Isolation vs. Absorbtion

If there is an answer, I haven't found one. You mention soft pads isolating a CD player - if only.. All they do is change the resonance to a lower frequency - whether this is better or worse is a matter of taste. Arguably a soft pad allows the vibration to last longer, whereas a cone causes the energy to be released quickly. The former does damage to the perceived rhythm and timing of the music, whereas the latter can induce peakiness in the mid-band. Currently I prefer using E-A-R elastomer feet which are nothing like as soft as sorbothane (which sounds ghastly), and nothing like as hard as any cones. Whether or not shelves should be supported by spikes or soft footers depends on the shelf material. Spikes on a hard shelf like glass etc tend to sound awful, but better with soft shelves like MDF. The rack itself and damping of the shelf are other factors. Alas, simple answers escape me despite my efforts to date.

I don't buy the mechanical diode idea as anything more than an analogy (and all analogies are inaccurate), and tend to agree with Mapleshade that for a cone to do its thing it would ideally have a point on both ends - hence the Mapleshade idea of three points on one end and one on the other. Conventional cones sound the best when the flat side is up against the surface that is vibrating least (the equipment), since the flat side does the worse job. Hence also why cones can sound better if they are bolted firmly to the bottom of the equipment. I reckon cones between component and shelf do their job because they release energy very quickly at the pointed end. This reduces smeering, but creates peakiness. The sonic differences between cones depend on hardness (speeds the release of energy), resonance/damping (determines the peakiness) and mass (slows the release of energy), but are also profoundly influenced by the shelf material that the pointed end rests on. The more the shelf material is like the cone material, the more you will hear the peakiness of the cone. In my opinion, cones are only good as an antidote to a shelf that has too little rigidity and too much mass (such as MDF). This is just my theory developed from my experience, no more than that, and I respect the fact that other theories presented here may be more accurate.

Not at all Sean, instead I am a bit embarrassed at your flattery. The general conclusions I have come to are not detailed enough to answer all of the questions you list - but nevertheless so far I believe: it is OK to use multiple structures sitting on top of each other if they are either firmly bolted together or have a point contact - ie spikes or cones; each structure should be light, rigid and damped; there should be no more than one item in the structure that is compliant (ie. non-rigid), that the best place for this compliance is between shelf and component, and that so far the best I have tried are the elastomer E-A-R feet, which have the most even-handed sound without smeering detail. The biggest problem is to achieve the requirement of light, rigid and damped. I believe that if you achieve this in just one place then the best place is in the shelf. All supporting structures under such a shelf can be just light and rigid. Light is important because it means little energy is stored and passed on through the chain - for this reason I think many heavy and damped shelves sound neutral, but smear detail (due to the slow release of too much energy). Rigid is important so that any energy is released as quickly as possible, and because otherwise you may end up with more than one compliant support, causing resonant nodes. Damped is important because if everything was just light and rigid it would ring (the peakiness I have referred to). But I reckon the idea of light and rigid, to make sure energy stored is minimised and released quickly, is in natural conflict with the concept of damping. By its nature damping tries to absorb energy and not return it later, but that is a difficult ideal to achieve in practise. It is in this trade-off that I feel there is as much art as science - finding the trade-off that does the least damage to the music. The reason why I like the items closest to the component to be damped or even compliant (in the case of the feet) is because the component needs to be both isolated from vibrations by the total structure, but also damped. I suspect I am just finding more ways to say what I have said before, but hope this clarifies. But this time I am explaining things in a way that (I hope) is related to Equa's question (isolation or absorbtion). My preference is for the focus to go heavily on isolation, but with a small amount of absorbtion close to the component. I don't like many of the absorbtion products (eg. sorbothane and bladders) because they release energy back into the structure slowly, thereby causing smearing and lack of focus and pace. Used on their own they may subjectively provide an improvement where isolation has not been dealt with well, but I don't think they are the best way to go.

Hi Sean. My view is that mass loading of components has pluses and minuses. I hold to my view that mass in general is a bad thing (for reasons both you and I have referred to above), but is a necessary evil in the pursuit of rigidity and damping. So therefore you are best to only add mass when it has a significant pay-off in terms of damping or rigidity. Mass-loading a component does nothing for rigidity, so the benefits can only come in terms of damping. Arguably, adding a ziplock bag of sand on top of a component is doing three things; it is damping the ringing of the top plate (and to a degree the whole structure) with a substance that is unlikely to feed energy back into the top plate (this should be good); the extra weight will also lower the frequency that the top plate will vibrate at and will cause it to release its energy a little more slowly (this is not so good but is part of the inevitable consequences of damping); the added weight, as you ptu it, "will increase the energy transfer from the rack into the component". Personally I don't think adding weight in this way is the best way to go. It can appear to have beneficial consequences in terms of smoothing out peakiness and can appear to add bass weight (when all it is really doing is smearing the bass). But I shouldn't be so dismissive - it is just that with my overall strategy to the vibration issue, mass loading does not have benefits. If I followed a different overall strategy, such as the "massive" structure approach some take, or the clamp-rack approach that others take then mass loading may make more sense. Using my approach of light, rigid and damped, I believe I can get the good parts of mass loading without the bad parts by using another strategy. Essentially I modify the component by damping it - usually internally. While this is too intrusive an approach for many people, I just see it as good sense when most components are just not put together well. If you have a chance, have a look at a Sonic Frontiers component one day - while I don't particularly like their electronics, the boxes they put them in are brilliant. Much thicker steel panels than you usually find, able to be very securely fastened, judicious use of panel damping and good use of damping/isolation of the electronics from the box. It is poor attention to these details that I reckon using sandbags can ameliorate, but at too high a cost.

Plsl, I am still trying things, but like something light and rigid, not just because that is what I am trying right now, but discovered some time ago that the Theta worked better that way. I would want to keep trying things for another week or so before I am too definitive but so far the Neuance shelf with E-A-R large feet in between component and shelf sound pretty good. I will also be trying oil filled bladders (but air bladders were not good) and Maple Butchers Block. None of these are shabby, but will take a bit more time to try out fully. The time consuming part is of course that you can only ever listen to the whole system, not parts of it, and different components may benefit from different supports.

Plsl, after playing some more and reading what arrangement sounds good to you, I reckon you should try some Maple Butchers Block.

Hi Brulee. I am trying to shut up on this topic at the moment because I still have a lot of experimentation to do before I can be happy I know what these shelves really sound like. I find the Maple Butchers Block is pretty much as you describe Brulee. There is plenty of life and soundstage size with the Maple, but there is some lack of leading edge or pace. In the end I believe the Neuance is more promising, but I am yet to be certain about the Neuance. There are two reasons for this. The first is that I really want to try it out in a few systems. My main system has at least one unusual characteristic in that the floor is very hard. This means the termination between rack and floor can be very influential on the sound and I get quite different results in my other system where the floor is wooden. The other issue is to do with the Neuance itself. When you use a Neuance shelf for the first time the sound is quite warm and woolly, but the sound clears up after a few days. I have repeated this experiment just to make sure I am not crazy, but it seems that the exterior of the shelf will have some compliance when you first put pressure on it, but that it settles after a period and becomes a much firmer support. The sound seems to change for up to a few days and so experiments with it can take rather a long time. With some of my earlier attempts with the Neuance I had some problem with upper mid-range resonance. I am trying now to understand whether this is a fault of the Neuance or a fault elsewhere (which, as we speak, appears to be so - ie. not the Neuance's fault). But there is no doubt that the Neuance is way ahead of anything else I have heard in terms of transparency, extension, dynamics and detail. The sound is stunningly open throughout the spectrum, but perhaps the most striking feature is that treble detail is just absolutely fabulous, with no hint of smearing.

I was only able to try a BDR "shelf" overnight and would hate to pass judgement on such a short acquaintance. Clearly you not only like it but have far more experience with it. For the little that it is worth, I found it to slow things a little and to have the effect of lightening the sound. I am struggling to describe what I only vaguely remember hearing, but there was something going on that tilted the sound upwards, that did not so much result in brightness, but removed (what I feel was) natural body and weight from the middle of the mid-range down. I also felt it was unnaturally smooth in the treble. I only really tried it with my transport and with BDR cones too (which I now think was not a good idea), with a very brief flirtation with my DAC late at night. I would have liked a lot more time with it but felt that the approach was not quite what I was looking for. I would guess you will find the Neuance faster, more neutral and more naturally detailed, with a more ruthlessly revealing and less smooth upper mids and treble. But please, take this with a few pinches of salt. I will be very interested to hear your thoughts on the Neuance, and will let you know within the next few weeks how to get the best from it (in the context of my system, that is).

To anyone trying out the Neuance... When you first put it in place it will sound warm and woolly, then it will gradually sharpen up but you will find there is a problem in the upper mids, then it will gradually improve and become fast, neutral and detailed. This takes up to a week (maybe more to fully come right). This means that experimenting can be a problem. That is, if you try and change footers etc to fix the early sound problems you will be driven crazy. Particularly as the sound will go through a similar process again until your last change has settled in. I have never experienced this with a shelf before. The mistake I kept making was trying to ameliorate the upper-midrange resonance you get after two or three days. I have found this out the hard way. I suggest that the best way to use the Neuance is to support it with a welded steel rack, firmly spiked to the floor and with spikes supporting the Neuance - and then leave it for a week, regardless of what it sounds like during that time. When it has settled in you will find notes start and stop very quickly. It took me a while to figure out whether this was right or wrong. My previous setup and the Maple Butchers Block romanticised the sound much more, but the Neuance was more revealing of the different character of disks and was just a whole lot less noisy. In the end I concluded that my system with the Neuance was much closer to what I hear at live events.

Hi Equa. I don't agree with using thick MDF shelves, but if you do then use spikes between rack and shelf, and try out some of the hard but damped cones like Walker and BDR. This will stop the MDF creating a lot of muddiness. Better still use a very light and rigid shelf like Torlyte or Neuance and use the E-A-R feet (remembering to match the size to the weight). Another good option is Maple Butchers Block - much better than thick MDF if you don't like the light and rigid approach. I am sure that there are other ways to go than I have outlined, and they may be better, but hope this helps with one set of answers to your questions.

Dekay, did you ever try the E-A-R feet? They work in the context of my overall approach to isolation, and several of my audio mates locally concur, but am very interested in what you thought.

It has taken a lot longer than I would like and I have taken some wrong paths for sure, but I am almost certain I have the measure of the E-A-R feet and the Neuance shelf. I did take some wrong paths because of the way the Neuance changes sound in its early days. After it has settled once, it does not seem to take very long at all next time and the changes are less - probably because you are usually compressing similar points on the shelf as the previous time it was used. Anyway, the Neuance is light, rigid and damped. Its ideal use is on a welded steel rack, firmly spiked to the floor and then spikes supporting the Neuance shelf. At times I have resorted to using small, thin, hard rubber pads between shelf and rack, and to sand-filling the rack, usually to try and tame an upper-midrange resonance (which occurs while the shelf is settling in, but which disappears later). But these are not a good idea when the Neuance has settled. You should absolutely definitely not sand-fill the stand or use pads when supporting the Neuance - the sound becomes analytical, lifeless and unmusical. As to the E-A-R feet, their main advantage is that they provide excellent damping, are neutral (in a way that the Vibrapods are not), and retain excellent detail. But there can be problems with them. In a setup where your rack or shelf already provides significant damping (ie. a MDF shelf) then adding the E-A-R's will kill the sound by over-damping it. Therefore, I doubt that putting a Neuance shelf on top of MDF will get the best out of it. I have tried it and used various cones (and Vibrapods) between Neuance and MDF to try and emulate a light steel rack, but the best result occurred when I used a small sub-table (a Mana Soundframe - expensive) between the MDF and Neuance. The result with cones was not bad, but it did not get the most out of the Neuance. I don't think the Neuance is designed to go on anything other than spikes and a light, rigid steel rack. With MDF shelves I find cones are the best way to go - something like the BDR Mark 4 does a good job at a reasonable price. The BDR Mark 3 appears to me to roll-off at both the top and bottom and add a persistant artificial warmth to the mid-range. I have done my best to try the Neuance extensively in three different systems and have found that in a more lively system/room the E-A-R feet are excellent between Neuance and component, but I did find in a less lively system/room that too many E-A-R feet closed the sound down, and it was better to just let some components sit on their stock hard rubber feet. I do not recommend either cones or Vibrapods between Neuance and component. When the Neuance is working well, not only are the cones and Vibrapods redundant, but their individual sound is very intrusive. You have got to hear percussive piano with the Neuance! The lack of noise and resonance compared to any other support I have tried is quite stunning. But don't expect the Neuance to blow you away. Using it just seems to subtract a lot of noise from the music. It does not add romantic qualities (as many vibration control devices do) that you develop brief infatuations for. In some ways I am nervous that I may be guilty of over-hyping the Neuance through my fullsome descriptions of it. I am sure that some might be utterly underwhelmed because it adds nothing to the music. Others may find it dead sounding because they cannot put a light steel rack underneath it. But for me, who has grown frustrated by the colorations that supports add to music, and that different supports usually just mean different colorations, the absence of sound of the Neuance (when used right) is a blessing.

Dan. Hope the previous post helps. But I thought I would add that if you do try the Neuance and want to put something between the Neuance and your MDF shelves, then use metal cones that are not too heavy and experiment with metal cups underneath the pointy end, and use the cones point-down. I used plain old tiptoes to good effect, and found it preferable to heavier brass cones, which in turn were better than cones like the BDR or Walker - just not the right application for them. A cone that is hard and light seems to work best if you put the Neuance over MDF - another being the Golden Sound ceramic cones.

You are very welcome Dan. It was as a result of other posters here that I was able to learn about and get to try Maple, Neuance etc particularly through the generosity of Brulee and Caterham1700. With the results I am getting now, it is me that ought to be grateful (and I am) for the opportunity to get suggestions and learnings from others at Audiogon.

I don't know Jadem6. Just today the sound improved yet again from just leaving the Neuance in place. But I have learnt the hard way that light/rigid/steel etc as described above, is the right way to support the Neuance. By the way, if you go to their site it kind of looks like they use Mana racks to voice the Neuance (?). This might explain why the light/rigid/steel etc works for me. I have tried sandstone and masonry before (but not with the Neuance), and found there was some lack of harmonic fullness and lack of life. I did try the Neuance on a heavy structure with some characteristics like stone for a few days and found using hard, light metal cones under the Neuance was best and that the cones sounded best with the pointy end down - even better sitting in metal cups. I have found that if you support the Neuance successfully then cones and Vibrapods between component and Neuance shelf have too hyped a sound, and that either the component's own feet or the E-A-R feet are best - with the E-A-R feet giving a more refined, less noisy result, but which can overdamp the sound in some situations. The problem, as I say, is that what ever you try first with the Neuance, you have to just leave it in place for a week and not play - very hard to do, but if you don't you will go mad (hard to type with the sleeves of this white coat tied behind my back). It is possible Jadem6 that you may (horrors, I know) be best to try a welded steel rack sometime.

I cannot really disagree Dekay. Regardless of what you do there will be some vibration that gets through. The spectrum of this vibration may be sympathetic to one component and detrimental to the sound of another. This depends, I believe, on the natural resonance of the box used for the component and the internal methods of isolating boards etc. But I could be wrong, it may be that different brands of capacitors behave differently to different vibrations. But, I would add that vibration control is a mixture of minimising vibrations and making sure they are synergistic to your components. Therefore I don't see it as being a matter of only tuning the vibrations to a component - you may get a neutral result, but you will cause a lot of smearing of detail (I am not implying that that is your point Dekay, just setting up the extremes in order to make my point). I have always felt that there is a lot of validity to the light and rigid idea, but have never found the right shelf for the application. What I am saying is that if you use a light rigid welded steel rack (spiked up and down) and the Neuance shelf you will find you remove a lot of vibration and that you will also get a pretty neutral sound. To finally get this kind of result from the light/rigid concept makes the Neuance shelf a breakthrough product for me. From there you can tailor the sound to individual components by choice of footer and get a wide variety of results. But I have so far had excellent results with the rack/Neuance/E-A-R in three different systems. One has a carpeted suspended wooden floor, another has a carpeted concrete pad floor, and the other has a terracotta tiled floor. One has tubes/electrostatics, the other two have large mosfet amps driving conventional box speakers. One has a tube preamp, and the other two have solid state. Two have turntables and CD players, the other just CD player. One has a CD transport that has a soft internal suspension of the transport, the others are more conventionally mounted. Inside the boxes, some rubber mount the boards, some use more expensive elastomer... on it goes. In each case the reduction in peakiness, the reduction in smear and hence the increase in resolution has been impressive. In one case we were replacing bladders, in another we were replacing massively heavy sand-filled stands and in another were replacing light rigid stands with damped Corian shelves. In each case we found that whereas before there had been advantages to using Vibrapods or cones, that now they sounded gross and simple elastomer or rubber feet sounded best. I am not trying to win an argument here because I have no doubt that there are other ways that might sound better and maybe better shelves, and you may very well not like the sound of the light/rigid approach. But for me the sucessful execution of the light/rigid approach is the Holy Grail because I find the others (such as the bladder or massive approaches) can be successful in obtaining neutrality (and reduce peakiness), and can even do quite well in reducing smear, but they fail badly at being true to the rhythm and pace of the music. That is, they can make nice sounds but not engaging music. I am delighted to be getting both right now.

Dan I have no idea what would happen if you put the Neuance in place of your MDF. I doubt it has been designed with that in mind. I really think you would only get a good result following my earlier suggestions. Ken (of Neuance) posts here under Caterham1700 and so he might wish to comment. Dekay, as you might guess there are very few racks that people bother to import all the way to New Zealand, one being Mana but they are expensive. But there is a firm in Auckland that probably makes about 50% of all audiophile racks sold in NZ, and the owner is a wonderful man who makes to order at no extra charge, so I usually just fax my designs off to him. I have come to believe that the best design is to follow the Mana example. That is, use 3mm thick L-section bright steel, about 18mm by 18mm. I think this sounds better than tubular steel, but the difference is not great. Even the typical commercial 1mm thick tubular steel racks sound OK with the Neuance, just a little different - generally a little thinner through the mids and less smooth on top - but the difference is not great. While logic might suggest using three points, I find four points is better, provided you are prepared to be meticulous about making sure the shelf sits equally on all four points.

Have a look at http://mana.co.uk/menu-f.htm , then click on Products, to see some pictures of the mana supports.

Dekay, you can find out about them at www.audiopoints.com. They are a very well designed hard cone. I have tried them and they are pretty good as far as cones go. They work particularly well onto MDF shelves and in a clamp rack system - that is, to couple the component top and bottom to the shelves. This is a very different approach to the light/rigid one that I have been pursuing. I personally believe that use of a very hard or very soft footer only sounds better when applying them as a band-aid to fix a bad support structure.

With some hesitancy, I want to just support what Ken is saying. I am a bit hesitant, because it may be my repeated enthusiastic descriptions of Ken's products which have encouraged this suspicious promotion of the Sistrum gear and Audiopoints. When I started a thread on this topic, I had never heard of Ken or Neuance, but I was really looking for help from any poster who might have tried something that did the job well, and was particularly interested if someone could tell me that Polycrystal, Symposium or some other of the stuff I had heard of was the answer. I needed this help because I live in New Zealand and the only way I can try most of this stuff is by buying it. Without digging out the original post, my recollection is that Ken's first post on the topic was a genuine attempt to help me and encouraged me to pursue the light/rigid/damped shelf approach - an approach I had already suggested was what I thought was probably ideal, but I had had no success finding such a shelf previously. Ken did suggest his own Neuance shelf, but to his credit he also suggested other products from other manufacturers that he felt were also following the light/rigid/damped idea. In a later post Ken offered to send me a used shelf for the cost of the freight, so that I could try it. I was delighted with it and when I ordered two more I tried to pay Ken more fully for the first shelf, but he refused. I outline all of this because I believe Ken has acted totally honourably in introducing me (and some others) to his product through this forum. Like he and others here, I am suspicious of the way that the Sistrum/Audiopoints has been promoted on this site recently. I retain an open mind on the gear, but I reckon Ken is giving Draudio et al some good advice on how to be taken seriously, rather than being dismissed as posting shameless self-promotion.

Draudio, since you have been challenged to let us know your connection with Sistrum/Audiopoints, but are neither confirming nor denying, then I suspect most readers of these posts will feel as I do, that your opinion is profit-motivated and that your posts have been an attempt to deceive Audiogon members. The trouble is, the Sistrum and Audiopoints stuff might be OK, but you are causing suspicion and disbelief to attach to anyone posting positive impressions about it here.

Draudio, your post tends to indicate you have missed the point. I, for one, believe that vibration control can be regarded as the "great uncharted territory" for audiophiles. Your theories and those of others such as Neuance conform fairly closely with my own fumbling attempts to get an adequate solution to the problem. No one is rubbishing your product or scientific backing - except, ironically, yourself because of your scurrilous tactics. By using unacceptable (to at least me) tactics to promote your products you have cast a slur on your own products. Of course, others may disagree, and I am not trying to judge you but point out that the evidence is clear on this site that there are several people that do find your tactics unacceptable. But the point is you have done your products a disservice by your tactics. Now you have been "outed", you have an opportunity to act in an above-board manner and earn some credibility. I am happy to be open-minded and hope to hear more from you on this topic - but in a way that discloses your interest. I agree with Ken's suggestion above, that all you need to do is ensure you declare your interest in your sign-off to your posts. Then we will be able to respect your input. I would really like to see Ken and others such as yourself assist us to understand how to deal with vibration issues better.

Ken, you are being too kind. For a manufacturer to post a review of their product on this site and get away with it is appalling, much as I was interested in reading it. Am I getting too concerned about the thin edge of the wedge? Maybe. But this company does not seem to have any shame or ethics, or perhaps it is just plain dim.

Whew. I have been trumpeting it, I must admit. It is a bit of a relief that you agree, Jadem6. I had tried almost everything I could lay my hands on without importing things myself - MDF, particle board, concrete, glass, laminated glass, marble, corian, granite, sandstone, soap stone etc. I had tried bladders, seismic sinks, sorbothane, mass-loading, elastomers, sand and shot. I had tried more cones and pods than I care to remember. But I felt, that each was just changing the sound, not eliminating the effects of vibration. I cannot say Ken's Neuance shelves are the only product to do this, but finally I found something that worked. The approach is in the light/rigid/damped school, which always results in speed and detail, but usually results in resonant peaks. Not so with the Neuance shelves. You get fast, detailed and neutral. Somehow the vibration effects, that all other things I tried just shifted around, have been substantially removed.