bubble Wrap concept came in. I use a layer of Bubble Wrap with the philosophy that it is as close to air separating the aluminum shelf from the Neuance shelf that supports the component. Because the walls of each bubble is so thin, virtually no vibration is transferred from the aluminum shelf, therefore rack vibration (and aluminum shelf) can only be stored in the slab foundation and no where else. The next concern is not having the Neuance shelf be allowed to roll or move sideways in any way, in that that would of course cause smear. I have theorized that the design of Bubble Wrap itself solves the problem. Each bubble is in compression and has an equal outward force in 360 degrees. The bubbles next to the first bubble counteract the sideways force with there owns 360 degree force. In a sheet of Bubble Wrap this happens some hundred times, each canceling the other out. A weighted Neuance shelf sitting on Bubble Wrap can not be moved sideways, its not possible. Therefore the Neuance shelf is supported by supper thin bubble walls, and they have no storage capability plus due to the thinness they have no sonic characteristics themselves.[lessthansign]br[greaterthansign][lessthansign]br[greaterthansign]So now the Neuance shelf is fully isolated from any rack or floor vibration, and is in effect suspended in mid air. This allows the shelf to act solely on the component and no other factors. The Neuance shelf is in my opinion the best shelf material made that incorporates the light rigid philosophy. The shelf is made of a foam core with ceramic laminate surfaces glued together forming a rigid solid shell around the foam core. Now the core is not simply a sheet of foam insulation, its an open cell foam sheet compressed on the top and bottom faces in a controlled process. When the compressing process is complete the original thickness is about half of its original thickness. The resulting characteristics of the foam is an extremely dense top and bottom surface with a core density of the original foam sheet. This then allows the shelf by nature to absorb a large vibration frequency spectrum. The thin rigid ceramic laminate skin quickly disperses the vibration into the foam core. Because of the light weight the foam does not release the energy in the same fashion as wood or MDF shelf materials.[lessthansign]br[greaterthansign][lessthansign]br[greaterthansign]In my system, the above description is true for every shelf and every component. The footer used between component and Neuance shelf very with every component I have. I have discovered through trial and error that every component reacts different to footers, and that no one single product can solve all situations. [lessthansign]br[greaterthansign][lessthansign]br[greaterthansign]For me EAR rubber footers work best under my Hydra power conditioner. Under the Aesthetix Calypso pre-amp I use Aurios 1.2 with EAR feet between the Aurios and the Calypso. Under my Plinius SA-102 amp and my Sony SCD-1 CD/SACD player I have found Aurios Pro with Orchard Bay titanium cones between the Aurios and component work best. Its a funny thing but for what ever reason every pre-amp Ive used is the least sensitive to footers. The CD player is the most sensitive and my solid state Plinius amp is a close second.[lessthansign]br[greaterthansign][lessthansign]br[greaterthansign]Placement of the footers under a component is also component dependant. The Sony SCD-1 has five very well designed footers. I use the two back feet and the center foot under the spindle for the support locations. The cones are under the SCD-1 factory footer. All of my other components have my footers directly on the chasse and not under the factory location. Trial and error located the best spot for each footer. In general I have found under tubes and under transformers/power supplies are good starting locations. I use three footers under all components except the Hydra. I use eight EAR footers under it (mostly due to weight).[lessthansign]br[greaterthansign][lessthansign]br[greaterthansign]The final vibration component I use is weight on the top of components. This of course is a storage location, but Ive discovered the tighter focus from the weight is more important than the limited additional smear the weight might add. At any rate, I have found a Walker brass and lead puck, approximately two pounds helps the Hydra and amp. The pre-amp seems unaffected, and the SCD-1 is best with more weight. I have a 15 pound steel plate with an anti-vibration rubber sheet glued to the bottom. The plate has six 1/8th inch diameter rubber feet that sit on the top of the Sony. This is placed behind the top loading disk door. The effect is a tighter, somewhat brighter sound with no effect to the pace. Speaking of pace, that is another area where mass effects the sound. My experience has been mass/weight generally means slow, muddy. Light weight tends towards the quicker, tighter tempo with better defined imaging.[lessthansign]br[greaterthansign][lessthansign]br[greaterthansign]At any rate this is my philosophy, and my personal experience. If one phrase could sum up my findings it would be isolation mixed light weight quick vibration dispersement and very selective mass loading is the secret. The second comment is no one rule works for all components, so trial and error is required. If you do not have the time to tweak your system to the level I have, then at a minimum I would use a light weight rigid metal rack and a sandwich shelf, even if both outer layers were MDF, this is a cheep and sure solution. Add footers as time allows.
Over the past several years many of you have come to know me as a tweak freak. I receive many emails a month asking about reviews I wrote or questions on isolation, power supplies and cabling. These emails are highlights of my day and I thoroughly enjoy responding to them. As I was writing a response to a detailed question on my isolation techniques I thought it might be good to also post the response in that it was the first time I verbally described the philosophy behind my tweaking. I have described the components before, but never explained the thinking behind it, so here it is.
One comment before I start; I have been praised and ridiculed for my tweaks, and I expect that will continue as long as I offer my opinions. Those who to those who choose to ridicule, Im sorry you feel that need. For those who wish to learn and share this wonderful and enjoyable hobby, I would love to hear your comments and personal observations.
My system starts with a Sony SCD-1 (heavily modified by Richard Kern and Audiocom-UK) fed into an Aesthetix Calypso line stage. I then have a Plinius SA-102 amplifier. The speakers are Dunlavy IV-A. (No longer manufactured)
My racks sit on 4 sandstone slabs that rest on Aurios Pro isolators. Both my Mana (SCD-1) and Apollo racks are spiked to the slabs. Each component sits on a shelf sandwich comprised of 3/8 Aluminum shelves resting on upturned spikes from the rack. I then use a sheet of anti-static Bubble Wrap with a Neuance shelf sitting on the Bubble Wrap. The Dunlavy IV-A speakers sit on #3 Black Diamond Racing pucks and #4 BDR cones that then sit on Aurios Pros
I have included some pictures of different isolation components. I think it would be helpful if I tried to explain the philosophy behind my systems. First off, as you know there are two very strongly argued opinions on how to deal with vibration. One school of thought is in the heavy weighted absorbing techniques; this includes sand and lead weighted racks, thick or mass storing shelves like butcher-block and heavy weighting of components. The second school of thought is in ridged, light weight and quick dispersement of vibration. The first is the older thinking, and some people still firmly believe this is the only way to go.
More recently the light rigid backers have argued that mass stores vibration energy and will release this energy back into the component, thus smearing and slowing the sound. Now this all may sound ridicules, especially if your components are solid state, but my experience has taught me that the better the solid state the component is (as an example my Plinius amp) the more susceptible the component is to vibration.
My set-up is actually a combination of both thoughts. My system arrived at this point not through listening to people and trying to scientifically explain any of it, but rather through personal experience. Ive now gotten to a point that I can listen to a friends system and make suggestions as to how to refine the sound. I have no idea how I can predict the result of certain footers, but surprisingly I can. Anyway, my system starts at the floor. All floors vibrate; wood has a larger vibration wave or lower frequency, but even concrete vibrates, although at much higher in frequency, or smaller wave length. Because of this fact, I start by isolating my systems base from the floor using Aurios Pros. This could be done with other products like cones or bearings, but the Pro is the best Ive found. I then use a sandstone slab resting on three Pros. This in effect is a substitute earth and is large enough to properly store and vibration the rack delivers to it, so in this instance the heavy, mass storage concept is being employed, and works because the floor vibrations have been eliminated from the storage potential.
The next part of the system is the rack. Here I use the light rigid concept. The idea here is to move vibration quickly through a rigid lightweight metal rack. The vibration is carried through the frame and drained out the frames spiked feet into the stone earth foundation. Because there is no weight filling the rack (lead or sand) there is very little storage potential in the frame, thus no stored energy is flowing back into the system. Each shelf is supported by metal upturned spikes that decouple the shelf from the rack. The weakness in this design is the upturned spike would drain vibration into the shelf in the same way the vibration is drained into the slab foundation. In my racks design (both Apollo and Mana) they use spiked feet and shelf supports. In that the rack has no mass and little storage potential vibration we are discussing is in the rack itself. Meaning the rack is picking up airborne vibration from the music and quickly dispersing it, not storing it.
In my system, I stopped using MDF shelves that have a limited storage potential and instead had aluminum shelves made. The aluminum of course is light and rigid, and has little storage potential, so any vibration received from the rack or airborne is again not stored. This would be a problem if the components sat on the aluminum shelf however. If they did the component would become the vibration storage, so this is where the Bubble Wrap concept came in. I use a layer of Bubble Wrap with the philosophy that it is as close to air separating the aluminum shelf from the Neuance shelf that supports the component. Because the walls of each bubble is so thin, virtually no vibration is transferred from the aluminum shelf, therefore rack vibration (and aluminum shelf) can only be stored in the slab foundation and no where else. The next concern is not having the Neuance shelf be allowed to roll or move sideways in any way, in that that would of course cause smear. I have theorized that the design of Bubble Wrap itself solves the problem. Each bubble is in compression and has an equal outward force in 360 degrees. The bubbles next to the first bubble counteract the sideways force with there owns 360 degree force. In a sheet of Bubble Wrap this happens some hundred times, each canceling the other out. A weighted Neuance shelf sitting on Bubble Wrap can not be moved sideways, its not possible. Therefore the Neuance shelf is supported by supper thin bubble walls, and they have no storage capability plus due to the thinness they have no sonic characteristics themselves.
So now the Neuance shelf is fully isolated from any rack or floor vibration, and is in effect suspended in mid air. This allows the shelf to act solely on the component and no other factors. The Neuance shelf is in my opinion the best shelf material made that incorporates the light rigid philosophy. The shelf is made of a foam core with ceramic laminate surfaces glued together forming a rigid solid shell around the foam core. Now the core is not simply a sheet of foam insulation, its an open cell foam sheet compressed on the top and bottom faces in a controlled process. When the compressing process is complete the original thickness is about half of its original thickness. The resulting characteristics of the foam is an extremely dense top and bottom surface with a core density of the original foam sheet. This then allows the shelf by nature to absorb a large vibration frequency spectrum. The thin rigid ceramic laminate skin quickly disperses the vibration into the foam core. Because of the light weight the foam does not release the energy in the same fashion as wood or MDF shelf materials.
In my system, the above description is true for every shelf and every component. The footer used between component and Neuance shelf very with every component I have. I have discovered through trial and error that every component reacts different to footers, and that no one single product can solve all situations.
For me EAR rubber footers work best under my Hydra power conditioner. Under the Aesthetix Calypso pre-amp I use Aurios 1.2 with EAR feet between the Aurios and the Calypso. Under my Plinius SA-102 amp and my Sony SCD-1 CD/SACD player I have found Aurios Pro with Orchard Bay titanium cones between the Aurios and component work best. Its a funny thing but for what ever reason every pre-amp Ive used is the least sensitive to footers. The CD player is the most sensitive and my solid state Plinius amp is a close second.
Placement of the footers under a component is also component dependant. The Sony SCD-1 has five very well designed footers. I use the two back feet and the center foot under the spindle for the support locations. The cones are under the SCD-1 factory footer. All of my other components have my footers directly on the chasse and not under the factory location. Trial and error located the best spot for each footer. In general I have found under tubes and under transformers/power supplies are good starting locations. I use three footers under all components except the Hydra. I use eight EAR footers under it (mostly due to weight).
The final vibration component I use is weight on the top of components. This of course is a storage location, but Ive discovered the tighter focus from the weight is more important than the limited additional smear the weight might add. At any rate, I have found a Walker brass and lead puck, approximately two pounds helps the Hydra and amp. The pre-amp seems unaffected, and the SCD-1 is best with more weight. I have a 15 pound steel plate with an anti-vibration rubber sheet glued to the bottom. The plate has six 1/8th inch diameter rubber feet that sit on the top of the Sony. This is placed behind the top loading disk door. The effect is a tighter, somewhat brighter sound with no effect to the pace. Speaking of pace, that is another area where mass effects the sound. My experience has been mass/weight generally means slow, muddy. Light weight tends towards the quicker, tighter tempo with better defined imaging.
At any rate this is my philosophy, and my personal experience. If one phrase could sum up my findings it would be isolation mixed light weight quick vibration dispersement and very selective mass loading is the secret. The second comment is no one rule works for all components, so trial and error is required. If you do not have the time to tweak your system to the level I have, then at a minimum I would use a light weight rigid metal rack and a sandwich shelf, even if both outer layers were MDF, this is a cheep and sure solution. Add footers as time allows.
2-01 06 kftool---.Just sitting in my office trying to enjoy my lunch, perusing the Audiogon "virtual listings",without an interruprion from someone in the factory, I viewed your posting that addressed vibration isolation methods. I am in the process of posting another listing on "all out assault" regarding the very points you have addressed . The heading will be "Tip Toes For Hippos". My three front loudspeakers each weigh 1320 lbs plus the 220 lbs the Krell FPB 600 amps add to the overall weight of the unit. There was a mention of spiking thru carpet down to a concrete floor. I had some tripple toes made that would support the weight of each speaker without compressing the carpet beneath it. I'm sure that my wife now feels that she has another extreme audiophile in Audiogonland for me to communicate with, God forbid.... I look forward to discussing your thoughts on vibration control. regards, Ken Fritz, kftool
Hello JD,I have new speakers since the last time i posted,Caravelles with the M1 stands,they have audio points on the top and bottom,also a friend sent me some audio points to try and i bought a set of ceraballs ,,still playing with positioning,but have noticed a clearer sound,better bass,more of a 3D sound and a better more natural decay,cymbals sound great!i have a ways to go,but this stuff really works!
They are spiked to the concrete. I don't want to do a platform on carpet with aurios on top of that. If/when I go to tile, this is when I would want to isolate the speaks on aurios. It sounds like three footers will be fine as far as stability goes. The only question is will my system benefit isolating the speaks on aurios on a concrete slab? I guess I'll just have to try it for myself. Again, if/when I tear out the carpeting and go tile. Thanks JD...
I wanted to make one quick comment. The footprint of your speaker is very close to mine. Mine are six feet high, but they are quite stable with just three footers. As for the carpet, this is an issue, no matter how you approach things. It would be best if at a minimum you spiked through the carpet to the concrete. If it was me I would try to come up with a way to spike a platform to hold the Aurios and them place the speaker on that. This might be overly cumbersome, and potentially a serious failure, so maybe just spiking to the concrete is best???
Thanks for the info JD, you are a true asset to Agon. Unfortunately, I really can't try my speaks on Aurios at this time as I have carpet, but will probably be going to tile at some point. I'm wondering if my system would reap the benefits of Aurios since I'm on a cement slab? Also wondering if I would need four Aurios under each speak under the spikes, or if I could get away with three under my speaks without spikes. The only problem I see with three is that my VR4's are narrow, only 11" wide by 20" deep, so there could be a stability issue there (although I have no kids or pets). Not really looking for an answer, just kind of thinking out loud.
Hi Ray, Yes, I would try to set the Aurios as your "base" and build up from there. The paving stone may or may not be needed, but I assume the spikes will stay. You might just spike the cones to a brass disk between the Aurios and spike. Also keep in mind you are raising the height of your tweeter. You want to be sure that does not get too much higher than your ear height. If it dous, you may need to tip the speaker to match your ear height. An added penny on the back spike, or something on that order is all you will require.
This will be something to experiment with, watch for imaging and tonality as you try different height/angle options.
Hello jd,Everything in my system seems to be vibrating to some extent,actually my rack is vib.from my speakers vib. thru the wood floor,so starting with the speakers makes perfect sense!I would like tighter bass,sharper focus*(without brightness)better low level detail,warmth is just right as is fullness,body,imaging is pretty good,but could be better.My speakers are spiked on paving stones w/a length of carpet underneath,so if a got a set of aurios and put them under the paving stone this would be what you are suggesting? Thanks again!Ray
Now then Ray, on to the question of where to start, (after speakers) keep in mind all my comments are personal opinions and not necessarily based in fact or science. These opinions come from years of experimenting and having a huge amount of time to tinker. I hope my hours can allow others to receive the benefits I have found without needing to spend countless hours being completely anal.
I would suggest the first place to start is the foundation. Much like the buildings I designed when I worked, without a strong and solid foundation nothing above will succeed. In my case I have an oak floor on wood joists. This creates a diaphragm that bounces on bass notes and vibrates at different frequencies. The bass is obvious as to how it effects the sound, the micro vibration is less apparent. Think of your listening chair; the arms of my chair vibrate from the frequencies that effect the various materials, both the floor and chair materials. If I have my arm resting on the chair arms the vibration is bad enough that (I believe) it affects my hearing. Is the vibration transferred to my ear structure? Weird!!!!
So my point is if my body is that affected, what is happening to my electronics. Clearly this vibration has an effect and the higher the frequency the more it may mimic internal vibration of say a transformer. The first place we attempt of deal with this vibration is the footers of our racks. Most likely if its an audio rack, it has spiked feet. These spikes are meant to decouple the rack from the floor vibration, leaving as small a point of transfer as possible. The reason the spike is shaped to a point is first to minimize the contact surface, but also to allow vibrations in the rack to be transferred down into the floor foundation. Now if your equipment is places on a piece of furniture, the vibrations are transferred into the furniture, possibly accentuated by the materials, steel transfers vibrations easily and fast, so contemporary furniture will carry vibrations (mostly picking up the frequency the transformers and cabinets) of our equipment are made of, VERY BAD. If the furniture is wood, it will store the vibration and release it in a delayed fashion, this could cause a smear as it fights with the components cabinet vibrations, but off cycle. The heavier the wood, be greater the storage capacity, and worse the problem.
Now lets get back to my foundation, if your system is set up on a concrete floor, and the concrete is on the ground, (not a concrete plank spanning between bearing walls) the energy is going to drain to earth, and this planet has quite a storage capacity, so we probably need not work too much at isolation from this surface. If the floor is wood joists like mine, you can decouple with spikes rack and achieve a good amount of vibration control, or you can become obsessed like me, and create earth with a stone base. This would be a big storage problem if I did not isolate the stone from the floor. My concept is to remove the floor from the rack system completely by putting the stone on Aurios Pros. Understand that cones under the stone could achieve a good percentage of the benefits here, but I felt the Aurios demonstrated their affect so significantly on the speakers (where I did try cones without Aurios) that I became a believer in the benefits of these isolation products. Once the stone slab was isolated, I checked to see its effect.
This is a trick I first used many years ago to physically see the vibrations on my equipment. I used a thin tin dish with a little water in it, actually the cover of an Altoide (sp?) type mint cover. (Warning, water and electricity do not mix well, so be very careful unless you want to fry your system) then I placed this dish on the stone slab that was resting on the Aurios (man made earth foundation) there were no signs of vibration in the water. Until you try this experiment, you will have no idea how significant of a comment this is. This verified for me that my earth foundation was effective. This is an optional, but in my mind required tweak.
Either way you go, the rack would be the next area of concern. Hear my philosophy comes in and my ideas differ from many other rack concepts. I think I tried to explain the reasons for light, rigid, and quick energy dispersal. Other people will argue heavy, mass storage, lead shot or sand filled racks I have no ground to make my ideas law, so take it from here. At any rate, I believe you could focus on a stronger rack. The best way to know is again lightly touch your components, or use the water dish to determine where the vibration issues are. My components are dead still!!! I mean nothing, so you can use me as a barometer. Conceder me the far extreme, but understand you can get to a point you feel nothing.
Once you have some idea of what components are feeling the effects of vibration, we can begin to focus on how best to resolve it. As far as order of importance, I suggest source first, pre-amp second As for your system specifically, the affects of vibration on analog are well documented; CD is just as sensitive. Your tube pre-amp is also very sensitive to vibration, so these are my starting points, after the speakers.
From this point the ideas get very specific based on what you want to achieve. I mean sonically what would you like? Tighter bass, sharper focus, better imaging, warmer, more treble, fuller, more body I would need your impressions to make suggestions. A lot of this is trial and error, but I have found I can often predict the success of various tweaks and isolation techniques, so you can either email me, or if others would like to follow the process, let us know and we can keep using this thread to help others.
Well with Perfectionists question, I suggest I begin there. Coincidently this was going to be my first suggestion because without a question the speakers on Aurios were the most significant isolation of all, and has an impact equal to or exceeding upgrading any singe component, including a full re-wire.
Before I attempt to explain the sonic effects, lets take a minute to understand the physics. My speakers are six feet tall, and weigh 200 pounds each. They are made up of a veneer over thick MDF well build and 100% rigid. When I play music through them they vibrate quite a bit. (One of my first techniques in determining which areas to focus is my isolation energy is to simply very lightly touch each component in your system, it will be quite obvious where your vibration issues are.) So if you conceder the full wave length of 20,000 Hz is .678 inches even a small vibration could seriously distort the high frequency. Im sure there is an easy way to actually measure how much movement, but I assume you can see the point.
With my speakers the movement could have easily been smearing the higher frequencies. Touching my speakers before and after using Aurios was stunning. At normal listening levels I was able to feel large amount of movement and vibration within the cabinet. Once I put them on the Aurios, the movement was gone, and a very faint, very faint vibration remained. This was the first physical proof of a tweak I have every experienced.
Sonically the advantages are stunning and obvious. The notes are much tighter, more focused and much more dynamic. The (ever important) leading edges of notes are crisp and sudden, creating a better sense of PRaT. The only possible downside of this isolation method is if your systems already tend towards the harsh or bright side. This might(?) tend to focus those tendencies and make for a more cutting sound.
To address this tonal issue, I experimented with various products between the Aurios and the speaker cabinet. A steel material might tend to accentuate the bright side; brass tends to be fairly neutral leaning slightly to the warm side. Black Diamond Racing carbon fiber products tend to be warmer, but in a very pleasant way. I assume its the carbon that is so pleasing, thus products with high carbon content are potently going to sound more natural. One speculation I have heard is this comes from the fact that our ears are made up of tinny bones, all carbon based??? For reasons not fully understood to me titanium is possibly the smoothest and most natural (yet very detailed) material I have found. Titanium is also hideously expensive, bit I use it often because it is so clean and smooth. Wood on the other hand tends to be less focused and at times bloated in the bass. Now this may be unfair to some wood products, but from what I have tried I am hoping to receive a Mapleshade 2 air dried maple platform for Christmas; of course I will report my findings somewhere.
So tuning the sonic characteristics are material dependant, and from the above descriptions you may be able to make some assumptions of what materials to try first. Ive spend so many hours (understanding I have no life) experimenting, so if you need some guidance in predicting what materials to use let me know.
So in conclusion, speakers are the most significantly effected component for bearing type isolation products. I am in love with the Aurios Pros, and I feel they are significantly better than the 1.2. I know $600 for isolating speakers is a lot of money, but it will be more significant than any $600 expenditure you will make. If you get the newest ones as advertised here on Audiogon and do not like them Ill buy one set, Im that sure. The net effect is tighter bass, much more focused and dynamic throughout the frequency spectrum. Basically every adjective we use to describe sonic improvements apply with the only potential downside being an edginess brought on by tighter high frequencies, but only if your system has a tendency towards the bright side.
I hope this helps, if you need specifics, please email me, for a guy with poor health who is not able to work, this is my entertainment (helping people) and I love it.
JD,Thanks for taking the time to so thouoghly explain your choices concerning isolation.Isolation is next on my list ,to get all the performance i can with my system ,,,i have no idea where to start,i dont want to start buying expensive isolation products untill i learn a little more.Would you mind looking at my system and maybe offer some suggestions as to a good place to start.I would love to hear your thoughts!Thank you ,Ray
Hi Frank, I had been using a Placette active line stage for many years prior to the Aesthetix. The Placette is so clean that it in effect was not adding anything to the sound. I had some people bring over different tube pre-amps to see how I like them, but they always tend to add too much bloom, muddy the bass or slow the pace for my tastes. I researched the Hovland HP 200, CAT SL-1, Conrad Johnson Premier 16LS and Supratek Cabernet. I actually bought the Calypso without hearing it, but was given a 30 day trial. The reason I Chose the Aesthetix over the others was Jim White, the founder of Aesthetix. Prior to starting his company he was the head designed at Theta, a company I know for there very cutting edge solid state circuit designs. Jim had wanted to explore adding tubes to the very advanced circuits he was designing, but Theta was not willing to venture in that direction. So Jim started his company. My thinking was with Jim's own company/ design I would be getting the added realism of tubes to his highly advanced solid state circuits. When the Calypso was in my system, I knew instantly it was a great fit. It had the transparency I required after years of using maybe the most transparent pre amp made. It also had the focus and dynamics I needed. The addition of tubes calmed my very revealing system just enough, it was still very demanding of high quality source and cables, but had a wholeness not present before. Rather than highly etched two dimensional cutouts, the soundstage had gained depth and three-dimensionality. Changing tubes increased this, and my latest change of cables makes everything so much more realistic.
I tend not to change the basic components too often, and I would guess this set-up will remain for many years to come. A cable experiment or two is not out of the question, and some new isolation techniques are expected this winter now that I have re-cabled with Kubala-Sosna Emotion.
System edited: It was drawn to my attention that people were not actually discovering the long description I has hidden behind a tab. In an effort to correct this problem I have the verbiage up front. jd
JD, thanks for sharing your extensive isolation system with us. You've clearly spent a good deal of time voicing the tweaks to your ear, and it provides an excellent template for those who might wish to investigate isolation techniques for their own systems.
