Damping Vibration - Friend or Foe?



Hi All,

I have been reading many discussions regarding the use of damping in and around audio components here on Audiogon. I thought that the following discussion from the FAQ page of my company’s website would add a little clarity. The example here involves a home theater system but the same principles hold true for an audio only system.

Question: Some people claim that adding damping to components to control vibration can sometimes make them sound less dynamic and somewhat lifeless. Why should this be so when damping reduces the problems of vibration and resonance?

Answer: I have also heard the same comments a number of times. Unfortunately, people mistakenly attribute these negative changes in performance solely to the addition of damping to a component. If we look at the entire evolution of an audio or video system we can gain a much more clear understanding of what is happening and why it is happening.

Let’s say that John, who is an audio and video enthusiast, decides to put together a really nice home theater system. He reads a number of magazines, visits websites devoted to these topics and assembles a system composed of many highly rated components. John sits down to enjoy a well produced action movie but a few minutes into the first scene realizes that he’s not hearing or seeing what’s been described in the magazines by the reviewers. The highs are bright and harsh, the midrange is forward and the bass is bloated and ill defined. The video picture is also disappointing – the images are not very sharp or detailed, it looks rather two dimensional and the color is only so-so. What’s going on? These are all really good and pretty expensive components!

John decides to try different interconnect and speaker cables to deal with the audio problems. After two or three weeks of trying a number of different brands he decides on Brand X between the converter and the surround processor (it had the smoothest highs) Brand Y between the processor and the amplifiers (it had the best midrange) and Brand Z to the subwoofer (it had much better bass). In addition, he spent a many hours trying different speaker positions. It also happened that the cable between the DVD player and the video projector John chose was from Brand X - it reduced many of the video problems he was seeing. He then had a technician come out and recalibrate the projector for this new cable. Now John is happier with the system, after all, he even switched the front amp for a different brand. But after a few weeks he is still noticing that the highs have sibilance during loud passages, are still kind of bright, and the midrange, although better than before, still honks a little and is not that distinct on complex dialog. Plus imaging is good but not great. The bass is better but he’s had to try the subwoofer in nine or ten different positions and, of course, the one that sounded best was right in the middle of the walkway!

John is bummed but starts thinking about acoustical treatment for his room and decides that adding some of that will surely make the system sound great. He borrows a bunch of different devices from a number of dealers and spends all day and night Saturday and Sunday trying all of the devices in different combinations and positions. By 11:59 P.M. on Sunday night he’s finally found the best compromise that takes care of many of the other audio problems, although some still remain.

All this work has left John exhausted but happy for a couple of months. He can now at least enjoy watching movies but increasingly is annoyed by the remaining audio and video problems. Over time he’s also noticed some new problems he hadn’t noticed before!

Well, now what? John does more reading. He’s read about vibration control before but now starts to think more seriously about it. He knows that Brand B’s products (high-mass and high-absorption damping devices) get great reviews and have won lots of awards so he decides to try them. He places a compliant decoupling platform on the shelf, a high-mass and high-absorption isolation platform on top of the compliant platform, the DVD player on top of the high-mass platform and a high-mass damping pod on top of the DVD player and the surround processor. Well just about all of the remaining audio and video problems are now gone – the highs are very smooth, the midrange is clear and the bass is much tighter, the video picture is far better – but somehow things sound constricted and lifeless. John likes the improvements but is not very sure that this is good thing overall.

What is really going on? As we’ve seen, John has taken a fairly convoluted road to reach the point of trying the damping products. Along the way he has made many choices of associated components, accessories and set-up to optimize the system. “Optimize“ has mostly meant reducing obvious and subtle problems and enhancing certain other aspects of performance. Unfortunately, much of this effort has been an attempt to reduce the negative audio and video artifacts of vibration contamination. The choice of cables, acoustic treatment devices, speaker position, etc. have all been made to ameliorate the SYMPTOMS, not the CAUSE of the problem – vibration! Once the cause of the problem is eliminated, the system shows itself for what it is – a system where the highs and mids have been pushed down in level and dynamic range because of acoustical treatment devices and associated components, where imaging has been manipulated by speaker position and acoustic treatment to compensate for random out-of-phase elements, where subwoofer position has been chosen as a compromise, where video calibration and associated components have been selected to compensate for vibration induced jitter and other artifacts in the video bitstream, etc., etc., etc. It is no wonder that John was under-whelmed when he added the damping devices!!

Also at issue is the fact that the designers of the components in the system have voiced their designs with vibration (most probably) present in their reference systems. They have compensated for the problems introduced by vibration and resonance by changing parts and topology to minimize the symptoms (not the cause) of that problem. It is quite possible that effectively eliminating vibration and resonance with damping is letting you REALLY hear how the component has been designed.

It is often the case that the choice of set-up, associated components, ancillary accessories, acoustic treatment, etc. has to be significantly and fundamentally reevaluated when adding devices that eliminate basic problems in a system – especially problems that are as pervasive and permeating as those brought about by unwanted vibration and resonance.

Best Regards,

Barry Kohan

Disclaimer: I am a manufacturer of vibration control products.
bright_star_audio
Hi Stehno,

If we know that vibration alters the signal flowing through a component we must endeavor to eliminate as much of the vibration as possible with full elimination being our ultimate goal. It is true that there are not ANY vibration control products from ANY company that are presently able to eliminate all destructive vibration - although we have prototype units in our lab that come relatively very close. In the future we (the collective “we” in the audio community) will be able to attain that goal through further research and development. But even though we do not yet have that ultimate capability we should resist the urge to go down compromised paths such as the misguided notion of “tuning” vibration. We must also reassess our present methodologies and determine if they are adequate to the task or if they only achieve partial success - such as the attempt to “drain” vibration.

In the here and now, eliminating as much vibration as possible – and minimizing the amount of vibration being allowed to affect the components in the first place – should be the goal.

As far as the car stereo question is concerned: What you are experiencing in your car which is a number of cars ahead of the “boom box” vehicle is: 1) vibration that is being directly coupled through the ground, 2) air-borne vibration that is sent directly from the offending vehicle and 3) resonances in your car that are being activated.

The woofers in the “boom box” car stereo have been shoehorned onto a cabinet and vehicle interior that are far too small for the Thiele/Small parameters of the driver. This results in a system “Q” than is far higher than appropriate and a severely disproportionate amount of low frequency energy (but let’s also not forget about the bank of EQs that have all of the low frequency sliders pushed up to maximum!). The low frequencies have a lot of energy behind them and easily travel the distance through the air from that vehicle to your vehicle (the air in between the vehicles cannot absorb all of that energy plus the ground is being excited by the air-borne low frequency energy which is added to the directly-coupled waves traveling towards your vehicle). They also excite the windows, metal panels and plastic parts of your vehicle and cause them to resonate. Because you are in physical contact with your car, you will experience a visceral response which can be physically uncomfortable. Even though both vehicles are on air filled tires, the tires have been designed and optimized to support a heavy vehicle traveling down a road and not necessarily to make audiophiles in the car happy. The tire walls are thick and rigid plus the air pressure in the tire is too high to provide effective isolation from the audio frequencies. If you didn’t have to actually drive the car you could deflate the tires as much as possible without having them “bottom out” and achieve a much more effective level of vibration isolation.

Best Regards,

Barry Kohan

Disclaimer: I am a manufacturer of vibration control products.
Stehno: I had no recollection of the "Carver/Sunfire incident". It therefore never entered my mind. I'm not embarrassed in the least about owning Sunfire gear or having built my HT system around two of Bob's "Signature" series power amps and his Pre / Pro.

As far as that goes, Bob's power amps have always been better than his preamps. To put the power amps in perspective, they typically offer great bang for the buck in terms of sheer brute force but lack the refinement of some higher end products. Due to their power potential though, these amps can sometimes sound "better" than more refined designs. Due to the lack of stress they undergo when driving insensitive or highly reactive loads, they maintain a more "liquid" presentation rather than get hard and grainy as things get louder. It is in these situations that they truly do their best and when i'll recommend them. I don't think that they are the most resolving amp at lower levels and there are better amps available for that. Then again, most people that listen at low levels and / or use highly efficient speakers probably wouldn't be looking to purchase a multi-hundred watt amplifier.

As far as my comments pertaining to the lesser quality of his preamps, the Sunfire TG II Pre / Pro was purchased for ease of use and the fact that it has analogue pass through and a phono stage built in. The fact that it matched cosmetically made my girlfriend happy too. There are probably better products on the market, but none that i could afford with all the features / simplicity that i and my girlfriend were looking for. While i do feel that this unit is a bit of a compromise, i've more than stated my thoughts publicly about how to get the best out of it in other threads. Running it in balanced / xlr mode is a worthwhile move though.

Back to the matter at hand, what did enter my mind is that you were upset with me. I assumed that this was for several reasons and this is why you were going out of your way to attack me publicly. I don't know if this had to do with our private conversations pertaining to your rack design, your HT processor or the fact that you own Sistrum products, which i've publicly criticized. There are obviously several factors here, but i don't know if any of them pertain to why this happened.

As far as choosing to respond to you rather than the other party, i don't think they went out of their way to mention names, yet you did. The fact that you are a very regular contributor to these forums and they aren't was also a factor. Given that i would rather make progress in discussions rather than make enemies, i was trying to find out what your motivations were and at the same time, justify the position that i had taken.

If others could see both sides of the story / were aware of the facts and felt that i was wrong in my response to you ( or anyone else for that matter ), then i would have obviously had to re-eximine things from another perspective and apologize. Given that we as individuals tend to see each situation from a particular slant, i wanted to know if i was off-base in ANY of my actions. Obviously, the more people familiar with all the "evidence", the wider the perspective / response available to both of us.

Having said that, i'm sorry that it has come to something like this. I didn't mean to come across the way that i did. Obviously, there are more than a few folks that feel i over-step my boundaries on a regular basis. I probably do. For that i do apologize to everyone involved. I'll try to restrain myself in the future.

In the mean-time, i've got a ton of projects to do and the weather is finally starting to break. This is a perfect opportunity for me to get things done and give all of you a break from me. Best wishes to all and i'm sorry for turning Agon into a "soap opera". Talk to you soon and hopefully under better, more friendly conditions : ) Sean
>

Stehno,

I'd like to also add that merely decoupling a component from floor-borne vibration will not completely eliminate vibration. Nor will only damping the component achieve the goal. Battling vibration effectively can only be accomplished by combining the right materials with the correct methodologies.

Best,

Barry

Discalimer: I am a manufacturer of vibration control products.
BrianW, what's "quadrupled deionized water"? I make ultrapure water for a living and can't figure that one out...