sistrum vs neuance

Anyone tried both products? What differences did you hear. A similar thread degenerated in to arguements and name calling. Please, could we talk about the sonics and leave the physics and egos out? I don't want to fight about isolation, energy transfer, etc. but I would love to hear your listening experiences with both products. Thanks
Sorry 84, but I don't have the strength for this's old and beaten to death....there's enough in the archives to keep you busy. peace, warren
I would also be interested in hearing from anyone that has heard both of these unites, however (last time) the original thread was written (before it was removed) I don't recall anyone having demo'd both.
Joe order one or more, bring them to my Sistrum system..Larry and the boys of old can stop by for a listen. After we listen I can set up an RTA and calibrated mic record and photograph the audible data visually displayed and post the results..Tom ...Well maybe Warren is right.
and what does it matter if someone heard both? You gonna buy it on that say so? it's have to hear it on both...right? isn't that what matters? Finding an audiophool who has listened to both with their very equipment sitting atop, in the same conditions? Good luck.
Tom, if that does happen, it would be, truly, a valid comparison. I'd love to hear feedback on that you think you audiophools are brave enough to undertake the test? Tom, you'll have smelling salts available after they hear the Sistrum...or it may be Neuance...
That offer by Tom sounds like an interesting proposition, although it's a
little like someone wanting to try tofu being invited to a lunch given by
the American Beef Council. No offense intended Tom! I know your offer
is genuine, just a touch skewed.

Warrenh is absolutely correct when he mentions trying these things in
one's own system. Remember, the Neuance and Sistrum BOTH offer
money back guarantees, so you have nothing to lose by ordering and
trying both at home.
Guys, of course I understand the value of trying things in your own system, and I have posted similar advice. I don't take these responses as gospel but as interesting data to consider. However, I think there is some benefit in sharing similar experiences. If you don't think so, please don't feel obligated to respond.
Gulp! Perhaps I'll post some thoughts in a few days, since I had the Sistrum in my rig, and now have a Neuance under the Exemplar. I'm just not sure my Nomex suit is back from the cleaners.
Tvad, Nomex suit, LOL!

Flame on!!!!!!!!!!
I have not talked with him for quite some time, but seem to recall that member Brulee has used both shelves. You might try contacting him.

As I understand it the more recent Neuance shelves do not require spike mounting (they can simply be placed upon your existing shelf), which will be an advantage for many.

I've used Neuance shelves for years now (my rack has adjustable upturned brass spikes for all the shelves) and have been quite happy with them.
Dekay, thanks for the tip. I had an interesting conversation with Ken Lyons today, and I am looking forward to trying a Neuance soon.
If there is a point of concensus on this issue, it must rest in the following question: why do component manufacturers design their products so that they are audibly impacted by such devices?

In other words: how hard is it to design a good chassis?

The only answer I can think of is that the majority of their market does not hear the difference proper chassis vibration management offers the component, or is unwilling to pay for it in the standard product. Therefore, we (who can hear the difference) are left to stumble through these ad-hoc solutions, which can be quite frustrating.

As you no doubt have gathered, '84' there are passionate camps on both sides, brought on - no doubt - by the radically different approaches these "systems" take. They really are apples and oranges.

And everone knows oranges are better than apples....

Sorry, couldn't resist :-)

I made this offer because I know how Sistrum works.I know how to make Sistrum work properly if I am allowed the time and space within one's system to set up Sistrum in a complete and orderly fashion..I know by years of experience and experimentation that my system is set up properly with Sistrum in use. I look forward to trying, testing, comparing, documenting, reporting, in concert with a few individuals in the local community of audio any and all so called isolation devices..I want to know more and to learn more..Tom
The best way to know is to try both and compare the results.

Return the one you don't want.
Apples and oranges?

Last month I had a good laugh when I was in Puerto Vallarta and the breakfast menu listed Apples and bananas as exotic fruits while mangos, papayas and guava were just the regular fare.

Nothing regular about the local women there. Wow!
Tom the results are only as good as the understanding of the setup and the devices involved....the other Tom
Theaudiotweak, the primary obstacle I see in the Sistrum method is the necessity to use the system in it's entirety. At least this is my understanding. If I'm mistaken, please feel free to correct me. If my observation is true, then the issues are the overall investment required to obtain the highest performance level, and the restrictive nature of the Sistrum's ability to co-habitate with one's existing rack or cabinet. The lack of these requirements make the Neuance shelves a more cost effective approach for some people. This, of course, has no relation to the argument over which product "sounds best", but it's a valid concern, in my opinion.
I don't know about the Sistrum, but the Neuance transformed my SACD player!

It will be several weeks before I can get a Neuance but I'm looking forward to it. Twl and Tvad are right about trying in your system, however the Neuance would be easier to place. Of course everything depends on how it sounds.
Dekay, Brulee and I use to talk on the phone from time to time though that was a while back..Your right he did try both Neuance and Sistrum..I hope all is well with Bruce its been sometime since I last heard from him..Tom
Hi from Toronto! I have 2 Sistrum SP-6 racks here, and am not even interested in trying anything else, HOWEVER, am considering a large SET amp on the bottom shelf, and may consider a Neuance shelf sitting ON TOP OF the brass audiopoints. IMHO there is no reason Sistrum and Neuance can not be used together...
Sutts if you try the Neuance with the Sistrum use the APCD coupling discs in between the points and the bottom of the shelf. Use another set of coupling discs on top of the shelf then points under the component .This may then work.. Why do you think a Sistrum Neuance combo meal would be better than raw Sistrum only? Tom
I’m very willing to be involved in a demo between the Sistrum and the Neuance rack. Please keep me posted!
Ken Lyon claims upturned points under the Neuance shelf can work well,
but he cautions against using points under the component.

The Sistrum stands are an excellent support structure when used in conjunction with Neuance(with the platform placed atop the upturned spikes). The primary concern is that one has enough space between the rack tiers to accomodate the thickness of the Neuance platform and your gear.

Obviously,in this application, the Sistrum's normally intended function will effectively be disabled and Neuance will perform in much the same way as it would when used as a replacement shelf for any other high quality support/rack featuring decoupled shelving such as Mana,Zoethecus or Target,etc.

Here ,rather than attempting to collect,spread and transfer excess energies from the component(airbourne,line and self -generated) thru the Sistrum's horizontal frame structure into the leg uprights and onto the flooring substrate and eventually to ground , Neuance itself functions as a rapid dissipation medium in direct contact with the component.In addition,as Neuance is bidirectional in its ability to dissipate and absorb vibrations,it also offers reductions of floorbourne/structurally sourced energies from energizing the component.

Regarding the use of aftermarket component footers (such as Audiopoints & APCD discs),please consider that Neuance has been very carefully designed to be sonically "invisible" and free of coloration.
It is not generally necessary or beneficial to sandwich aftermarket footers/cones between the component and the Neuance platform except for fine tuning for specific system issues & flavouring to taste.

Most footer devices function primarily as filters which can often be of benefit in band-aiding or masking resonance problems in a more traditional setting but when placed between the component and Neuance, can often impede the smooth and even transfer of energies towards Neuances collection laminate structure and absorbant core.

For the most part,due to this perception of "neutrality" and very low self-generated signature, Neuance will tend to ruthlessly reveal the sonic character of the footer for the good or the bad.

This isn't to say that footer devices will never be beneficial in conjunction with Neuance, but rather it is highly recommended that one starts out using the component manufacturers OEM stock feet until you gain a better understanding of Neuance's impact on the presentation and to establish a performance base-line for comparison.Once you have a good handle on it,you may experiment with footers to your heart's content.

Ken Lyon
Just compare Ken's *answers* vs Sistrum's techno babble.
Psychic animal, again, you're playing unfair. This has been, and will hopefully continue to be, a friendly, interesting exchange. Why add the "techno babble" rap? Your disparaging remark is ill willed, as usual. Can't let go, can you? Let's keep this to principles before personalities.....peace, warren
Larry maybe Ken will send you his devices for demo..Maybe then you and I as well as others can partake in a resolute demo. I have the other branded products so we will be half way there. Tom
Warren, I'm not playing.
Anything is possible! I would be willing to demo any item anyone wants to send me with a fair open mind! I'm not sold on any one product or method, I realize that there are many very good alternatives out there for individuals. That's why I have each of my three audio systems set up differently, in different rooms.
Lak, undoubtedly the best place to do *that* test, (if you still want to) is with the T4. You'd need to accurately weigh the beast and give the amount to Ken.
Ken Lyon wrote:

"Most footer devices function primarily as filters which can often be of benefit in band-aiding or masking resonance problems in a more traditional setting but when placed between the component and Neuance, can often impede the smooth and even transfer of energies towards Neuances collection laminate structure and absorbant core.

For the most part,due to this perception of "neutrality" and very low self-generated signature, Neuance will tend to ruthlessly reveal the sonic character of the footer for the good or the bad."

I must say that the performance of my Nuance shelf has improved with the DH Labs cones over the stock, Linn Ikemi footers. I tried several types of cones, roller balls, and other isolation devices, and while I would agree with your tonal shading argument for these devices, in my particular application, I found the DH cones to be the exception to this argument. Specifically, the DH cones moved the system sound to more neutral. I attribute this to the poor footer design of the Ikemi, which attenuated the sonic performance of the Neuance. The challenge, it seems, is to get a coupling between chassis and Neuance which is as close to the Neuance material properties as possible.

Ah, DH Cones!

They outperformed the Audiopoints when draining onto Caribbean Moca boards on my tiny Channel Islands components! The surprise wasn't really that they beat the Audiopoints--it was that DH cones have no points per se...and still worked better. I should try them on my Forté amp...

Audiotweak, I read your post. You deleted it while I was reading the Audiopoint instructions in the Sistrum website.

So, my science is flawed. Yeah, right...

Yea there are a lot of posts I write and then delete or never post at all. Talking to a few others on here they find themselves doing the same thing more and more often.Tom
Anyway, the Audiopoints are keepers in my Kenwood monoblocks (driving the subs). They are well suited for that application...
Psychic...dude...nice save. I thought you were headed for the wall, and you managed to negotiate the turn perfectly.

Kumbayya, Lord, kumbayya...
Actually, it was Audiotweak headed for the wall @ full speed...
Ken- if I move back to putting two monoblocks side by side on the bottom shelf of the ~ 22.75" wide Sistrum SP-6 rack (which, with the 3 audiopoints, only support one component, hence the need for the shelf), I will get a Neuance shelf, 22" wide by ~ 19" or 20" deep. How HIGH is a Neuance shelf (i.e. 1"; 1.5"??), and what is the price??
Sutts being an avid supporter for years of Audiopoints and later Sistrum and now a dealer of both,I would recommend that you not use a shelf of wood or one that decouples..At this point because of the architecture of the Sistrum rack I would use a similar material to that of the actual shelf,.that material would be leaded steel.The actual makeup..I do not know the formula..ask Robert. I can tell you from experience that in the the design of a new end pin for cello and bass the use of dissimilar materials totally created havoc with the sonic signature and speed of the instrument. Most of these pins use 5 different materials. So to keep the sound consistent and coherent and whole I would place a leaded steel shelf on top of the upward facing points of the Sistrum shelf.On top of the new shelf but under your mono amps I would use correctly sized Audiopoints choosen to match the mass of the chassis above..Tom
Thanks Tom- thats' an idea. Sounds like it would just be easier to get a big single-chassis stereo tube amp, and just put it directly on the points...
Sutts the best way to use your mono amps is to have mono platforms..An Sp-1 for each separate chassis would insure that they are totally mono thru out, except for that one common ground plane ..Earth...I have experienced the change in my personal set up..Better imaging and focus..Tom
Hi Sutts,

You'd probably be needing a Neuance C or D platform for this application, depending on the total combined weight of your monoblocs.
Neuance C measures approx 1-7/8" in height,whilst Neuance D is approx 2" tall. Either model constructed to a size of 22" x 19"/20" would be US$195 plus shipping to your address.
Neuance is perfectly suitable with your present Sistrum rack, provided that you have enuf vertical space between tiers to accomodate the height of your amps & platform and that the combined weight of the monos doesn't exceed approx 85-90 pounds.
However,if you're generally satisfied with the Sistrum's character of presentation, I feel that you would be best served by first obtaining a pair of Sistrum or other high quality ampstands as the tweakster suggested.
Altho it isn't an absolute necessity, the optimum *ideal* installation will almost always have each component sited on its own resonance control device.
Then you may later choose to incorporate Neuance platforms into your system, as needed, for additional performance benefits, backed by GreaterRanges' no-quibble satisfaction guarantee policy.


Ken Lyon
Thanks Tom & Ken for very informative responses. Yes Tom, I DO happen to have an extra pair of SP-004's waiting in the wings, that the monoblocks (Dehavilland GM-70's) would fit on, it's just that I had originally thought of putting them on the same SP-6 shelf as the components (no room to put beside on their own stands).

However, the latest development (as of last night) is that the better half has 'vetoed' the monoblocks. First child due in ~ a month, and she does NOT want ANY exposed tubes at ground level. I guess I can understand that. Now, if there were only a world-class tube amp that was totally covered by a cage...