cones or amp stand-???

I wanted to post this, but do not have the time to read Twl's post and to address Stehno's issues ( I will later). In my last post I was not looking for a debate with Twl's points (I liked his post), I just wanted to address comprehension of the article.

Stehno, my joke in the “why I love digital” thread was a contrast between the time investment required for analog and the instant gratification character of digital culture. I could not have imagined, in a thread where people were making fun of their respective "camps", someone not only taking my joke literally but perceiving it as prideful. You didn’t even get a joke that has no subtlety; no wonder your expression of what you believe how I think comes across as an unintentional sideshow. You try, but you don’t understand me.

My cheap theory is that the drain theory is not a theory, but marketing assumed to be most palatable for common-sense physicists.

From Stereophile's Bad Vibes!, Shannon Dickson, November, 1995:

"Unfortunately, once we've built or purchased our dream platform, we then have to connect it to a stand or floor and place a component on top. This is the kicker: When you couple the most ideal practical platform to the floor with cones, spikes, or any other rigid footing, even at the ideal locations with respect to each, the best vibration performance you can achieve is nearly 100% transmission of floor-borne vibrations through the platform, without amplifying them or generating any new resonances in floor or platform! The same applies to component-generated vibration. At the very best, the combined structures will roughly approximate the "ideal rigid body" we mentioned earlier, moving through space in synchrony relative to each other so that the motion of the floor is matched by the motion of the shelf, with nothing added.

Any technique that does not provide isolation of external vibrations will only vary the amount of resonant stimulation added to the components concerned. It cannot reduce at all the level of baseline vibrations in the floor or those coupled from the air!

This principle is illustrated by both the "ideal rigid body" line in the compliance curves shown in sidebar 1, and the horizontal unity-gain line (labeled "1.0" in the various transmissibility graphs of sidebar 2). A perfectly rigid structure would not diverge from this unity-gain baseline in either direction, indicating nearly complete transmission of all vibrations between both the floor and the coupled elements.

At first glance, transmitting nearly all of the floor vibrations to a component might seem to be of no benefit at all. On the contrary, this would be a significant accomplishment compared to most real-world coupling schemes, due to an appreciable reduction in random levels of resonance affecting key components, as described above.

Indeed, it is the degree of deviation from this ideal that defines the wide variety of subjective sonic changes experienced by audiophiles using various non-ideal rigid coupling devices, stands, shelves, and components in actual audio systems. Also, when you consider all the ramifications of this scenario, it appropriately undermines the claim by certain purveyors of cones and spikes that these devices have a directional "diode-like effect," forcing discrete vibrations to flow like water from a dam: out of a component, through a coupled shelf, and then into the floor, where they are finally dissipated..."

Read the rest; its good.

My guess regarding the first paragraph of the portion of the article I quoted (I assume "skimming" means "reading the first paragraph") is to make his point about the relationship between floor and component as they are attached. Dickinson mentions vibrations via air in the second paragraph and more in the article.

Hi Twl, I already understood your point about the mag's motivation. No blame, but it would be great if you understood my post.

"You are the one with the apparent "ulterior motives"."
"At least we make ourselves publically known on this forum as reps."

One could get more base and realize every action requires motivation, but the quality of the motives is what is really pertinent. There is major difference between Star Sound's and my circumstances in which we post, profit v. personal experiences. That is why you put the rep tag with your posts. If I was to use a disclaimer, everyone should ala slippery slope. I am not copping to an ulterior motive, but I realize none of you buy that. The problem, I think, is that my experience was bad. No one would care if with equal force, I posted good experiences. But yes, let’s move on.

Regarding your second paragraph, I already read it in your past posts. I got it regarding the valve farce but not to be self-centered now maybe more will. Its just there's no longer that disagreement between you and Dickson. I appreciate the response; it was nice to see an attempt to sort of correlate that article, which I have used to draw my conclusion, with your position.

""Your stance, (A)" is a very interesting point. Perhaps it applies to you?"

It’s not interesting. I get what you’re saying - no.

"Considering that there are less than 5 Audiogon members..."

Good company.

"It appears the article was written with the express intent of promoting certain products which kept getting mentioned over and over again."

Tell me you get irony of this one.

"Where I seem to have difficulty agreeing with him, are the parts where he seems to be convinced that vibrations can be transmitted up from the floor, but cannot be transmitted down from the equipment "like a hose"(as he puts it)."

This was not the point as I read it. Dickson relates vibration transmitting in both directions. The operative phrase in the "like a hose" sentence is "containing a one-way check valve".

I was not going to write this paragraph, but now there are three posts amounting to the same point. My stance is: (A) what is odd/funny to me are users who believe their consumer experience necessarily gains them knowledge of an accurate physical explanation. (B) I did not post about a thing but a "theory". (C) I didn't start it; the door was soooo wide open for my post.

Celine: "The diode effect does work..."

Twl from the thread I can not believe hasn't been deleted:

"The points do not function as a "one way" device or 'mechanical diode'."

PS - Twl, what happened to parts two and three of the white paper trilogy Star Sound was going to create?

Against my better judgment to re-generate this thread, I am compelled to state that Twl does have a good point regarding one post I made, which is about my consumer experience with Star Sound. While it was made out of frustration from re-experiencing on audiogon what is in experience and judgment a gilded company, it was wrong to describe aspects of my experience which were outside the topic of the “what tweaks didn’t work” thread.