Sistrum or Neuance or...?

Hi. I see that there have been more than a few additions to this thread since my last response. These include some genuine questions, and also some comments just aimed at tweaking certain personalities and attempting to inflame the discussion. I'll try to answer the questions again, although after re-reading my previous posts, I really have answered the questions, and some readers just refuse to accept the explanation.

To try to re-clarify again.

Airborne resonance energy(in the form of the music you are playing) enters the equipment, racks, or whatever, and can influence the sound of the music reproduction. We wish to minimize the effects of this by causing the resonant energy to be tranferred to the ground via our products(which are designed to rapidly transfer this energy). Floorborne resonance energy(caused by energy entering the floor from the music being played) is causing the floor to move as the resonant energy moves through the floor toward the ground state. Note that in both cases, we maintain that the energy is moving toward ground.

The reason that the energy will move toward ground is the law of thermodynamics which states that energy will seek the ground state via the path of least resistance. This is not something we made up.

A major argument seems to have been made that because our Audiopoints have materials and geometry that is designed to cause this Resonant Energy Transfer to happen in the most efficient manner that we can do, that "physical science" maintains that using the Audiopoint in an upside-down configuration on a Sistrum Platform will result in a less-than-ideal result. This seems to be based on the empirical hypothesis that "because it is geometrically optimized in shape, that it can only work best in one direction". However, when we contend that when additional items are introduced(added) into the design(such as a Sistrum Platform), that this may make a difference in the OVERALL PERFORMANCE OF THE PACKAGE AS A WHOLE, opponents do not understand or do not accept this point. In fact, we have determined through our testing(confirming our design concepts), that the configuration for the Sistrum Platform we have chosen DOES work better to do the job of Resonance Energy Transfer than just a simple set of Audiopoints alone. The opponents have no testing to back up their statements, but simply some kind of "technical insight" that "makes them certain" that their statements are correct, and our product testing results wrong. Pardon my attitude, but this position of "technical insight" without any real testing results to back up the statements is ludicrous and profoundly unscientific. To make definitive statements without first ensuring the scientific veracity of these statements, and then casting doubt on the actual results of a manufacturer's products is, at the very least, a slur at the manufacturer, and at most, an attempt at selling the same "snake oil" that they claim to be warning people against.

The reduction of Coulomb's Friction in our Audiopoints and Sistrum Platforms is what improves the speed of the energy transfer via certain proprietary materials(no, it's not just any brass) and geometry. The geometry acts as a focusing "lens", for lack of a better term. In the case of the Sistrum Platform which uses the stacked Audiopoints in opposing configuration, we desired the "lens" to be in the opposing configuration to conform with our overall design goals. With all due respect, if someone else has a better idea or wants to do it differently, then go design your own platforms. This is how we do it, how it works best(in our opinions), and we have quite a few happy customers who can verify the results of this design. This is the product. It stands on its own merits, and it sells based upon how well it works and whether it is worth the money, not whether some skeptics understand the design or not.

In case anyone needs further info in "layman's terms", our Audiopoints have specific design that allows them to be efficient at transferring resonant energy from the equipment above them to the floor below them. Once the energy is in the floor, it is moving through the floor toward ground and is only influencing the equipment or rack above it by the fact that the floor is causing anything on it to move along with it. The Audiopoint is not making the energy flow in one direction(as a "mechanical diode") but instead, the laws of physics are defining the direction of the energy flow. We designed our products to have excellent performance at their price points, and an audible improvement at each price point increase, so that good value is perceived by the purchaser who may wish to upgrade to our products higher up the line. We have a product design and performance philosophy, and this philosophy is maintained throughout our entire product line. We don't strive to please everyone or gain approval of every audiophile, but simply offer what we feel is a line of solid performing products for the money, and back it up with as good a customer support as can be found in the industry. If there is any purchaser dissatisfaction within the very reasonable trial period, we give the money back. Anyone can simply try for themselves. To answer the question about the reviews, there certainly are reviews - notably a very recent Positive Feedback article, and Brutus Award for Excellence for our Sistrum SP-101 platform.

So, we have a resonance control philosophy and products that are designed along with that philosophy at several affordable price points, and some higher price points. This is what our company does. It is up to the audiophiles and purchasers as to whether they agree or wish to use our products. I have explained this design philosophy as well as I can, and as well as we wish to(since we will elect to maintain some of our design as proprietary). From here on in, it is up to each person to decide what they want to do about resonance control in their system, and how they want to do it. If some still wish to not accept this explanation, then that is fine. Nobody is pushing this down your throat. However, I hope to put to rest this notion that we do not have valid, tested, and working concepts and products that are available for anyone to veryify at any time.

And notice that at no time did I cast any aspersions on any other companies, products, or people. We simply have our way of doing things, and offer them for sale. We don't need to knock anyone else down, since we are confident that our products will sustain our claims on their own merits.

I sincerly hope that this settles this issue.

OK, A few of my comments were petty. I apologize. But FWIW, I'm still loving my Sistrum platforms.

David(4yanx), I neglected to address your question about our Sistrum and Audiopoints products vs. other cones such as ceramic type cones.

While, of course, we feel that our approach is superior than others, the main differences begin in the design concepts, and emerge in the eventual product and performance behavior. Our Audiopoints are designed with the idea of moving the resonances out of the components. Most others(no mfr. targeted here) are designed to be a vibration blocker or absorber. The concepts are entirely opposite to each other. Starsound says that the best way to do it, is to let the vibrations naturally evacuate via a very well-designed rapid evacuation route to ground. Most of the other makers of feet and racks say block the vibrations under the feet and try to absorb them. While every method may have some proponents, it is our contention that blocking and attempting to absorb this energy is less effective, because it not only cannot achieve nearly what it strives to achieve, but also, in addition, traps any airborne vibrational energy in the components, since it blocks the only natural way out for the energy.

We recognize that our approach is not the traditional method for controlling vibration that has been considered "normal" for years. However, simple tradition is no competition for a truly improved way of doing things. A way that wasn't even considered(by most) before the last 15 years. And even though our products have been out for 15 years, there has been a fight every inch of the way from people who "liked the old" and had no desire to try anything new or better.

Now, naturally, there are applications for nearly any technology, and there may be some applications where this blocking and absorbing technique may be just the ticket. However, it is our contention that in most audio applications where there is not some glaring deficiency in floor construction, or some other opposing technology added to the mix with our product, the Starsound products should, and most often do, give a better sounding result(in our customers' opinions and ours).

Also, there have been other companies attempting to enter the "coupling" camp with products that seek to emulate the performance of Audiopoints and Sistrum products, but lack the basic understanding of the science employed by our engineers. This leads to the inevitable statement that I hear every day, "But I've tried brass cones, and other metal cones." Of course. But Audiopoints are not "just any brass cone". I know people want to say, "Sure, and I'm a Mongolian Rocket Scientist too(no disrespect to MRS's)". But the fact is that there is an underlying design concept in Audiopoints that is not used in any other cone, and this is what makes the Audiopoint the real deal. Just any cone, brass or otherwise, doesn't employ the reduction of Coulomb's Friction that the Starsound products do. I'd venture to say that most of the cone designers don't even know what Coulomb's Friction is, nor what it may have to do with making feet for audio components. It's sort of like saying that I've tried analog turntables because I had a "Close and Play" as a child. I can't help that this is a complex design that people have a hard time understanding, but it is alot more engineered than people realize.

So, those are some of the main differences that I can talk about, but the proof is in the listening. No matter what I say about our products, it really doesn't say what the difference in your system can sound like. The only way to know that is to try them.

Twl stated: "Airborne resonance energy(in the form of the music you are playing) enters the equipment, racks, or whatever, and can influence the sound of the music reproduction. We wish to minimize the effects of this by causing the resonant energy to be tranferred to the ground via our products(which are designed to rapidly transfer this energy). Floorborne resonance energy(caused by energy entering the floor from the music being played) is causing the floor to move as the resonant energy moves through the floor toward the ground state. Note that in both cases, we maintain that the energy is moving toward ground.

The reason that the energy will move toward ground is the law of thermodynamics which states that energy will seek the ground state via the path of least resistance. This is not something we made up."

Sean: I won't argue this point. The only thing that i will say is that the approach taken does NOT take into account that ANYTHING that comes into contact with the "energy" will end up dissipating at least a portion of it. How much of it is dissipated will depend upon how lossy that pathway or device in that pathway is easily resonated. That is, energy may be seeking "ground", but some of it is absorbed as it makes its' way there. If such were not the case, we would be able to sustain perpetual motion. But, due to frictional and thermal losses i.e. energy "lost along the way", this is not possible at this point in time.

In this specific situation, the energy that is "lost along the way" in its' path to seek "ground" ends up being dissipated in the components themselves. This is because they are directly coupled to the energy conduit i.e. there is no damping to isolate or absorb the "residue" that is being dissipated along that pathway. Common logic would dictate that overlooking such simple facts and hoping for the best is a less than optimized and / or realistic approach. Then again, Sistrum is not alone in these thoughts and methods, as most other products on the market use this same or similar approach. That is, they put all their eggs in one approach and forget to take into account that any given approach by itself will have side effects and draw-backs of its' own. If it didn't, it would be "perfect".

Twl stated: "A major argument seems to have been made that because our Audiopoints have materials and geometry that is designed to cause this Resonant Energy Transfer to happen in the most efficient manner that we can do, that "physical science" maintains that using the Audiopoint in an upside-down configuration on a Sistrum Platform will result in a less-than-ideal result. This seems to be based on the empirical hypothesis that "because it is geometrically optimized in shape, that it can only work best in one direction". However, when we contend that when additional items are introduced(added) into the design(such as a Sistrum Platform), that this may make a difference in the OVERALL PERFORMANCE OF THE PACKAGE AS A WHOLE, opponents do not understand or do not accept this point."

Sean: If one optimizes power transfer / minimizes losses in one particular direction, common sense would dictate reduced efficiency / increased losses flowing in the opposite direction. If such were not the case, the device wouldn't be specialized or measurably more effective in the given situation that it was optimized for. Like i said before, you can't say that it conducts energy more efficiently using one type of installation and use it in the absolute opposite / reverse fashion and claim it works just as efficiently. This is true regardless of the support components involved as the device itself is being used as the active conduit for the energy being transferred.

If you doubt this, think of a cone as a funnel. Changing the directional characteristics of the funnel will have a far greater influence on how energy is transferred than if i were to change the type of device underneath the funnel capturing the energy. While this is obviously not a perfect analogy, it is one that anyone with common sense can follow along with. There is no need for snake oil of any type when rational thinking is involved. Sean
>

Goldmund cones are much better than Audiopoints. True, the price difference is wide, but I must not forget my Marigo cones either. Different devices work best in different scenarios and there is no way I could use Goldmund nor Marigo cones under my Channel Islands components. Audiopoints do the job like nothing else would. I can honestly say they are pretty much the most cost effective cone out there--when used pointing down!

Tom, there's no way Sistrum Inc. is going to con Sean...