@geoffkait
>>>>Let me answer with a question. Why are the very hardest cones have the best performance and the softer cones like brass and carbon fiber sound the worst?
Depending on geometry - the shapes of cones will always vary performance greatly. The hardest cones according to your opinion have the best performance referring to Mohs’ scale as some type of scientific proof that hardness is a finer conductor for resonance where that relationship is extremely subjective at best.
Depending on material - brass is manmade where the chemistry and metallurgy varies greatly from supplier to supplier. There are quite a few choices when it comes to brass selections used in production that adds another variable in establishing performance criterion for comparison sake.
Depending on metallurgy - where a cheaper imported brass might look the same and even have the same “certifications in print” and are told it is the same material however we have gone through this process and will state otherwise. Metallurgy is critical to our product’s performance. Star Sound purchases a premium grade of brass and acquires it from a single source here in the States hence we benefit from thirty years of consistency in performance. We cannot speak for others.
Depending on the cost of the cone - comparing a $25 part to a higher priced item establishes a disadvantage although in some areas of the marketplace the lesser cost remains the stronger performer.
Depending on what the cone is resting on - a piece of wood will not yield the same result as any type of steel, copper, acrylic or carbon, etc shelf material. You make statements based on your analogy that somehow always relates to some type of chart or experiment having nothing to do with audio and/or sound.
You can classify the brass cone as being part of your worst sound however the history and longevity supporting the Audio Point™ tends to prove otherwise. Keep in mind, our particular brass cone is but one part involving the geometries used in our platforms, mechanically grounded studio environments and musical instruments so it’s not just a cone but serves multiple purposes.
Pop Quiz: Why is seismic vibration much more important for SQ than acoustic vibration or induced vibration? Especially for vinyl playback.
Where on Earth does one acquire testing data that could possibly support an answer to such a loaded and highly subjective question as this?
You forgot to include mechanical and electromechanical vibration in your question as these two also play a significant factor in the “importance role” of the formula but before any attempt to answer is even considered we need to know...
Are we talking day to day every minute mini earthquakes, close proximity vehicle traffic, extreme SPL in a pressurized environment, low noise levels in a recording studio, seismic as in trains passing by, air conditioners on/off, etc.?
Next - does your data or test methodology state how mechanical and electrical noise within all the electronic chassis was managed?
Next - what was the turntable resting on? A wood rack, an acrylic, a combo of lots of materials rack, a Sistrum Platform™, they all have very different performance values. The equipment rack is the foundation that either excels, limits or reduces the potential of any sound system and affects the outcome of all testing methodologies including what the test equipment itself is residing on.
Next - what facility was used for the testing and what was the test criterion used to produce your findings other than your own opinions?
Next - a biggie - what footer system factory or otherwise used to support the turntable or turntables? As you related to above there are differences between material, hardness and shapes govern audible performance where a simple factory turntable footer now controls the outcome and sonic results no matter what testing formula, equipment or methodology you used to set up this unanswerable question. What if the turntable footer is inefficient or less of a sonic performer - does that make the data and/or your opinion less relevant?
Finally - how did you make comparisons between seismic and airborne resonance?
Extra credit: Why is the material of the top plate of a vibration isolation stand relatively immaterial, to use a word?
I presume you are talking about an electronic controlled isolation stand such as Kinetic Systems Bench Mate - correct? Otherwise we refer back to question one and two - refrain, refrain, refrain.
We are limited by experience using these devices in audio applications as isolation is not a focus for our Company. In music reproduction we do not study nor rely on what is best for aerospace, biosciences, laser supports, etc. We do not study the effects of resonance related to electron microscope stability. Audio environments involve higher sound pressure levels that establish heavier amplitudes of resonance in comparison to what is generated in a clean room or scientific testing laboratory.
Since isolation and resonance energy transfer methodologies are entirely different so is the sonic performance created from each product. We have experienced Kinetic Systems in comparison with our products at a local dealer where the sonic reproduction using the same turntable, speakers, racking, electronics and cables remained the same for comparison between both devices. The result in sound performance was extremely diverse.
Two different theories, two different products (isolation and mechanical grounding) yield two very different sound qualities. It’s not like comparing two amplifiers of the same power and cost where one may point out minor differences in sonic. The differences are extremely audible where the listener will immediately know what performance is best for their sound - the differences are not subtle whatsoever.
Try placing a Sistrum Platform under the isolation table. Your previous listening results and information from the table are now also subject to change.
In closing:
When you can answer those questions you will answer your own question.
We will never be able to answer ‘those’ questions due to the vagueness of ‘those’ questions. I was hoping you would answer our initial question.
At some point, you should take us up on our offer to provide you a Sistrum Platform for your review. It might change your opinion on a few old school standards.
Robert
