Energy damping or energy transfer?

Krell man, you're right. My "statistical summary" was kind of tongue in cheek; sometimes kind of hard to get that across in print. Given the frequency with which this topic is apparently covered around here, I guess I didn't really expect a lot of posts, hence my summary.

I would like to try both approaches in developing my rack. Without going to the expense of buying lots of brass cones, any suggestions for testing out the coupling idea? Thanks.

Cbrentc, I've thought about similar turntable damping tweaks. 2 thoughts come to mind, there.

1. How about putting that inner tube in a solid box with the inner tube inflated just enought to stick above the top of the box so that the shelf that the TT sits on still floats slightly above the box, but the box itself restricts any lateral type movements that result from vibrations.

2. Acknowledging Krell man and Stehno's assertion that "nothing can stop airborn vibrations", what if you had a large dust cover that could cover the entire TT and rest on the shelf itself and then weight that down with something quick? Would that work in helping stop airborn vibrations?

It wouldn't be a good solution for heat-producing components, but for a turntable? Maybe....

Anyone ever try shipping peanuts (those styrofoam things) as damping material?

If you want to maintain dynamic coherence within your system then pursue direct coupling of resonant energy and its discharge to the the higher mass or ground. You must focus and direct energy, shorten.. and not impede or slow its path. I agree with Stehno make it go away as quick as you can. In my opinion mechanical damping of most electro-mechanical devices is analogous to the variable and mostly deleterious effects of capacitor coupling within speakers and electronic audio components. Tom

Generally it is better to dampen vibrations. Most often blu-tak does the job. Sometimes a very flappy & resonant speaker enclosure (poor design) may benefit from anchoring or coupling it to the stand and the floor as this may reduce certain resonances or shift them below the audible range.

If you want to maintain dynamic coherence within your system then pursue direct coupling of resonant energy and its discharge to the the higher mass or ground.

That's probably true in most cases. In my case, there's likely more energy coming from the structure of my building than from my turntable. At least that's my guess as to why I like my turntable better with the airbox. But, again, I live near a busy intersection, and I live on the third floor of an apartment building. Between the traffic and other residents' activities & appliances, I may have a higher than average amount of building-borne vibration to deal with.

Brent