Sistrum or Neuance or...?

This thread seems to have turned into doubt about the Sistrum product,
but let me tell you they work! I just received mine late yesterday --
speakers platforms and a platform for my transport -- and set them up
last night. I turned the music on and immediately noticed a clear
improvement in transparency, attack and decay, dynamics and dynamic
contrast, tighter bass, and crisper highs. The music appears out of
nothing and fades into nothing. I played a space music CD where the
music comes on very slowly and quietly and decays the same. Minute
details were more clear in this music and it just seemed to fade infinitely
to blackness. It was really enthralling. Keb Mo's slide guitar snapped
crisply, his voice sounding a bit more nasal like it does in life. The sound
was more live than before. The effect is greater than the sum of the
parts. This tweak is a great value.

To be fair, I also installed some homemade cable elevators made of
cardboard and this could have contributed to the improvement. (BTW,
the styrofoam that comes with the Sistrum platforms would probably
make a great cable elevator.)

It is tricky to get heavy speakers aligned on the speaker platforms, but I
was finally able to get it virtually perfect. My only concern is that when
the big earthquake comes to California it won't take long for them to
topple (but they would probably topple anyway).

I only wish I had room in my rack to put a Sistrum under my DAC. The
platform under my transport is about 4" high and the transport is
a top-loader so this package takes up a lot of space.

One thing this exercise solidified for me is that there are so many
inexpensive (relatively speaking) tweaks that can bring any system to
life. It's a package deal.

Twl said: I think you are reading more into what I wrote than what I intended. I never said that the shape doesn't matter, I only said that it does not act as a mechanical diode.

Sean: If such is the case, energy is transferred equally in both directions up or down a cone. Okay, we'll have to keep that in mind.

Twl: As far as the materials and geometry are concerned, they affect the ability of the Audiopoint to be more effective than a simple foot.

Sean: "More effective" in what way? If they transfer energy equally in both directions, what is taking place here other than some form of "coupling"?

Twl: The material and geometry are designed to reduce Coulomb's Friction(with regard to the resonance characteristics) in the Audiopoints, which allows the Audiopoint to rapidly transfer the resonant energy toward ground without damping. / When using a simple set of Audiopoints ( by themselves ), the point is downward because there is a maximum contact of the top of the audiopoint to the component, and a focal point for energy transfer under the point.

Sean: If the cone is not a mechanical diode, offers no damping and conducts energy equally in both directions in a linear fashion, how is it conducting energy to ground more efficiently than it is from ground to the component? In effect, there is nothing to stop the energy that has accumulated at what you refer to as "ground" from flowing back up into the component? If what you said above is true, mechanical energy would be travelling in both directions in a highly efficient manner.

Twl: When using a simple set of Audiopoints, the point is downward because there is a maximum contact of the top of the audiopoint to the component, and a focal point for energy transfer under the point.

Sean: In effect, you are saying that cones are "polarized" i.e. have specific sides and orientations. From this statment, we can also gather that the flow and conductivity of mechanical energy is manipulated as it traverses through the cone due to the specific shape that has been utilized. If this were not true, there would be no need for a specific orientation.

Since you stated that one side is designed to "collect the energy" due to increased surface area at the point of contact and that the other side is designed to act as a "focal point", that would lead one to believe that there is a difference in conductivity from one direction to the other and vice-versa. Hence, the cone IS acting as a "mechanical diode" based on your own description and suggestion that they need to be oriented in a specific manner. Either that or there is so much "double-speak" going on here that i'm completely confused.

Twl: When using a Sistrum Platform, there are 2 points being used in opposing vertical configuration with a platform sandwiched in-between. The upper points in the upside down cofiguration serve to maximize the contact to the platform, while the lower points serve to drain the resonant energy.

Sean: As we all know, a rack, shelf or "platform" is susceptable to both air-borne and floor-borne vibrations. This point is NOT debatable, at least if someone has one iota of common sense.

Following your description, you have the side of the cone with the most surface area coupled to the platform pointing up. Since the side of the cone that is contacting the support structure is the side that offers the most surface area, wouldn't the energy that is coupled to the larger surface area want to travel from the support structure back into the component? This would especially be true due to having the component resting directly on the point of the cone. If we look back into the text, this is where you stated energy naturally tends to "focus". One would tend to think that focusing the energy INTO the component would be the opposite of what was trying to be achieved after reading all of the Sistrum sales "hoopla".

If the above is NOT true, what "magical" properties have been instilled in the Sistrum platform to keep it from being sensitive to both air-borne and floor-borne vibrations and self oscillation once it is excited?

On the other hand, we have to keep in mind that we've been told that these cones aren't "mechanical diodes" and supposedly transfer energy linearly in both directions. As such, what purpose do these cones serve in this design other than cosmetic purposes?

Twl: Since we have pioneered this concept, designed, tested, and used these products in the field, and we are in the best position to determine what works most effectively with these items.

Sean: From what i can remember, i think that Steve McCormack aka "The Mod Squad" was the first to introduce "cones" to the audio industry. I could be wrong though. On top of that, this claim wreaks of pompousity. It is as if one is saying that nobody can improve upon or refine a design that someone else initially devised. I personally don't buy that as i make my living by proving that idea to be false i.e. improving / revamping what are already existing designs. I will admit that your later statements pertaining to "breakthroughs and improvements to be made in the future" somewhat softens the previous statements though.

I won't go into the rest of Tom's post. Most of it has to do with advertising hype / policy for the company that he represents and is employed by. I'm not interested in any of that, so i won't go there.

To keep things in context, i have NO problems with Tom personally and am not attacking / insulting him. I am simply "arguing a point" and trying to better understand a product that makes phenomenal claims. As i have shown, many of these claims are self-contradictory and / or speaking out of both sides of one mouth as the situation best suits their marketing goals. You can't make a specific claim for a product and then refute it within the same product and not have questions asked. This is not to say that the product doesn't work as claimed, only that if it does, the manufacturer and those selling / representing / using them are not even clear as to how or why it works as it does. From an educated consumer's point of view, this is not very encouraging. Sean
>

I am watching...

I would like to see the data on the linearity of energy transfer in this device. The only way I'm aware of to attempt to selectively choose between the tendency of floorborne vibrational energy to flow into the rack vs. the tendency of component vibrational energy to flow out is to choose materials with selective resonant frequency response. As everyone knows, this produces the colorations commonly associated with cones.

Sean, in the case of the upside down Audiopoint on the Sistrum Platforms, it was decided by the engineers that this was the better orientation for performance. It has been explained to me that the better physical coupling of the upper Audiopoint to the platform was more critical to the performance of the product than having it the other way around.

If you would like to discuss this with the engineering staff, please call Brent Riehl at 1-402-464-4777. He is the inventer of the Audiopoint, graduated near the top of his engineering class a Lehigh University prior to embarking on his lengthy career in audio, and can satisfy any questions you may have regarding the engineering and performance of this product. He is the one that should be discussing this with you for the clearest result.