Do stands make a difference for equipment?


Does the kind of stand you use make a difference, especially with components other than turntables? I realize how much difference a good stand can make for a TT, but does it make much of a difference for your preamp, CD player, and other front end units? How about amp stands? I'm trying to decide if it's worth upgrading my stand to something more robust, which means pending $$$. I currently use an old Target T5 stand, which is similar to the Solid Steel 3 series, and have just switched to a Sound Anchor stand for my amp. Since I switched amps at the same time, and the amp weights 200 lbs., I'm not going to AB it with my old stand.
Would love to hear what experiences you have had with different stands.

Thanks and good listening,
Mike
128x128mrvordo

Showing 5 responses by ivan_nosnibor

My general impression of them is that on the whole they probably make a worthwhile difference, although I myself have only owned a pair of isolation platforms from Alan Maher that I finally pulled the trigger on only recently. But they've been some kind of wonderful. These are of the newer kind that offer electrical noise reduction and isolation in one product. My rig is a $5k, CD-only, preampless system and I started by placing one stand under the Oppo 103 transport and the other under a Ric-Schultz-modified DEQ2496 DAC...no contest, a night-and-day difference for me. I will be buying 2 more stands for my monoblocks. For me too, there's no going back.
Agear: His stands are made with a 1/4" of proprietary material sandwiched between two 1/2" sheets of acrylic. There is a wire to be plugged into the system powerstrip, but it only actively connects to ground so no electricity is drawn from the wall. Posted the following reaction on his FB wall (business). At this point Alan had already stated that a component on his stand was allowed to operate entirely above its own internal noisefloor:

"Something else I discovered that I didn't expect. Using a modified DEQ2496 as a DAC. Stock or modified, there was always a slight dynamic penalty imposed when using the digital parametric EQ. Choosing a frequency and slope (or q) is no problem - until you go to move the level away from 0 db, either up or down. At the minimum step of .5 db there is always a noticeable reduction in dynamics that extends the width of the slope you've selected, but, oddly, no more than that. For example, if you choose a q of 3 octaves you'll hear that reduction in dynamics within that 3 octave band, but not beyond. Once you go beyond the first .5 db there is no additional reduction in dynamics no matter what level you choose, but there is always that initial penalty imposed as soon as you move away from 0 db. Normally this is a minor annoyance by itself, but if you select nearby center frequencies that have overlapping slopes, then you take multiple hits in that one general area and that's when it all begins to be a real limitation on the sound. As a matter of practice, I've learned to use the EQ for as broad and as gentle a curve as possible with the fewest number of overlapping center frequencies as possible to minimize all this (not really a bad rule of thumb with analog EQ for that matter anyway). But, a few hours after placing the DAC on the Q-stand, I noticed I could no longer hear this effect. If it is there at all, it is no longer audible. Then I remembered what you said Alan, that Q-stand allows the component to operate, in effect, free and clear of it's own internal noise floor (or words to that effect). Huh...no more problem."

This was Alan's reply:

"John - In effect what you are experiencing with the Behringer is its version of digital circuit clipping most people confuse clipping with db output but clipping also applies to all internal circuitry amplitudes .so increasing/decreasing causes ringing artifacts to be super imposed on the signal but using the qCell or Tri-Cell platform under the component eliminates the ringing artifact at the source which quickly becomes apparent via playback just imagine the potential for project quality when this technology is applied from studio capture to playback".

Afterward, I then realized that the slightly increased tolerance of the main digital input meters on the DEQ (which hadn't been touched) was not my imagination playing tricks on me after all. This is also about the best way I'm aware of to take a direct shot at reducing digital "self noise" inside a component.

But, it was the overall change in sound quality that did it for me...far better vocal and instrumental hues and textures and ALL that good stuff!
Oh, did I mention that for any of Alan's facebook friends, each Q-stand (what I use now, and will be buying more of soon) are only $350.00 each? Better hurry though, when Alan's new and only B&M store being built in Nashville comes online in the next few months, they will be a few thousand dollars each, according to Alan.
Agear:

"Bravo. Someone is taking the "discipline" forward through innovation. The whole concept of self noise is integral to this discussion".

I certainly agree. In general, electrical stands like these purify the DC and power conditioning purifies the AC. But, doing one alone only ends up revealing the shortcomings of the lack of the other. BUT, when you do Both, it seriously transforms your system...and I do mean 'transforms'! All this Alan Maher gear for me is now the single-most important 'component' in my system...by far the first one I'd take toward building a new rig if I could only take one. But, you know what?? I'm not EVEN thinking of ever doing that. I'm sure some will think me crazy for giving so much attention to "tweaks", but I've come to realize that any of my prior notions of spending on tweaks "according to (any monetary) scale" were really a myth...you must spend according to a performance scale (same as any other component) to reap the best and most relevant benefits. And I think That's the way forward. But, by being well on my way toward having done that, I find myself already laughing like Renfro!! Regards. John
Himiguel: I think everything you just said is dead on and basically all of it will always be, for anyone who pursues this level of higher resolution in their system, a double-edged sword. Some will see that possibly 'never-ending' pursuit as a time and resource drain and will be content to pass on such a challenge and I can respect choosing to do so really. But, while investigating it, I actually found it all to be just what I was looking for: the key to maximizing the gear I have and yet continue to build a system with what has proven to have more than just a few genuine high-end traits, but with less cost, for me. You're quite right, it IS a technically challenging key, but, as I see it, it has not proven to be insurmountably so. I've seen most of my longest-held sonic problems steadily crossed off my list and in fact, even in the absolute sense, very few of them remain to be dealt with for me and I find myself now reliably closing in on what I've always wanted sound-wise...probably doesn't get too much better than that.