You have krell stuff,right? and the tombstone(s) go up-right "behind" the monos? Sorry David, I can't help myself.
27 responses Add your response
I have been using granite (a 50lb slab) under my tt for years now. It provides a vibration free foundation to which many isolation devices over the years have tried to accomplish. I wont part with my piece and your post reminds me that I live within a mile of a cemetary. I should follow your lead and find some scrap pieces for the rest of my gear.
$20 for a piece of granite is not that unusual as granite dealers usually have "remnants" just like carpet dealers.Don't limit your search to tombstone makers,unless you live in the boonies, like me, there will be granite and marble fabricators who supply kitchen countertops and office building floors and walls.
I tried granite under my SF Transport 3 and then I tried Soapstone. The soapstone is MUCH better. Just by knocking onit, you can tell that it is much less resonant. However, it is softer than granite so you need to handle it with caution. I tried brass spikes and it cracked the soapstone, but BDR cones work fantastic.
Down here in the South, we use two dead 'possums under our turntables. Sounds real good but ya gotta change 'em every few days. I was bringing two of them across country to demo for a friend of mine. The ticket agent at the airline asked me if I wanted to check them as luggage but I told him "no thanks, they're carrion.
I have a 3 shelf Target Rack-turntable on the top spiked shelf (on a granite slab on vibrapods), my satellite receiver is on the bottom shelf, and I have to stack my CD player and integrated amp on the middle shelf. Here's how it is on the middle shelf from the bottom: shelf, vibrapods, granite slab, vibrapods, CD player, large tiptoes points down into support cups, another granite slab on top of the tiptoes, vibrapods, integrated amp. A bit of work figuring out weight with respect to the vibrapods, but well worth it. I've also added peel and stick floor tile to the top of the granite to tone down "ringing" and found that when I did this, the tonal balance of the system did seem to become more natural. Read at audioasylum that "ringing" is a problem with both marble and vinyl and this is a cheap way to address the problem. In a recent "tweak" I discovered that the non-peel straight industrial floor tile is really "dead" and probably much more effective than the peel and stick, so next time I take the system down (which I do very carefully!), the peel and stick will be replaced with the heavier tile.
Hi David: I have 2 granite (1-1/4") slabs in my system. One under the CD player & the other under my tube amp. Does it make things sound better...Nope. It sure looks good though. Hope this helps. By the way, I paid $70 each at a stone place for them. Avguygeorge...too funny, you know the Krell joke.
I tried granite first but went to a sand stone. I have it sitting on a stone fireplace hearth with my equipment sitting side by side. On another thread, Redkiwi has recommended I abandon the stone and use a steel rack system. This seems to be a major departure of thinking on this site. The rack people say it transfers the vibration quicker from the components, and the stone stores the energy. I have not had any experience with the rack systems, (seems like a good place to loose $500+) Anyway, has anyone tried the two systems independently? I would love to here your experiences.
I'm extremely pleased with my system, I use a number or footer arrangements and use a Black Diamond Racing "shelf" under my amp. I believe the stone provides the most neutral base to build up from, but I'm open to others results.
P.S. If you look in the yellow pages under stone, you will find the supply yards in your area. These are the suppliers to the tombstone, counter top and whatever manufacturers. I've used these people for years in my Architectural practice and have learned to snoop out there yards. They generally have a scrap pile, pieces that broke during fabrication, or a graveyard (sorry) pile with pieces they can't use or sell. Every few years they ship these piles to a stone grinder to be used for road base. I've never paid for my stone, if you want it cut they will for a small fee, as discussed above. Is there a cheaper tweak anywhere than solid stone base? The only down site is my two slabs weigh about 400 lbs each. J.D.
nillthepill-it appears that you paid less than 1/3 the going rate for kitchen countertop INSTALLED for your granite so you didn't do TOO bad.Speaking of which...I'm wondering about taking an 1 1/4" thick slab of granite and tightly surrounding it with 8/4 maple, or perhaps putting sand or even silicone between the wood and the stone. Probably won't have time, anyone want to give it a shot?
I have used granite, marble, glass, maple, MDF and lead. My experience with lead and MDF was not good. Granite at first can sound exciting, fast and detailed. After time I notice a hardness or slight glare. I can't seem to damp out all the ringing from the granite. Of all these DIY shelves or platforms I preferred the maple. The maple has many of the positive qualities as the granite without the hardness. The maple will slightly blunt the leading edge. There is an ease to the sound from maple that I do not get from the harder surfaced materials. I have been using brass cones (Triplepoints) under all components. Now I will be playing with different footers. Experiment and have fun.
What about SLATE? I just ordered a special table designed for my Simon Yorke turntable, and the material the designer uses is a 3cm thick piece of slate. The slate platform is attached to four spiked legs via some airline-industry (Lufthansa?) resonance-dampening material. The turntable is screwed into the slate slab with a a large screw that enters te turntable from below through its graphite bottom surface. There is also some resonance-damping material in this area as well. I will let you know about the results of this setup once it arrives in a few weeks. As it is, because of the lack of suspension in the turntable, I can only achieve optimum results from the Simon Yorke in the dead of night, when no cars are on the road, and nobody is walking in the building. (Too bad that this is the time when headphones are required.) BTW, Simon Yorke recommends (facetiously) a square meter of concrete as the optimum surface for his turntable. As far as tombstones in the living room, my wife pointed that the JMLAB utopia speakers are just the right size for my coffin. She offered to bury me in them when I die, with the rest of my equipment inside. I am a little worried about graverobbers.
Be careful out there! Granite (stone in general), rubber products (Sorbathane's, etc.), lead, sand, glass all are from the group known as absorbants.
I am not a reviewer nor do I ever plan to be. This message is a bit winded, but the results I now enjoy are absolutely LIVE !
This journey I recently embarked on, was a new discovery for me and I urge all of you to try this mechanical approach to improving "dramatically" your systems musical performance.
For years this industry has stated to treat resonance properly - absorb or isolate it. My questions are 1. How does one isolate air-borne resonance since it is constantly moving generating various frequencies and volumes attaching themselves to any metallic surface? 2. Absorbants are a way to treat resonance, however I noticed when using absorbants, we also absorb dynamics as well. The material can not determine the difference between resonance and dynamics.
Equipment’s racking shelves are a tremendous problem in general. Woods vibrate creating multiple resonance forming multiple frequencies (very audible or we would not hear the difference between MDF and maple) thus combing with the equipment’s (i/e instruments) sound qualities produce a different harmonic or signature in the process. It is like combining two instruments yielding a different sound result from that of the original.
Acrylic shelves – do they absorb or do they reflect resonance or both? Do they add too the vibrations reactions (audible and inaudible) on the equipment? Do they really have a place in music or do they more serve the cosmetic approach (which we see a lot of in this hobby)?
For years we are told, from leading Industry experts - to deaden the shelves and deaden the listening room - yet we strive to create the dynamic reproduction of the Live-Performance. Dead to Live or Live to Dead ? Something is very wrong with the basic physics and understanding surrounding these formulas.
Understanding materials and how they vibrate and/or control resonance has always been approached with what I call these status-quo methods. Absorb or isolate? There has to be another modern day approach to this "little known" portion of our audio reproduction technology.
Recently I stumbled upon a web-site (www.audiopoints.com) and reviewed some of the information Star Sound Technologies had to offer. I was intrigued enough to telephone the company and really investigate their approach to my on going dilemma.
Using their unique understanding of resonance and how it effects all components, including loudspeakers, made logical sense to me. They stated that permitting resonance to form on equipment then immediately directing energy (vibration) away from the components and transferring it to earth's ground (a basic physics approach) using raw materials that "conduct" resonance permits the DYNAMICS to remain within the system.
They further went on to say that brass, steel (cold rolled) and aluminum are materials that will conduct resonance. Some work faster than others do.
When I asked about the granites of the world they went on to state that rock's principle material is earth itself. It fools the resonance into thinking there is a true earth's ground. When applying this type of material with acoustical and electronic products try to maintain a good distance between your components chassis plane and these elements, because earth too will absorb energies along with precious dynamics as well.
As not to steal their thunder, I recommend anyone who wants to improve their equipment's performance, telephone these people and be prepared to discover a newfound method of dealing with this age-old problem.
They call it "The Science of Resonance Energy Transfer" and all I can state is it works! I purchased one of their newest products entitled Sistrum Platforms.
Imagine this - their amp stands (two sizes that adjust to fit all equipment types) additionally serve as component stands (replacing cones) on existing equipment racks. In addition reading the information and product reviews they sent me stated that the same amp stand is being heralded as the finest of floor-loudspeaker stands on the market. One equipment stands serving multiple purpose - thus the statement of "form follows function" - rules.
These guys (original Audio Points folks) speak with authority and I do not blame them. Their equipment racks are the first I have ever encountered that increase the performance of not only equipment’s sonic capability, but also my soundstage jumped three feet higher and four feet wider – how? All I did was place my components on one of their multi-shelf racks. My system sounds many thousands of dollars better and who would have ever thought an 'equipment rack' could make all the difference in the World!
My new Sistrum speaker stands (or amp stand, etc.) are due to arrive here sometime this week. I can't wait! They state that loudspeakers are the largest of resonance problems (see their Audio Points White Paper). If their multi-shelf equipment stand is any indication of what the “single shelf Platform” will do for my loudspeakers, my investment decision will be compared to and realized as critical as the speaker and electronics decisions, themselves.
I will probably start a thread on this topic at that time. As far as I am concerned, this technique and well-researched approach has instilled all the emotional difference between my listening to the LIVE-PERFORMANCE and dead.
Plane Old JOE
O.K. Joe, I'll bite.
"Using their unique understanding of resonance and how it effects all components, including loudspeakers, made logical sense to me. They stated that permitting resonance to form on equipment then immediately directing energy (vibration) away from the components and transferring it to earth's ground (a basic physics approach) using raw materials that "conduct" resonance permits the DYNAMICS to remain within the system.
They further went on to say that brass, steel (cold rolled) and aluminum are materials that will conduct resonance. Some work faster than others do.
When I asked about the granites of the world they went on to state that rock's principle material is earth itself. It fools the resonance into thinking there is a true earth's ground. When applying this type of material with acoustical and electronic products try to maintain a good distance between your components chassis plane and these elements, because earth too will absorb energies along with precious dynamics as well."
My reason for pasting this set of three pharagraphs is two fold. First are you not conterdicting yourself? Second,
"transferring it to earth's ground ..." and then "...rock's principle material is earth itself. " It seams to me my sandstone set on a stone hearth set on masonry set on earth would also qualify as "Earth". Now you tell me to drain this energy to earth but keep earth away. Fine, I would then assume the brass, titanium, and carbon fiber cone products I use to seperate my equipment from the stone would qualify as your "resonance conductors". What did I miss here? sounds like I must have solved the issue for the price of cones. J.D.
Wow,this is getting heavy!(no pun intended) Anyway, my tombstone is under my Pass.I cleaned some old bird doo off it then painted it gloss black.I put some thin spongy material on my DIY amp stand then the granite on the stand.My bass is a bit tighter.Thats all the effect I hear.Still for $20 was well worth it. R.I.P.
Plane Old Joe- I want to start by saying that I have no idea how this product sounds, and that I hope that this product works for you. However, I have to say (IMO) that the description you quoted makes some the "creation science" arguements I have read seem downright plausible. It sounds like someone let the marketing department loose with a new ager and an electricians handbook. I don't know anything about acoustic treatment and shelving, but I know enough to recognize pseudo-scientific BS when I see it. Just my $0.02.
Just a remark from a latecomer in the Tombstones discussion. Much of the junk found in graveyards (RIP)are MARBLE and IMO, marble does NOT work the same way as marble --- granite is invariably better, especially under heavy components eg, power amps, or equipment that's by nature ultra sensitive to vibration (eg, TT). I use granite for both. Marble sounded muddled, worse than mdf, on my system.
I find that stones are OK to very good if placed under turntables or speakers, or under equipment racks, but are not good as shelves for CDPs, DACs, Preamps or Amps. They all "ping" to some degree and you can hear it with electronic components, and they also store energy and release it slowly thereby creating a smearing of detail. The stones all sound different, and different marble sounds different depending on the level of impurity (more impurity sounds better). Thick acrylic sounds better than most stone, but suffers much of the same problem. Maple Butchers Block is better again, but being picky, images are enlarged and flattened, leading edges are slowed (as Brulee says), and there is a slight lack of presence (related to the flattening of images) - but if stone is 5 out of ten, then Maple is 8 out of ten. But do try stones under your speakers, particularly if you have a wooden floor - but granite is probably the worst sounding of them - others like soapstone, impure marble or sandstone sound better.